Ruth The Moabite Denied Israeli Citizenship

The grandmother of King David is denied Israeli citizenship in this modern Shavuot tale.

 

From The Pluralist, the newsletter if the Israel Action Center and the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism:

Attn:
Mr. Eli Yishai*
Minister of Interior
Kaplan 2
Jerusalem

Dear Sir,

Re: Ruth the Moabite – Request to Obtain Permanent Status in Israel

Our client, Ruth the Moabite, is the non-Jewish widow of a Jewish husband, Chilion son of Elimelech. Her husband passed away outside of Israel, in Moab, and is buried there. My client entered Israel legally with her Jewish mother-in-law, Naomi, who was also widowed while abroad.

The following is a declaration of our client, Ruth the Moabite, regarding her strong link to the Jewish people: “Where you lodge, I shall lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Where you die will I die, and there will I be buried” (Ruth 1:16-17).

In addition, you may find attached the appeal of Mr. Boaz son of Salmah, an Israeli citizen, who participates in this request for Ruth the Moabite’s permanent status in Israel with his intention to marry my client.

I ask that you grant our client status in Israel by virtue of her prior marriage to a Jewish man.

With respect,

Anat Hoffman, Executive Director
The Israel Religious Action Center
The Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism

*Yishai (Jesse)—Biblical name of the father of King David and grandson of Ruth the Moabite.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Attn:
Anat Hoffman
The Israel Religious Action Center
Jerusalem

Dear Ms. Hoffman,

Re: Ruth the Moabite

Your request was received by our offices and has been reviewed by our staff at the Ministry of Interior. The request is rejected due to the absence of essential documents needed for the Ministry’s procedures regarding these matters:

The Moabite woman is required to present a marriage certificate when requesting verification, as the marriage was performed abroad.

A death certificate of the deceased Jew signed by a recognized Chevra Kadisha must be presented.

Your client’s declaration of her link to Judaism is not acceptable as a conversion. In the absence of a conversion certificate, she is registered as a Moabite, not a Jew.

In reference to your client’s declaration: “Where you die will I die, and there will I be buried.” This statement cannot be used to seek approval from the Burial Council.

Your client is attempting any and all potential methods to legitimize her being in Israel, first through her claim that she is a widow to a Jewish husband and now through her new claim that she is the partner of Boaz son of Salmah.

In light of the above, we ask that the Moabite woman exit from Israel within 30 days from the receipt of your initial request in order to arrange her documents from abroad. As such, she can present herself at the Israeli Embassy in Moab to submit all of the required documents that meet the specified criteria for obtaining residency status in Israel.

The position of the Minister is that one must regret the situation in which a respected Jewish citizen of such high status, such as Boaz son of Salmah, requests to marry a non-Jewish woman. Do we lack proper women here in Israel? It is necessary and advisable to take into account the status of the expected children from such a union.

With respect,

Dr. Shuki Amrani
Director-General
Interior Ministry

[Hat Tip: OCR.]

Comments

[Old time Lakewooder]

Russ or as others say Ruth as well as Sarah, Rivka, Rochel & Layah would never be admitted to a Lakewood girls school. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc because of their family would also never have been eligible to enter a Lakewood School.

Now before Shavous one should realize that the Torah was given to those that would not have merritted to enter a Lakewood School.

[Reuven]

Certainly speaks of the lack of trust people have of each other in today's societies. Nowadays hardly anyone knows anyone, so everybody has come to rely excessively on government documents. Ouch.

[Logic]

In those times there was no such a thing as performing a 'Procedure' to become a Gerr. Anyone who wanted to truly join our nation was welcomed. Ruth and all other Geirim never had any Procedure done.

It was the Chazal who invented that whoever is born to an Incorrect Mother, must do a Procedure to join us.

[PulpitRabbi]

Cute. But once you read the story of Ruth seriously, you get to realize that Ruth did not gain entry into the Jewish people on account of her marriage. Itś actually the opposite. The story strongly implies we should reject Machlon, Kilyon and Elimelech for whatever sin that resulted in them dying prematurely. Ruthś conversion comes not before, but after her marriage and widowhood, so that we should consider it not a natural outgrowth of that marriage, but rather a rejection thereof.

Thus, her conversion is a far cry from what Anat Hoffman might want to read into it.

However, this humorous projection does have some truth to it. The Talmud posits that Ruthś conversion was an issue, and bases itself for this on a fine reading of the text (the anonymous relative does not want to marry Ruth, lest he ruin his inheritance/legacy). David did initially have trouble being accepted, and ruthś conversion was only fully accepted a while later.

In fact, while there too little information about conversion in the Bible for us to establish the precise parameters thereof, there are enough vignettes to see that the prophetic authors (all those vignettes are in the Nach part of the Bible) often dropped hints about a controversy whether a person should be considered converted or not. Sometimes, as with Ruth, the text prompts us to acceptance, other times, such as with Solomonś wives, the text rather implies that despite earlier acceptance, they should, in retrospect be rejected.

The world did not become complex today, it was complex back then.

[seymour]

maybe we are all goyim and not Jews since their conversions are not acceptable by today slandered.

The story goes to show you that most of the stuff the rebbies say today is purely made up from thin air

[MamzerHaKodesh]

Love it. So true, so true.

[anuran]

ZING!

[Shmarya]

Posted by: PulpitRabbi | June 07, 2011 at 08:04 AM

Please.

There is NO reference in Tankh to conversion of any kind.

People either opted to join the Jewish people or they did not.

Solomon is criticized for marrying so many foreign wives because they brought idol worship to the palace.

And that was always the Biblical issue.

Implied in that is the following point: the person renounced idol worship and accepted God as the one God, he was Jewish.

Nut you'll also notice Solomon's children from those foreign wives who worshiped idols are considered Jews.

That potentially means two things:

1. Patralineal descent was the norm.

2. No conversion 'revocations' or 'annulments' took place.

This is a refutation of the current haredi and 'centrist' position.

[anuran]

Pulpit Rabbi, you're making the (patently false) assumption that Judaism then resembled Judaism after more than two millennia of legalism, accretion, drift, borrowed customs from other cultures and innovation.

[Yehuda_ben_Yehoshua]

Fact is any one that worshipped Israels God and took on the yolk of all his laws was considered a full resident of the jewish family. The rabbis perverted the torah into this long conversion nonsense. How long will you ppl listen to these unholy men, which rabbi was more righteous than Moshe Rabineau? which talmudic rabbi spoke to Hashem face to face? If Moshe didnt command such nonsense who are these men to do so? Judaism has turned to a man made club for a chosen few, how sad that those who want to be apart of us cant because of the laws of the rabbis.

[seymour]

Judaism has turned to a man made club for a chosen few, how sad that those who want to be apart of us cant because of the laws of the rabbis.

Posted by: Yehuda_ben_Yehoshua | June 07, 2011 at 08:56 AM

the rebbies have an all purpose answer to yours and other questions

halachu moshe m'senia

that is it so everything they say is from god

of course the problem is who said the above the rebbeis themselves but that does not seen to faze the believers

[Alex]

Sophomoric

[Barry]

Pulpit Rabbi, the Torah expressly forbids (and thereby renders null and void) Jewish fathers giving their daughters in marriage to non Jews. The issue of such an illegitimate union is not considered in Jewish law to be the issue of the Gentile man for the purposes of inheriting from the Gentile (since only legitimate sons inherit). (The issue of that Jewish women, whilst considered Jews, would not inherit land in Israel through their mother as women never inherited land).

The Torah does not forbid the marriage of Jewish men to non-Jewish women (with the exception of Cohanim). Because such marriages are legitimate, then the male issue of such marriage are entitled to inherit the father's portion in the Land of Israel.

So in biblical Israel, anyone with one Jewish parent was considered Jewish.

It is only later that the rabbis forbade Jewish men from marrying gentile women thereby rendering such unions illegitimate so that the issue would not in law be considered the issue of the father.

So now only someone with a Jewish mother is considered Jewish, however to inherit the privileges passing through the male line (like land in Israel or the right to tithes) you now need to have a Jewish father.

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

Implied in that is the following point: the person renounced idol worship and accepted God as the one God, he was Jewish.

Nut you'll also notice Solomon's children from those foreign wives who worshiped idols are considered Jews.

Hebrews, Shmaryah, Hebrews!

Not all Hebrews are Jews, but all Jews ARE Hebrews.

By using word Jew(Jewish), you are confusing people like me. As a reporter, I hope you understand the value of accurate wording.

Thanks.

[masortiman]

"Patralineal descent was the norm."

Likely, since it was a patriarchal society in which women had little recognized legal existence. Matrilineal descent is, arguably, of a piece with rabbinic legislation on ketuvot, etc that strengthened female rights (I speak this in the name of my teacher, R'Brad Artson - to the extent that it is right it is his, to the extent that I am less than accurate, I must be misremembering what he said).

That is why we, rabbinic Jews, keep to matrilineal descent - BUT we must be flexible enough on the details to accommodate human needs.

In this case, the obvious answer, were Ruthg alive today, is for Ruth to have a conversion ceremony. What her attitude toward her husband's intermarriage is is not relevant - she can accept the burden of halacha while still emotionally understanding the role that her husbands halachically forbidden intermarriage (arguably had the story taken place today she WOULD have converted earlier, but lets leave that aside) had in her learning about and attachment to the Judaism and the Jewish people.

Since she did the conversion abroad, in Moab, the bet din performing the converion need not have been approved by the Chief Rabbinate. It could even have been a Reform bet din, as per current Israeli law, IIUC.

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

That is why we, rabbinic Jews, keep to matrilineal descent

The Law of Moses does not give you that right.

[Yehuda_ben_Yehoshua]

Masortiman-Did you read the story of ruth? Her conversion was a vow made to Hashem, not a conversion in front of a panel of levites. musilms and christians convert within minutes, only judaism has a yr to 10 yr period, thats a joke, to top it off a group of shady rabbis determines who becomes a part of our hebrew family?

[pierre]

Cute is what I'd say too. More is made of it only if you commit to Rabbinic Jewish readings of the story, or Biblical Jewish reading.

[BibleBeltJew]

Chag Sameach / Gut YomTov Reb Rosenberg, and to all the FM Hasideem.

[ah-pee-chorus]

its good that she was ABLE to convert, but jews might have been better off if she hadnt. her descendant david was a power-crazed adulterous murderer. apparently that made him qualified to have moshiach descend from him.

[seymour]

Chag Sameach / Gut YomTov Reb Rosenberg, and to all the FM Hasideem.

Posted by: BibleBeltJew | June 07, 2011 at 10:24 AM

maybe maybe not but at least we do it on our own free will no coercion at all

[BibleBeltJew]

Seymour: Thanks for clarifying that, and enjoy your cheesecake!

[A Yid]

Why don't they also write a letter requesting a trial and stoning of a "stubborn and rebellious son" and or destruction of a town gone astray , or a request to prosecute shabbos violator, adulterers, pork eaters, witches etc. and the rabbinical courts and the prosecutors office rejection of the requests?:-)

[Shmarya]

Posted by: A Yid | June 07, 2011 at 11:35 AM

In other words, history is against you, the facts are against you and logic is against you, so you did the only thing you have left to do: make fun by misusing what you think are facts.

[masortiman]

That is why we, rabbinic Jews, keep to matrilineal descent

"The Law of Moses does not give you that right.

Posted by: Aleksandr Sigalov | June 07, 2011 at 09:27 AM "

"The law is not in heaven" The law was given to man, and like any law, must be requires intepretation. The ambiguities in it cry out for interpretation. That is how rabbinic Judaism adapted to a new world. If you prefer Karaism that is fine with me - there aren't many of them left, and I don't care for the biblical fundamentalism advocated by many internet Karaite wannabes.

" Masortiman-Did you read the story of ruth? Her conversion was a vow made to Hashem, not a conversion in front of a panel of levites."

The law as developed by the rabbis was different from the barely formed practice of the rabbinical period. Nu?

" musilms and christians convert within minutes,"
Amazingly enough they are different faith traditions, with different issues. In particular they are aggressive proselytizers. I respect them, but I dont see why Judaism has to be like them.

" only judaism has a yr to 10 yr period, thats a joke, to top it off a group of shady rabbis determines who becomes a part of our hebrew family?"

I am pretty sure it doesnt take 10 years in my shul. 1 year seems a reasonable period to learn the essential of such a deep complex religion, and to consider the issues involved in taking on such a difficult fate. I dont think we need fly by night conversions.

And of course I dont consider the rabbis of my movement to be shady, though there are certainly some bad apples.

[masortiman]

should be "barely formed practice of the biblical period"

[masortiman]

now shmarya, thats not fair. It speaks to the way folks are inclined to hold up biblical judaism (as they see it) against rabbinic changes they dislike, without thinking through the implications of going back to biblical J and thus overlooking rabbinic J as an objectively progressive phenomenon. Its this whole internet Karaite wannabe thing I mentioned above.

Now that does not mean we have to STOP at the Talmud, or the Shulchan aruch or whatever. We can not only admire Chazal, but emulate them by adapting the law in response to the challenges of our OWN time (and I agree O has generally done a poor job of that, and the haredi dont even believe in trying) but the implication that our problems are the fault of chazal, and that we should go back to the straight biblical text, is not, I think, a program for a healthy Judaism

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

masortiman,

I do not think you understand that the Law of Moses is the ONLY Law for Hebrews in general and the Jews in particular.

Adaptations and interpretations are fine, but not changes!

The laws of descent are NOT matrilineal! Shmaryah also told you the same thing.

Current rabbinical law is so far away from the original that it is not even funny.

Not to mention that it is stuck somewhere in 17th century (i.e evolution issues, other scientific issues, social issues, e.t.c)

[seymour]

Why don't they also write a letter requesting a trial and stoning of a "stubborn and rebellious son" and or destruction of a town gone astray , or a request to prosecute shabbos violator, adulterers, pork eaters, witches etc. and the rabbinical courts and the prosecutors office rejection of the requests?:-)

Posted by: A Yid | June 07, 2011 at 11:35 AM

isn't that the goal to go back to the good old days

[A Yid]

Posted by: A Yid | June 07, 2011 at 11:35 AM

In other words, history is against you, the facts are against you and logic is against you, so you did the only thing you have left to do: make fun by misusing what you think are facts.

Posted by: Shmarya | June 07, 2011 at 11:45 AM

What I was trying to point out was that authors of that letter are using history very selectively to suit their politics.

[Office of the Chief Rabbi]

Why was the book of Ruth written?

To answer that question, it's helpful to know what time period it came from. While it is set in the period of the Shoftim (aound 1100 BCE), the polemical reason for its writing at a later date might be this:
IT IS A PRO-INTERMARRIAGE TRACT.

Not pro-intermarriage with just any old goyim, but rather with the Moabites and Ammonites, with whom intermarriage is prohibited by the Torah.

The book says, in essence "Not only can a Moabite be a righteous person, one was the ancestor of our illustrious King David. Therefore it's OK to marry them."

When would foreign wives be an issue? When Ezra told the people to divorce them.

Let's face it: almost every Yisrael must have non-Jewish (non-Israelite) blood
somewhere. The Talirabinate needs to accept that.

Hag Sameah to one and all.

[Alex]

Judging from the tenor of the current debate among present company on this eve of Shavuous it is appropriate and necessary to remind some of an overlooked concept. Namely, at matan Torah we received both an Oral and Written Torah. Furious as the debate may have been at times throughout our history it was settled quite some time ago - by default. Those who denied the Oral tradition are mostly relics of history and the minuscule communities that have survived are merely quaint vestiges of a long bygone era. Now, those who feel compelled to re-visit the controversy are free to do so but why bother. Before continuing you might ask yourself; On which side of history am I? Or to determine whether or not you have a quorum you might ask; Who wants to be the Kairite?

[Shprintza]

Alex; give non-Oral Torah-based proof for an Oral Torah in Torah WITHOUT referring to Deut. 12:21;

"If the place where the Lord has chosen to establish His name is too far, you may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep that the lord gives you, as I have commanded you..."

Without assuming a method of slaughter is intended by the verse (I might ask "Why assume so, unless you're an Orthodox Jew or guy with OCD?"), one could read it simply as reference back to 12:15 - which you would have just read; "But WHENever you desire, you may slaughter and eat meat in ANY settled place, according to the blessing that The Lord has given you; *the unclean and the clean both may partake*...".

One could read it as saying THAT is the meaning of "as I have commanded you".

So verses 12:1-12 refer to specific offerings and specific services rendered with them, WHERE one is to render them; 13-14 reemphasize centralized offering, BUT 15 clarifies for whenever/wherever you want a stam barbecue. So one could say 12:21 just picks the v.15 point back up.

Such verses read in situ don't DENY oral traditions, Revelation or any of that - but there are MANY problems with assuming a systematic, organized and agreed-upon Oral Torah and claiming others (like, oh, Christianity, which began among Jews and that Stark evidences DID convert in large numbers?), fell by the wayside into history without it. Especially when Israel transgressed stam BIBLICAL commandments so easily throughout Tanach, from the leadership down to the laity - how can we easily assume they transgressed BUT sat and learn viter to preserve an Oral Torah as OJs understand such a thing now?

[anuran]

OCR - The Pure-Jew Eastern Europe Ashkenazim are over 40% European. The frummies will say "Yes, and it's a terrible thing. All that rape by Cossacks."

Then we get to the kicker.

These were MATERNAL genetic studies.

They had a lot of foreign wives.

[seymour]

Now, those who feel compelled to re-visit the controversy are free to do so but why bother. Before continuing you might ask yourself; On which side of history am I? Or to determine whether or not you have a quorum you might ask; Who wants to be the Kairite?

Posted by: Alex | June 07, 2011 at 02:04 PM

there are more Jesus believers so which side of history do you want to be

[Alex]

"Over 40% European." Before dealing with the "40%"pray tell, what is the marker for European?

[Alex]

Shprintza,

To tell you the truth, beyond your simple challenge to me, I couldn't make out the rest of what you are trying to say. Be that as it may, let's take tefillin as an example of the continuity and integrity of our oral traditions; Nowhere in Tanach is there a description of the "sign upon upon your arm" or the "frontlets between" your eyes," yet, there is 2000 year old archeological proof that there was an oral tradition they followed back then that continues unchanged to our day. (If my memory serves me, there is an opinion that the owner of that antique pair of phylacteries held with the shita of Rabbeinu Tam.)

[Alex]

Seymour, Seymour, Seymour. You can do better than that.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Modern Judaism is Ruthless.

[anuran]

Alex, there are a bunch of them. It's dead simple, well-established genetics. Of course, if you're frum you can't even listen to me talk about it. It might contradict rabbinical pronouncements which makes it kefira.

[anuran]

To go into a little more detail, from DNA samples you can establish degrees of similarity between individuals and identify sequences which are common to one population but not another. That's how we established, for instance, that large parts of the Japanese nobility came from Korea and that Jews over most of the world are more closely related to each other than they are to the populations they live in.

For the exact sets of markers consult the population genetics literature.

[Alex]

"And that Jews over most of the world are more closely related to each other than they are to the populations they live in." Thank you for reinforcing my point. i.e. we are an om kodesh. 60% percent of our genetic make-up is unique to Jews if I correctly read your earlier claim. That's a whopping big difference especially when we considering that human beings share over 90% of our DNA with chimpanzees. The few percentage points of distinction certainly amount to a whale of a difference. I've got to stop here as I have a sudden craving for a banana. Good Yom Tov.

[Shmarya]

To tell you the truth, beyond your simple challenge to me, I couldn't make out the rest of what you are trying to say. Be that as it may, let's take tefillin as an example of the continuity and integrity of our oral traditions; Nowhere in Tanach is there a description of the "sign upon upon your arm" or the "frontlets between" your eyes," yet, there is 2000 year old archeological proof that there was an oral tradition they followed back then that continues unchanged to our day. (If my memory serves me, there is an opinion that the owner of that antique pair of phylacteries held with the shita of Rabbeinu Tam.)

Posted by: Alex | June 07, 2011 at 03:04 PM

I love it when Orthodox Jews think they're educated, but all they really know is haredi spin.

Process:

There are no tephillin found that pre-date rabbinic Judaism. NONE.

But there are contemporaneous Jewish traditions that understood the biblical passage about tefillin as an allegory.

Tefillin do not prove the validity of the Oral Torah – if anything, they disprove it.

[Shmarya]

Modern Judaism is Ruthless.

Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | June 07, 2011 at 03:09 PM

Brilliant, YL!

[ah-pee-chorus]

Alex - shprintza is exactly right. and the reason there is no description for what was meant by 'sign on your arms/hands' and 'l'totafot' which means 'remembrance' is that they are both as allegorical as the writing of the words on your heart described in the same paragraph. nobody is concerned with what should be written on the tattoo we must inscribe on our heart either.
and as for the continuity factor, to begin with, there is no unbroken chain as the neviim clearly state. and the fact that there are far more people who now believe in the oral torah vs. the few who do not, speaks only to which set of beliefs is more suited to survival in the marketplace of competing ideas and religions. it has no relevance to whether or not it is accurate. mormonism is the fastest growing sect of christianity. that isnt because the book of mormon is true, nor even the most accurate understanding of the new testament. it is growing quickly because they have an incredibly effective means of transmission to others.
vertically- through their mitzvah of having many kids (just like haredim). and..
horizontally-- through their requirement that young adults start their lives by travelling somewhere (usually someplace very poor and ignorant) to spread their religion. so your point is meaningless.

[Shmarya]

"And that Jews over most of the world are more closely related to each other than they are to the populations they live in." Thank you for reinforcing my point. i.e. we are an om kodesh. 60% percent of our genetic make-up is unique to Jews if I correctly read your earlier claim. That's a whopping big difference especially when we considering that human beings share over 90% of our DNA with chimpanzees. The few percentage points of distinction certainly amount to a whale of a difference. I've got to stop here as I have a sudden craving for a banana. Good Yom Tov.

Posted by: Alex | June 07, 2011 at 04:59 PM

Sigh.

You know that secular education you largely skipped?

Go back and take it.

You may think you sound smart, but what you sound like is anything but.

[Shmarya]

What I was trying to point out was that authors of that letter are using history very selectively to suit their politics.

Posted by: A Yid | June 07, 2011 at 01:50 PM

Yes, I realize that is what you were trying to point out.

But if you knew history and halakha, you wouldn't have tried to make that case.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Thanks, Shmarya. Good Yom Tov.

[OMG]

Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | June 07, 2011 at 05:05 PM

I was looking for an in-depth discussion from you,

[ah-pee-chorus]

: OMG -

i dont understand.

[Reuven]

I've got to stop here as I have a sudden craving for a banana.

Bananas are some of the more nutritious foods around.

Modern Judaism is Ruthless.

lol

Namely, at matan Torah we received both an Oral and Written Torah. Furious as the debate may have been at times throughout our history it was settled quite some time ago - by default.

Meh. It's still ongoing. It keeps sparking back to life whenever someone challenges the status quo, or serves a Treyfe Banquet, or decides to figure out how to daven or shomer Shabbat in outer space, or even when some rebellious types (such as existed more than a hundred years ago) hold dance balls on Yom Kippur. Or when folks write on Shavuot (see?) or play music on Shabbat. And even in more mundane ways - in things acceptable in some parts of the Hareidi community but not in others (such as claiming so and so is a good candidate for being Moschiach, or women heading a certain way to the Wailing Wall) we wind up with some debate about the "right" or "proper" way to do things.

[Reuven]

The Pure-Jew Eastern Europe Ashkenazim are over 40% European...those are MATERNAL studies.

So we're not only Jews, we're also Slavs and Romans and Germanic barbarians and Magyars and Northmen and perhaps even some Khazars as well...maybe even a Mongol or two, if you look back far enough. (The great khans and their hordes conquered and pillaged as far as eastern Europe, and for all we know, they might've brought their wives and concubines along.) I'll betcha that almost all of you have at least one or two ancestors that lived somewhere in the Roman Empire, though.

[Reuven]

I do not think you understand that the Law of Moses is the ONLY Law for Hebrews in general and the Jews in particular. Adaptations and interpretations are fine, but not changes!... Current rabbinical law is so far away from the original that it is not even funny. Not to mention that it is stuck somewhere in 17th century (i.e evolution issues, other scientific issues, social issues, e.t.c)

Yeah, and the Law of Moses is stuck somewhere in the 700s or so BCE...and how can we be sure it was the original? Scholars see all sorts of editing and redactions in there.

[Reuven]

What's the difference between a Hebrew and a Jew?

[Yosef ben Matitya]

Ruth The Moabite Denied Israeli Citizenship

sure, citizenship now is reserved only to illiterate savages. who knows? this moabite knows probably how to read and write!

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

Yeah, and the Law of Moses is stuck somewhere in the 700s or so BCE...and how can we be sure it was the original? Scholars see all sorts of editing and redactions in there.
Bad scholars do. I can personally tell you that the Pentateuch has been transmitted to us without any major changes that would affect meaning of the text, or which would not be noticeable by comparing different versions.

To your second question:

"Hebrews" is the proper term to denote all 13 tribes of the Children of Israel.
"Jews", on the other hand is just one of the tribes - the tribe of Judah.

That is why all Jews are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews are the Jews.

The Law of Moses (Torah) was given to the Hebrews, not just to the Jews.

[OMG]

@ah-pee-chorus

As the discussion started to touch on the original Hebrews views and laws, I was looking forward for an in-depth historical analysis, how the worshipped and how far rabbinical Judaism has veered off the beaten path. Regarding dogma itself, we all know that you cannot argue with a self-described “believer” logic will not prevail when you are close-minded. Nevertheless, facts about how it was practice and how it is now might be the lighthouse, which they need.

[Reuven]

"Jews", on the other hand is just one of the tribes - the tribe of Judah.

I suppose that's why some people refer to Jews as "The Tribe"...

[Bassy the Haredi Slayer]

Today Ruth wukk be shipped to ir hakodesh Monsey and be required to have sex with Leib Tropper, Liba Tropper, Zilber and Amir

Shmarya,

Did you track down that Amir ? cannot be too many Amirs in Houston

[Yosef ben Matitya]

davar acher
today, 'israeli citizenship' is a misnomer, and the terms are actually used to describe 'sodomite citizenship'.

[seymour]

I can personally tell you that the Pentateuch has been transmitted to us without any major changes that would affect meaning of the text, or which would not be noticeable by comparing different versions.

please elaborate how you personally know that it was not changed. The different version that I think you are alluding too are where written hundreds of years after it was given on Sinai

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

The most unique feature of the Pentateuch is that it is highly redundant text.

In its composition were employed techniques similar to those that are used in modern computer systems, say, in error corrections algorytms.

So for example, if someone would intentionally change part of the text, it would be very easy to see that, and what is most important - recover it to its original state.

Having said that, comparing different versions (including translations, aka targums) it is also very clear that the text was preserved without any major changes.

As example, the description of the Tabernacle is pretty much identical in MT, SP, DSS, Septuagint, Onkelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, e.t.c

So unless there is some kind of worldwide conspiracy going on, I personally have no reason to believe that the text was changed in some significant way.

[PishPosh]

Guys, cut Alex some slack. He may have had recent surgery literally as he reads the Torah and the morphine may have left him confused.

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. Devarim 10:16

Did this hurt Alex?(Named after the Goy Boy King)

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

Did this hurt Alex?(Named after the Goy Boy King)

No, not really ;)

But at least I have the decency to write under my own real name...

[PulpitRabbi]

There is so much disinformation on this thread I can address it all, so I´ll just give one response to those who replied to my comment, which shows how responses to the other points can be gleaned.

Tanakh is not very large, and accounts of individual events are generally very brief. Legal texts are not complete, leaving many details out, concentrating instead to the literary contribution they make to the overall story. The lack of an explicit conversion ritual does not mean such a ritual did not exist. Furthermore, baseline halakha considers the validity of conversions without beit din, when ¨the people¨ act as impromptu beit din, and that is valid ... provided there is a genuine kabbalat ol mitzvot. Well, you can fail to notice Ruth´s absolute genuine commitment, she unambigiously declarfes her commitment to G¨d and to Jewish life. The expressions used may be different from what is done now, but they are a clear oath of loyalty not only to her mother in law, but to G¨d of Israel. Note how the text stresses Hashem Elokei Yisrael repeatedly, in a way not found very often in that kind of literature (it´s rather found in hortatory prophetic texts), so as to stress that it about the G¨d of her newly adopted nation.

Furthermore, she commits when it is most disadvantageous for her. Unlike what Office of the Chief Rabbi claims, Ruth is anything but an endorsement of intermarriage. The people who intermarried died prematurely, and the one widow who converts does so after being widowed. Then instead of running after eligible bachelors, she chooses some old patriarch, as Boaz states rather explicitly. If anything, by telling us of Elimelech, Machlon and Kilyon´s early deaths, the text strongly implies they were killed by G¨d´s wrath.

Bottom line, to read Bible requires being open to all the hints authors put in literature, itś no less deserving then Shakespeare. Then, you´ll realize that the rabbinic readings weren´t invented out of thin air. Sure, you can disagree, but you´ll come to recognize they were avid readers of the text and expounded upon it in the spirit of those texts.

Consequently, readings strongly arguing for erstwhile patrilineal descent merely show how little attuned the reader is to the subtleties of the text. Think of how happy Samson´s parents were when he wanted to marry a non Jew. Think of the much more explicit texts in Ezra-Nechemia. Itś all much older than the late 2nd Temple rabbinic era.

[PulpitRabbi]

Correction: A better wording, better conveying what I wanted to say, for my ¨Legal texts are not complete¨ is ¨legal texts are not comprehensive.¨

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

What I find interesting about the book of Ruth is that Ruth was a Moabite.

And in the Law of Moses (Deut. 23:3) it is written: "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever"

Also, in the following verse of Deut. 23:6, it is written: "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever."

Just so you guys know...

[Shmarya]

Bottom line, to read Bible requires being open to all the hints authors put in literature…

Please.

The only "hints" you take are the "hints" that can be twisted into support of Orthodox rabbinic Judaism.

You disregard all the rest, which are the majority.

[Yosef ben Matitya]

PulpitRabbi
At the end of the day shavuos is the day of ruth being the great grandmother of beit david and the redeemer, not of the moronic fanatic racists self styled rabbis.

[masortiman]

"And in the Law of Moses (Deut. 23:3) it is written: "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever"

Also, in the following verse of Deut. 23:6, it is written: "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever."

Just so you guys know..."

which shows that was acceptable in the book of ruth is DIFFERENT from what is acceptable in deuteronomy. Evidently the halacha was subject to change even BEFORE rabbinic Judaism.

[Berakyah ben-Yisrael]

It took me 10 years to finish my conversion. B"H that I finished and went before the bet din and performed hatafat dam brit and tevillah.