Question: Deuteronomy 23:4-7 says: "No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the congregation of YHWH; none of their descendants, even in the tenth generation, shall ever be admitted into the congregation of YHWH ... You shall never concern yourself with their welfare or benefit as long as you live."
Yet, Ruth was a Moabite (Ruth 1:4) and King David is descended from her (Ruth 4:17). How could David be a Jew then? And how could he become king (since only a Jew can become king -- Deut. 17:15.)?
I have been told that the Oral Torah interprets the passage in Deuteronomy to mean "no Ammonite or Moabite male". How can one know that the passage applies only to men without the Oral Torah?
Answer: The passage in Deuteronomy applies to all Ammonites and Moabites, men and women. This, however, does not imply that David was not a Jew. In fact, David was a Jew, both according to the Torah and according to the Oral Torah.
Ruth was the widow of Mahlon (Ruth 1:5). The couple had no children. Later, Boaz became the redeemer of Mahlon's estate, and married Ruth (4:8). Boaz and Ruth had a son named Obed; Obed was the father of Jesse, who was the father of David (4:17). It's possible that they counted Obed as the son of Mahlon (4:6) or as the son of Boaz (4:21), but this does not matter here, since both Mahlon and Boaz were Jews.
1. Throughout the Torah, lineage is always determined through men, never through women. Since Boaz was a Jew, so were Obed, Jesse, and David. See also Ruth 4:18-22, where the lineage from Perez to David is given through men only. Also, 1 Samuel 16:1, where it says that Jesse was a Bethlehemite, that is, a Jew.
2. According to the Oral Torah, a person is a Jew from birth if and only if their mother is a Jew. This law, however, has no impact on David's status as a Jew. Even if this law is correct, all it means is that Obed was a Gentile. However, under the same law, David could easily be a Jew, since it does not say anywhere that David's mother was a Gentile.
3. In the book of Ruth, it never says that Ruth converted to Judaism. It does say that she was a very good person, and that she was loyal to her husband's house. But it never says that she converted. In fact, as late in the book as 4:10, she is still called "Ruth the Moabite". If she converted to Judaism, why would she be called a "Moabite"? But as I explained above, as far as David being a Jew, it does not matter that Ruth was a Gentile.
4. Naomi, Mahlon's mother, and herself a Jew, became Obed's foster mother (4:16-17). Thus, it's possible that Obed was a Jew even under the Oral Torah's theory that a person is born a Jew if and only if their mother is a Jew. But again, this does not matter as far as David is concerned.
Posted by Ami at June 6, 2004 01:01 AM | TrackBackThe point of my post was to explain that David was a Jew, regardless. By the Torah's reconing, since Boaz was a Jew, so was his great-grandson David. By matrilinear reconing, Obed, Ruth's son, was not a Jew. But since his wife probably was a Jew, his grandson, David, also was a Jew.
You're right in that I did not fully / properly consider the issue of conversion, Gentile women, etc.
*Community of God*: Maybe mamzerim are not considered Jews?
Posted by: Ami at June 13, 2004 03:33 AMI happen to be a ex-orthodox man, and if I were to show up with a shikze (nonjewish woman) at my mother's house, I seriously doubt my mother would befriend her.
Back in ancient times a woman became the property/responsibility of her husband and his family, cutting all ties with her own. This is why a widowed Ruth stayed with her mother-in-law. She had no where else to go. This event is consistent with norms in patriarchal societies. A woman had NO status other than what was offered to her by the husband or his family.
I have always wondered why Moshe Rabeinu married a non Israelite woman, and God didn't seem to have a problem with that. Moshe's family and the rest of Israel didn't seem to mind either. Of all the complaints that Dasan, Aviram, and Korach had of Moshe, marrying a shikze (or non Israelite) was never one of them! You would think it would be quite a scandalous thing. Imagine your local orthodox Rabbi walking into shul with his new blonde shikze wife! A shanda!
SL
Posted by: SL Aronovitz at June 10, 2004 05:08 PMPerhaps Bnei Levi doesn't know the Halacha Moshe mi'Sinai is part of the Oral Toral....one cannot call it 'ketav' if it isn't written down....
The Torah itself would be the Halacha Moshe Mi'Sinai...there is no way to know anything for sure unless it was WRITTEN down.
When a rabbinist starts heaving around the old 'halacha moshe miSinai' clause, it's another way of saying 'BECAUSE I SAID SO!"
re;cannot be decuded any other way
Well, Ami and I have already 'deduced' it, though in truth it requires NO deduction at all, since the Torah is quite clear on it. It only becomes a question when you throw in eugenics (rabbinical addition). Once you say that Jewish men can only marry Jewish women, then you have to start assuming that Ruth converted to Judaism (though the Torah never tells us if or how that was done), or how 2 prominent Jewish men could marry a non-jewish woman in the first place, or how God, knowing this, would ever allow a David to come from that. One also has to wonder why Naomi would let her son marry a non jewish woman, and then become her best friend!!
You won't have all these problems when you read the Torah as it is written, and then take it in it's context. Patriarchal societies have no concern for the woman's lineage, and ancient (real)Judaism didn't either. The Torah counts lineage by the father, and that was all-inclusive.
SL
Posted by: SL Aronovitz at June 10, 2004 01:32 PMYou asked "how can one know that the passage applies only to men without the Oral Torah?". The answer is that you cannot. This specific subject was not simply the Oral Torah - it is a Halachah l'Moshe miSinai - something that was told Moshe specifically at Sinai which cannot be deduced any other way.
As for your answer, I am not sure it makes sense. The specific problem of "entering the community of G-d" is like one with a mamzer - once an Ammonite or Moabite has kids even if he converts, those kids can never marry regular Jews just like a mamzer. So even if Boaz is a Jew, if his offspring comes from a Moabite its a problem just like a regular Jew and a mamzer.
Also, Ruth did convert according to the Oral tradition. This is learned from the conversation with Naomi.
Posted by: Bnei Levi at June 10, 2004 06:28 AMYou asked "how can one know that the passage applies only to men without the Oral Torah?". The answer is that you cannot. This specific subject was not simply the Oral Torah - it is a Halachah l'Moshe miSinai - something that was told Moshe specifically at Sinai which cannot be deduced any other way.
As for your answer, I am not sure it makes sense. The specific problem of "entering the community of G-d" is like one with a mamzer - once an Ammonite or Moabite has kids even if he converts, those kids can never marry regular Jews just like a mamzer. So even if Boaz is a Jew, if his offspring comes from a Moabite its a problem just like a regular Jew and a mamzer.
Also, Ruth did convert according to the Oral tradition. This is learned from the conversation with Naomi.
Posted by: Bnei Levi at June 10, 2004 06:27 AMWhat does the Torah mean when it says "may not enter the community of God?" If it means they cannot become Jewish, then how you would explain 'mamzerim'and those with congenital defects, who are born Jewish yet cannot 'enter the community of God'??? In addition, by prohibiting the Ammonites or Moabites from becoming Jews, you tacitly prohibit them from marriage into the Jewish community, so the same effect is produced.
I suspect that 'entering the community' is related to marriage, and the question of Ruth remains a good one. You might want to ask the rabbinist how it was the Boaz thought it ok to marry a Gentile woman in the first place, especially since she was a Moabite!
It is possible that this prohibition only applied to males, since these were patriarchal societies where religion, nationality, and social order were determined by the males. Females never had any say, and their tribal affiliation was meaningless once they married. The same norm prevails among Moslems today, and there is more than enough evidence from the Tanach to suggest the ancient Hebrews followed the same custom. This is in similar vein to a woman 'belonging' to her husband's family after marriage.
Some answer by saying that Ruth converted to Judaism, yet no where inthe Tanach does it say that she did so.
SL