לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל השם, "Neither an Ammonite nor a Moabite may become members of the Jewish people, etc." The reason which the Torah gives for denying the male members of these tribes the right to convert to Judaism, i.e. that they did not come forward with bread and water to assist the Israelites when the latter came out of Egypt is hard to understand. Does not the Torah itself testify in Deut. 2,29: "as did the members of the tribe of Esau and the Moabites?" The reference is to both of these nations having sold provisions to the Israelites at the time. Rashi explains the apparent contradiction as 1) the verse in 2,29 referring to the Israelites' offer to buy food in return for money (2,28). 2) What is written here refers to the fact that they hired Bileam to curse the Jewish people and to lead it into sin at the end of the 40 years trek through the desert whereas what is written earlier refers to what transpired in the first year of the Israelites' wanderings. Perhaps the word על דבר is meant to alert us that what they did with Bileam would have sufficed to exclude them forever as members of the Jewish people. The word קדמו means they should have come forward on their own account offering bread and water as gifts. This would have been only small recompense for all which our forefather Abraham had done for them. Instead of repaying good with good they had repaid good with evil. The plain meaning of the words לא קדמו אתכם is that they did nothing for your benefit.

These verses may also be understood in light of what we have learned in Yevamot 76 where the Talmud searches for a reason why female members of the Moabite and Ammonite people are allowed to convert to Judaism. Rabbi Yochanan is quoted as saying that the daughter of a male Ammonite who converted may marry a priest. The Mishnah there already stated that the prohibition for Moabites and Ammonites to convert applies only to the males as the Torah speaks of עמוני and not of עמונית. It is not the way of the women to go out. Women are supposed to be in their homes. This is why they were not guilty of not coming forward with bread and water. This interpretation is based on the interpretation by Avner, Saul's general. In fact Amasa was very adamant about this halachah threatening to stab to death anyone who refused to accept it. [there was an attempt to use these verses to declare David as a bastard on the basis of his being descended from Ruth the Moabite. Ed.] According to the Talmud (at least one opinion) the tradition to permit a female member of these tribes to convert was approved at the time of the prophet Samuel already; otherwise how could Samuel have crowned David king if his great-grandmother Ruth had not even been Jewish? The argument between the teachers of the Mishnah Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon did not concern the validity of Ruth's conversion, but on which scriptural verse such a validity was based i.e. on the word עמוני being restrictive and excluding the females, or on the reason provided for by the Torah a for the non-admission of the male Moabites seeing only the males normally come out of their houses to welcome strangers, not females. Tossaphot on the following folio, commencing with the words: כתנאי, comment as follows: "if you were to argue that according to Rabbi Yehudah there is a difficulty where the Torah writes that a מצרי i.e. only a male Egyptian must not be rejected for conversion for up to three generations, the answer is that in the case of the עמוני and the מואבי the Torah could have written the shorter version עמון,מואב instead of the longer version עמוני,מואבי so that I have reason to believe that if the Torah employed more lettters than necessary it was in order to exclude the females. In the case of the Egyptians, however, this argument does not apply as the word מצרים instead would have been longer than מצרי not shorter as in the case of עמון.

I do not find the words of Tossaphot convincing at all. We do not find instances where the Torah writes something at the beginning of a paragraph prejudging a halachah to be discussed later; this would be especially inadmissible if it would lead to our misunderstanding the Torah's halachic intention. According to Tossaphot we would have to "guess" at why different yardsticks apply to the use of the word מצרי than apply to such words as עמוני or מואבי. Furthermore, even assuming that the Torah did have to write the word מצרי in order for us to know that there is a halachic distinction between the conversions of male and female Egyptians respectively, it could be argued that the Torah had to change the manner in which it described the nationalities mentioned earlier in order to fall in line with the word מצרי. However, if the word מצרי itself is already a change from the normal word מצרים which the Torah should have employed if it wanted to apply the same rule to male and female Egyptians then the whole thing cannot be explained other than that the Torah preferred to use as short a version of the word as was compatible with what the Torah wanted to say.

However, to get to the crux of the problem; why did Avner use both arguments? First he relied on the Torah writing מואבי as excluding female Moabites, just as did Rabbi Yehudah a millenium later. Immediately afterwards the Talmud quotes Avner retorting to Doeg that the reason the conversion rules do not apply to female Moabites is that females do not go out and offer food and drink to another people. This latter argument was that of Rabbi Shimon, not that of Rabbi Yehudah. We must assume that Avner did not withdraw his first argument but buttressed it by additional proof from our verse here. Logic supports this theory for if Avner had retracted from his original argument that the word מואבי was restrictive, why would he have used it altogether knowing it could be refuted from the word מצרי a few verses later? True, if we accepted the answer Tossaphot have given it is conceivable that one could have construed Avner as changing his mind, although we raised objections to Tossaphot's answer. The fact is, however, that Avner made it clear by the manner he dealt with the objection based on the word מצרי that he did not share Tossaphot's opinion.

I believe that Avner shared the same approach as did Rabbi Yochanan who arrived at the halachah on the basis of both verses combined, i.e. the restrictive meaning of מואבי as well as the Torah citing the fact that these people failed to offer bread and water to the Israelites when the latter needed it. He needed this as the exegesis based on the latter verse alone could have been neutralised by the word מצרי. We would simply have assumed that even though women do not go out to offer bread and water to another people, the fact that the men failed to do so would disqualify the entire nation not merely their males. Besides, the Moabite and Ammonite women have at least 50% genes of their fathers who are disqualified as potential Jews, so why make special allowances for them, unless we had more cogent proof from the Torah such as the restrictive word מואבי instead of מואב. Under normal circumstances the genes of the father determine what nation one belongs to as per Numbers 1,2 "according to their fathers' families." Unless we had additional reason to do so, the word מואבי by itself would not have been sufficient proof to change the halachah from the norm. Only both indications combined could accomplish this exegesis as being ironclad.

This then is why Avner offered both verses as proof that Moabite and Ammonite women may convert to Judaism. Seeing that this argument appears to have been settled 1000 years before that of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon, we must try and understand what Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon argued about. I believe that Rabbi Yehudah felt that the word מואבי is sufficient to prove the point that Moabite women may convert. As to the words על דבר אשר לא קדמו, etc, this neither adds nor detracts from his case, according to Rabbi Yehudah. I will explain later why this is so. The reason that although the Torah also wrote מצרי and אדומי, which at first glance suggests that this legislation also applies only to the males of these nations whereas we do not make such a distinction, is simple. In their case there is no reason to make a distinction as neither their males not their females had been called upon to provide the Israelites with bread or water. Seeing the Torah had used this as a criterion for denying the male Ammonites and Moabites the right to convert, there is no reason to treat Egyptian males and females as different from one another when it comes to accepting them as converts. This is precisely the reason the Torah did not have to bother to write the longer word מצרים in order to make its point. Rabbi Yehudah did not agree with Rabbi Shimon that one had to worry either about the comments of Avner or those of Doeg.

As to the reason why the Talmud interpreted the verse כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה, "that the true distinction of a king's daughter (a chaste woman) is the fact that her activities are confined to her house (Psalms 45,14)," the implications of this verse apply only to chaste women. The Moabite women who had already engaged in luring the Israelites into being both sexually and religiously disloyal to their G'd, could certainly not claim to be better than their male counterparts by reason of the verse in Psalms. The Torah could therefore have expected them to be at least equally forthcoming when it came to offer bread and water to the Israelites. Since neither they nor their males had done this, this constituted an a priori case for denying them the right to convert. On the other hand, one may argue that what these women did when they lured the Israelites into sexual promiscuity at Shittim did not reflect negatively on their character. 1) They were forced to do so by their respective husbands. 2) The fact that it is not normal for women to go out and offer food and drink to other nations is a natural trait of women. The fact that these Moabite women [not the Ammonites anyway. Ed.] did not act in character in one single instance, is no reason to deprive them of the status of normal women. As a result of all these considerations, the message from the word מואבי instead of מואב is inconclusive.

Rabbi Shimon holds that the message we derive from the verse in Psalms 45,14 is quite conclusive, i.e. it relieves the women from the obligation to offer food and water outside their homes. Moreover, he holds דרשינן טעמי דקרא, that when the Torah bothers to write a reason such a comment may be used exegeticaly to establish a halachah. When the Talmud refers to the dispute between teachers of the Mishnah it does mean that Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon disagree on something more than the applicability of the verse in Psalms 45,14 to the women mentioned in our verse.

As a result of what we have explained so far you may find that there are actually three distinct approaches to the subject in the Talmud as to why women of the tribes of Moab and Ammon may convert. 1) The opinion of Rabbi Yochanan who uses both the word מואבי and the words על דבר אשר לא קדמו jointly. 2) Rabbi Yehudah who relies exclusively on the word מואבי as distinct from מואב. 3) Rabbi Shimon who relies principally on the words על דבר אשר לא קדמו.

According to Rabbi Shimon then Rabbi Yochanan's reliance on the words על דבר makes sense. The question why we need the words על דבר at all remains open only according to the approach of Rabbi Yehudah. It may be answered in accordance with what we wrote previously.

After having taken another long look at the whole subject, I have come to the conclusion that one cannot fault the Moabite women for not offering bread or water as they could not have done so without first obtaining their husbands' consent. The conduct of their husbands towards the Israelites made it plain that even if these women had asked for permission to offer such supplies to the Israelites, their husbands would never have consented. The argument offered in the Talmud by Doeg therefore must be viewed as the argument of an heretic. We find something analogous when the prophet Achiyah Hashiloni was confronted with what he considered a spurious question by the wife of King Jerobam and he described it as being an heretic's question (compare Midrash Shemuel 22 on Kings I 14,6).

ולא אבה ה׳ אלוקיך לשמוע אל בלעם, "but the Lord your G'd refused to listen to Bileam, etc." Although G'd could have found a reason for allowing Bileam to curse the Israelites seeing they were guilty of sins, He decided not to allow him to do so and to extend His goodwill to the Israelites even though they could not claim it by right. The Torah adds כי אהבך, "because G'd loves you," i.e. not because of your merit. Please read what I wrote on the meaning of לא אבה on Deut. 2,30.

כי תצא מחנה על איביך, "When a camp goes out against your enemies, etc." The Torah means that although there are nuances of transgressions which G'd does not go out His way to punish you for, and even if He does decide to punish you the punishment is very mild, the Torah informs us that at a time when there is general danger, such as when one goes out to war, one needs to be careful not to become guilty of violating even the smallest detail of G'd's commandments, i.e. מכל דבר רע, "from anything which is evil." The word דבר includes even causes which bring about evil. The Torah follows this up with the example of a soldier who became ritually unclean due to an involuntary nocturnal seminal emission. Our sages in Ketuvot 46 explain that sexual fantasies one has during the day often are the cause of such emissions during one's sleep. The reason the Torah wrote these two veרses next to one another is to warn us not to entertain such fantasies during the day so that we would not become defiled during the night.

לנכרי תשיך ולאחיך לא תשיך. "You may pay interest to a Gentile but you must not pay interest to your brother (the Jew)." Why did the Torah repeat here once more that we must not pay interest to a Jew when this had already been stated in verse 20? Our sages in Baba Metzia 75 say that the repetition is to teach that anyone doing this is guilty of the violation of two separate negative commandments. Perhaps the Torah meant here that although the interest you give to your fellow Jew ultimately goes to the Gentile, this is prohibited when the go-between is a Jew and the Jew does not know the Gentile in question either through having borrowed from him or through holding some kind of collateral belonging to the Gentile in question. This is also the halachah.

There is also an allusion here to a subject debated by the codifiers and later authorities in Yoreh Deyah 159. Some authorities, including Rabbi Joseph Karo, hold that extending loans to pagans is permitted only when the Jew finds it difficult to make a living without doing this even though there is general agreement that the Torah has permitted the practice. The wording לנכרי תשיך may be understood as "you may extend loans with interest to Gentiles, provided that as a result of this permission you will not ultimately charge interest on loans to Jews."

והיה בך חטא. "and you will be guilty of a sin." We can understand this in accordance with the Talmudic statement in Shabbat 32 that failure to honour one's vows may result in the death of one's wife or children while they are still minors." The word חטא means that something is lacking, missing [such as to miss a target להחטיא. Ed.]. Looked at from this perspective, failure to pay one's vows results in one's being deprived of something else which is his, such as the wife whom our sages describe as אשתו כגופו, "a person's wife is like his own body." One has a tendency to look upon one's minor children as one's property. The appropriate punishment for people who do not honour their vows to G'd then is to remind them by depriving them of something else they hold dear.

וכי תחדל לנדר לא יהיה בך חטא. "If you refrain from making vows this will not be considered as a sin for you." This can also be understood in light of a statement in Gittin 7 that "if a person experiences that his income is barely sufficient he should give some away as charity. If he has ample income he must certainly be charitable." In addition to this the Talmud states in Ketuvoth 66 that "if one wants to "salt away" one's money he will find that it decreases." It is a psychological truth that inasmuch as man is very fond of his money he is loath to part with it. A person may wish to counteract his natural tendency to hang on to his money by making a vow to G'd so as to obligate himself against his avaricious nature to give some of his money away for a worthy cause. This is why the Torah has to warn us that the consequences of not living up to the promises one has made in the form of a vow may be devastating.

Concerning paying a vow late the Torah says that the party guilty of this is guilty of a sin, i.e. he may experience being deprived of someone his is fond of. Concerning people who fail to give charity the Torah says וכי תחדל לנדר, that even if the failure to make vows may result in your not donating to charity and this in turn may result in your own money-supply diminishing in worth or amount, at least you will not suffer the additional disaster of losing someone dear to you, such as when והיה בך חטא applies to you..

מוצא שפתיך תשמר, "You shall carry out what you have promised with your lips." The Torah suggests that you should wait before making a vow, a promise, until you are in a position to honour it forthwith. In that event it is perfectly acceptable for you to make vows. This is why the Torah writes immediately adjoining ועשית כאשר נדרת, "and you will do in accordance with what you have vowed." The famous teacher of the Mishnah Hillel conducted himself according to this principle by not designating the lamb he would offer as a passover offering as such until he had reached the Temple yard where it was to be slaughtered (compare Pessachim 86).

Another meaning of our verse may be this: the words מוצא שפתיך תשמר mean that you should be very careful before you say anything (as it may be in the nature of a commitment). If, however, you did say something, treat it as if it were as sacred as a vow, i.e. כאשר נדרת לשם אלוקיך נדבה, "as if you had made a sacred vow to the Lord your G'd, instead of merely a voluntary gift of a secular nature." The Torah uses the expression נדבה to indicate the generous frame of mind you were in when you made this promise. We know that this is the general meaning of the word נדבה from Exodus 25,20: "which he donates in his heart," or Exodus 35,21: "which his spirit had donated."

אשר דברת בפיך, "as you have said with your mouth." We may understand this in light of Zohar volume three page 294 commenting on Kohelet 10,20: "for a bird of the sky may carry the sound, etc." When a man merely entertains some thoughts, his lips already move without his being aware of this. This is what the Torah alludes to with the words: "which you uttered with your mouth." If the meaning were not what the Zohar suggested what point is there in the Torah adding the word: "with your mouth?" Who does not know that one speaks with one's mouth? Our sages in Rosh Hashanah 6 interpret our verse in a different manner. After all, there are 70 legitimate ways of interpreting the written Torah.

ואל כליך לא תתן, "but you may not put any of them into your vessel." The Torah prefaces the word כליך with the conjunctive letter ו to remind us that there was another commandment which immediately preceded this commandment. We refer to the prohibition to overeat from the grapes of the vineyard of your employer. We derive this prohibition from the fact that the Torah wrote שבעך "to your satisfaction," i.e. not more than your fill. After this the Torah added: "neither shall you put any into your vessel."