Ruth is the paradigm for liberal Jewish conversions—rooted in personal choice, moral clarity, and an unshakable commitment to the Jewish people. She joins not through pedigree or paperwork, but through fierce loyalty and love. “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16). We quote her at conversion ceremonies. We read her story on Shavuot. She is our model.
But here’s the uncomfortable question: Would Ruth have been accepted? Not just today, under the Chief Rabbinate. What about 30 years ago? Or 30 years from now? As our communities grow more polarized, as lines harden between halakhic gatekeepers and pluralistic practitioners, Ruth becomes a test case for more than conversion—she becomes a mirror of our values.
The Book of Ruth is deceptively simple. A Moabite woman follows her widowed mother-in-law back to Bethlehem, pledges allegiance to her people and her God, and becomes the great-grandmother of King David. But from a legal perspective, Ruth’s conversion is nebulous. There is no explicit beit din. No ritual immersion. No formal declaration of halakhic obligation. What we see instead is covenantal loyalty—Ruth clings to Naomi and to the fate of a people not her own. Her conversion is not adjudicated; it is embodied.
According to the Talmud (Yevamot 47b), a convert must be informed of some of the mitzvot, accept the yoke of the commandments, undergo circumcision (if male), and immerse in a mikvah before a beit din. Maimonides (Hilchot Issurei Biah 13:14) codifies this process but also urges sensitivity: once a person has converted, we do not probe their motives or cast suspicion on their commitment. The midrash (Ruth Rabbah 2:22) imagines Naomi testing Ruth with the laws of Shabbat, kashrut, and family purity—and Ruth accepting them all with grace. Later rabbinic tradition, in other words, retroactively fits Ruth into a halakhic box.
But the Tanakh itself tells a different story. Ruth’s conversion is not a checklist; it is a choice. A radical, irreversible, personal choice to cast her lot with the Jewish people. In this sense, Ruth has become the spiritual ancestor not only of King David but of every Jew by choice who joins the Jewish people through liberal streams of Judaism.
And yet, if Ruth showed up today at the Israeli Chief Rabbinate asking to convert, she might not even get through the door.
The Rabbanut’s standards for conversion are rigid and often exclusionary. Prospective converts must commit to Orthodox observance, study under approved rabbis, and live in strictly religious communities. Even Orthodox conversions conducted outside its centralized system have sometimes been retroactively annulled. Converts have been rejected for participating in non-Orthodox communities, for maintaining ties with secular family members, or for failing to demonstrate long-term religious commitment.
This raises a disturbing irony: the very woman we lift up as the model of conversion might be disqualified today under the institutional standards of Jewish law.
This tension is particularly acute in the relationship between Israeli and North American Jewry. In North America, liberal denominations recognize conversions conducted with study, mikvah, and sincere commitment to Jewish life, even without Orthodox observance. These conversions are accepted by their communities and celebrated as legitimate entries into the Jewish people. Many liberal rabbis regard Ruth as the ultimate precedent: someone whose soul joined the Jewish covenant not by coercion, but by conscience.
But in Israel, the Rabbanut holds legal power over marriage, divorce, and personal status. Converts who are not recognized by the Rabbanut cannot marry within the country, some cannot be buried in Jewish cemeteries. The Law of Return, which once guaranteed Jewish status to all who converted under any recognized denomination, has also come under scrutiny and legal challenge.
This rift isn’t merely administrative. It is theological and existential. It reflects two different understandings of what it means to be a Jew. One is bound by halakhic lineage and institutional authority. The other is shaped by communal belonging, personal transformation, and the evolving covenant of peoplehood. For many North American Jews, Jewish identity is an open tent, grounded in meaning and values. For the Rabbanut, it is a closed circle guarded by precedent and fear.
This divergence has created a growing friction between Israeli and diaspora Jews. For Israelis, Jewish identity is often bound to state authority and collective history, shaped by national concerns and demographic politics. For diaspora Jews, especially in North America, Judaism has evolved in a pluralistic environment that prizes diversity and choice. While Israeli authorities see conversions through a political and halakhic lens, diaspora communities often see them through a moral and communal one. This dissonance is not just about who is a Jew, but what Judaism is: a legal framework, or a living covenant?
This isn’t a new struggle. In the 1980s, Israel faced its first major “Who is a Jew?” crisis when non-Orthodox conversions were first brought to the fore (more to come). Since then, the question has only grown sharper. Each time it is raised, Ruth stands silently in the background—the Moabite who somehow became the mother of Jewish royalty without ever checking the boxes.
So what kind of community are we building? Are we honoring Ruth’s legacy, or rewriting her story to fit our anxieties? Do we want more people like her—fiercely loyal, deeply committed, and willing to stand with the Jewish people in joy and in sorrow—or only those who can satisfy ever-narrowing definitions of legitimacy?
Ruth is not just a story of inclusion. It is a challenge to every generation: Who gets to say who belongs? And on what grounds?
As we prepare to read her story again on Shavuot, we would do well to remember: we cannot both celebrate Ruth and exclude those who walk her path. If we still revere her as the archetype of Jewish commitment, then we must ask with honesty and courage: Who else are we turning away who might have given us David?
Leave a Reply