Another approach to Ruth's geirus

To quickly review an old question: If Rus and Orpah converted at the
*beginning* of the story, then how could Naami send Orpah back to her
people? But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without
Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews?

Some answer this question suggesting that there was a sort of
"conditional" conversion at the beginning, and while Rus later
affirmed her conversion to be sincere, it was revealed that Orpah's
was never valid to begin with. I have never understood this answer,
because of the ten years that elapsed from the supposed conversion
until it was retroactively nullified. (By analogy, suppose (chalila)
that Jared and Ivanka would split up, and Ivanka would claim that she
was only putting on a show all along. Who would believe her? Those who
currently accept her geirus as valid, would anyone accept such a bitul
of it?)

Today I came across a different approach to the question. Like any
other area of halacha, hilchos geirus has its share of halachic
disputes. For example, which parts of the process require a beis din;
perhaps a beis din is needed only l'chatchila, or is it me'akev? Or:
If the conversion candidate admits that he/she has mixed motivations
(such as being interested in a Jewish spouse, but also sincerely
l'shem Shamayim), is this acceptable or is it posul even b'dieved?

Pick either of those questions, or make up another one of your own.
Let's say that both Orpah and Rus converted at the beginning of the
story. Let's also say that everyone was up-front and sincere about
whatever they claimed their motivations to be, such that no one was
surprised ten years later. In other words, there was no disagreement
about the facts of the situation. But there WAS a machlokes among the
poskim of the time, about the halacha to apply to that situation.
Machlon, Kilyon, Rus and Boaz all held like the poskim who said that
the conversion was a valid one, at least b'dieved. But Naami held like
the poskim who ruled it to be invalid, even b'dieved.

Thus, Machlon and Kilyon were able to marry these women in good
conscience. For ten years Naami held Orpah and Rus to be non-Jewish,
but there wasn't much she could do about it, because their husbands
held that they *were* Jewish. When the husbands died, Naami finally
had the opportunity to express the view of her poskim. Orpah accepted
Naami's advice (for whatever reason), but Rus was committed to
continuing her new religion (for whatever reason). At this point,
perhaps Rus had a second geirus to keep her mother-in-law happy, or
maybe not. Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was
valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to
speak of.

A possible hole in my suggestion appears in pasuk 2:20, where Naami
explicitly admits that Boaz is one of "OUR" relatives, and one of
"OUR" redeemers. This would not make sense if Naami rejected the
validity of the original conversion. However, this occurs AFTER pasuk
2:11, in which Boaz tells Rus (I am paraphrasing): "I know your whole
story. Don't worry. I hold your geirus to be valid, and I hold you you
be a relative." In the final analysis, Naami goes along. Maybe she
decides to accept Boaz's shitah l'halacha, or maybe she merely goes
along as a practical matter, given the fait accompli that both Boaz
and Rus hold that way.

Have I left any loose ends here? Previous approaches have focused on
uncertainties of intention. This approach says that everything that
happened in Moav was clear, and the only gray part was a machlokes
haposkim, but we know which shitah was followed by each character of
the story.

I invite all comments.
advTHANKSance

Akiva Miller

There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. What is the point of this mitzvah? It's to pay off his obligations and redeem his good name; Ruth -- whether Jewish or not -- was also his obligation, and had to be redeemed. Thus Boaz need not have believed that the initial conversion -- if there was one -- had been valid.

But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves.

I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Rut converted when Naomi tried to send her back, while Oprah chose not to convert.

Ben

R' Ben Waxman wrote:

I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their
very names show that the two men were problematic personalities.

Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that
Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent
introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth,
pages 48-52.

R' Zev Sero wrote:

There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the
mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land.

It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it
something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus
and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus
then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz.

But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than
being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why
put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether
it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only
applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk
literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging
such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves.

Good question, especially since my post explicitly allowed for "an
unknown machlokes". The problem is that the machlokes would have to be
one where Machlon, Kilyon, Ruth, and Boaz all held that Ruth's
marriage was valid, with only Naami holding it to be not valid.

My understanding is that Avoda Zara 36b allows for the *possibility*
that it is muttar *d'Oraisa* to marry an Avoda Zara woman who is not
from The Seven Nations. And Ruth, being from Moav, was *not* from
those seven. But at the very most, that gemara would allow (on a
d'Oraisa level) sexual relations, and even doing so "derech chasnus" -
as a marriage. It does NOT go so far as to consider Ruth as part of
the extended family such that Boaz would have any responsibility to
her. I would want a source for that.

Granted that there might be some "unknown machlokes" which would
consider Ruth to be part of Boaz's family, even if she did not convert
at the beginning of the story. But I think such a suggestion would be
venturing into fantasyland. Here's why: Even if it is mutar d'Oraisa
for a Jewish man to publicly marry an Avoda Zara woman (who isn't from
the Seven Nations), the children from such a marriage would not be
Jewish, and that's d'Oraisa. In other words, even if the marriage is
legitimate, the children are not part of the man's family. And if the
children are not part of his family, then kal vachomer, Boaz is
certainly not part of his family. So unless you can show a valid
source that Boaz held (or even *might* have held) by patrilineal
descent, then I can't see RZS's suggestion as reasonable.

Akiva Miller

R' Ben Waxman wrote:

I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their
very names show that the two men were problematic personalities.

Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that
Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent
introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth,
pages 48-52.

Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation that has such "gedolim".

R' Zev Sero wrote:

There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the
mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land.

It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it
something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus
and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus
then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz.

On the contrary. If it were a matter of yibum then it would depend on whether there was an original marriage. But then why would it be connected to redeeming the field? It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations would not be settled.

Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz agreed with them.

Yes, but the dor in question was one where "each man did what was right in his own eyes". So their being gedolei hador doesn't mean they were any better than, say, Yiftach.

Lisa

: Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation
: that has such "gedolim".

According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP
beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah
Neustadt <http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&pgnum=474&gt;,
this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam.

Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim
of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim".

But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers
of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past
that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el...

If this is the Rambam's intent, it would fit a number of gemaros which
refer to various shofetim as amei ha'aretz. See the article.

OTOH, Tosafos's treatment of the question of how Devorah could serve as
shofetes presumes the role includes being a dayan in the halachic sense
(and then explains why Devorah is neither role model nor eis-la'asos
exception), rather than only the serarah question of her being a civil
leader.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I actually had that article in mind, but was not taking Rashi's side. Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel Bedoro". So even if Machlon & Kilyon were considered "gedolei hador" that wouldn't seem to be sufficient reason to assume that they acted properly, even in the sense that they had an opinion which is one of the shiv'im panim and followed it.

It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum," or you call it
something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus
and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus
then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz.

Akiva Miller

There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events in
Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no
mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was.

--Toby Katz
t613k@aol.com
..

1. How could anyone hold there was a mitzvah of yibum, when the Torah explicitly limits it to brothers?

2. If he held as a matter of halacha that Boaz was wrong, then he should have insisted on redeeming the field without marrying Ruth. The fact that on being informed of this requirement he backed out of the whole deal shows that he acknowledged Boaz's point. Therefore that point was not about yibum but about mitzvas geulah. Boaz pointed out that Machlon had an obligation to Ruth, and so long as it remained outstanding the mitzvah to discharge his obligations would remain unfulfilled. Ploni agreed, and since he could not do that he waived his rights.

: . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the
: mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the
: "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel
: Bedoro".

The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing
Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah".

Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our
obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring
whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so?

Yes, it's dachuq.

But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but
not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm
not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include
the generation's gedolim.

I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I
think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology,
but that doesn't mean I share it. However, given Chabad's linking HQBH
medaber mirokh gerono shel Moshe to Moshe bedoro keShmuel bedoro to yield
the notion that every generation has a Yechidah Kelalis, a single tzadiq
who is uniquely that generation's person in that role, I would think the
notion that Yiftach as that person but not one of the baton-passers of
mesorah to be even harder to fathom than within my own hashkafah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

: . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the
: mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the
: "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel
: Bedoro".

The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing
Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah".

Yes, precisely. And yet he was the "gadol hador".

Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our
obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring
whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so?

Yes, it's dachuq.

But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but
not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm
not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include
the generation's gedolim.

Your unstated but clear assumption is that "gedolei hador" means "gedolei *hatorah* shebador". I am challenging that assumption. I am saying that when Machlon & Kilyon are described as "gedolei hador" it does not mean that they were talmidei chachamim, any more than it means that when Yiftach is described as "kishmuel bedoro". It just means they were the generation's leaders, and thus if they did wrong everyone else would follow their lead. Meanwhile Pinchas was still the gadol hatorah.

Remember, "Yiftach bedoro" is an explicit gemara, so the Rambam can't dispute it. So how can this machlokes between Rashi & the Rambam, that the article posits, exist? This is how. The Rambam accepts Yiftach bedoro, that Yiftach was indeed the "gadol hador", but that is irrelevant to his topic; he is listing who passed the Torah down from that generation to the next, and that was not Yiftach but Pinechas.

I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I
think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology,

Wow. Just wow. No, it has nothing to do with Chabad *or* theology. It's an explicit pasuk and gemara. Yiftach was the one and only gadol hador, because the pasuk says so, and he had the same authority as Shmuel because the gemara says so. But one wouldn't ask him a shayla about "an egg in kutach".

.
R' Zev Sero wrote:

It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging
Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an
obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he
owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations
would not be settled.
Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages
were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz
agreed with them.

I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to
respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too
complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a
related question which is probably simpler:

What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then
there was no kiddushin. I'll repeat that: Even if it is mutar to marry
a woman AZ-nik (not from the Seven Nations) that marriage is one of
convenience, maybe even love, but not of kiddushin, and I'm not aware
of any halachic obligations that the husband has toward such a wife.
I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's
relatives would have.

I can see obligations that the Goel would have towards the husband
himself, and we see in pasuk 4:4, that Ploni Almoni was willing to buy
the field from Naami in order to meet those obligations to Elimelech.
But in 4:5, Boaz pointed out that buying it from Naami would be
insufficient. He'd have to buy it from both Naami and Ruth, at which
point Ploni declined and Boaz himself accepted the responsibility.

My question is: *What* responsibility? What responsibility does the
Goel (whoever he might be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was
absent or invalid?

(I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the
family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we
want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be
paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so,
then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech
left. Why did they wait ten years?)

Akiva Miller

I am going to revise and restate my original post, which got sidetracked
onto issues of marriage to a non-Jewess, and of the role of a "redeemer",
which I confess to knowing very little about.

But it is very clear to anyone who has looked at it (again, pages 48-52 of
ArtScroll's Ruth is an excellent summary) many of Chazal were uncomfortable
with the possibility that Machlon and Kilyon would marry women who had not
been converted at all. At the same same, they are also very uncomfortable
with Naami telling women who *had* converted that they should leave.

Some have tried to resolve this by suggesting some sort of "tentative"
conversion, but I cannot imagine that we'd allow such a conversion to be
cancelled after ten long years. Instead, my solution is that there was a
genuine halachic machlokes involved, such that Machlon and Kilyon held the
conversion to be valid (at least on some minimal b'dieved level), while
Ruth held it to be totally invalid. This simple approach answers all the
problems listed above. (It also allows you to think whatever you like about
the level of Machlon's and kilyon's gadlus.)

I will leave it as an open question whether Ruth reconverted to satisfy
Naami's shita, or whether Naami resigned herself to accepting the first
geirus. I also retract all my comments about Boaz, as they will turn on
topics that I am woefully ignorant about.

Akiva Miller

R' Zev Sero wrote:

It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging
Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an
obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he
owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations
would not be settled.
Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages
were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz
agreed with them.

I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to
respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too
complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a
related question which is probably simpler:

What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then
there was no kiddushin.

I don't see how this matters. Machlon was shacked up with this woman for ten years, and left her high and dry. She was now in Beit Lechem living in poverty, and everyone who saw her would say "there's Machlon's widow, poor thing". Thus seeing her settled was an unsettled obligation that Machlon had left behind, so taking care of it was part of the goel's duty, just like paying off his credit cards and returning his library books, so that nobody should be left with a claim against his memory.

I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have
towards the husband himself [...] My question is: *What*
responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might
be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid?

Yes, the goel's duty is to his relative, not to the relative's creditors. But that duty *is* to discharge the relative's obligations, which he is himself unable to discharge, whether because of poverty (as in the Torah's example) or death (as here). Neither Tov nor Boaz owed anything to Ruth, but Machlon did.

(I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the
family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we
want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be
paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so,
then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech
left. Why did they wait ten years?)

Redeem it from whom? At that point it still belonged to Elimelech.

: Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that
: Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent
: introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth,
: pages 48-52.

Which ties to the other thread about how we're to view Yiftach or
Shimshon -- baalei mesorah or amei ha'aretz? It's possible that at the
nadir points in the days of shofetim, being the gadol hador didn't rule
out also having fundamental flaws.

: R' Zev Sero wrote:
:> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the
:> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land.

: It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it
: something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus
: and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus
: then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz.

If it was some general Semitic notion of ge'ulah, then perhaps being
common-law spouses in a 7 Mitzvos b' Noach sense would be enough to
trigger ge'ulah, even if yibum would require real qiddushin.

After all, the basis for ge'ulah was likely that the woman came to depend
on the family for her support, and it would be wrong to let her down.
Which is true of a Moaviah intermarrying into a Jewish family, even if
the marriage only seemed real to her.

I am also reminded of the Rambam IB 13, discussed hear repeatedly ad
nauseum. Shimshon's and Shelomo's wives were p[resumed Jewish until
their actions showed that they not only had ulterior motive, they lacked
a true motive (qabbalas ol mitzvos) altogether. Geirei `arayos all
are in that boat -- if we think they were mequbalos al mitzvos along
with wanting to convert to marry, we presume they're kosher Jews but
suspect and watch whether behavior matches presumption. Rus would be
in a similar situation, no?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha