The book of Ruth is incredibly subversive, offering many situations that would undercut the force of the laws recorded in the Torah. Ruth is a Moabite, which is a nationality that Israelites are forbidden to marry according to the Torah. Nonetheless, we are introduced to Ruth as the wife of an Israelite man who dies. After his death and the death of his father and brother, Ruth joins her mother-in-law Naomi in returning to Israel. It is in the course of their trip to the land of Israel that Ruth utters the famous formula seen as evidence of her conversion, “Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people are my people, and your God is my God; where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried.” The Midrash in Ruth Rabbah is that this utterance was a response to Naomi’s explanation of the various laws and their consequences, which is an attempt by the Rabbis to mitigate the subversive tendencies of the book. But the attempt to tame this book misses the entire point of the story.

This passage is startling for three reasons. First, it is a case of a conversion that seems to take place by self-declaration alone. There is no immersion, no bet din, no instruction in the mitzvot. It is merely Ruth proclaiming her attachment to Naomi, the nation of Israel, and Hashem. The second surprising element of this passage is that it is a conversation between two independent women. Not only is Ruth declaring herself to be a part of the covenant between Israel and God, Naomi is the sole witness, and that seems to be sufficient for Ruth’s conversion. Thirdly, the conversion is done for an “ulterior motive.” Rather than coming to the Jewish faith for pure motives, Ruth wishes to join the covenant because of her love for Naomi. According to halakha, conversion for the sake of a relationship is considered an invalid reason. Yet, not only does Naomi seem to accept Ruth’s declaration, so does Naomi’s community in Israel.

It seems as though the first recorded convert to the faith of Israel bypassed all the requirements of conversion as they developed in later halakha. According to the Shulchan Aruch, a convert must be instructed in some of the mitzvot, warned of the dangers of being Jewish, reviewed by a bet din (court of three rabbis), circumcised (if male), and immersed in a mikveh. (And during the time of the Temple, bringing a sacrifice was required.) None of these elements are included in Ruth’s conversion. Nor are there any explicit requirements for conversion laid out in the Torah. Why then has modern Jewish practice evolved to be so much more complicated, restrictive, and surrounded by animosity and delegitimization across denominational boundaries?

The primary reason is probably an accident of history. After thousands of years of persecution at the hands of Muslims and Christians, Jewish attitudes toward conversion shifted toward suspicion, fear, and restriction. This was in part a logical reaction to the fact that conversion to Judaism often led to suffering and death for everyone involved in the conversion process. Both Christian and Muslim societies criminalized conversion out of the majority faith, and especially conversion to Judaism. This attitude has continued into the modern period even though Jews now predominantly live in countries that guarantee freedom of religion for all citizens. The negative internal politics of conversion are a result of interdenominational animosity, with some groups seeing alternative interpretations of Judaism as inherently illegitimate. This problem is intractable, and therefore, I will be focusing my examination from a liberal Jewish perspective. Let’s now address the question of why the conversion rituals are required by halakha.

The Rabbis of the Talmudic era debated the requirements for conversion, never seeming to come to concrete conclusions. They identify the elements currently upheld by the Shulchan Aruch, but during their time even these elements remained in question. There seem to be some passages that claim that “anyone who rejects idolatry is considered a Jew” (BT Megillah 13a), although this statement is almost certainly making a play on words rather than making a halakhic proclamation. Anyone who rejects idolatry must be a Yehudi (Jew) because they are a yichudi, one who declares the unity (yichud) of God. However, the Rabbis’ use of Batyah, daughter of Pharaoh, as an example of one who is considered a Jew due to a rejection of idolatry problematizes the wordplay theory.

But also, when discussing the process of conversion, there is debate over whether immersion alone or circumcision alone is sufficient for a valid conversion (BT Yevamot 46a and b). At the top of 46b the statement is found that “with regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, everyone agrees that he is a full-fledged convert.” This is followed by a statement from Rabbi Yohanan that both are required, but as Solomon Freehof notes in Reform Responsa for Our Time, this proves that the standards were still a matter of dispute (74). Freehof goes on to note some unique opinions of Medieval and modern Orthodox responsa which similarly don’t require one or more of the rituals for a valid conversion (discussed below).

We read the book of Ruth on Shavuot because of its connection to the story of receiving the Torah at Sinai. Just as the Israelites accepted the Torah at Sinai, entering the covenant with God, so did Ruth accept the Torah (wittingly or not) when she declared herself to be an Israelite. Indeed, it seems that accepting the Torah’s faith in God alone, along with a commitment to walking in God’s ways, is the sole necessity for a valid conversion if we are right in seeing the reception of the Torah as the “conversion” of the Israelites (Exodus 19:5-8). After all, the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt also accepted the Torah at Sinai and became a part of the Israelite covenant with God. More importantly, when the Israelites were offered the covenant, they famously responded, “We will do, and we will hear.” The order of these statements is often interpreted as a response grounded in faith in God, declaring their acceptance of the covenant even before they had heard all that God would require. Converts should be accepted on the same basis; even without full knowledge of what the Torah requires, they can still enter the covenant on faith and by acclamation while committing themselves to further learning.

Clearly then, conversion to Judaism is not an immutable process. It has evolved and adapted through the ages, in large part because there are no explicit guidelines in the Torah. And there are exceptional situations even among the most traditional authorities. Now we must squarely face another question: Do we believe that the current process is necessary for conversion to Judaism? Looking at the history of conversion, the relatively relaxed standard of the Shulchan Aruch (compared to modern practice), the biblical evidence, and the evidence from the Rabbinic literature, I believe the answer is no.

The system that has developed around conversion is largely based on inferences drawn from the Tanakh that seem to indicate a conversion. Ruth is one such passage. As we’ve seen, Ruth’s statement of conversion was seen as a response to Naomi’s instruction in some of the mitzvot and the consequences for disobedience. Similarly, Naomi’s three attempts to send Ruth back to her family is the basis for the idea that a convert should be rejected three times before they are accepted as a convert. The requirement for circumcision is based on the commandments regarding milah as well as the passage from Exodus 12:48-49, which requires a resident alien to be circumcised before partaking of the Passover sacrifice. The requirement to immerse comes from the fact that God commanded the people to wash their clothing before the revelation at Sinai (Exodus 19:10).

Each of these passages are problematic for establishing a procedure for conversion. While the Midrash certainly interprets Ruth’s declaration as a response to Naomi’s instruction, there is no reason to accept this fanciful reading. Similarly, Naomi’s attempted rejection is not meant to be a standard for all time. The scene is meant to demonstrate Ruth’s overpowering love for her mother-in-law. Similarly, as we’ve seen above, circumcision is not required for a valid conversion even among the Rabbis of the Talmud. Nor does the passage about Passover imply that it is a requirement. Rather, this passage is about who is allowed to partake of the Passover sacrificial meal. While this is an important limitation, it would also apply to born-Jews who remain uncircumcised for health reasons, and exclusion from the sacrifice would not render such a person non-Jewish. In any case, because we no longer offer the Passover sacrifice at the Temple, this standard is a moot point.

What, then, about circumcision as the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham? It is important to note that the covenant between God and Abraham was in place long before Abraham was circumcised (cf. Gen. 12 and 15). Similarly, the Israelites were not circumcised while they wandered in the desert (Joshua 5:2-8). It is therefore possible to be in the covenant with God without circumcision, a point conceded even by Orthodox authorities in a limited set of situations, primarily when circumcision poses a threat to life. Freehof notes a number of traditional responsa that undercut the necessity of milah and mikveh for conversion. Lippman of Mulhausen argued that conversion to Judaism is a matter of the heart rather than ritual, arguing that the true believer is a Jew even if uncircumcised and the unbeliever not a Jew even if circumcised. Elijah Mizrachi of Constantinople argued in the 15^th century that the law of the Torah is that accepting the Torah is sufficient for conversion, even without the ceremonies of milah and mikveh. And Leon of Modena allowed a male conversion without circumcision, declaring immersion to be sufficient (Freehof 75-76).

The requirement to immerse is derived by inference from the requirement to wash clothes before the revelation at Sinai. While this is a logical implication, the reason behind it is due to concepts of ritual purity, which can be seen from the command to remain separate from women in the same passage. Because God’s Glory was descending on the mountain, and they were going to be in close proximity with the Holy, the people needed to be pure. But the laws of purity today are largely defunct. Furthermore, when people take on a commitment to Torah today, they are not in the Presence of God in the same way that the Israelites would have been at Sinai. The requirement for purity, therefore, also seems to be moot.

If we examine the origins of conversion requirements, it becomes clear that they are accumulations of a later time. The implication of the Torah, and even some later authorities, seems to be that faith in God and acceptance of the Torah alone are sufficient for a conversion to the faith of Israel. This standard has been the official standard of the American Reform Movement since the late 19^th century, although in practice the Reform Movement has long reemphasized the ritual components.

That being said, there are good psychological and sociological reasons for imposing some kind of ritual on conversion. Joining a new religion is a large psychological shift, and having a ceremony to officially declare entrance into the covenant can help to provide a sense of finality and legitimacy for the convert. Similarly, group boundaries are not so easily put aside, despite the message of Ruth that boundaries can be overcome by love. Having a process in place provides for the psychological welfare of the convert as well as the community, ensuring that the new member is a legitimate part of the community. I suggest that we make conversions shorter, easier, more accessible, and that any rituals are not onerous. Insofar as circumcision is not required for a valid conversion and it can be a major impediment for the conversion of uncircumcised men, it would be good practice to make it optional for converts.

I believe it is also in line with the liberal Jewish principles of egalitarianism and universalism to reduce the barriers to entry. Because circumcision is necessarily restricted to men, it does not seem to be the most effective “sign of the covenant.” Instead, we should emphasize the other sign of the covenant established in the Torah: Shabbat observance. Not only is Shabbat universally available for all people, it was included in God’s revelation at Sinai in a way that circumcision was not, by being a part of the Ten Commandments. Making an acceptance of Torah, as we liberal Jews understand it, the sole necessary criterion of conversion aligns with our principles and values, has sanction from the tradition, and fulfills the ideals presented to us in the story of Ruth. By making entry into the covenant with God easier, we are also fulfilling our mission as a nation of priests and the charge of Hillel to bring all people close to the Torah (Pirkei Avot 1:12). As we’ve seen, Ruth’s conversion by declaration was accepted by her community. Not only was it accepted, but she became the ancestor of King David and, eventually, of the messiah. When we examine the story of Ruth it becomes clear that the most important element of the story is the amount of love and care that is shown by everyone involved. Ruth and Naomi love one another deeply and tie their fates together. Boaz acts out of loving-kindness toward Ruth and provides for her welfare and makes a strong effort to marry Ruth according to the law, demonstrating his love for her. Once their child is born, Ruth presents the baby to Naomi who becomes his foster mother. The primary message of the book of Ruth is that love can overcome all boundaries and differences. When people act out of love, they can bring about the redemption Israel and ultimately the redemption of the world.