Moabitess!

Was Ruth a Foreigner? by Yair Davidiy (21 May, 2015, 3 Sivan, 5775)

[ Note: The following article is a further clarification of, and addition to, points raised in our previous article,
King David and the Oral Law. Loyalty to David is Required: Ruth and the Oral Tradition
http://britam.org/DavidandOralLaw.html
Contents:
1. The Dilemma
2. The Verses:
(a) Deuteronomy 23: 3-4
(b) Nehemiah 13:1, 23-25
3. Ruth the Moabitess
4. Lot the Ancestor of Ruth
5. The Counter Claims. Was Ruth a True-Blue Israelitess from Birth??
6. Answers to the Counter-Claims
(1) Moab is Moab!
(2) Future Tense according to Context
(3) Levirate Marriage
7. Conclusion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1. The Dilemma

The Bible says that it was forbidden to accept Moabites or Ammonites into the Israelite Community.
Later we find that Ruth, who is described as a native of Moab, was accepted. Not only that but Ruth was an ancestress of King David and through David of the Future Messiah when he comes.
The Sages in the Talmud (Yebamoth 76b) solved the problem by saying that the prohibition applied only to males and not to females, and that such had been the law from the beginning.
In recent decades certain Protestant Savants have rejected this explanation.
They claim that Ruth was really an Israelitess!
They quote (or rather misquote) Biblical verses to prove their case.
A lot of articles have been written on this matter. They all seem to say the same. They wax quite emotional over the issue.
When we said something different we received virulent missives in protest.
It is apparent, that not only is it a point of Biblical Exegesis but also of ideological considerations.
So let us see what the case is:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2. The Verses:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(a) Deuteronomy 23: 3-4
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: even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever: 4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.

The Sages (Yebamoth 76b) said that the prohibition applied only to the males and not the females. The Bible says that the prohibition emanated from the peoples concerned not having supplied the migrating Israelites with food and water.
This was something the males, and not the females, would have been expected to do and therefore the interdiction applied only to them.

Is this answer acceptable?
If such was the Law why not? Genetics teaches us that certain qualities are transmitted by both male and females, some only by males, and others only by females.
We have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is only transmitted by males and is transmitted in whole by them without admixture from the female side. or at least that is what conventional DNA science claims. They may yet change their minds but the possibility is there.
There could even be some kind of biological justification for accepting one gender and not the other.

Accordion to the Bible (Deuteronomy 17:8-13) the Sages had the authority to decide how the law was to be applied.
What they said was how it was. Anyone who disagreed could be put to death. Not only that but it sounds like it was incumbent to execute the offender.

Deuteronomy 17:
12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and you shalt put away the evil from Israel.
[ All the Christian enthusiasts who criticize the Rabbis for not (in their opinion) applying the Law literally seem to have forgotten this verse. May be they are afraid it should be applied to them? ]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(b) Nehemiah 13:
1 On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever; 2 Because they met not the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, that he should curse them: howbeit our God turned the curse into a blessing. 3 Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude. ...
23 In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: 24 And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people. 25 And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, You shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.

Nehemiah was arguing with the Jews who had taken foreign women. They had not converted them and the women continued to speak their own tongue.
The women concerned were "of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab".
Ammon and Moab were the nations from whom it was forbidden to accept converts. Acccording to our understanding this applied to the males and not to the females.
When Nehemiah upbraids those Jews who had taken women from Ammon and Moab he does not remind them of the prohibition against Ammonites and Moabites in Deuteronomy 23: 3-4.
He rather speaks in general terms against taking foreign women (who have not been properly converted) of any kind.
His language recalls the prohibition applied to the natives of Canaan.

Deuteronomy 7:
3 Neither shall you make marriages with them; your daughter you shall not give unto his son, nor his daughter shall you take unto your son.
4 For they will turn away your son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy you suddenly.

Here we clearly have the taboo linked with religious observance.
Foreign women who do not believe in the Bible nor formally declare their willingness to abide by the Law (i.e. convert) are forbidden for religious reasons. It does not say that there was anything special applicable to women from Ammon and Moab. They were in the same category as foreign women from any other nation. Only for the males was an extra stringency in force.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3. Ruth the Moabitess

Josephus Antiquities Book 5, ch.9
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link52HCH0009
Now after the death of Samson, Eli the high priest was governor of the Israelites. Under him, when the country was afflicted with a famine, Elimelech of Bethlehem, which is a city of the tribe of Judah, being not able to support his family under so sore a distress, took with him Naomi his wife, and the children that were born to him by her, Chillon and Mahlon, and removed his habitation into the land of Moab; and upon the happy prosperity of his affairs there, he took for his sons wives of the Moabites, Orpah for Chillon, and Ruth for Mahlon. But in the compass of ten years, both Elimelech, and a little while after him, the sons, died; and Naomi being very uneasy at these accidents, and not being able to bear her lonesome condition, now those that were dearest to her were dead, on whose account it was that she had gone away from her own country, she returned to it again, for she had been informed it was now in a flourishing condition. However, her daughters-in-law were not able to think of parting with her; and when they had a mind to go out of the country with her, she could not dissuade them from it; but when they insisted upon it, she wished them a more happy wedlock than they had with her sons, and that they might have prosperity in other respects also; and seeing her own affairs were so low, she exhorted them to stay where they were, and not to think of leaving their own country, and partaking with her of that uncertainty under which she must return. Accordingly Orpah staid behind; but she took Ruth along with her, as not to be persuaded to stay behind her, but would take her fortune with her, whatsoever it should prove.

The Book of Ruth 1:

1 Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehem-judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. 2 And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there. 3 And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons. 4 And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years. 5 And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband.

They were in the country of Moab and the women were described as "women of Moab".

Ruth and Ophrah had married the two sons of Noami who had later died. Noami decided to return to Judah. The women accompanied Noami part of the way. Noami then entreated them to turn back.
One of them, Orpah, did so, but Ruth remained.
Noami said to Ruth:

The Book of Ruth 1:
15 ..."Look, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law."

Noami says that Orpah has returned to her people, and to her gods, and that Ruth should do the same.
These were not the people nor the gods of Naomi who was an Israelitess from Judah.
Here we see Noami exhorting Ruth to follow in the footsteps of Orpah who had returned to her gods and to her people, i.e. to non-Israelite gods and to a non-Israelite people.
NO distinction is made between Orpah and Ruth.
Both were Moabitesses.

Ruth 1:
16 But Ruth said:
"Entreat me not to leave you,
Or to turn back from following after you;
For wherever you go, I will go;
And wherever you lodge, I will lodge;
Your people shall be my people,
And your God, my God.
17 Where you die, I will die,
And there will I be buried.
The LORD do so to me, and more also,
If anything but death parts you and me."

Ruth says that the place and people and the God of Noami will be her own, in the future. Until that point the people and culture of Ruth had not been so.
After Ruth continued on with Noami to Beth-Lehem in the territory of Judah she was known as "the Moabitess" (Ruth 1:22, 2:26). In Beth-Lehem Ruth describes herself as a foreigner (Ruth 2:10).

The Bible seems to expressly EMPHASIZE that Ruth was a Moabitess and not an Israelitess!
It was always understood that way. Josephus and the Talmud also understood it that way.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
4. Lot the Ancestor of Ruth

Lot was the son of Harran son of Terah. Lot was the nephew of Abraham who was the brother of Harran. Lot accompanied Abraham on the journey to Canaan. Their shepherds did not get along with each other so it was decided to separate.
Lot went to the city of Sedom (Genesis 13:8-9). When Sedom was destroyed Lot was rescued with his daughters.
The daughters thought that there were no more men left. They got Lot drunk on two consecutive occasions. On both times while Lot was drunk and apparently unconscious they had intercourse with him.
From these encounters came forth the peoples of Moab and Ammon (Genesis 19:30-38).
Ruth was the ancestress of King David.

Ruth 4:
13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife, and he went in to her. And the Lord enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son. 14 Then the women said to Naomi, 'Blessed is the Lord who has not left you without a redeemer today, and may his name become famous in Israel. 15 May he also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.
16 Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her lap, and became his nurse.17 The neighbor women gave him a name, saying, 'A son has been born to Naomi!' So they named him Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David.
18 Now these are the generations of Perez: to Perez [s]was born Hezron, 19 and to Hezron was born Ram, and to Ram, Amminadab, 20 and to Amminadab was born Nahshon, and to Nahshon, Salmon, 21 and to Salmon was born Boaz, and to Boaz, Obed, 22 and to Obed was born Jesse, and to Jesse, David.

From King David will come the future Messiah.
The Christians say that their Messiah was born of a virgin and was also a descendant of David.
How they put the two together is their business, perhaps through his mother?
BUT if he was a descendant of David he was also a descendant (through Ruth) of Lot.
Since Lot the forefather of the Moabite nation was involved with scandal, misuse of alcohol, and incest, some of them would rather that Ruth have not been from Moab. They would rather consider Ruth an Israelitess who was sojourning in a land named Moab because it had once been part of Moab.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

5. The Counter Claims. Was Ruth a True-Blue Israelitess from Birth??
In
King David and the Oral Law. Ruth and the Oral Tradition
http://britam.org/DavidandOralLaw.html
we replied to claims for Ruth having been of Israeli stock from an article that was once on the web:
"The Story of Ruth the Israelite!?" by Richard Fix
All such articles however say more or less that same thing.
It seems that they all derive from the same source i.e.
"Far Above Rubies", by Isabel Hill Elder, published in 1957.

Another such article is:
The Book of Ruth: the bible story of Ruth the Israelite,
who dwelt on the Israelite-conquered plains of Moab
http://cryaloud.com/book_story_ruth_moabite_levirate_law_marriage.htm

HERE ARE SELECTED EXTRACTS from the article (You may read this through or jump over it to 6. Answers to the Counter-Claims):

We read in the Encyclopedia Judaica, under the title, Genealogy: "Thus the Hasmoneans, who had to defend themselves against the contention that only Davidic descendants could lay claim to kingship, in turn questioned the purity of King David's blood, in view of his descent from Ruth the Moabite."

We further read in this article, why Jewish families marry so closely within immediate family lines, to maintain their family roles in the Levitical temple worship. "...Herod, who also had to face a challenge to the legitimacy of his rule, forged for himself a pedigree going back to King David, after first DESTROYING THE GENEALOGICAL RECORDS maintained in the temple..."

The racial purity and lineage of the Kings of Judah were important right up to the time of Christ. That is why Matthew and Luke record the genealogies of both Joseph and Mary. Genealogy was critical to kingship! The Messiah had to come from the lineage of King David!

The Book of Ruth is a story of a young ISRAELITISH widow, who produced offspring for the Royal House of Judah, whose descendants were residing in the area of Bethlehem.

Ruth had been living in the territory still known as the land of Moab. This territory north of the Arnon River, and east of the Jordan River, was occupied by the tribes of Israel known as Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh. Like their brothers on the western side of the Jordan (who retained the name of the land of Canaan), the three tribes to the east were said to live in the "land of Moab".

Ruth moved to Bethlehem, with her mother-in-law, and married a man named Boaz, of the Royal House of Judah. When she bore the child Obed, the stage was being set for the future kings of the nation of Israel, and the coming of the Messiah.

THREE BASIC PROOFS

There are three basic proofs as to Ruth's true nationality. These are found in a book entitled: Far Above Rubies, by Isabel Hill Elder, published in 1957.

The first deals with the question of who inhabited the "land of Moab", mentioned in the Book of Ruth. The second involves Ruth's own very famous statement to her mother-in-law. The third relates to who has the legal right to inherit land under the ancient Levirate Law of Marriage and the Jubilee System of land redemption.
===============================
Proof Number One:

The Israelites conquered the land of Moab, east of the Jordan river, and north of the Arnon River. Israel took all the cities and killed ALL the inhabitants of the land.

"So the Lord our God also delivered into our hands Og king of Bashan, with all his people, and we attacked him until he has no survivors remaining." "And at that time we took the land from the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were on this side of the Jordan, from the River Arnon to Mount Hermon..." (Deuteronomy 3:3,8).

In another place the Bible records that no racial Moabites were left alive in the land (Deuteronomy 2:34). The land was now inhabited by the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh (Deuteronomy 29:8).

This territory retained the name "land of Moab", just as the land west of the Jordan remained "the land of Canaan". Joshua 13:32 summarizes the conquest: "These are the areas which Moses had distributed as an inheritance in the PLAINS OF MOAB on the other side of the Jordan, by Jericho eastward."

In the first chapter of the Book of Ruth, the expression the "country" of Moab is used. This word used for "country" in the original Hebrew translates best as "land". The reference is to the PHYSICAL LAND not to the occupying people of the land. This term is not pointing to the nation, but to the territory.
===============================
Proof Number Two:

The most amazing proof that Ruth was a Israelite, and possibly a Jewess, comes from her most famous and misunderstood statement to her mother-in-law, Naomi.

"...For wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. (Ruth 1:16).

It is important for you to notice that in most Bibles, the words "shall be" are in italics. This is done because the words ARE NOT in the original text. Hebrew is written with consonants only, NO VOWELS. The vowels are added in the spoken language. One of the things this does, is leave word 'tense' for the individual to add when reading. You have to understand THE CONTEXT in order to correctly read aloud the Hebrew.

To put things in plain English, it is impossible for Ruth to become (ie. "shall be") a part of Naomi's tribe, if she was not of the same genetic strain. "A Gentile in the woodpile", would make Ruth a Gentile, not an Israelite of pure racial strain. The future tense, then, is not correct.

If Ruth's ancestors were, at one time, of the same tribe, then the translation "used to be" would not be correct, because somewhere a Gentile would have entered her pedigree, changing it to that of a Gentile. The past tense would not be logical.

The only translation which makes sense, and fits the situation is: "...Your people are my people, and your God, is my God." Ruth's statement is one of CONFIRMATION.

God intended that the Book of Ruth be a "mystery" until our time. Even the Hasmoneans did not understand the TRUTH of the matter two millennia ago. Joseph and Mary understood, and so did the apostles!
===============================
Proof Number Three:

Only an Israelite could inherit land under the nation's Jubilee System, and receive restoration of that inheritance, under the Levirate Law of Marriage. An understanding as to the historical background of these two laws, is necessary to grasp the restrictions placed on inheritances within the nation of Israel.

Levirate Law Of Marriage

In the story of Ruth, a single man, a relative of her dead husband, is supposed to intervene and marry Ruth. The purpose of this is to "...raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance..." (Ruth 4:10). This custom is known as the "levirate Law of Marriage". This Hebrew law predates the nation of Israel. The purpose is to not let an inheritance go out of the family. This law protects the inheritance and birthright of rulers from Adam to Noah and then to his son Shem, after the Great Flood.

The first time it is mentioned in the Bible is in Genesis 38:8. "Go in to your (dead) brother's wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother." This is part of the story of Judah and Tamar.

Instructions were given to the nation of Israel in Deuteronomy 25:5,6: "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husbands brother to her, and it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel."

Note the importance of keeping the inheritance within the family. No STRANGER is to inherit!

No Gentile would have been allowed to inherit land under the levirate Law of Marriage. This law was there to keep the inheritances and the land of Israel in the possession of Israelites ALONE!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
6. Answers to the Counter-Claims

Replies:
===============================
(1) Moab is Moab!

Proof no.1 claims that the Land of Moab is not the Land of Moab but an area conquered by Moab.
There is no proof of this in the Bible.
Everywhere else in the Bible where the word Moab appears it is quite clear from the context what is being spoken of.
If one wishes to make a far-fetched assertion based on a very remote option it must be proven. It is not enough just to invent the possibility. This is elementary, or should be.
The personalities of Ruth and Orpah as depicted in the book of Ruth are of women who worship (or worshipped) foreign non-Israelite gods (Ruth 1:15). Ruth is described as a Moabitess (Ruth 1:22, 2:26) and as a foreigner (Ruth 2:10).
===============================
(2) Future Tense according to Context

Proof no.2 claims that Ruth did not promise to follow the God of Naomi but rather declared that she always had done so.
According to this, the words,
"...Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God" (Ruth 1:16).
should be read:
"...Your people are my people, and your God, my God".

[Fix however had another solution. he claimed that the word translated as God did not mean "God" but rather judges.
We also answered this claim:
See:
Ruth and the Oral Tradition
http://britam.org/DavidandOralLaw.html

Here is the translation of KJ 2000:

Ruth 1:
15 And she said, Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return you after your sister-in-law.
16 And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave you, or to return from following after you: for where you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will lodge: your people shall be my people, and your God my God:

Here is how , from the Hebrew original, we would literally render the last part of 1:16 whose meaning is under discussion:

# Where you will go I will, and wheresoever you dwell I shall dwell, your people my people and your God my God. #
Considering that the words of Ruth were in answer to those of Noami (1:15) the translation of KJ2000 is acceptable.
Orpah had returned to her people and to her gods. Ruth was advised to do the same. Ruth replied that she would go with Naomi and accept her people and her God.
===============================
(3) Levirate Marriage

This argument is somewhat convoluted.
[Critics of the Rabbis claim that they use complicated lines of argument to reach conclusions against the simple literal meaning of the text.
The Rabbis in fact usually are attempting to explain laws that have already been accepted. The arguments are fiercely debated and subjected to criticism and logical analysis. Once a consensus is reached the explanation may be accepted. We find that they who go against the Rabbis are the ones in denial.]
Before Boaz could marry Ruth he thought he had to redeem land that had once belonged to the husband of Naomi.
This it is claimed was due to the laws of Levirate Marriage.
We disagree. BUT for the sake of argument let us suppose that it was so,

The Laws of Levirate Marriage only applied to brothers from the same father.
The law was that if a man married and died without issue his brother would either marry his widow or release her in a special ceremony. He would then inherit the property of his deceased brother.
It had nothing to do with purity of lineage.
If the wife of the deceased brother was a convert who had been born to a foreign people but had converted then the Levirate Marriage or Releasing Ceremony had still to be undergone.
This still the Law today.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why Now?
The article above claimed

# We read in the Encyclopedia Judaica, under the title, Genealogy: "Thus the Hasmoneans, who had to defend themselves against the contention that only Davidic descendants could lay claim to kingship, in turn questioned the purity of King David's blood, in view of his descent from Ruth the Moabite." #
This is news to us and may not be correct BUT it does show that the Jews ALWAYS understood Ruth to have been of non-Israelite Moabite origin.

The article asserts:
# God intended that the Book of Ruth be a "mystery" until our time. Even the Hasmoneans did not understand the TRUTH of the matter two millennia ago. Joseph and Mary understood, and so did the apostles!#
Really?
Why Was That?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
7. Conclusion.

Ruth was a Moabitess. Arguments against this are based on prejudice and worse.
Accepting the fact that Ruth was a Moabitess means acceding to the understanding of the Rabbis in the Talmud concerning the practical application of the Law on this issue.
The Rabbis are identified with the Pharisees.
There are those who object to Biblical Law as the Pharisees understood it.
The Pharisees had the sanction of God.
They who object may take their complaints to HIM.