The Moabite Convert

What is the status of a Moabite or Ammonite convert?

(This is Part Three of the series I’d introduced with my post, ““Castrate, Bastard, Ammonite, Moabite.” Part One was “The Castrate: Petzua Daka/Krus Shofcha.” Part Two was “The Bastard: Mamzerim and Mamzerus.”)

The following halacha, which is itself a direct quote from a mishnah in Tractate Yevamos¹, is brought down in the Shulchan Aruch regarding Moabites and Ammonites:

Sh”A Even Ha’Ezer 4:2:

עמוני ומואבי אסורין ואיסורן איסור עולם אבל נקבותיהן מותרות מיד

A [male] Ammonite and a [male] Moabite are prohibited, and their prohibition is an everlasting prohibition; but their females are allowed immediately.

This halacha is quoted in just about any discussion of Ruth, the Moabite convert and great-grandmother of King David², whose story is read every year during the holiday of Shavuos. 

I don’t know who needs to hear this but, notwithstanding the above, a male Moabite or male Ammonite who undergoes conversion becomes a Jew. I’m not even talking bedi’eved, nor am I talking about what how the halacha became established post-Sennacherib (more on this later); there’s simply no issur (prohibition) - neither at the Biblical nor rabbinic level - in an Ammonite or Moabite male undergoing conversion, and such a conversion would be effective. 

If you’re someone who already knows this and your reaction is, “why are you bothering to speak out such an obvious point??”, then, wonderful! This essay is not for you. Please feel free to read no further.

If, instead, you are thinking how obviously mistaken I am, please stick around and take a look. 

A summary of what I present in the remainder of this post is as follows: the primary point to keep in mind when reading this halacha in the Shulchan Aruch is that the איסור/prohibition being discussed here is that of “ לבא בקהל” - that is, “Entering into the Congregation³.” As broad as this phrase sounds, it actually refers to a very specific prohibition: that of marrying a Jew-by-lineage who is not a mamzer/mamzeres. Both the Sh”A and the Mishnah simply expect the reader to already know this and do not bother speaking it out. This phrase of “Entering into the Congregation'' has nothing to do with whether or not the person in question is, or can become, Jewish. I have already written about this distinction in my earlier posts (link, link, link). In other words, there is no prohibition in an Ammonite or Moabite male undergoing conversion and becoming Jewish. It’s just that, once he does so, he finds himself under essentially the same marriage prohibitions faced by a mamzer. 

My aim in this post is to lay out the sources that explicitly speak out the nature of the prohibition that applies to male Ammonites and Moabites. I feel such an exercise is worthwhile because the notion that Ammonite and Moabite males are intrinsically unable to become Jewish seems to be a fairly widespread misunderstanding. I’ve gotten into a good number of disagreements about this point over the years - even with people whose learning most definitely exceeds mine.

The Sources

Let’s first dive into the key verse that serves as the Biblical source for this prohibition:

Deut. 23:4:

לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל ה’ גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי לֹא־יָבֹא לָהֶם בִּקְהַל ה’ עַד־עוֹלָם׃

An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord; even the tenth generation shall not enter the congregation of the Lord, forever.

Reading the above verse in isolation, it really is quite tempting to understand it as obviously stating a prohibition of an Ammonite or Moabite from converting and joining the Jewish nation. But here’s the thing: such a reading suddenly becomes very difficult once you look at the two verses that immediately precede it. Those two verses apply the exact same prohibitory formulation (“lo yavo ... bik’hal Hashem” / “he shall not enter the Congregation of HaShem”) to scenarios that clearly have nothing to do with conversion:  the Petzua Daka/Krus Shofcha (males rendered impotent through physical trauma) in Deut. 23:2 and the mamzer in Deut. 23:3. 

If the exact same legal formulation is used in three separate cases appearing in three consecutive verses, and only the final case touches upon conversion, it becomes very tenuous to assume that the formulation as used in that final case suddenly speaks about a conversion-specific issur (prohibition) that is different from the issur that is conveyed by the same formulation in the first two cases.

Indeed, consistent with the above, Rashi comes and provides the exact same definition for ”לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה” for both Deut. 23:3 (mamzerim) and Deut. 23:4 (Moabite/Ammonite converts): in both cases, Rashi explains that the phrase “he shall not enter the Congregation of HaShem” means “he shall not marry an Israelite”⁴:

Rashi on Deut. 23:3:

⁵לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה'. לֹא יִשָּׂא יִשְׂרְאֵלִית

Rashi on Deut. 23:4:

⁶לא יבא עמוני. לֹא יִשָּׂא יִשְׂרְאֵלִית

If the reader remains unconvinced that Rashi’s intent in his comment on Deut. 23:4 is to rule out the reading of the verse as indicating that an Ammonite or Moabite male is prohibited from converting to Judaism (or that, even if he undergoes conversion, the conversion is not effective), the Gur Aryeh, the supercommentary on Rashi by the Maraha”l, understands this Rashi as precisely making such a case:

Gur Aryeh, Deut. 23:4: 

לא ישא ישראלית. רוצה לומר, שאין פירוש שאל יקבלו אותו להתגייר לגמרי. אף על גב דגבי ממזר פירושו שלא ישא ישראלית, היינו מפני שכבר הוא ישראל, אבל זה שהוא גוי, לא יניחו אותו להיות ישראל, כי לא יקבלו אותו להתגייר. אבל זה לא יתכן, שהרי בתריה כתיב "גם דור עשירי וגו'", ואם לא יתגייר לא שייך כאן "דור עשירי", וכולם דור ראשון, ואין כאן דור עשירי

He shall not marry an Israelitess:  [Rashi] wants to say that the explanation [of the phrase לא יבא עמוני] isn’t “they shouldn’t receive him to be completely converted.” Even though, with respect to a mamzer, its explanation is that “he shall not marry an Israelitess,” that is because [a mamzer] is already an Israelite, but this one [i.e., the male Moabite or Ammonite], since he’s a gentile, do not allow him to be an Israelite, since they should not receive him to be converted⁷. But this [i.e., the understanding that the Maraha”l speaks out in his previous sentence] is not possible, since, behold, after it, it is written, “also the tenth generation, etc.”; and if he wasn’t converted, [the phrase] “the tenth generation” wouldn’t apply, and all of them would be the first generation, and there wouldn’t be a tenth generation!

If there are other classical mefarshim that, in contradistinction to Rashi, understand Deut. 23:4 as forbidding the conversion of a male Moabite/Ammonite, I have not found them. 

So much for mikra and mefarshim. But what does the halachic literature say on this topic? 

As I stated at the beginning of this article, the Shulchan Aruch (and the original mishna) is quite laconic on this point, and simply assumes that the reader understands the nature of the prohibition implied by the phrase “lo yavo bik’hal Hashem.” Fortunately, the Rambam tackles this topic fairly explicitly in his Mishneh Torah, and his explanation of the halacha matches Rashi’s reading of Deut. 23:4 presented above, i.e., male Ammonites/Moabites who undergo conversion are indeed Jewish, and differ from other converts only in that they are forbidden from marrying an Israelite woman: 

Mishneh Torah Issurei Biah, Chapter 12, Halacha 17:

כָּל הָעַכּוּ''ם כֻּלָּם כְּשֶׁיִּתְגַּיְּרוּ וִיקַבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה וְהָעֲבָדִים כְּשֶׁיִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו טו) "הַקָּהָל חֻקָּה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם". וּמֻתָּרִין לְהִכָּנֵס בִּקְהַל ה' מִיָּד. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּשָּׂא הַגֵּר אוֹ הַמְשֻׁחְרָר בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִשָּׂא הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי גִּיֹּרֶת וּמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת. חוּץ מֵאַרְבָּעָה עֲמָמִין בִּלְבַד וְהֵם עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב וּמִצְרַיִם וֶאֱדוֹם שֶׁהָאֻמּוֹת הָאֵלּוּ כְּשֶׁיִּתְגַּיֵּר אֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן בִּיאָה בַּקָּהָל

Any gentile, once they convert and accept upon themselves all the commands (mitzvot) that are in the Torah, and [non-Jewish] slaves once they are freed, behold, they are like Israel in all matters, as it says (Num. 15:15)⁸: “the congregation - one law there shall be for you [...]”. And it is permissible for them to enter the Congregation of HaShem immediately. And that is that the male convert or the male freedslave will marry a daughter of Israel, and the male Israelite a female convert or female freedslave. That is, except for four nations only - and these are Ammon, Moab, Mitzrayim (i.e., Egypt), and Edom; for these nations, when one among them converts, behold he is like Israel in all matters except for the topic of Entering into the Congregation (“bi’ah bakahal).”⁹ [Note: added emphases are my own.]

It’s worth pointing out that the Rambam above is extremely helpful because it explicitly lays out the following: 1) it provides a definition for what “Entering into the Congregation of Hashem” means (see the first sentence in bold type above); and 2) it makes it clear that a non-Jew attaining the status of being considered Jewish under halacha through conversion on the one hand, and  “Entering into the Congregation” on the other, are two separate & non-overlapping matters (see the second sentence in bold type above). 

Finally, in case one still(!!) believes that the understanding I’ve laid out above is a niche reading based on cherry-picked citations, it’s worth pointing out that the Artscroll Chumash, which over the past ~30 years has become the standard English edition of the Torah in the American Orthodox Jewish world¹⁰, speaks out the same understanding in its commentary on Deut. 23:4:

That the Torah banned them from joining the Jewish people in marriage - although they are permitted to convert to Judaism - shows that the lack of gratitude was indicative of an ingrained selfishness and mean-spirited character that has no place in Israel. 

Why worry? 

You may be wondering, “why do you feel so strongly about this point?” Below are some of the reasons why:

Reason #1:  the misunderstanding appears to be common

Though I’ve never done any sort of a systematic poll on it, I’ve gotten the feeling that the misunderstanding of this halacha is pretty widespread, even among the Orthodox community. The topic of Moabite converts comes up at least twice a year in the Jewish calendar - once on Shavuos when Megillat Ruth is read, and another when Parshas Ki Seitzei is read in late summer/early fall - and the impression I’d consistently gotten from the sermons and discussions I’d been exposed to on this point over the years had always been that Ammonite and Moabite males are intrinsically unable to become Jewish. It’s only recently (8 years ago?) that I took the time to look into the details of this halacha and realized that the prohibition touched on marriage rather than on the adoption of Jewish identity per se. As an example, a weekly parsha sheet that one of my children brought home from school for Ki Tetze back when they were in elementary/middle school explicitly taught this issur as a prohibition on converting (I wish I’d stored it away in my files - I didn’t have the foresight to keep a copy of it). I’ve gotten into (polite) altercations with at least four people on this point over the years - two of them had semicha, and one of them was so convinced of the notion that Moabite men definitionally cannot become Jewish that he remained unconvinced even after I pulled out and showed him several of the sources I’ve presented here. For an understanding of the text that goes against authoritative Rabbinic sources like Rashi and the Rambam, it appears to be strangely common even among circles that typically take such sources seriously. 

Reason #2:  the misunderstanding of this halacha leads to misunderstandings in other related sugyas

As an example, take a look at this sugya from TB Brachot 28a:

דִּתְנַן: בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם בָּא יְהוּדָה גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי לִפְנֵיהֶם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. אָמַר לָהֶם: מָה אֲנִי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל 

As it was taught in a Mishnah (M’ Yadayim 4:4): “On that day, Yehudah the Ammonite convert came before them in the house of study. He said to them: what am I regarding entering into the congregation? [...]

I was once learning this sugya b’chavrusa, and my chavrusa was absolutely convinced the Ammonite convert being spoken of here was a **potential** convert, i.e. someone who wanted to convert, rather than an Ammonite who had already undergone conversion and was asking about whether he was permitted to marry a non-mamzer Jewess-by-lineage. I was not able to shake him from his certainty in his [mis]understanding even after sharing with him some of the sources I laid out above.

Another example is from Megillas Rus. A misunderstanding of the nature of this issur would lead one to misunderstand the nature of the objection that Ploni Almoni had against entering into the levirate-like marriage with Ruth as directed by Boaz (M’ Rus, Chap. 4). Presumably, it’s not that Ploni Almoni thought Ruth’s conversion was not valid, i.e., that he would be marrying a non-Jew. Rather, he presumably thought that, while Ruth was undoubtedly a convert, he was nevertheless prohibited from marrying her. 

Reason #3:  Misunderstanding this halacha robs it of the powerful lesson it teaches regarding the motivations of a convert

I think the biggest reason why I feel it’s detrimental that this misunderstanding of this issur appears to be so common is that it robs from this halacha a powerful lesson it conveys, i.e., that converts can desire to become Jewish even if they were to know they will be excluded from the marriage pool of non-mamzer, non-convert Jews, and that being (and becoming) Jewish has the power to be the Best Thing in the World even if one were to be halachically left out of integrating into the core Jewish family through bonds of marriage. 

1.  TB Yevamot 76b, Mishnah Yevamot 8:3

2. Megillat Ruth 4:17

3. The title of the Siman where this Se’if appears in the Sh”A, Even Ha’Ezer 4, is “מי הם האסורים לבא בקהל ואיזהו הנקרא ממזר ובו לז סעיפים” - “Who are those that are prohibited from Entering into the Congregation , and which are those that are called a mamzer; and there are in it 37 se’ifim” (emphases mine; note that the author of the Sh”A does not take the time to speak out the definition of what constitutes “Entering into the Congregation” for the benefit of the reader, neither here nor, as far as I can tell, in the body of the Siman; presumably, he expects the reader to already know it).

4. Interestingly, Rashi does not comment on the same phrase in the verse in which it first comes out, i.e., Deut. 23:2, which deals with the petzua daka/krus shofcha. My own take on why he does not comment there is that, in contradistinction to the following two verses, the reader’s intuitive understanding of the nature of the prohibition implied by the phrase of “lo yavo bik’hal HaShem” as it applies to an impotent Jewish male is likely to be correct.

5. Cited source:  TB Yevamot 78b

6. Cited source:  TB Yevamot 77b

7. To remove a potential ambiguity on what the Mahara”l is trying to accomplish with this sentence, R’ Yehoshua Hartman comments the following here in his edition of the Gur Aryeh: “Until here is the hava amina (i.e., initial assumption that is discarded later) for explaining that the “lo yavo bik’hal HaShem” that is spoken regarding a Moabite and an Ammonite should be expounded [to mean] that he should not be an Israelite at all; and from here on, he [i.e., the Mahara”l] will push aside (i.e., reject) this hava amina.” 

8. To understand the full impact of the citation that the Rambam brings here, it is worthwhile to quote the verse in full: “ הַקָּהָ֕ל חֻקָּ֥ה אַחַ֛ת לָכֶ֖ם וְלַגֵּ֣ר הַגָּ֑ר חֻקַּ֤ת עוֹלָם֙ לְדֹרֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם כָּכֶ֛ם כַּגֵּ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֽה׃” - “The congregation - one law there shall be for you and the stranger/convert who sojourns; an everlasting ordinance for your generations - like you, so too the stranger/convert shall be, before the Lord.” 

9.  Right after this, in Halacha 18, the Rambam states the famous halacha regarding Ammonites and Moabites (Mishneh Torah, Issurei Biah, Chapter 12, Halacha 18): וְכֵיצַד דִּינָן. עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב אִסּוּרָן אִסּוּר עוֹלָם זְכָרִים וְלֹא נְקֵבוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ד) "לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל ה'" וְגוֹ'. הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁהָעַמּוֹנִי הַזָּכָר וְהַמּוֹאָבִי הַזָּכָר הוּא שֶׁאָסוּר לְעוֹלָם לִשָּׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲפִלּוּ בֶּן בְּנוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם. אֲבָל עַמּוֹנִית וּמוֹאָבִית מֻתֶּרֶת מִיָּד כִּשְׁאָר הָאֻמּוֹת (emphasis mine)

10. 1st edition published in 1993