Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In the book of Ruth it never openly states that she converts and in fact she is referred to as Ruth the Moabite throughout the text. At what point, chronologically, did she in fact convert?

share|improve this question
2  
bookofruth, welcome to Judaism.SE, and thanks very much for this interesting question! Please consider registering your account, which will give you access to more of the site's features. –  Isaac Moses May 7 '12 at 15:03
add comment

3 Answers

I believe that it is the Malbim who says that when Ruth Says Ameikh Ami Elokayikh Elokai (your nation is my nation your God is my God) it means that Ruth has taken on keeping the mitzvoth and at this point begins living as a Jew.

It is clear (at least from the p'shat of the text)that she didn't go through any formal conversion process that we would recognize today. This book is often used by people who want to undermine modern halakhic standards of giyur.

share|improve this answer
1  
I don't see that in the Malbim. In fact the Malbim on that verse implies the opposite: that the Giyur only happened when they got back to Israel מלבי"ם רות פרק א פסוק טז שאף אם אצטרך לעזבך לא אשוב מאחריך לארץ מואב כי בכל זה אלך לארץ יהודה ואתגייר שם ע"י אחרים –  Double AA May 7 '12 at 15:35
1  
ALl I said was that the pashut phsat is that none of this happened. I also said that people use this to try and undermine the halakhic requirements of giyur which I should I guess have qualified. I think that anyone who uses Ruth to do so is absolutely wrong and doing something atrocious –  Eytan Yammer May 7 '12 at 15:43
3  
I'm saying I don't even think it's pashut pshat. Is it pashut pshat that Rut never ate breakfast? We only see her eating dinner! Not everything missing never happened. There has to be some reason for the details to be there before we can question why they aren't. –  Double AA May 7 '12 at 15:45
2  
@bookofruth Moabite is an demonym not a religion. Just like African-Americans are Americans of African descent. It doesn't change their American-ness. So too Ruth could be Jewish and still be the the Jewess-from-Moab. –  Double AA May 7 '12 at 16:03
4  
@bookofruth: actually, in every place where she's called "ha-Moaviah" it's in third-person narration or conversation; she's never called that to her face. –  Alex May 7 '12 at 16:26
show 10 more comments

There are indeed a lot of opinions on when Ruth underwent conversion. Rashi (to Ruth 1:12) states that she (and Orpah) were still gentiles when they were on the road back to Eretz Yisrael (indeed, we derive from their conversation the halachah that we are to attempt to dissuade a prospective convert (Yevamos 47b)). On the other hand, Zohar Chadash strongly takes issue with the idea that Machlon could have married a non-Jew; it explains that basically he coerced her into converting (and then, only after her husband's death, did she accept Judaism voluntarily).

I once suggested (Kovetz Haoros Ubeurim Oholei Torah, no. 982, page 76), based on some other Midrashic statements, that at the time of her marriage Ruth was halachically not yet an adult, because she was an ailonis (a woman who never undergoes the normal bodily changes of puberty) but didn't exhibit the symptoms thereof (listed in Rambam, Hil. Ishus 2:6); in that case she reaches halachic maturity only at age 35 (ibid. 2:4). So Machlon had her converted as a child (as per the halachah - Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 268:7), but once she reached halachic adulthood she had the opportunity to renounce her conversion (ibid.) - and that's why Naomi had to point out to her the full ramifications of her decision, so that her acceptance of the mitzvos would be a conscious one.

(And once this was accomplished, then it retroactively validated her conversion as a child - just as is true today when a child is converted and then continues to keep mitzvos after bar/bas mitzvah; thus, no further conversion ceremony was needed when they arrived in Eretz Yisrael, and indeed none is recorded.)

share|improve this answer
    
that is a very interesting solution. I wonder how this would effect the existence of a mitzvah of yibum. If she was a minor at the time of her husband's death would the mitzvah of yibum still apply once she attained her majority? I would further reiterate my question in the comment above, that if this is the case why does the megilah continue to refer to her as rus ha'moaviah? –  bookofruth May 7 '12 at 16:11
1  
Note that answer would ostensibly also have to assume that Orpah was an ailonis as well. –  bookofruth May 7 '12 at 16:17
    
@bookofruth, you may wish to ask that (why the m'gila refers to her as a Moabite after she was converted) as a separate question. –  msh210 May 7 '12 at 16:19
    
A ketana can certainly be mezukeket leyibbum (read: a female minor whose husband dies childless is obligated in yibbum or chalitza to the husbands brothers if he has any.) –  Double AA May 7 '12 at 16:19
    
@msh210 I believe the two points are intertwined, the fact that she is continually called a moabite seems to indicate the she has not converted. to prove that she converted at any point I believe one needs to address this second issue as well. should I perhaps add it to the original question? –  bookofruth May 7 '12 at 16:21
show 5 more comments

With regard to when she converted, both Ibn Ezra and Ralbag seem to believe that she converted before she married Machlon, being that we don't find any mention of her conversion afterwards and Boaz certainly would not have married her otherwise.

Akeidas Yitzchak condemns this approach, though, since Naami explicitly tells her to return to her people, and why would Naami try to convince her to retract her conversion? (Although Ralbag does mention that this was because Naami wanted to see if her conversion was legitimately sincere.) Akeidas Yitzchak therefore believes that Ruth converted on the way with Naami.

Alshich also follows this approach, pointing to the fact that the Talmud Bavli (Yevamos 47) learns from the dialogue between Naami and Ruth with regards to the laws of conversion.

As for why the text continues to refer to her as "המואביה", first of all, as @Alex has noted in the comments to the other answers, it is not uncommon to find someone referred to by the country of origin even if they are no longer associated with it. Second, it is important to keep in mind the purpose of Megillas Ruth in the first place. Abarbanel writes that Shmuel Hanavi wrote Ruth after he anointed David to highlight David's ancestry and to show that he came from noble stock. The Chida writes that Shmuel wrote Megillas Ruth to counter the claims that arose later against David's kingship saying that he was unfit being that he descended from a Moabite which the Torah prohibits entering our nation. The famous response to this was "מואבי ולא מואביה" (only male Moabites are prohibited to marry). Shmuel wished to show how even though Ruth was a Moabite, she was a righteous woman and earned the respect and marriage of the great shofet Boaz. (Chida refers to this as Shmuel's "p'sak" that David was legitimate.)

With that in mind, it is quite possible to say that the reason the text continues to stress her Moabite origins is precisely to counter that claim that was common at the time of its authorship. In other words: even though she was a Moabite, look how great she was and how Boaz accepted her etc. However, Alshich writes the opposite. When he sees the text refer to Ruth as "מואביה", he explains that even though she had already converted, she still retained some of the nature of her original upbringing in the way she conducted herself. He explains at length what it was that she did that was "Moabite in nature".

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.