1. The Prohibition on Ammonites and Moabites Joining the Community
Towards the end of this Parsha, the Torah states that people from Ammon and Moav are not allowed to enter into the Jewish community. This law is significant, as it became a major issue in the life of David HaMelech. We know that Rus, David’s ancestor, was from Moav, raising questions about his legitimacy within Kalal Yisrael—the Jewish people.
David HaMelech faced opposition from those who tried to disqualify him based on this lineage. The Gemara notes that Tehillim is full of David’s complaints about people claiming he was not even permitted to be part of Kalal Yisrael, let alone serve as king. The Torah’s language seems absolute: even after many generations, descendants from Ammon or Moav cannot marry into the Jewish community.
2. The Gemara’s Distinction: Only Males Are Excluded
The Gemara in Yevamos discusses this prohibition in detail and clarifies that it applies only to males. The text says “Amoyni” (male) and not “Amoynis” (female), and likewise “Moyavi” but not “Moyavis.” This means that if the father is an Ammonite or Moabite male, he cannot marry a Jewish woman or enter Kalal Yisrael. However, a female descendant is not included in this restriction.
This distinction is crucial in the story of Boaz marrying Rus. Since Rus was a Moabite woman, Boaz’s marriage to her was permitted according to this interpretation: “Amoyni v’loy Amoynis, Moyavi v’loy Moyavis.”
3. The Mistake of the Redeemer in Megillas Rus
Rashi explains in Megillas Rus that this halachic detail was misunderstood by others at the time. The other potential redeemer refused to marry Rus because he believed his children would be disqualified from joining Kalal Yisrael. He did not realize that the prohibition only applied to males—“Amoyni v’loy Amoynis, Moyavi v’loy Moyavis.”
This misunderstanding paved the way for Boaz to marry Rus without concern for her Moabite origin.
4. Tosafos’ Question: Why Not Apply This Logic Elsewhere?
Tosafos in Yevamos raises an interesting question: why don’t we apply the same logic to Mitzrim (Egyptians)? The Torah also prohibits marrying a Mitzri, but we do not find any leniency for female Egyptians as we do with Moabite women.
If we learn “Amoyni v’loy Amoynis,” why don’t we similarly derive “Mitzri v’loy Mitzris”—a male Egyptian but not a female?
5. Tosafos’ Answer: The Extra Letters in the Torah Text
Tosafos answers by analyzing the wording of the Torah itself. In the case of Ammon and Moav, their names are shorter than their masculine forms (“Amoyni”, “Moyavi”) due to an extra yud. If the Torah had meant to include both males and females, it would have simply written “Ammon” and “Moav.”
The fact that it writes “Amoyni” and “Moyavi”, adding extra letters, teaches us that only males are excluded. For Mitzrim, however, “Mitzri” is already shorter than “Mitzrim,” so there is no extra letter indicating a distinction between male and female. Therefore, we do not derive a leniency for female Egyptians.
6. Extending the Question: Edomites and Other Nations
The question could also be asked regarding Edomites (Edoim). The Torah uses both forms: Edoim and Edoimi. Why don’t we say “Edoimi v’loy Edoimis,”—a male Edomite but not a female? Tosafos notes that since both forms appear in the text (Edoimi and Mitzri), perhaps there isn’t an extra letter available for such a distinction.
This analysis highlights how careful attention to language and spelling in the Torah can lead to significant halachic conclusions about who may join Kalal Yisrael.