I have always read in the Book of Ruth that Ruth loved G-d and therefore went with Naomi. That is true but for some reason this time I read it a little differently.

Naomi may have seemed unwise to the girls to be a woman and to venture on a journey like she did. And after they had started out they all realized how difficult the journey to Israel would be. And for what reason?

Humanly speaking, whether you believed in G-d or not, it would have been wrong for the two girls to leave their mother-in-law there in that desolate place all alone. So it must have been decided between the two of them that it would be OK if only one of them went with her. Ruth must of been the meeker of the two, because she was the one who, in a way, had to stay with her mother-in-law. Oprah must have had relatives who followed her and wanted her to come back home. So she had no problem getting back alone.

But Ruth says " Where you lodge, I will lodge." Meaning she would be there with Naomi to help protect her. And she said " Where you die, I will die." I think that the journey was so dangerous for women that they were even thinking of death. "Y our people are my people, and your G-d is my G-d" Perhaps Ruth's family rejected her for marrying a Jew.

So this time when I read it I was thinking that Ruth did not really want to go, but she was obligated to go.

It was more that G-d loved her, then that she loved G-d.

quote:

Originally posted by Raybin:
I have always read in the Book of Ruth ...


Humanly speaking, ... So it must have been decided between the two of them ...Ruth must of been the meeker of the two... Oprah must have had relatives who followed her and wanted her to come back home. So she had no problem getting back alone...
So this time when I read it I was thinking that Ruth did not really want to go, but she was obligated to go.

Raybin,

I'm interested in knowing what book of Ruth you are reading from. My hunch is that you are reading from some straight text that contains no commentaries. If so, I suggest that you invest in purchasing more scholarly works.

Unfortunately, your hypothesis is clearly unfounded. A quick viewing of the commentators (such as Rashi) will reveal to you that Orpa and Ruth were sisters, orphaned from the King of Moav, Eglone.

Also, the commentators say that one of the reasons that Ruth merited Dovid HaMelach descending from her was because she was willing to throw away all her prior royalty as a princess of Moav in order to become a Jew; even if it meant being poor.

To say she was meek is to say the antithesis of what she truly was.

My recommendation to you for the future is to study the commentators before hypothesizing.

NOTE: Novelty is good, but only after complete investigation is made.


B'Hatzlacha

I know all about that. But sometimes I forget.

I am reading from the Stone edition with few commentaries.

If Ruth and Orpah were sisters then why did Naomi say "Look your sister-in-law has returned after her people and her gods; return after your sister-in-law." Why didn't she say "Your sister?" Even if they were sisters the situation would have been the same. For two of them to leave Naomi would have been too much.

Meekness is a virtue.

As you see in the book, Naomi couldn't have made it too easily without Ruth's help. Gleaning in the fields.

Magedman, where is your source that it says that Ruth and Orpah were sisters? They were for sure sisters-in-law to each other, since one married Mahlon and the other married Chilion who were brothers.

Ruth Chap. 1 verse 4 : And they married Moabite women, one named Orpah, and the other named Ruth, and they dwelt there for about ten years.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sam-,

quote:

Originally posted by Sam-:
Magedman, where is your source that it says that Ruth and Orpah were sisters? They were for sure sisters-in-law to each other, since one married Mahlon and the other married Chilion who were brothers.

Ruth Chap. 1 verse 4: And they married Moabite women, one named Orpah, and the other named Ruth, and they dwelt there for about ten years.

I was taught somewhere that they were sisters, too. But this new text makes it clear that they weren't.


Of Course, they were women. I made an error in the beginning by saying they were girls. When I was younger my husband always called me a girl even though I was in my twenties. So I said it only to mean that they were a generation younger than me or Naomi.

I believe that Ruth and Orpah were each princesses, of the same kingdom, and therefore would likely be at least half-sisters?

But isn't a half-sister relationship closer than sister-in-law that Megillas Ruth should refer to them as sisters and not only sister-in-law?

Or perhaps this is a source for two things, that knowing that Ruth's was a proper sincere conversion and she was no longer related to her birth relatives, and that this is the proper way for a convert to non-relate to their birth family?

quote:

Originally posted by rob:
I believe that Ruth and Orpah were each princesses, of the same kingdom, and therefore would likely be at least half-sisters?

But isn't a half-sister relationship closer than sister-in-law that Megillas Ruth should refer to them as sisters and not only sister-in-law?

Or perhaps this is a source for two things, that knowing that Ruth's was a proper sincere conversion and she was no longer related to her birth relatives, and that this is the proper way for a convert to non-relate to their birth family?

Perhaps the problem lies in the translation from Hebrew to English. I have scant knowledge of hebrew, but maybe there is no way to distinguish the two (sister-in-law vs. sister) the same way that we do in English.

Rob- I understand your interpretation and it makes sense but it is a little farfetched according to the way it is written.

One reason is because by Naomi saying your sister-in-law (if they were sisters)she is drawing Ruth closer to her instead of farther rejection which in theory you are supposed to do to any potential convert. It would be a mixed message. Also, if that were the case it would be as if Naomi saw their family coming and it was clear then that one of them would be accepted back to the Moabites and one would go with her. Like an alliance between the two countries took place at that time. It could have been age related, too. Ruth being the younger sister may not have had the same Rites as the older one, if that was the case.

If they were sisters, the fact that Naomi referred to her as "sister-in-law" could have had to do with who they married. Perhaps Ruth's husband was considered to be more of a Jew than the other.

quote:

Perhaps Ruth's husband was considered to be more of a Jew than the other.

There is no such a thing!

Besides which they were both sons of Naomi, who was a Jewish lady who never remarried.

What I meant was that one son was more religious than the other, that one was more worldly, similar to the difference between Orpah and Ruth. Of course, there is no such a thing to the Jews, but to the Gentiles there might be.

What I meant was that one son was more religious than the other,or that one was more worldly, similar to the difference between Orpah and Ruth. Of course, there is no such thing to the Jews, but to the Gentiles there might be.

Just wishing everyone a happy Shavuot, since this is the fortyninth day of the Omer. For those of you who are staying up all night reading Torah, I hope you gain insight and wisdom into what Moshe Rabbinu taught.

Besides being inlaws, Ruth and Naomi were the best of friends, I am sure. Regardless of race, or what kind of noses they each had. Sometimes being a convert to Judaism means that you don't fit the profile of being Jewish, but
that doesn't make you less of a Jew. It was the combination of profiles that made King David so handsome and great.

Have a Great Shavuot everyone!