Question: As Shavuos is soon upon us, when we will read Megillat Rut, I have several questions. The Talmud (Yevamot 47a) states that whoever “becomes a proselyte in the presence of a beth din is deemed to be a proper proselyte, but one who does so privately is not a proselyte.” I understand that there is an opinion that Ruth converted before she married Mahlon. This opinion is based on the fact that Ruth is referred to as Naomi’s daughter-in-law. She would not be viewed as Naomi’s daughter-in-law if she did not convert, for in that case her marriage to Mahlon would be halachically invalid.
Therefore, was Ruth converted before a beth din? Did she formally convert before she married Mahlon, or did she convert only before her marriage to Boaz?
In general, what is the earliest reference to a formal conversion process?
Lazar Rozenblat
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Answer: Several pesukim inform us of the background and events that preceded the story recounted in Megillat Rut, and among them are the following from the opening perek (1:3-5): “Va’yamat Elimelech ish Na’omi va’tisha’er he u’shnei baneha. Va’yis’u lahem nashim Mo’aviyyot, shem ha’achat Orpah v’shem hashenit Rut, va’yeshvu sham ke’eser shanim. Vayamutu gam sheneihem Mahlon v’Kilyon, va’tisha’er ha’isha mi’shenei yeladeha u’mei’ishah” – Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died, and she was left with her two sons. They took Moabite wives for themselves – one was named Orpah and the other was named Ruth – and they lived there about ten years. Then both Mahlon and Kilyon also died, and the woman remained bereft of her two sons and her husband.
The story continues (1:8): “Vatomer Na’omi li’shetei kaloteha, “Lechna, shovna, isha l’veit imah, ya’aseh Hashem imachen chesed ka’asher asiten im hameitim v’imadi” – Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go return each of you to her mother’s house, and may Hashem deal kindly with you, as you have dealt kindly with the departed and with me.” Naomi exhorted Ruth and Orpah to return to their families; Orpah was finally swayed, but Ruth remained with her mother-in-law.
The Talmud (Yevamot 47b) quotes the conversation between Naomi and Ruth as the model of the conversation the beth din is required to have with a prospective convert. The Talmud understands Ruth’s response (1:16-17) to Naomi’s entreaties to her to follow Orpah’s example as specific answers by Ruth to Naomi’s efforts to dissuade her from converting. Thus, when Naomi told Ruth that Israelites are forbidden to walk beyond the Sabbath boundaries (techum Shabbat, a distance of 2,000 cubits in any direction) on the Sabbath, Ruth replied, “Ki el asher telchi elech” – Wherever you go I will go. To Naomi’s reminder that a man and a woman are forbidden to seclude themselves together unless they are married, Ruth answered, “U’va’asher talini alin” – And wherever you lodge, I will lodge. When Naomi informed her that there are 613 commandments to be followed, Ruth asserted “Amech ami” – Your people shall be my people. Naomi’s warning that we are forbidden to worship idols was countered with, “V’Elokayich Elokai” – And your G-d shall be my G-d. To Naomi’s cautioning that the beth din has the authority to enact four modes of execution (arba mitot beit din) for certain [capital] offenses, Ruth answered, “Ba’asher tamuti amut” – Where you die, I will die.” Finally, Naomi told her that two graveyard sites were put at the disposal of the court for the burial of executed offenders (Rashi: one site for those executed for extremely harsh sins, and the other for those whose sins were less severe), Ruth responded, “V’sham ekaver” – And there will I be buried. Thereupon, Naomi ceased any further protest (ibid. 1:18): “Va’tireh ki mit’ametzet hi lalechet itah va’techdal ledaber eleha” – When she saw that [Ruth] was insistent on going with her, she left off speaking to her.
The Talmud (ibid.) and the Rambam (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 14:15) go into more detail regarding the questions asked of the prospective ger. If the queries are answered to the satisfaction of the beth din, the prospective convert is forthwith accepted and undergoes mila (for males) and tevila (immersion in a mikveh).
The dialogue between Naomi and Ruth, upon which the rules of gerut are based, occurred after Ruth was widowed but before she married Boaz. Thus, your question addresses a valid problem: How do we refer to Naomi and Ruth as mother-in-law and daughter-in-law when l’halacha they are not? We cannot resolve the difficulty by applying the principle of “Ein mukdam u’me’uchar ba’Torah,” namely, that there is not necessarily a strict chronological order in the relating of events in Scripture. That principle may only be applied when two different matters are involved (see Pesachim 6b) but not within the same context.
The Midrash (Ruth Rabbah 2:9) states that Ruth and Orpah were not converted and did not undergo the ritual of immersion, and because of that Mahlon and Kilyon were punished. Yalkut Shimoni (chap. 600) notes that according to one opinion, the brothers’ names – they are referred to jointly – indicate that they made themselves profane (Mahlon/hullin) and they were deserving of death and destruction (Kilyon/kelayah) because they had taken Gentile women as wives while they were in Moab.
Thus, we refer to them as having “married” Gentile women even though their marriages may not have been valid. Such an understanding of the term “married” can be found in Tractate Yoma. The first Mishna of that tractate deals with measures taken seven days before the Day of Atonement to ensure that the Kohen Gadol will be fit for service on that day. One of them is “Also another wife would be prepared for him in case his wife should die, for it is written (Vayikra 16:6), ‘And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house’; his house is taken to mean ‘his wife.’”
The Gemara proceeds to discuss several hypothetical scenarios that could arise, and how to ensure that the High Priest should not, in fact, be married to two wives on the Day of Atonement, for “his house” indicates one wife and not two. Various wordings for a conditional divorce are considered to that effect. Finally, the Gemara addresses the situation where the High Priest would be an onen (aninut is the first day of mourning, before aveilut takes effect) following the death of his wife. But, asks the Gemara (ibid. 14a) how can he be an onen if he divorced her? The answer is that although mourning would not be obligatory for him, he would surely be distracted and distressed, for he would still be thinking of her as his wife. We are dealing here with emotional manifestations that do not necessarily depend on the halachic validity of a given situation. It is in that light that we refer to Ruth and Orpah as “wives” of Elimelech’s sons and daughters-in-law of Naomi.
As to the question of conversion before a rabbinical court to which you refer, the Talmud (supra, Yevamot 47a) relates an incident where a man came before R. Yehuda and told that he had become a proselyte privately, not before a beth din. When R. Yehuda questioned him, he admitted that he had no witnesses and also that he had children. Whereupon R. Yehuda told him while we might believe him when he disqualifies himself (in that he is still a Gentile and not a ger), he cannot be relied upon to disqualify his children and grandchildren. In other words, they are legitimate.
When Naomi tells her daughters-in-law (Ruth 1:8) “ya’aseh Hashem imachen chesed ka’asher asiten im ha’meitim v’imadi” – may Hashem deal kindly with you, as you have dealt kindly with the departed and with me – the reference to dealing kindly with the departed, “chesed shel emet,” is perhaps the best illustration of authentic Jewish behavior (minhag Yahadut) that these two women practiced. If that is the case, we may say that they did convert. Indeed, Rambam (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 13:14) scoffs at the idea that either Samson, redeemer of Israel, or Solomon, king of Israel, married Gentile women. Rather, these women were properly converted, but they did so for ulterior motives, such as fear or the anticipation of benefits, and therefore they reverted to their earlier behavior and beliefs in the end.
Thus, we find in Midrash Rut (Zohar Chadash) that R. Yosi Ish Socho was of the opinion that Ruth was converted when she married Mahlon (likewise Orpah to Kilyon). Had she converted only afterward, there would have been some indication of a change of name, but she continued to be called Ruth. Why, then, did Naomi make efforts to induce both her daughters-in-law to return to their people? Their conversion, like that of the wives of Samson and King Solomon, took place to accommodate their husbands, and that is why a new commitment – Kabbalat ol mitzvot – was required. As a result of Naomi’s pleading, Orpah indeed returned to her people and her former ways, whereas Ruth remained steadfast. The commentators note that Naomi kept pleading with Ruth and Orpah because she was convinced that both daughters-in-law would go back to their parents’ homes and former ways of life. Incidentally, Yalkut Shimoni cites the following opinion of R. Yochanan regarding Naomi’s sons’ names. Mahlon, who married Ruth, who remained steadfast, was forgiven (mechila). Kilyon, who married Orpah, from whom Goliath was descended, was destined for destruction (kelayah).
Indeed, we do find an earlier frame of reference for conversion. It is written in Exodus 18:1-5: “Va’yishma Yitro kohein Midian chotein Moshe…va’yavo” – When Jethro, the priest of Midian [and] father-in-law of Moses, heard…[he] came. The Talmud (Zevachim 116a) states that Jethro’s “coming” indicates conversion. However, it is the conversation of Naomi and Ruth, as stated above, which forms the basis for the laws of derishat ha’ger, the interrogation of the prospective convert by the rabbinical court, as stated in Yevamot. Both the Rambam and the Tur rule that this is the accepted halacha. Ruth can thus be considered the first explicit example of giyyur, conversion, as we know it today, and she was surely accepted as a convert prior to her marriage to Boaz – a marriage that bore no less than the Davidic dynasty, the royal house of David.