Ruth and Moabites

Hi All,

Someone emailed me to gloat :

"according to the bible, it says that Jews aren't supposed to marry or convert Moabites, yet in the book of Ruth that happens and Ruth is the grandmother of King David! Doesn't this invalidate the whole David story and show what a made up jumble that is the bible?"

I believe that this is a reference to this part of Torah :

לֹֽא־יָבֹ֧א עַמֹּונִ֛י וּמֹואָבִ֖י בִּקְהַ֣ל יְהוָ֑ה גַּ֚ם דֹּ֣ור עֲשִׂירִ֔י לֹא־יָבֹ֥א לָהֶ֛ם בִּקְהַ֥ל יְהוָ֖ה עַד־עֹולָֽם׃

No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the L-rd , not even in the tenth generation.Deuteronomy 23:3

I would say this is unfortunately an example of how people try to study the Bible without the Oral Torah  alongside the written Torah and therefore get things wrong.

Firstly the Torah doesn't forbid a Moabite to convert , only to "enter the assembly of the L-rd" , which the Talmud tells us ,( Yevamot 77b)  means that a Moabite could convert , but could only marry either a Jew of  poor linage  or  another convert rather than a Jew by birth, but because of their historical cruelty to the Jewish people they did not permi their truly becoming a part of the Jewish nation ( see verse 5 of Deut 23) .

Secondly the oral tradition notes that the Torah writes Moabite in the masculine form and this indicates that the previous point only applies to Moabite men. Moabite women could convert and therefore marry into the nation.  Incidentally  in the mystical tradition (Zohar Chadash – Ruth 78a) Ruth's name spelt backward means dove and thus this is symbolic of the Temple sacrifices , indicating that Ruth was permitted to fully become a part of the Jewish people. 

Thirdly this definitely means that Ruth was a  Jew. Ruth converted to Judaism before marrying Boaz and bearing Obed. (Ruth 1:16, where Ruth states her intention to convert). After Ruth converted, she was a Jew, and all of her children born after the conversion were Jewish as well. But even if Ruth were not Jewish at the time Obed was born, that would not affect King David's status as a Jew, because Ruth is an ancestor of David's father, not of David's mother, and David's Jewish status is determined by his mother.

One verse of Torah is interesting

Hi all

In the comments section below, there’s a conversation about how boring it is to study Torah and more generally the Tanach via a plain meaning ( peshat ). As my sister explained because we as Jews believe that the Torah is the divine document from God, it is incumbent (and logical) that we first study the text’s plain meaning. Why are some words used and why aren’t others ? There’s a particular reason why the words used are the words used.

An example was given by my sister  of Genesis 4:1.

אוְהָאָדָם יָדַע אֶת חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד אֶת קַיִן וַתֹּאמֶר קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת יְהֹוָה:

A transliteration

Veha adam yada et ishtov; chavvah vattahar vatteled et kayin vattomer kaniti Adonai

A translation would be something like this :

And the Man knew [et] Eve his wife and she conceived and bore [et] Caine and said “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord”

A more modern day translation would- to trendy Church of England types- be something like this :

Adam and Eve shagged and she got preggars and gave birth to Caine and said “ I have a man with the help of the Lord”.

Immediately you can see- from 1 verse of Torah-  how translating the text in English can alter the way you come to conclusions about the text and secondly there are multiple queries and questions for study .

I’ve listed a few , below off the top of my head : 

1) Is this the first time Adam and Eve have had sex or the first time outside of Eden? 

2) This occurs just being kicked out of Eden. Where are they and why is sexual intercourse the first thing they do or is emphasised?

3) Was there any other children Adam and Eve had in Eden or was this the first birth?

4) Why is it that ‘Yada’- the verb ‘to know’- is used (among others- could this be a hint for this passage?) , when people have or want to have sexual intercourse in the Bible? As an aside the Christian translators of the KJV were being faithful to the text here, it literally does mean ‘to know’ . Just out of curiosity I checked out some of the newer translations of the Hebrew Bible and they use euphemisms for sexual intercourse. But they don’t actually use the term.

5) Why does Eve refer to her newborn as a man (ish) and not an infant ?

6) What does Even mean when she says “I have acquired a man with YKVK (‘the Lord’)” ?

7) The word et is used in the verse three times, discuss why.

You see that using the original Hebrew and understanding the language helps for a more in depth study and studying in itself the Torah isn't dull and boring ....!

Sephardi tradition

Hi all,

I see so clearly now why there's a Sephardic tradition and why there's multiple Ashkenazi one. The world can change Jews  or Jews  can change the world.  It's worth the risk.In short Torah , precisely because it is God's gift and is divine is strong and powerful enough to withstand whatever the world says . I've never really understood Ashkenazi Orthodox, especially the Ultra Orthodox  Haredi  desire for isolationism as much as possible.

I believe that  tradition and halachic approach can adapt and change throughout time,  without the concept or the law  being made irrelevant or denying the Torah . Rabbis are free to rule with leniency rather than ruling strictly and of course  the community itself is the keeper of the tradition it wants to keep.

This was the tradition and Mesorah as it was taught to me by my grandparents when I was not at my boarding school or at my uncle's farm in Yorkshire (I was orphaned from birth , hence these three were my biggest influence growing up ). They even studied the Torah in the traditional Sephardi way and not the current Lithuanian Ashkenazi Haredi  school which is dominant today. I was brought up with a more open inquisitive approach to the non Jewish world without a sense of wanting to abandon Judaism or Torah. My grandparents were particularly concerned that we received a broad education combining Limudei Kodesh (study of Jewish sacred Texts) with Limudei  Khol (that is general studies  i.e. "secular education" ).    

But can Judaism change ? Yes it can.  But sometimes we don't see it or don't want to see it. Maybe we are also guilty of contemporary linking to 3,000  years ago   , if we  think our teacher  Moses stood at Sinai with a black hat . Or maybe ripped jeans and trainers. But it does change and it doesn't change. That's a paradox. Our community  prefers to ignore paradoxes and we think what we tbobk was always the way , so we can not get headaches over the fact that Torah is from God and God and the Torah don't change, even when they do.  Let's live with the paradox.

For example Abraham argued to save Sodom , Jonah to not preach to the Goy and got swallowed by a whale.  Was not God open to be challenged ? In a more seemingly mundane example,  Jewellery isn't supposed to be worn on shabbat according to the  Sages of the Talmud.   Yet the tradition since the Rishonim, has been that  women are permitted to wear jewellery on Shabbat. Chazon Ovadia (Rabbi Ovadia Yoesf )  also confirms this to be the case.

In the 19th century , Rabbi  Mani  ( chief Rabbi of Hebron) had  visited India and helped the Mesopotamian Jews who had immigrated  there (including some of my forebears)   decided that the streets of Bombay couldn't be considered public domain on shabbat "de'orayta" ( from written Torah)  but   public domain only " de'rabannan" (from Rabbinical decree) .

Rabbi Somekh , the Rosh Yeshiva (that's the Jewish equivalent of an Oxbridge Don) and  communal leader of Mesopotamian Jewry disagreed in discussion- because such as ruling went against The Shulchan Aruch  ,  but did accept Rabbi Mani's rationale . This  was to help the community's undertaking and observance of Shabbat  :in short so  non Jews  could carry parasol and other items  in the hot weather , for the community to attend synagogue , rather than them doing so themselves and thus violating Shabbat and to keep the community together ,even though his ruling was different and contrary to previous Sephardi ruling. There was no crises and no split .

In respect of women and whether we are second class citizens in Judaism. Haredi may think so. I have no needs to look for ancient tomes to argue with them. My tradition clearly states that women can have the right to vote,  be leaders and secular judges. From a 70 year old source

Rabbi Uziel was chief Rabbi of Mandatory Palestine and Israel and was a key influence in arguing for women to vote, be leaders and enter public offices. 

Rabbi Uziel in part of his responsa , asked rhetorically were women not "creatures created in the image of God and blessed with intelligence?" Are they not subject to the decisions made by the elected assembly? "How can you grab both ends of the rope at the same time: impose disciplinary obligation [the obligation to obey the decisions of the elected representatives] on them but deny them the right to vote?"

And in addition :

"Reason allows us to say that in any serious and productive conversation there is no [case for restriction] on the basis of licentiousness, for every day men meet women in commercial transactions and negotiate, and there is neither breach nor outcry. And even those who have a proclivity for promiscuity would not think of prohibited relations while focusing in earnest on their trade. And our Sages did not say “do not extend conversation with a woman” (Mishna, Avot 1:5) but [only] with respect to an idle conversation that has no [valid] purpose, and such discourse does lead to transgression, but not an exchange of debate in important and public matters. And it is not the case that sitting in shared space and proximity for the sake of public service, which is עבודת הקדש, habituates towards wrongdoing and leads to light-headedness…”

Shabbat Slalom!