In Megilas Rus 1:14, Naami successfully dissuaded Orpah from converting,
and in 1:15 she gives Ruth one last attempt: "Look, your sister-in-law has
returned to her people and to her gods; go follow your sister-in-law."
How is this not a violation of Lifnei Iver?
One might argue that Naami's initial advice ("Go back to your mother's
house" in 1:8) was accompanied (implicitly or explicitly) by "but be
careful about Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach", thereby avoiding any violation of
Lifnei Iver. I personally would not argue that point, because in that
society, Avodah Zara was so rampant that sending them home was
virtually condemning them to Avodah Zara anyways. But I concede that 1:8 is
arguable, and that is why I am focusing on 1:15, in which Naami knows that
Orpah *has* already returned to her *gods*, and encourages Ruth to do the
same. How is this not a violation of Lifnei Iver?
Akiva Miller
(Bcc:ing SK, to whom RAM asked this Q earlier today; and I believe he
intended to ask the Q to me as well :).)
In Avodah V41n39, RAkivaM asked:
In Megilas Rus 1:14, Naami successfully dissuaded Orpah from converting,
and in 1:15 she gives Ruth one last attempt: "Look, your sister-in-law has
returned to her people and to her gods; go follow your sister-in-law."
How is this not a violation of Lifnei Iver? <
(Suggesting an answer in honor of Dr. MJ Bernstein, who I understand
<https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tribute-dr-moshe-bernstein-upon-his-retirement-from-yu-shlomo-zuckier/>
just "retired" from YC....)
I learned M'gilas Ruth w/ Dr. Bernstein -- I dare say he would point to the
repeated inflections of "lashuv" (which RAM would apparently translate as
"to return") in the first chapter. Why does that matter? Because in most
instances someone is 'return'ing (or being directed/desiring to 'return')
to or from something/one, making that the standard phraseology...so when an
inflection is used w/out such a prepositional phrase, it's remarkable, and
what are the exceptions? Verses 11-12 (Naomi's two "Shovna v'nosay!"s). In
other words, Naomi is explicitly not telling Orpah and Ruth what to return
to. Orpah then 'leaves the stage' -- but NB the text does not use the
'return' verb! -- and when Naomi speaks to Ruth in verse 15 as RAM wrote
above and explicitly details what/where Orpah returned to, she does not
detail what Ruth should return to. Of course, one could 'read between the
lines', especially as Ruth's famous response includes "ameich ami
vEilokayich Elokay"; but Naomi merely said "acharei"; and Ruth echoes with
"al-tifg'i-vi...meiacharayich."
In sum, M'gilas Ruth is full of literary devices -- we've merely touched
upon one that is used in the first chapter -- and the reader/listener must
be careful to pay attention to what they say and what they do not
explicitly say. Chag Sameach!
[RMP top-quoted just the last sentence. But his email client's plain-text
version was hard to read, I went in the email to edit, and used the bottom
quote to give that sentence context. -micha]
In Avodah V41n39, RAkivaM asked:
In Megilas Rus 1:14, Naami successfully dissuaded Orpah from
converting, and in 1:15 she gives Ruth one last attempt: "Look, your
sister-in-law has returned to her people and to her gods; go follow your
sister-in-law."
How is this not a violation of Lifnei Iver? <
...
I learned M'gilas Ruth w/ Dr. Bernstein -- I dare say he would point to
the repeated inflections of "lashuv" (which RAM would apparently translate
as "to return") in the first chapter. Why does that matter? Because in
most instances someone is 'return'ing (or being directed/desiring to
'return') to or from something/one, making that the standard
phraseology...so when an inflection is used w/out such a prepositional
phrase, it's remarkable, and what are the exceptions? Verses 11-12 (Naomi's
two "Shovna v'nosay!"s). In other words, Naomi is explicitly not telling
Orpah and Ruth what to return to. Orpah then 'leaves the stage' -- but NB
the text does not use the 'return' verb! -- and when Naomi speaks to Ruth
in verse 15 as RAM wrote above and explicitly details what/where Orpah
returned to, she does not detail what Ruth should return to. Of course,
one could 'read between the lines', especially as Ruth's famous response
includes "ameich ami vEilokayich Elokay"; but Naomi merely said "acharei";
and Ruth echoes with "al-tifg'i-vi...meiacharayich."
I was not clear. For the first & only time in the pereq
<https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2901.htm>, we see the use of this
particular preposition; and more importantly, it's "acharei" (or a variant
thereof) rather than "acheir" and denotes a distancing (for more on this,
see <https://allparsha.org/p/44452>\), which I would read as Naomi saying,
"Don't get too close to one who is returning to her [false] god(s)" (and
Ruth not wishing to distance herself from Naomi).