Megillas Rus Part 1 | HaRav Yitzchak Breitowitz

Ohr Somayach >> [music] >> is a beautiful example of love of Hashem, love of Torah, love of Am Yisrael. And that is something we absolutely need all the time. That's going to bring [music] Mashiach. And we especially need it at a time of war, at a time of danger, at a time when frankly lives could be lost chos v'shalom. So I turn to our dear friends who are both Hisachers and Zevuluns [music] to generously support an institution for 50 years. There's a record of success. And without your help, we're not going to be able to do it. So in the [music] merit of your support of Torah, your support of Ohr Somayach, may Hakadosh Baruch [music] Hu bless you and your families with all of the brachos that Hashem gives to those who support the Torah. And in the merit of that limud haTorah, may Klal Yisrael and the world merit shalom, peace, tranquility. And may this bring us ever closer to the Geulah Sheleimah b'meheira v'yameinu. The Megillas Rus, the Book of Rus. And the pasuk as as I told you, the Gemara Rabbah Basra says that Megillas Rus was written by Shmuel Hanavi. And although the Gemara does not give us the reason why he wrote it, but as I indicated the Bnei Chorashim say, it was ultimately to legitimate the yichus and the kashrus of David Hamelech. That was one of Shmuel's last activities. Now, it begins with a dating. It's telling you when did this story occur? So perek aleph, pasuk aleph says, "Vayehi bimei shfot hashoftim." It happened in the days of the judges judging. Now, that's not a very good dating system. The period of the shoftim is over 300 years. So it's like I'm writing a history, I'm trying to tell you when somebody something happened, I say, "It happened between the 1600s and the 1900s." You know, it's not not too much of a of a dating. So, what is the purpose of saying it was in the days Shvot HaShof'tim? So, the Gemara has a drasha that Shvot HaShof'tim does not mean when the judges were judging, but it means when the judges were being judged. Shvot HaShof'tim, when they were being judged. Meaning, it's describing not a date, it's describing a spiritual atmosphere in which even the so-called leaders were so corrupt that people were judging them. So, the Gemara gives an expression that if a judge would tell you, a rabbi, a teacher would tell you, uh "Take away the splinter that's in your teeth." uh you would answer back, "Take away the beam that's in your eye." Meaning to say, "Whatever you're telling me, you're worse." Now, that itself can be can be understood in two ways. Is it a genuine taina that the leadership was corrupt? Or or does it mean the people were so corrupt that they didn't have respect for their leaders? In other words, the Gemara itself is not really clear if the point is a condemnation of the leadership or a condemnation of the people who denigrated their leadership. But either way, it was a spiritually weak time. It was a weak time, a time that needed chizuk. And that will explain some of the events that happened. So, during that time, which again, could be a long period of time, there was a famine in the land. And a man from Bethlehem Yehudah, right, Bethlehem is where Kever Rachel is, Bethlehem, Bethlehem. And the reason why it's called base lechem Yehuda is simply because it indeed is situated in the tribal inheritance of Yehuda. There was a man who left base lechem because of the famine log or the stay Moab. He crossed the Arden to live in the fields of Moab. He and his wife and his two sons. The name of the man was Elimelech. The name of his wife was Naomi. His two sons are Machlon and Chilion. We'll come back to all of these. And they came to the field of Moab. And then one after another a lot of tragedies happened. Elimelech dies. And Naomi is left alone as a widow with her two sons. And the two sons marry Moabite women. One is Orpah and one is Ruth. And they live there for 10 years. And eventually presumably after the 10 years both Machlon and Chilion died. And the woman was bereft of both her children and her husband. So let's stop right to that. That's kind of the beginning of the story although it already covers a 10-year period. Uh a woman her husband and her two children come to Moab because of a famine in the land. Husband dies first. The two children, they're adults, marry Moabite women. The two sons died leaving Naomi a widow who lost her children. And she has her two daughters-in-law and she's going to go back to Eretz Israel. And as you know, Orpah does not go back. Ruth goes back. Okay. Now let's let's stop there. First of all, the Gamara in Bava Basra comments that Elimelech >> [snorts] >> did a very bad thing in leaving Eretz Yisrael. And there are a few different reasons that are given for that sin. One is you don't leave Eretz Yisrael for virtually any reason unless the famine is so serious that it's a matter of life and death, and apparently it was not that serious. It was serious, but it was not a matter of life and death. But we know the famous halacha one is allowed to leave Eretz Yisrael to learn Torah if there are no yeshivas, which obviously is not true here. Uh to find a wife to make a parnassa. But generally speaking, one is not allowed to leave Eretz Yisrael. In fact, the interesting thing is you're certainly not allowed to move back unless you fall under those heterim. Are you allowed to take trips? So they So the emissaries were very meikel on taking trips. That's why you go to visit your parents or or whatever it is. But there were many, many gedolim who actually took the position you weren't even allowed to make a trip. Uh Rav Zalman Auerbach had grandchildren who were being married in England. He did not go to the chasseneh. He says he does not leave Eretz Eretz Yisrael. So, without getting into the halachas, according to one opinion in the Gamara, Elimelech died. Elimelech died because he left Eretz Yisrael without justification. There is, however, another view in the Gamara that Elimelech's sin was not so much leaving Eretz Yisrael, but it was the reason. Elimelech was a wealthy man. Elimelech had resources to share. He didn't want so many demands being made on his resources. He left because he didn't want to give up his wealth to help all the poor people. Back then the first one said, "That's why he chose Moab because Moabites understand that philosophy. They didn't want to share their food and water. So, he figured the Moabites understand where I'm coming from." So, he went to Moab. So, we have a machlokes. Elimelech was considered to be a tzaddik. But, his aveira was either leaving Eretz Yisrael or his aveira was sorus ayin. And because he was a tzaddik, Hashem held him to a higher standard than we than he would hold both of most of us. And that is why he died. Like the Ramban says, if you remember, when there was a famine in Eretz Yisrael, Avraham Avinu went to Mitzrayim and that's when Paroh wanted to take Sarah. The Ramban writes, although the Chumash doesn't say it was a sin, the Ramban writes that according to his opinion, Avraham Avinu himself committed an aveira by leaving Eretz Yisrael even in a time of time of famine. All right, that's something to think about generally. Now, who was Elimelech? So, it's interesting that the Gemara says the following. The Gemara says, Elimelech, Salmon, Now, Salmon is the father of Boaz. If you remember that. So, Elimelech, Salmon, the father of Boaz, and Tov, that's the other relative that's in the scene. That who was offered the ability to marry Ruth. He's going to be mentioned in perek dalet. Either His name is either Tov or Ploni Almoni. We'll we'll we'll we'll get to that. But these three people Elimelech Salmon and Tov are brothers. And they are all the sons, we know Salmon is a son of Nachshon ben Aminadav. That that that the possuk says. But Elimelech and and I'm sorry to say Elimelech Salmon and Tov. That Tov and Elimelech are all brothers and they're all the sons of Nachshon ben Aminadav. Okay, so they come from a very very righteous family. Okay. So that's why Elimelech died. So resayin or leaving Eretz Yisrael. Then it says the two sons married Moabite women. And these two Moabite women are Ruth and Orpah. I told you yesterday that Ruth and Orpah are actually sisters. And they are the daughters of a king of Moab, Eglon Melech Moab who was killed by an earlier shofet Ehud ben Gera. Okay, that's fine. But here's the central question. Did they marry non-Jewish women? Or did Ruth and Orpah convert? How do we understand the narrative here? Did they marry non-Jewish women? Not allowed to marry a non-Jewish woman. Remember the whole discussion we had yesterday that only the male Moabite is forbidden, not the female. That's talking about when they converted. They [snorts] didn't convert, they're non-Jews. Yeah. Well, if they were killed by their fathers, but they were destroyed, then maybe maybe we can assume that that was a war and then Elimelech was like taking in prisoner of war female captive and then married to her father. You're saying Ruth and Orpah were Asia's Shofet? >> [laughter] >> Well, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think I mean, listen, that's a very imaginative idea. You know, I I I don't think it's described as going through any type of process of Shofet. Uh and it it doesn't really say the idea of the private assassin, the assassination of the king of Moab by Ehud is was not described as a full-fledged war in any event. Yeah. Yes, the truth is there is a Shofet in the book of Shoftim whose name is Ibsan. And very little is said about him. According to Chazal, Ibsan is Boaz. Now, if that is the case, then Ibsan is several Shoftim after Ehud ben Gera who killed Eglon. So, we have to assume that Ruth and Orpah are already orphans. Now, were they living in a palace? I I don't know the the suc- succession idea. In other words, if Eglon Melech Moab got killed, were Ruth and Orpah still in a royal environment? It's not clear. Chazal seem to say yes. Chazal always described them as princesses, even though their father was assassinated. Father was killed. And Boaz was very old. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, Boaz was very old, but but but Boaz uh is is older than Machlon and Chilyon. Machlon and Chilyon, yeah. Well, well, well, no. At at this point, okay, at this point, Boaz was not necessarily that old either. Remember, this is be- This is before they come back to Eretz Yisrael, right? And they're there for 10 years, etc. So, uh this is 10 years, at least 10 years before Boaz is going to marry Ruth. Okay? So, there's a huge machlokes if Machlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women or somehow Ruth and Orpah underwent a conversion. Now, let me give you the the arguments pro-con in terms of understanding the narrative. First, we have a Targum on the Book of Ruth. Uh now, the Targum is not Targum Onkelos. We actually don't know who wrote the Targum on the Megillos. We know the following. We know that the primary Targum on the Torah, the Aramaic translation, is Onkelos, who was a Ger. Onkelos was actually a non-Jew converted to Judaism. The Targum on the books of the Nevi'im is Targum Yonasan ben Uziel. Yonasan ben Uziel was a talmid of Hillel. He was considered to be the greatest talmid of Hillel. Uh and um there's many legends about him. The the Talmud mentions that when he would learn, the malachei ha-shareis would come over his head. So, if a bird would fly over, they would be burnt in the fire of his learning. In fact, the the Vilna Gaon likes to say that the difference in a Chassid and a Misnaged is how do you interpret the story of Yonasan ben Uziel. When you hear the story, a bird flew over his head and got burnt. What is it that you think about? So, a Chassidisha heart would say, "Ah, look at how great a human being can become. Look at the godliness of your Torah. You're greater than a malach. The malachim come in jealousy to see your Torah. Look at what you could the closeness to Hashem you can achieve. Right, a chassid is inspired by this story. I matter. I make a difference. I'm not a nobody, at least potentially. The misnagid who always worries about technical halacha says, "If Well, if the bird belonged to somebody, does Yonah son of Uziel have to pay damages for the burning of the bird?" Right? So, a misnagid tends to always kind of focus on the halachic aspect. But, be that as it may, there is another mesorah that for whatever reason, I don't know what the reason would be, Yonah son of Uziel did not marry and died without children. He is buried in Amuka, very deep valley near Tzfat, and you may have heard that to this very day, going to the kever of Yonah son of Uziel in Tzfat and not in Tzfat, in Amuka, is said to be a good segulah for shidduchim. Somehow, because he knows what it's like to be alone, his tefilos have a special power in that area. And uh often what happens is, intentionally or unintentionally, people leave lost siddurim behind with their name, address, email, and WhatsApp. And uh members of the other gender who want to be mekayem the mitzvah of hashavas aveida will contact uh the person who lost their siddur. And I'm told that more than one shidduch has been made by the mitzvah of hashavas aveida and the like. But, it is considered to be a segulah. I remember uh many, many years ago, uh going to Amuka, I mean, I think I think I was already married, but I went to Amuka. And in those days, uh there were no lights. So, really it was kind of total total pitch black darkness. And it was a very dangerous bus ride going back and forth, you know, through the through the down this treacherous valley. But, the one [clears throat] thing about Amuka is you really see like in any dark dark valley, you literally see I don't know millions of stars, you know. I look cuz I always wonder Hashem says to Avraham, "Your children will be like the stars of the of the heaven." So, I look up at the sky here. I I see like five stars if I'm lucky, you know, I don't you know, you don't see so many stars. But, the truth is they're all there, you know, if you don't have light pollution, there literally is billions not millions and millions of stars. And in Amuka you actually saw all of the all of the stars. But, this is the cover of Yonasan ben Uziel. Now, the Gemara Megillah says that Yonasan ben Uziel wrote a Targum on Nevi'im. And then he was going to write a Targum on Kesuvim. But, when he got to the pasuk the Daniel, he was going to remember we learned Daniel, he was going to explain the exact dates when Mashiach was going to come. So, Hashem made a tremendous earthquake. He was going to destroy this this is not to be revealed. So, the Gemara says befeirish Yonasan ben Uziel did not write a Targum on Kesuvim. Now, the truth is though we do have a Targum on the Megillos, so we don't know who wrote it. But, it is from the time of the Tana'im. Um one other thing just as a side point, the Gemara says Onkelos wrote the Targum on the Torah and Yonasan ben Uziel wrote the Targum on the Nevi'im. The Kesuvim is unknown. So, the question is if you open up a Mikra'os Gedolos, open up a Chumash with parshan, so you'll see Targum Onkelos, but you'll also see something called Targum Yonasan ben Uziel, which is much less literal than Onkelos. It incorporates a lot of Midrashim and the like, but if the author is Jonathan ben Uziel, >> [snorts] >> does that not contradict the Gemara that says Jonathan ben Uziel only wrote on Nevi'im, and Onkelos wrote on the Torah. So, there are two ways of understanding it. Some say, "Well, Jonathan ben Uziel did write on the Torah, too, but the Gemara means the Ikar Targum of the Torah, the most authoritative Targum is Onkelos, and the most authoritative Targum of Nevi'im is Jonathan." Others say that it's a misattribution, that in point of fact, Jonathan ben Uziel is not the author of a Targum on the Torah, and that's why in scholarly literature it is often referred to as pseudo-Jonathan. You might have seen that designation. So, it's still a holy sefer, it's still from the Tana'im, uh but perhaps the attribution to Jonathan ben Uziel is incorrect. Okay, that's a digression, but the reason I'm bringing it up is that the Targum of Ruth says Machlon and Chilion died because they married non-Jewish women. So, not Moabite. Again, Moabite is not a problem. You're allowed to marry female Moabite converts. The problem is they didn't convert. So, so the Targum on Megillat Ruth absolutely says that the aveira of Machlon and Chilion was intermarriage. And even though normally, unfort- you know, people don't die from it, but they were tzaddikim. But again, it's it's a strange thing. They were tzaddikim, they intermarried. How could they intermarry? How could they do it? Right? So, that's going to be difficult. I also want to point out, we're going to see vaiter, we're going to see further on, that Rashi says the same thing, although he doesn't quote the Targum, Rashi says both Ruth both Ruth and Orpah were nochriyot. They were non-Jewish women. Machlon and Chilion married non-Jewish women. Now, this does explain if you assume they're non-Jewish women, the big problem you have is how could these righteous people do this aveira? Okay. But this does explain why Naomi you know, Ruth and Orpah want to go back with her initially and Naomi says, "Don't go back. Don't go back. Don't go back." And Orpah finally turns away and Ruth comes. Now, there's Naomi is discouraging them from coming. Now, if they converted, they're Jewish. How could she encourage them to leave her? If they're not yet Jewish and Orpah never became Jewish and Ruth became Jewish, then we understand this is the ritual that when somebody wants to convert to Judaism, you initially try to discourage them. This tests their sincerity. So, in many many ways, the whole idea the whole shackle of Italia of Naomi trying to discourage them from following her fits very well if you assume that both Ruth and Orpah are not Jewish at this point. And Ruth, you know, converts. How did she convert? We'll discuss that, but she converts only in the process of coming with Naomi. So, that's fine. Where you get into a real problem is that I'm getting ahead of myself, but just to give you the background is the story in the last perek is very inexplicable. The story of Boaz marrying Ruth is presented as a type of yibbum idea. That you will be perpetuating the neshama of Machlon. Wait, wait, wait. How does the Torah describe yibbum? The Torah describes yibbum as a man dies without children, so his brother should marry the widow to perpetuate the neshama of the deceased. There there is a real sense, particularly the way Kabbalah explains it, that the child that is born from yibbum is spiritually a perpetuation of the soul of the one who died without children. That's what yibbum is. Yibbum is about perpetuating the neshama of a man who was taken from the world without having any continuity. That's why chalitzah has that derision to it. When they don't do yibbum, then she takes off his shoe. And she spits in front of him, not in his face, in front of him. And what does she say? So shall be done to the man who does not want to rebuild his brother's home. Now, the marriage of Ruth and Boaz is presented as yibbum, even though it's it's not halachic yibbum, because again, based on what I told you, what is the relationship of Boaz to Mahlon and Chilion? >> [clears throat] >> They are actually cousins. Remember, Boaz's father, Salmon, is Elimelech's brother. Salmon and Elimelech are brothers. Boaz is Salmon's son. Mahlon and Chilion, actually it's only Mahlon cuz Chilion there's no yibbum for Chilion cuz Orpah didn't go back. But Mahlon and Chilion are the sons of Elimelech. So, what is the relationship of Boaz to Mahlon and Chilion? They are first cousins. Not brothers, right? Everyone got that? First cousins, all right? So, technically, there is no halachic [snorts] yibbum for a cousin to marry his cousin's widow. Halachic yibbum is only to marry your brother's widow. But the Ramban is masber that even though the mandatory part of is only a brother, but the spiritual idea of yibbum can apply to all relatives. There is some inyan for a cousin to marry a cousin's widow because that is a way of perpetuation. So, the point basically is that if you look at Perek Daled, the whole setup of why Boaz should marry Ruth, >> [snorts] >> it is described in yibbum language as a way of perpetuating Mahlon's soul. Okay, we'll call that non-halachic yibbum or spiritual yibbum. But here's the problem. Yibbum only makes sense when there was a marriage. I mean, if a brother was living with a woman without marriage, and then he died, there's certainly no concept of yibbum there. Now, if Ruth is now Jewish, yeah, Ruth is Jewish But if you're going to tell me when she was married to Mahlon, Mahlon was Ruth's husband. She was not Jewish. And Mahlon died because he had married a why would there be any concept of yibbum for Boaz's cousin to marry the widow. That only makes sense if Ruth was already Jewish. So, the point is we got problems either way you look at it. If Ruth and Orpah are both not Jewish, how do we explain the Yibbum idea of Boaz marrying Ruth? And if you're going to tell me Ruth and Orpah were Jewish, they converted, although where was the base now? I don't know, but they converted, then why is Naomi urging both of them to go back? Which would only make sense if they weren't Jewish. So, essentially, you got two problems, meaning the idea of Naomi's trying to send them back would indicate they're not Jewish. The idea of Yibbum would indicate they did convert, they were Jewish, or at least Ruth converted. And anyway, there's certainly no indication in the text that Ruth converted and Orpah didn't. I mean, we know later Orpah didn't come and Ruth came, but but in Moab, there is no indication Ruth and Orpah were were any different in that way. Okay? So, this is kind of a major major issue in how to understand the story because you you have a problem either way you you look at it. So, interestingly enough, we have an interesting Yishuv, an interesting Tertz from the Zohar Hadash, from the Zohar. I don't know if you're familiar with the Zohar, so there's the Zohar, uh and then there's something called Zohar Hadash, new Zohar. What is new Zohar? So, it's not what it sounds like. New Zohar sounds like something that was written later than the original Zohar. That's not really the case. We believe the whole Zohar is connected to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. Zohar Hadash just means it was a part of the Zohar that was printed later. So, it's only Hadash in the sense that it was not printed in the original Zohar. It was added later, but the Zohar Hadash has the same authority as the Zohar. Now, this is to be contrasted with the Ramchal. The Ramchal actually was writing a new Zohar. But, he burnt it. So, we actually we don't have the Ramchal's new Zohar. But, the Zohar Hadash is really just part of the Zohar. And the Zohar Hadash makes the following interesting arguments. There actually is a halakha that [snorts] we are not we're not going to be mekabel geirim when Mashiach comes. When Mashiach comes, and people, you know, at that point, being a Jew is a good thing. Everyone's going to want to be Jewish. The gates are closed. If you want to convert, you got to convert now. Like, I I still get the shaila about people who are in the pipeline of geirus, and things take long sometimes. So, they say, "What's going to be? Mashiach is going to come, and I'm not going to be able to convert?" So, the answer is if you're in the pipeline, you know, we'll finish it, you know, you're not going to be you're not going to be excluded. But, if you didn't have the desire to convert until Mashiach comes, we don't take you. And the reason is very obvious, because there's a very good reason to doubt sincerity. You want to become Jewish because Mashiach, etc. Similarly, the Gemara says, "We're not we're not supposed to be mekabel geirim in the days of David Hamelech, and in the days of Hamelech, because that is when Jewish power was at its height." In other words, we accept geirim when it's hard to be a Jew, when Jews are hated, so somebody wants to become a Jew, they're probably very sincere because it's not a natural thing to want to do. They're doing it for spiritual reasons. But when Jews have power and authority, we don't accept. So the Rambam is Masbir. This is actually the explanation for HaMelech. HaMelech married a thousand wives. And some of the wives were very, very bad influences. Plus, he married Pharaoh's daughter. She brought idols into the house, etc. How do you understand this? Is HaMelech Is HaMelech a tzaddik or HaMelech a rasha? How How do we look at HaMelech? The wisest of all people. We have three of his forum in Tanakh. We have Mishlei, the Book of Wisdom. Shir HaShirim, the Book of Ecstatic Love of Hashem. We have Kohelet, a reflection on on life and the need to live a spiritual life. If he would have been a rasha, we wouldn't have included three of his books in Tanakh. So we consider HaMelech a righteous man. So what is He's marrying all these non-Jewish women? So the Rambam is Masbir. I mean, the Zohar does not quote the Rambam, obviously, but but it says an idea that is the same is that which the Rambam says. That avada, these women underwent conversion. And it was a halakhically valid conversion. But HaMelech did commit one sin. He shouldn't have facilitated their conversion. Because in the days of you have to question sincerity. And the proof of the pudding that he shouldn't have converted them was the fact that they reverted to their idolatrous ways. And in such a situation, retroactively their conversion was seen not to be sincere. So, yes, they actually were non-Jewish. But rationalized to himself they underwent a conversion. So, what is the idea here? That when people convert in times and places that we shouldn't accept them, if they later behave in a way that's inconsistent with mitzvahs, that shows us the conversion was not sincere. Now, again, again, let let me let me emphasize the point here. If stam a person converts, a person converts to Judaism, and later they become non-religious, that does not invalidate their conversion. It's very important to know that. The same way that a born Jew can go off the derech, and they're still a Jew, a converted Jew can go off the derech and still be a Jew. Okay, there is no such thing as invalidating a conversion because the geir later became not religious. But, that's only true if we can assume that they were sincere at the time they converted. But if their behavior later shows us that they were not sincere even at the time, the conversion is invalid. Do you see the difference? Now, this is very subtle. How do you know? A guy converts, and uh he's later mechallel Shabbos. How do I know that that means he wasn't sincere all the way back. Or maybe he was sincere and he just went off the derech. Okay, it's very crucial. So, one way we measure it is simply a matter of time. Me- meaning the following. Let's say he converts at uh 1:00 p.m. Friday afternoon and he violates the first Shabbos. So, there it's fairly safe to say he never meant it. The other extreme, he kept Shabbos faithfully for 10 years. All right, so sometimes and now obviously there are things in the middle. What if after 2 weeks, you know. But but one of the things we look at is how soon after his conversion did he commit a derech? This is a real question. I mean, by the way, th- this is a very very very relevant question in Eretz Yisrael with many Russian conversions that may not have been sincere, etc. And uh and and the press misreports it. The press, the Jerusalem Post or secular newspapers, will often say the Rabbinuts retroactively invalidated conversions because the convert stopped being Orthodox. That is absolutely false. You cannot invalidate a conversion just because somebody stopped being Orthodox. What you can do is if it can be established, which may be very hard, that the later behavior indicates there was a lack of sincerity in the beginning, then there never was a conversion because one of the requirements of conversion is a sincere acceptance of mitzvahs. So, what the Zohar and what the Rambam are suggesting is that when you were converted at a time when there is real real reasons to suspect insincerity, the days of David, Mashiach. Then, your later behavior will be an indicator that your conversion was not sincere. So, here's what the Zohar says. We will assume that Machlon and Chilion would never have married They wouldn't have done that. We will assume that Ruth and Orpah underwent a conversion process. Although, we'd have to know where was the base then? Were there other people, you know, what I don't know how they did it, but they did it. But, they shouldn't have been accepted because Elimelech was a very, very prominent citizen, kind of almost like the royalty, the aristocracy. And therefore, there are reasons to say that maybe royalty, especially now that they lost their father, maybe they wanted to attach themselves to royalty. So, the litmus test is, will they continue to be sincere when they lose that royalty? Elimelech died. Machlon and Chilion died. Naomi is now a poor widow with no family connections. So, she's testing her daughters-in-law to see if their original conversion was sincere. Orpah, who went back, that indicates she only converted for the status. Ruth, who didn't come back, shows, in other words, it's not that Ruth converted when she went with Naomi. Ruth demonstrated that her conversion was sincere all the way back. So, this is a brilliant answer. Meaning, Orpah, whose conversion was not sincere, was never married to Chilion because she was a Ruth, who demonstrated her conversion was sincere, was retroactively married to Machlon, and that's why there's a concept of spiritual yibbum at the end of the book. So, Naomi discouraging them is not the discouragement that you do to a non-Jew who wants to become Jewish. Both of them underwent conversion, but it's the discouraging you do to test how sincere the conversion was when the conversion might have been motivated by ulterior circumstances. So, do you hear the the chiddush of the Zohar Chadash in understanding this story. Now, again, as they say, uh the Targum absolutely says that they were non-Jewish, and so does Rashi, and uh there's a real problem, it's a real sore einayim, as to how to understand the concept of yibbum, even though it's not halachic yibbum, but spiritual yibbum, a non-halachic yibbum, that is presented in perek perek dalet uh yud. With that logic, don't we say that when you convert, you now have a Jewish soul? So, if it was if it was if it wasn't a sincere conversion, they never had a Jewish soul. That's correct. That's That's correct. That's correct. Meaning, we make certain assumptions, but later events can prove that our assumption was incorrect. And then, does that mean retroactively you have to everything that they were a part of now you have to overturn? What if they were witnesses in a wedding? Well, a you a woman wouldn't be a witness, but but but your question Yeah, I understand. Yeah, the answer is yeah yeah, according to this svara, the kiddushin would be possible. The eidus would be no good. By the way, this was a real not this particular problem, but we had a we had a similar problem here in Ramat a few years ago. There was a couple, I think I may may have mentioned this in a Q&A, who were integrated into the chareidi community and it turned out that they were Messianic Jews. They were Jews maybe not even Jews, I'm not sure. Jews for Jesus etc. And this guy was so well integrated. He was a shochet. I mean to make He was a shochet, he was a mohel, he was an aid, he wrote he wrote gittin. It's like, you know, you have to go back like a thousand things and examine like every marriage, every divorce, every animal. And people have to kosher their kitchens. >> [laughter] >> You know, so yeah, sometimes we do have these problems where the mafreia you know, things all have to be re-examined. Uh no, it's really a sincerity test. It's not really a a knowledge test so much. Uh it's it's really to gauge how sincere how sincere they are. Uh yeah. I have a question. If if a lady is converting because she's pregnant by a Jew she's pregnant, she wants to convert and like make a family. She's not necessarily sincere at the time of conversion, but like throughout the process of them like you know, having a family, she's like, "Wow, I'm actually getting like you know, connection with Hashem and stuff." Would that would that be considered as Yeah, so so again, but the event that that would be a conversion. Again, see you have to understand this. Even if a person converts in order to marry somebody that doesn't mean the conversion is not sincere. A person may still sincerely want to keep the mitzvahs even if they have an ulterior motive. They're not doing it for God, but they are sincere in their commitment to keep the Torah. >> [snorts] >> I didn't Yeah. Could we assume that there was some kind of community there when you asked the question? So you're asking [clears throat] how they converted. Yeah, yeah. So So my assumption is I just don't know. My assumption is that Elimelech relocated with a community, meaning it wasn't just three people or four people in Moab. First of all, that would have been extremely dangerous. Remember, Moab was largely hostile to us. So it's kind of, you know, moving to uh Iran. Yeah, yeah, moving to Gaza, you know, you know, what what whatever it would be. It's not not well advised. Uh but the assumption would be that he came with the community and there may have been some of the khakhamim, you know, there as well who could facilitate a a geyrus. Yeah. In the case of spiritual yibbum, not blood yibbum, where there isn't an inherent issue with the relations, uh could then uh you marry that person and have more children by them or consider yours? Like if you engage in relations with the sake of spiritual yibbum, are you then forbidden to marry them? Well, well, well, first of all, when you engage in either spiritual yibbum or halakhic yibbum, you actually are married to them. It it is a Yibbum is a marriage. Uh it is a marriage. But you're asking me who would have the who kind of owns the children? Um it's an interesting thing. I mean, logically I would have said uh the the yavam is, but but yet you see from the end of Ruth that this spiritual yibbum kind of it becomes like Machlon's son. So, I mean, both are true. I mean, listen, even a yavam's son, it doesn't mean there's no mitzvah of keeping it up the yibbum, you know. Uh he he is your son, but but spiritually there's a certain connection. Uh yeah. But that's sincerely that you said about the uh situation where the yavam cheated or else they had her husband or whatever the Yeah. Right. And and she became sincere after cuz she started being all lovey-dovey with him. >> Yeah. later on Uh there may be some there may be some real problems. Meaning meaning it's one thing if you're sincere at the time of conversion and then you leave it, you're still good. But if you weren't sincere, became sincere, and then left it, I think there's a real shine on that. Whether she would remain Jewish under those circumstances. But again, I I do want to underscore that other than this particular unusual situation the mere fact that a ger stops being religious does not invalidate the conversion. It's very important that you know that because the newspapers and the articles online and otherwise are always saying the opposite and that is absolutely not not the case. Okay, be well. Thank you for listening to this awesome Aish [music] production. To find out more and to partner in our mission, please visit ohr.edu. [music]