The AB Sit edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, dedicates today's study of Daf Ayin Zayin in Yevamot to our dear friend Mr. Isaac Jamal and his wife, honoring his family and wishing them success and prosperity in all their endeavors. May he merit to raise his children in the ways of the Torah, bringing him much nachat, and may he be blessed with health and happiness, grace, and kindness in the eyes of Hashem and all people. This Daf is also studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther and for the success of Yosef ben Simcha. We begin today’s Daf on Ayin Zayin, sixteen lines down from the top, starting from the words ketanna’ei.
We find ourselves in the midst of a sugya discussing the law regarding the acceptance of the Moabite women, specifically the female converts from Moab. Yesterday, we made a derasha: Moavi velo Moavit. The Torah states that a Moavi man is prohibited, yet a Moavit woman is permissible. The Gemara clarifies this as a machloket tanna'im. There is no dispute about their permissibility; rather, the source of the prohibition is debated. Rabbi Yehuda states, Amoni velo Amonit, Moavi velo Moavit. Rabbi Shimon, however, bases his reasoning on the fact that they did not greet us with bread and water when we left Egypt. He argues that it is customary for a man to greet, but not for a woman. Although women could have greeted other women, it is not proper, as we learned from the laws of tzniut. This is illustrated by the example of Sarah Imeinu, who remained in the tent, indicating that it is not considered modest for women to come out. Thus, the Moabite women are not liable for not coming out, leading to the conclusion that Ruth is permissible, and consequently, David HaMelech is also permissible to enter the kahal.
It should be noted that in the Megillat Ruth, every pasuk begins with a vav, except for eight. If we examine the initials of those eight pasukim, they spell Yishai vaohel, indicating that salvation comes from the tent. This tent refers to the tent of Sarah Imeinu. Therefore, the legitimacy of David HaMelech to enter the kahal is established by the oral tradition, as the written Torah states lo yavo Amoni uMoavi, suggesting he is not legitimate. The sages, however, interpret this to mean Amoni velo Amonit, Moavi velo Moavit, thus permitting David HaMelech's entry based on the oral law.
The Or HaChaim HaKadosh explains that when the Torah states Vayedabber, it refers to the written law, while lemor refers to the elaboration of that law, i.e., the oral law. This distinction is evident in two consecutive psukim in Tehillim, where David HaMelech expresses his fear of the law, stating Umidvarecha pahad libbi, indicating his concern for the written law, which prohibits the Moavi from entering the kahal. Yet, he rejoices over the words of the oral law, Sas anochi al imratecha, which brings him comfort and legitimacy.
Throughout the Megillat Ruth, Ruth is consistently referred to as a Moavia, while in the Gemara, she is called a Moavit. This distinction may indicate that by referring to her as Moavia, we are invoking the divine presence associated with her name. As the pasuk states, edut shivtei Yah edut le-Yisrael, if God's name is present in a person's name, it signifies that they are favored by the Creator. Thus, Ruth is always called Moavia to signify her legitimacy and divine support.
The Gemara then presents a teaching attributed to Rava, asking what is meant by the pasuk pitachta le-moseray. David HaMelech expresses gratitude for being released from his shackles, specifically referencing Ruth and Naamah, both of whom were converts from Moab and Ammon, respectively. Rava emphasizes that David's emergence and legitimacy are rooted in their acceptance. He acknowledges that the connection between David and these women illustrates a broader principle about lineage and acceptance.
Rava continues by citing the wonders God has performed, noting that the pasuk says banim v'lo banot, indicating that the Torah's prohibitions apply specifically to males. Rabbi Yehuda counters this by focusing on the word yivaldu, suggesting that it refers to all offspring, including females. Therefore, the prohibition extends to both genders, but the emphasis on males highlights the specific lineage concerns regarding entry into the kahal.
Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the commonality among these cases is that they all involve individuals who are not fully accepted into the kahal, yet their daughters may still be permitted to serve in the kahal. This nuanced understanding reflects the complexities of lineage, conversion, and the halachic implications of each case.
As we continue our study, we see how the intricacies of these discussions shape our understanding of Jewish law and identity, emphasizing the importance of both the written and oral traditions in guiding us through these complex issues. The dialogue between the sages, the distinctions made, and the rulings provided all serve to reinforce the foundational principles of our faith and practice.