3. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • baraita (baraitot), Babylonian • baraita, Babylonian • circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) • conversion court, fourth baraita (conversion court / witnesses) • conversion procedure, fifth baraita (protocol of the conversion procedure in the Bavli) • immersion, baraita (first) (circumcision and immersion) • immersion, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) • sugiah (Sugiot), fourth baraita • sugiah (Sugiot), second baraita
Found in books: Lavee (2017) 37, 39, 63, 70, 192, 237, 241, 244, 257, 258, 264, 265, 266, 278, 281; Nikolsky and Ilan (2014) 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94
46a. עובד כוכבים גופא לא קני ליה מאי דקני ליה הוא דמקני ליה לישראל וכיון דקדם וטבל לשם בן חורין אפקעיה לשעבודיה,כדרבא דאמר רבא הקדש חמץ ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שעבוד,מתיב רב חסדא מעשה בבלוריא הגיורת שקדמו עבדיה וטבלו לפניה ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו קנו עצמן בני חורין לפניה אין לאחריה לא,אמר רבא לפניה בין בסתם בין במפורש לאחריה במפורש אין בסתם לא,אמר רב אויא לא שנו אלא בלוקח מן העובד כוכבים אבל עובד כוכבים גופיה קני,דכתיב (ויקרא כה, מה) וגם מבני התושבים הגרים עמכם מהם תקנו אתם קונים מהם ולא הם קונים מכם ולא הם קונים זה מזה,ולא הם קונים מכם למאי אילימא למעשה ידיו אטו עובד כוכבים לא קני ליה לישראל למעשה ידיו והכתיב (ויקרא כה, מז) או לעקר משפחת גר ואמר מר משפחת גר זה העובד כוכבים אלא לאו לגופיה וקאמר רחמנא אתם קונין מהם אפילו גופיה,פריך רב אחא אימא בכספא ובטבילה קשיא,אמר שמואל וצריך לתקפו במים,כי האי דמנימין עבדיה דרב אשי בעא לאטבולי מסריה ניהלייהו לרבינא ולרב אחא ברי\' דרבא אמר להו חזו דמינייכו קבעית ליה רמו ליה ארויסא בצואריה ארפו ליה וצמצמו ליה,ארפו ליה כי היכי דלא להוי חציצה צמצמו ליה כי היכי דלא לקדים ולימא להו לשם בן חורין אני טובל בהדי דדלי רישיה ממיא אנחו ליה זולטא דטינא ארישיה ואמרו ליה זיל אמטי לבי מרך,א"ל רב פפא לרבא חזי מר הני דבי פפא בר אבא דיהבי זוזי לאינשי לכרגייהו ומשעבדי בהו כי נפקי צריכי גיטא דחירותא או לא,א"ל איכו שכיבי לא אמרי לכו הא מילתא הכי א"ר ששת מוהרקייהו דהני בטפסא דמלכא מנח ומלכא אמר מאן דלא יהיב כרגא משתעבד למאן דיהיב כרגא,ר\' חייא בר אבא איקלע לגבלא חזא בנות ישראל דמעברן מגרים שמלו ולא טבלו וחזא חמרא דישראל דמזגי עובדי כוכבים ושתו ישראל וחזא תורמוסין דשלקי עובדי כוכבים ואכלי ישראל ולא אמר להו ולא מידי,אתא לקמיה דר\' יוחנן א"ל צא והכרז על בניהם שהם ממזרים ועל יינם משום יין נסך ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה,על בניהן שהם ממזרים ר\' יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר ר\' חייא בר אבא אמר ר\' יוחנן לעולם אין גר עד שימול ויטבול וכיון דלא טביל עובד כוכבים הוא ואמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר,ועל יינם משום יין נסך משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב,ועל תורמוסן משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי והאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי\' דרב כל הנאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים והא תורמוס אינו נאכל כמות שהוא חי ויש בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים,ר\' יוחנן כאידך לישנא סבירא ליה דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי\' דרב כל שאין עולה על שולחן מלכים לאכול בו את הפת אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים וטעמא דאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי,ת"ר גר שמל ולא טבל ר"א אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באבותינו שמלו ולא טבלו טבל ולא מל ר\' יהושע אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באמהות שטבלו ולא מלו וחכמים אומרים טבל ולא מל מל ולא טבל אין גר עד שימול ויטבול,ורבי יהושע נמי נילף מאבות ור"א נמי נילף מאמהות וכי תימא אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר,והתניא ר"א אומר מנין לפסח דורות שאין בא אלא מן החולין נאמר פסח במצרים ונאמר פסח בדורות מה פסח האמור במצרים אין בא אלא מן החולין אף פסח האמור לדורות אין בא אלא מן החולין,א"ל ר\' עקיבא וכי דנין אפשר משאי אפשר א"ל אע"פ שאי אפשר ראיה גדולה היא ונלמד הימנה,אלא'46b. בטבל ולא מל כולי עלמא לא פליגי דמהני כי פליגי במל ולא טבל רבי אליעזר יליף מאבות ורבי יהושע באבות נמי טבילה הוה,מנא ליה אילימא מדכתיב (שמות יט, י) לך אל העם וקדשתם היום ומחר וכבסו שמלותם ומה במקום שאין טעון כבוס טעון טבילה מקום שטעון כבוס אינו דין שטעון טבילה,ודלמא נקיות בעלמא,אלא מהכא (שמות כד, ח) ויקח משה את הדם ויזרוק על העם וגמירי דאין הזאה בלא טבילה,ורבי יהושע טבילה באמהות מנלן סברא הוא דאם כן במה נכנסו תחת כנפי השכינה,א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול פשיטא יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים,מאן חכמים רבי יוסי,דתניא הרי שבא ואמר מלתי ולא טבלתי מטבילין אותו ומה בכך דברי ר\' יהודה רבי יוסי אומר אין מטבילין,לפיכך מטבילין גר בשבת דברי ר\' יהודה ור\' יוסי אומר אין מטבילין,אמר מר לפיכך מטבילין גר בשבת פשיטא כיון דא"ר יהודה בחדא סגיא היכא דמל לפנינו מטבילין מאי לפיכך,מהו דתימא לרבי יהודה טבילה עיקר וטבילה בשבת לא דקא מתקן גברא קמ"ל דר\' יהודה או הא או הא בעי,ר\' יוסי אומר אין מטבילין פשיטא דכיון דאמר רבי יוסי תרתי בעינן תקוני גברא בשבת לא מתקנינן,מהו דתימא לר\' יוסי מילה עיקר והתם הוא דלא הואי מילה בפנינו אבל היכא דהויא מילה בפנינו אימא ליטבל זה בשבתא קמ"ל דרבי יוסי תרתי בעי,אמר רבה עובדא הוה בי רבי חייא בר רבי ורב יוסף מתני רבי אושעיא בר רבי ורב ספרא מתני ר\' אושעיא בר\' חייא דאתא לקמיה גר שמל ולא טבל א"ל שהי כאן עד למחר ונטבלינך,ש"מ תלת ש"מ גר צריך שלשה וש"מ אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וש"מ אין מטבילין גר בלילה ונימא ש"מ נמי בעינן מומחין דלמא דאיקלעו,אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן גר צריך ג\' משפט כתיב ביה,ת"ר מי שבא ואמר גר אני יכול נקבלנו ת"ל אתך במוחזק לך בא ועדיו עמו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא יט, לג) וכי יגור אתך גר בארצכם 47a. אין לי אלא בארץ בח"ל מנין תלמוד לומר אתך בכל מקום שאתך אם כן מה ת"ל בארץ בארץ צריך להביא ראיה בח"ל אין צריך להביא ראיה דברי ר\' יהודה וחכמים אומרים בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ צריך להביא ראיה,בא הוא ועדיו עמו קרא למה לי אמר רב ששת דאמרי שמענו שנתגייר בב"ד של פלוני סד"א לא ליהמנייהו קמ"ל,בארץ אין לי אלא בארץ בח"ל מנין ת"ל אתך בכל מקום שאתך והא אפיקתיה חדא מאתך וחדא מעמך,וחכ"א בין בארץ בין בח"ל צריך להביא ראיה ואלא הא כתיב בארץ,ההוא מיבעי ליה דאפילו בארץ מקבלים גרים דסד"א משום טיבותא דארץ ישראל קמגיירי והשתא נמי דליכא טיבותא איכא לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני קמ"ל,א"ר חייא בר אבא אמר ר\' יוחנן הלכה בין בארץ בין בח"ל צריך להביא ראיה פשיטא יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים מהו דתימא מסתבר טעמא דרבי יהודה דקמסייעי ליה קראי קמ"ל,ת"ר (דברים א, טז) ושפטתם צדק בין איש ובין אחיו ובין גרו מכאן א"ר יהודה גר שנתגייר בב"ד הרי זה גר בינו לבין עצמו אינו גר,מעשה באחד שבא לפני רבי יהודה ואמר לו נתגיירתי ביני לבין עצמי א"ל רבי יהודה יש לך עדים אמר ליה לאו יש לך בנים א"ל הן א"ל נאמן אתה לפסול את עצמך ואי אתה נאמן לפסול את בניך,ומי א"ר יהודה אבנים לא מהימן והתניא (דברים כא, יז) יכיר יכירנו לאחרים מכאן א"ר יהודה נאמן אדם לומר זה בני בכור וכשם שנאמן לומר זה בני בכור כך נאמן לומר בני זה בן גרושה הוא או בן חלוצה הוא וחכ"א אינו נאמן,א"ר נחמן בר יצחק ה"ק ליה לדבריך עובד כוכבים אתה ואין עדות לעובד כוכבים רבינא אמר הכי קאמר ליה יש לך בנים הן יש לך בני בנים הן א"ל נאמן אתה לפסול בניך ואי אתה נאמן לפסול בני בניך,תניא נמי הכי ר\' יהודה אומר נאמן אדם לומר על בנו קטן ואין נאמן על בנו גדול ואמר ר\' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לא קטן קטן ממש ולא גדול גדול ממש אלא קטן ויש לו בנים זהו גדול גדול ואין לו בנים זהו קטן,והלכתא כוותיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק והתניא כוותיה דרבינא ההוא לענין יכיר איתמר,תנו רבנן גר שבא להתגייר בזמן הזה אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר אי אתה יודע שישראל בזמן הזה דוויים דחופים סחופים ומטורפין ויסורין באין עליהם אם אומר יודע אני ואיני כדאי מקבלין אותו מיד,ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות ומודיעין אותו עון לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני ומודיעין אותו ענשן של מצות אומרים לו הוי יודע שעד שלא באת למדה זו אכלת חלב אי אתה ענוש כרת חללת שבת אי אתה ענוש סקילה ועכשיו אכלת חלב ענוש כרת חללת שבת ענוש סקילה,וכשם שמודיעין אותו ענשן של מצות כך מודיעין אותו מתן שכרן אומרים לו הוי יודע שהעולם הבא אינו עשוי אלא לצדיקים וישראל בזמן הזה אינם יכולים לקבל 47b. לא רוב טובה ולא רוב פורענות ואין מרבין עליו ואין מדקדקין עליו,קיבל מלין אותו מיד נשתיירו בו ציצין המעכבין את המילה חוזרים ומלין אותו שניה נתרפא מטבילין אותו מיד ושני ת"ח עומדים על גביו ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות טבל ועלה הרי הוא כישראל לכל דבריו,אשה נשים מושיבות אותה במים עד צוארה ושני ת"ח עומדים לה מבחוץ ומודיעין אותה מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות,אחד גר ואחד עבד משוחרר ובמקום שנדה טובלת שם גר ועבד משוחרר טובלין וכל דבר שחוצץ בטבילה חוצץ בגר ובעבד משוחרר ובנדה,אמר מר גר שבא להתגייר אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר ומודיעים אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות מ"ט דאי פריש נפרוש דא"ר חלבו קשים גרים לישראל כספחת דכתיב (ישעיהו יד, א) ונלוה הגר עליהם ונספחו על בית יעקב:,ומודיעים אותו עון לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני: מ"ט א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן בן נח נהרג על פחות משוה פרוטה ולא ניתן להשבון,(ומודיעים אותו עון שכחה ופאה): ואין מרבים עליו ואין מדקדקים עליו: אמר רבי אלעזר מאי קראה דכתיב (רות א, יח) ותרא כי מתאמצת היא ללכת אתה ותחדל לדבר אליה,אמרה לה אסיר לן תחום שבת (רות א, טז) באשר תלכי אלך אסיר לן יחוד (רות א, טז) באשר תליני אלין,מפקדינן שש מאות וי"ג מצות (רות א, טז) עמך עמי אסיר לן עבודת כוכבים (רות א, טז) ואלהיך אלהי ארבע מיתות נמסרו לב"ד (רות א, יז) באשר תמותי אמות ב\' קברים נמסרו לב"ד (רות א, יז) ושם אקבר,מיד ותרא כי מתאמצת היא וגו\':,קיבל מלין אותו מיד: מ"ט שהויי מצוה לא משהינן:,נשתיירו בו ציצין המעכבין המילה וכו\': כדתנן אלו הן ציצין המעכבין המילה בשר החופה את רוב העטרה ואינו אוכל בתרומה וא"ר ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב בשר החופה רוב גובהה של עטרה:,נתרפא מטבילין אותו מיד: נתרפא אין לא נתרפא לא מאי טעמא משום דמיא מרזו מכה:,ושני ת"ח עומדים על גביו: והא א"ר חייא א"ר יוחנן גר צריך שלשה הא א"ר יוחנן לתנא תני שלשה:,טבל ועלה הרי הוא כישראל לכל דבריו: למאי הלכתא דאי הדר ביה ומקדש בת ישראל ישראל מומר קרינא ביה וקידושיו קידושין:,אחד גר ואחד עבד משוחרר: קסלקא דעתך לקבל עליו עול מצות ורמינהו במה דברים אמורים בגר אבל בעבד משוחרר אין צריך לקבל,אמר רב ששת לא קשיא הא ר"ש בן אלעזר הא רבנן,דתניא (דברים כא, יג) ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה וגו\' בד"א שלא קבלה עליה אבל קבלה עליה מטבילה ומותר בה מיד,ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר אע"פ שלא קבלה עליה כופה ומטבילה לשם שפחות וחוזר ומטבילה לשם שחרור ומשחררה '. None | 46a. His previous gentile owner did not have ownership of the slave’s body, since a gentile is unable to have ownership of another’s body; rather, he had rights to only the slave’s labor. And only that which he owned in him was he able to sell to the Jew. Therefore, before immersion, the Jew had rights to only the slave’s labor, but not ownership of his body, and therefore, once the slave preempted his owner and immersed for the sake of conversion to make him a freeman, he abrogates his master’s lien upon him.,The Gemara notes: This explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: Consecration of an item to the Temple, the prohibition of leavened bread taking effect upon a leavened food, and the emancipation of a slave abrogate any lien that exists upon them.,Rav Ḥisda raised an objection from a baraita: There was an incident involving Beloreya the female convert in which her slaves preempted her and immersed before her own immersion for her own conversion. And the details of the incident came before the Sages, and they said: The slaves acquired themselves and became freemen. Rav Ḥisda explains how the baraita poses a challenge: The baraita implies that only because the slaves immersed before her, while she was still a gentile, that yes, they became freemen; however, had they immersed after her, i.e., after she had already converted, then no, they would not have become freemen. The reason for this is presumably that upon her conversion she attains the rights to her slaves’ bodies, and therefore their immersion for the sake of becoming freemen would be ineffective. However, this contradicts the Gemara’s explanation above that when a Jew gains ownership of a slave from a gentile, he has a right to only the slave’s labor.,To resolve the challenge Rava said: When the baraita says that because they immersed before her they acquired themselves, that is whether they immersed without a specified intention or whether they immersed with explicit intention to convert and become freemen. However, had they immersed after her, if they did so with explicit intention to convert, then yes, the immersion would achieve that end, but if they did so without a specified intention, then no, their immersion would, by default, be considered for the sake of slavery and they would not become free.,Rav Avya said: They taught that one acquires only the rights to the slave’s labor only with regard to a Jew who purchased a slave from a gentile slave owner, but if a gentile sold his own body as a slave directly to a Jew, then the Jew acquires his body.,As it is written: “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them you may acquire” (Leviticus 25:45). The verse states only that you, i.e., Jews, can acquire a slave from them, i.e., a gentile slave, but they cannot acquire a slave from you, i.e., a Jewish slave, and they cannot acquire a slave from one another.,When it is derived that: But they cannot acquire slaves from you, to what type of acquisition is it referring? If we say it is for his labor, is that to say that a gentile cannot acquire a Jew for his labor? Isn’t it written: “And if a stranger who is a settler with you becomes rich, and your brother becomes poor beside him, and he sells himself to the stranger who is a settler with you, or to the offshoot of a stranger’s family” (Leviticus 25:47), and the Master said in explanation of the phrase “a stranger’s family” that this is referring to a gentile. If so, the verse explicitly states that a Jew can sell himself as a slave to a gentile. Rather, is it not that the reference is to selling his body, and the Merciful One states that you, i.e., Jews, can acquire a slave from them, which means even his body. Accordingly the verse indicates that a Jew can acquire a gentile slave’s body, but a gentile is unable to acquire ownership of another’s body, even that of another gentile.,Rav Aḥa refutes Rav Avya’s explanation: Say that the verse is referring to acquiring a gentile slave by both purchasing him with money and then by immersing him for the purpose of slavery, and only in that case does it teach that a Jew acquires the gentile slave’s body. However, until he has been immersed the acquisition is not fully complete, and therefore if the slave immerses himself with the intention to become free, then his immersion would achieve that end. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.,Shmuel said: And if one wishes to ensure that one’s slave does not declare the immersion to be for the sake of conversion, then one needs to hold him tightly in the water in a way that demonstrates the owner’s domice over the slave at that time, thereby defining the immersion as one for the sake of slavery.,That is as demonstrated in this incident involving Minyamin, Rav Ashi’s slave: When he wished to immerse him, he passed him to Ravina and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, to perform the immersion on his behalf, and he said to them: Be aware that I will claim compensation for him from you if you do not prevent my slave from immersing for the sake of conversion. They placed a bridle arvisa upon his neck, and at the moment of immersion they loosened it and then immediately tightened it again while he was still immersed.,The Gemara explains their actions: They initially loosened it in order that there should not be any interposition between the slave and the water during the immersion, which would invalidate it. They immediately tightened it again in order that the slave should not preempt them and say to them: I am immersing for the sake of becoming a freeman. When he lifted his head from the water they placed a bucket of clay upon his head and said to him: Go and bring this to the house of your master. They did this in order to demonstrate that the immersion had been successful and that he was still a slave.,Rav Pappa said to Rava: Has the Master seen those of the house of Pappa bar Abba who give money to the tax-collectors on behalf of poor people to pay for their poll tax karga, and as a result they would enslave them. Anyone who did not pay the tax would be taken as a slave for the king. By paying for such people’s taxes, the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba essentially purchased those people, who had become the king’s slaves, for themselves. Rav Pappa asked: When those slaves go free, do they require a bill of emancipation, because the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba actually attained ownership of the slaves’ bodies, or not, as they were owned only for the sake of their labor?,He said to him: Were I dead I could not say this matter to you, so it is good that you have asked me while I am still alive, as I know that this is what Rav Sheshet said with regard to the matter: The writ of slavery moharkayehu of these residents of the kingdom rests in the treasury tafsa of the king, and in fact all the residents of the kingdom are considered to be full slaves of the king, i.e., he owns their bodies, irrespective of whether they pay their taxes. And so when the king says: One who does not give the poll tax is to be enslaved to the one who does give the poll tax on his behalf, the king’s decree is fully effective in making those residents full slaves of those who paid for them. As such, they will require a bill of emancipation when they are freed.,§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba once happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who had become pregt from converts who were circumcised but had still not immersed to complete their conversion process; and he saw wine of Jews that gentiles were pouring, and Jews were drinking it; and he saw lupines turmusin that gentiles were cooking, and Jews were eating them; but he did not say anything to them.,Later, he came before Rabbi Yoḥa and told him what he had witnessed. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: Go and make a public declaration concerning their children that they are mamzerim, and concerning their wine that it is forbidden because it is like wine poured as an idolatrous libation, and concerning their lupines that they are forbidden because they are food cooked by gentiles. One should be stringent and make such a declaration because they are not well-versed in Torah, and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually transgress Torah prohibitions.,The Gemara explains: With regard to the declaration concerning their children that they are mamzerim, Rabbi Yoḥa conforms to his standard line of reasoning in two halakhot: The first is as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: One is never considered to be a convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And since the convert in the case in Gavla had not immersed, he is still considered a gentile. And the second halakha is as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: With regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring of that union is a mamzer.,And the reason to declare concerning their wine that it is forbidden because it is like wine poured as an idolatrous libation is that although their wine was not actually poured as an idolatrous libation, it was prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the maxim that: Go, go, we say to a nazirite, go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard. Although a nazirite is prohibited only from eating produce of the vine, he is warned not even to come into close proximity of a vineyard as a protective measure to ensure that he will not transgress this prohibition. So too, in many cases, the Sages decreed certain items and actions to be prohibited because they understood that if people would partake of them, they would eventually transgress Torah prohibitions.,And the final declaration concerning their lupines that they are forbidden because they are food cooked by gentiles is issued because they are not well versed in Torah. The Gemara expresses astonishment: Does this imply that were they students of the Torah their lupines would be permitted? Didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say in the name of Rav: Any food item that is eaten as it is, raw, is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, even when cooked by them? But a lupine is not eaten as it is, raw, and therefore it is subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.,The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yoḥa holds in this matter in accordance with the opinion of the other version of what Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Any food item that lacks sufficient importance such that it does not appear on the table of kings in order to eat bread with it is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles. Lupines lack importance and are therefore permitted even if cooked by gentiles. And consequently, the only reason to make a declaration prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is because they are not well versed in Torah, and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually become lax in actual Torah prohibitions; by inference, to those well versed in Torah, it is permitted.r§ During their sojourn in Egypt, the children of Israel had the halakhic status of gentiles. At the revelation at Sinai they entered into a national covet with God in which they attained their status of the Jewish people. This transformation was essentially the mass conversion of the people, and so their preparation for the revelation provides a paradigm of the process required for conversion for all generations. The tanna’im disagree as to which aspects of that original conversion are to be derived for all generations.,The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who was circumcised but did not immerse, Rabbi Eliezer says that this is a convert, as so we found with our forefathers following the exodus from Egypt that they were circumcised but were not immersed. With regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, Rabbi Yehoshua says that this is a convert, as so we found with our foremothers that they immersed but were not circumcised. And the Rabbis say: Whether he immersed but was not circumcised or whether he was circumcised but did not immerse, he is not a convert until he is circumcised and he immerses.,The Gemara questions the opinions in the baraita: But let Rabbi Yehoshua also derive what is required for conversion from our forefathers; why didn’t he do so? And let Rabbi Eliezer also derive the halakha from our foremothers; why didn’t he do so? And if you would say that Rabbi Eliezer did not derive the halakha from our foremothers because he holds one cannot derive the possible from the impossible, i.e., one cannot derive that men do not require circumcision from the halakha that women do not require it, because for women it is a physical impossibility, that claim may be refuted.,It would appear that Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that principle, as isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived with regard to the Paschal lamb brought throughout the generations that it may be brought only from non-sacred animals? A Paschal lamb is stated in the Torah in reference to the lamb that the Jewish people brought prior to the exodus from Egypt, and a Paschal lamb is stated in reference to the yearly obligation throughout the generations. The association between them teaches that just as the Paschal lamb stated in reference to Egypt was only brought from non-sacred animals, since prior to the giving of the Torah there was no possibility to consecrate property, so too, with regard to the Paschal lamb stated in reference to the obligation throughout the generations, it may be brought only from non-sacred animals.,Rabbi Akiva said to him: But can one derive the possible, i.e., the halakha for the Paschal lamb throughout the generations, where a possibility exists to bring it from consecrated animals, from the impossible, i.e., from the Paschal lamb in Egypt, where it was not a possibility? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Although it was impossible to bring the Paschal lamb in Egypt from consecrated animals, nevertheless, it is still a great proof, and we may learn from it. It is apparent, then, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one can derive the possible from the impossible. Therefore the original question stands: Why didn’t Rabbi Eliezer derive from the foremothers that circumcision is not essential for conversion?,The Gemara concedes: Rather, the baraita must be reinterpreted as follows:'46b. With regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, everyone, i.e., both Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer, agrees that the halakha is derived from the foremothers that immersion alone is effective. Where they disagree is with regard to one who was circumcised but had not immersed; Rabbi Eliezer derives that it is effective from the forefathers, and Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees because he maintains that in the conversion of the forefathers there was also an immersion.,The Gemara asks: From where did he derive this? If we say that he derived it from the fact that it is written that in preparation for the revelation at Sinai, God commanded Moses: “Go unto the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments” (Exodus 19:10), as Rabbi Yehoshua understands that the washing mentioned in this verse is the ritual immersion of clothes, this leads to the following a fortiori inference: Just as in a case where one became impure through contact with some source of impurity, washing, i.e., immersion, of clothes is not required but immersion of one’s body is required, then in a case where washing of clothes is required, as in the preparation for the revelation at Sinai, isn’t it logical that immersion of one’s body should also be required?,The Gemara rejects the proof: But perhaps when the verse states that they had to wash their clothes, it was merely for cleanliness and not for the sake of ritual purity. If so, no a fortiori inference can be drawn from it to the case of immersion for ritual purity.,Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua derived it from here, where the verse states with regard to the formation of the covet at Sinai: “And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people” (Exodus 24:8), and it is learned as a tradition that there is no ritual sprinkling without immersion. Therefore, our forefathers also must have immersed at Sinai, and consequently that is also an essential requirement for all conversions.,The Gemara asks: And with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, from where do we derive that also in the case of our foremothers there was immersion? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning, as, if so, that they did not immerse, then with what were they brought under the wings of the Divine Presence? Therefore, they also must have immersed.,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: A man is never considered a convert until he is both circumcised and has immersed. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? In all disputes between an individual Sage and many Sages the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many Sages; it is therefore obvious that the halakha is in accordance with the Rabbis.,The Gemara explains: Who are the Rabbis referred to in the baraita? It is Rabbi Yosei. Since Rabbi Yosei is merely an individual Sage, it was necessarily for Rabbi Yoḥa to state explicitly that the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion.,Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who came and said: I was circumcised for the sake of conversion but I did not immerse, the court should immerse him, as what would be the problem with that; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Since in any case the court immerses him, Rabbi Yehuda does not require proof of the convert’s claim that he was circumcised for the sake of conversion because he holds that it is sufficient to be either circumcised or immersed for the sake of conversion. Rabbi Yosei says: The court does not immerse him. He holds that both circumcision and immersion must be performed specifically for the sake of conversion and are indispensable parts of the conversion process. Therefore, since it is impossible to verify the convert’s claim with regard to his circumcision, there is no benefit to having him immerse.,The baraita states a ramification of their dispute: Therefore, the court may immerse a convert who was already circumcised on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Since he holds that circumcision alone effected conversion, the immersion will not effect any further change in his status, and so it is permitted on Shabbat. And Rabbi Yosei says: The court may not immerse him. Since he holds that both circumcision and immersion are necessary to effect a conversion, the immersion will effect a change in his status by making him Jewish. Therefore it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat by rabbinic decree, because it appears similar to preparing a vessel for use.,The Gemara analyzes the latter clause: The Master said in the baraita: Therefore, the court may immerse a convert who was already circumcised on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this an obvious extension of his opinion; since Rabbi Yehuda said that either one of circumcision or immersion is sufficient, where a convert was circumcised in our presence the court may certainly immerse him, even on Shabbat. What, then, is the need for the baraita to include the clause that begins with: Therefore?,The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification lest you say that according to Rabbi Yehuda the immersion is in fact the principal act that effects conversion, and when he said in the first clause that a convert who claims to have been circumcised should be immersed since there is no problem with that, his reasoning was that he holds it is only immersion that effects the conversion. And therefore performing the immersion on Shabbat would not be permitted, as it establishes the person with a new status and so would be prohibited by a rabbinic decree because it appears similar to preparing a vessel for use. The latter clause is therefore necessary to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda requires either this or that, i.e., either immersion or circumcision alone is sufficient to effect a conversion.,The Gemara analyzes the next statement in the baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: The court may not immerse him. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this an obvious extension of his opinion? As, since Rabbi Yosei requires two acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion, we may certainly not establish that person with a new status on Shabbat by completing his conversion by immersing him.,The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification lest you say that according to Rabbi Yosei circumcision is in fact the principal act that effects conversion, and it is only there, in the first clause of the baraita, where the circumcision was not performed in our presence and so there is no way to verify whether it was done for the sake of conversion, that Rabbi Yosei states that the court should not proceed to immerse him; however, where the circumcision was performed in our presence, one might say that the conversion was already effected by the circumcision, and therefore let us immerse this convert on Shabbat. The latter clause is therefore necessary to teach us that Rabbi Yosei requires two acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion.,Rabba said: There was an incident in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rabbi, and as Rav Yosef teaches it, Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi was also present, and as Rav Safra teaches it, a third Sage, Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, was also present, in which a convert came before him who was circumcised but had not immersed. He said to the convert: Remain here with us until tomorrow, and then we will immerse you.,Rabba said: Learn from this incident three principles: Learn from it that a convert requires a court of three people to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra taught that the case involved three Sages. And learn from it that one is not considered to be a convert until he has been both circumcised and immersed. And learn from it that the court may not immerse a convert at night, as they instructed him to remain there until the following day. The Gemara suggests: And let us say that one should also learn from it that we require a court of experts to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra identified that three expert Sages were present. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps they simply happened to be there, but in fact three laymen would suffice.,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: A convert requires a court of three to preside over conversion, because “judgment,” is written with regard to him, as the verse states: “And one judgment shall be both for you and for the convert that sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:16), and legal judgments require a court of three judges.,The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to someone who came and said: I am a convert, one might have thought that we should accept him; therefore, the verse states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land, you shall not oppress him” (Leviticus 19:33). The emphasis on “with you” suggests that only someone who was already presumed by you to be a valid convert should be accepted as a convert. If he came and brought witnesses to his conversion with him, from where is it derived that he is to be accepted? It is from the beginning of that verse, which states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land.” 47a. I have derived only that a convert is accepted in Eretz Yisrael; from where do I derive that also outside of Eretz Yisrael he is to be accepted? The verse states “with you,” which indicates that in any place that he is with you, you should accept him. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: In the land? This indicates that in Eretz Yisrael he needs to bring evidence that he is a convert, but outside of Eretz Yisrael he does not need to bring evidence that he is a convert; rather, his claim is accepted. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Whether he is in Eretz Yisrael or whether he is outside of Eretz Yisrael, he needs to bring evidence.,The Gemara analyzes the baraita: In the case when he came and brought witnesses to his conversion with him, why do I need a verse to teach that he is accepted? In all cases, the testimony of witnesses is fully relied upon. Rav Sheshet said: The case is where they say: We heard that he converted in the court of so-and-so, but they did not witness the actual conversion. And it is necessary to teach this because it could enter your mind to say that they should not be relied upon; therefore, the verse teaches us that they are relied upon.,As cited above, the latter clause of the baraita states: “With you in your land” (Leviticus 19:33). I have derived only that a convert is accepted in Eretz Yisrael; from where do I derive that also outside of Eretz Yisrael he is to be accepted? The verse states: “With you,” which indicates that in any place that he is with you, you should accept him. The Gemara asks: But didn’t you already expound that phrase in the first clause of the baraita to teach that one doesn’t accept the claims of an individual that he is a valid convert? The Gemara explains: One of these halakhot is derived from the phrase “with you” in the verse cited, and the other one is derived from the phrase “with you” in a subsequent verse (Leviticus 25:35).,The baraita states: And the Rabbis say: Whether he is in Eretz Yisrael or whether he is outside of Eretz Yisrael, he needs to bring evidence. The Gemara asks: But isn’t “in your land” written in the verse? How can the Rabbis deny any distinction between the halakha inside and outside of Eretz Yisrael?,The Gemara explains: That phrase is necessary to teach that even in Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish people should accept converts, as it could enter your mind to say that it is only for the sake of benefiting from the goodness of Eretz Yisrael, and not for the sake of Heaven, that they are converting, and therefore they should not be accepted. And it could also enter your mind to say that even nowadays, when God’s blessing has ceased and there is no longer the original goodness from which to benefit, one should still suspect their purity of motives because there are the gleanings, the forgotten sheaves, and the corners of fields, and the poor man’s tithe from which they would benefit by converting. Therefore, the verse teaches us that they are accepted even in Eretz Yisrael.,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: The halakha is that whether a convert is in Eretz Yisrael or whether he is outside of Eretz Yisrael, he needs to bring evidence. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious; in all disputes between an individual Sage and many Sages the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many Sages. The Gemara explains: It is necessary to state this lest you say that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is more logical, being that the verse supports him when it states: “In your land.” Therefore, it is necessary for Rabbi Yoḥa to teach us that the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.,The Sages taught: The verse states that Moses charged the judges of a court: “And judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the convert with him” (Deuteronomy 1:16). From here, based on the mention of a convert in the context of judgment in a court, Rabbi Yehuda said: A potential convert who converts in a court is a valid convert. However, if he converts in private, he is not a convert.,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving one who was presumed to be Jewish who came before Rabbi Yehuda and said to him: I converted in private, and therefore I am not actually Jewish. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Do you have witnesses to support your claim? He said to him: No. Rabbi Yehuda asked: Do you have children? He said to him: Yes. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: You are deemed credible in order to render yourself unfit to marry a Jewish woman by claiming that you are a gentile, but you are not deemed credible in order to render your children unfit.,The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yehuda actually say that with regard to his children he is not deemed credible? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “He shall acknowledge yakir the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has” (Deuteronomy 21:17). The phrase “he shall acknowledge” is apparently superfluous. It is therefore expounded to teach that the father is deemed credible so that he can identify him yakirenu to others. From here Rabbi Yehuda said: A man is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, and just as he is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, so too, a priest is deemed credible to say: This son of mine is a son of a divorced woman and myself, or to say: He is a son of a ḥalutza and myself, and therefore he is disqualified due to flawed lineage ḥalal. And the Rabbis say: He is not deemed credible. If Rabbi Yehuda holds that a father is deemed credible to render his children unfit, why did he rule otherwise in the case of the convert?,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this is what Rabbi Yehuda said to him: According to your statement you are a gentile, and there is no testimony for a gentile, as a gentile is a disqualified witness. Consequently, you cannot testify about the status of your children and render them unfit. Ravina said that this is what Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Do you have children? He said: Yes. He said to him: Do you have grandchildren? He said: Yes. He said to him: You are deemed credible in order to render your children unfit, based on the phrase “he shall acknowledge,” but you are not deemed credible in order to render your grandchildren unfit, as the verse affords a father credibility only with respect to his children.,This opinion of Ravina is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A man is deemed credible to say about his minor son that he is unfit, but he is not deemed credible to say about his adult son that he is unfit. And in explanation of the baraita, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: The reference to a minor son does not mean one who is literally a minor, who has not yet reached majority, and the reference to an adult son does not mean one who is literally an adult, who has reached majority; rather, a minor who has children, this is what the baraita is referring to as an adult, and an adult who does not have children, this is what the baraita is referring to as a minor.,The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Ravina? If there is a baraita that supports his opinion, the halakha should be in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara explains: That baraita was stated concerning the matter of “he shall acknowledge,” that a father is deemed credible to render his son unfit; however, if one claims he is a gentile, he is not deemed credible to say the same about his son.,§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a potential convert who comes to a court in order to convert, at the present time, when the Jews are in exile, the judges of the court say to him: What did you see that motivated you to come to convert? Don’t you know that the Jewish people at the present time are anguished, suppressed, despised, and harassed, and hardships are frequently visited upon them? If he says: I know, and although I am unworthy of joining the Jewish people and sharing in their sorrow, I nevertheless desire to do so, then the court accepts him immediately to begin the conversion process.,And the judges of the court inform him of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot, and they inform him of the sin of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field, and about the poor man’s tithe. And they inform him of the punishment for transgressing the mitzvot, as follows: They say to him: Be aware that before you came to this status and converted, had you eaten forbidden fat, you would not be punished by karet, and had you profaned Shabbat, you would not be punished by stoning, since these prohibitions do not apply to gentiles. But now, once converted, if you have eaten forbidden fat you are punished by karet, and if you have profaned Shabbat, you are punished by stoning.,And just as they inform him about the punishment for transgressing the mitzvot, so too, they inform him about the reward granted for fulfilling them. They say to him: Be aware that the World-to-Come is made only for the righteous, and if you observe the mitzvot you will merit it, and be aware that the Jewish people, at the present time, are unable to receive their full reward in this world; 47b. they are not able to receive either an abundance of good nor an abundance of calamities, since the primary place for reward and punishment is in the World-to-Come. And they do not overwhelm him with threats, and they are not exacting with him about the details of the mitzvot.,If he accepts upon himself all of these ramifications, then they circumcise him immediately. If there still remain on him shreds of flesh from the foreskin that invalidate the circumcision, they circumcise him again a second time to remove them. When he is healed from the circumcision, they immerse him immediately, and two Torah scholars stand over him at the time of his immersion and inform him of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot. Once he has immersed and emerged, he is like a born Jew in every sense.,For the immersion of a woman: Women appointed by the court seat her in the water of the ritual bath up to her neck, and two Torah scholars stand outside the bath house so as not to compromise her modesty, and from there they inform her of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot.,The procedure applies for both a convert and an emancipated slave who, upon immersion at the time of his emancipation, becomes a Jew in every sense. And in the same place that a menstruating woman immerses, i.e., in a ritual bath of forty se’a of water, there a convert and an emancipated slave also immerse. And anything that interposes between one’s body and the water of the ritual bath with regard to immersion of a ritually impure person, in a manner that would invalidate the immersion, also interposes and invalidates the immersion for a convert, and for an emancipated slave, and for a menstruating woman.,The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said in the baraita: With regard to a potential convert who comes to a court in order to convert, the judges of the court say to him: What did you see that motivated you to come to convert? And they inform him of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot. The Gemara asks: What is the reason to say this to him? It is so that if he is going to withdraw from the conversion process, let him withdraw already at this stage. He should not be convinced to continue, as Rabbi Ḥelbo said: Converts are as harmful to the Jewish people as a leprous scab sappaḥat on the skin, as it is written: “And the convert shall join himself with them, and they shall cleave venispeḥu to the house of Jacob” (Isaiah 14:1). This alludes to the fact that the cleaving of the convert to the Jewish people is like a scab.,The baraita continues: And they inform him of the sin of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field, and about the poor man’s tithe. The Gemara asks: What is the reason to specifically mention these mitzvot? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Because a gentile is executed even on account of stealing less than the value of a peruta, since gentiles are particular about even such a small loss, and an item that a gentile steals is not subject to being returned, i.e., he is not obligated to return it to its owner. Since gentiles are unwilling to separate even from items of little value, a potential convert must be made aware that he if converts, he will be required to relinquish some of his property to others.,The baraita continues: And they inform him of the sin of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field. And they do not overwhelm him with threats, and they are not exacting with him about the details of the mitzvot, i.e., the court should not overly dissuade the convert from converting. Rabbi Elazar said: What is the verse from which this ruling is derived? As it is written: “And when she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, she left off speaking with her” (Ruth 1:18). When Naomi set out to return to Eretz Yisrael, Ruth insisted on joining her. The Gemara understands this to mean that Ruth wished to convert. Naomi attempted to dissuade her, but Ruth persisted. The verse states that once Naomi saw Ruth’s resolve to convert, she desisted from her attempts to dissuade her. The Gemara infers from here that the same approach should be taken by a court in all cases of conversion.,The Gemara reconstructs the original dialogue in which Naomi attempted to dissuade Ruth from converting: Naomi said to her: On Shabbat, it is prohibited for us to go beyond the Shabbat limit. Ruth responded: “Where you go, I shall go” (Ruth 1:16), and no further. Naomi said to her: It is forbidden for us to be alone together with a man with whom it is forbidden to engage in relations. Ruth responded: “Where you lodge, I shall lodge” (Ruth 1:16), and in the same manner.,Naomi said to her: We are commanded to observe six hundred and thirteen mitzvot. Ruth responded: “Your people are my people” (Ruth 1:16). Naomi said to her: Idolatrous worship is forbidden to us. Ruth responded: “Your God is my God” (Ruth 1:16). Naomi said to her: Four types of capital punishment were handed over to a court with which to punish those who transgress the mitzvot. Ruth responded: “Where you die, I shall die” (Ruth 1:17). Naomi said to her: Two burial grounds were handed over to the court, one for those executed for more severe crimes and another for those executed for less severe crimes. Ruth responded: “And there I shall be buried” (Ruth 1:17).,Immediately following this dialogue, the verse states: “And when she saw that she was steadfastly minded she left off speaking with her” (Ruth 1:18). Once Naomi saw Ruth’s resolve to convert, she desisted from her attempts to dissuade her.,The baraita continues: If he accepts upon himself all of these ramifications, then they circumcise him immediately. The Gemara asks: What is the reason to act immediately? It is that we do not delay the performance of a mitzva.,The baraita continues: If there still remain on him shreds of flesh from the foreskin that invalidate the circumcision, he is circumcised a second time to remove them. The Gemara explains: This is as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 137a): These are the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut: Any fragments of the flesh that cover the greater part of the corona. If such shreds remain, the child is considered uncircumcised, and he may not partake of teruma. And in explanation of this mishna, Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: This also includes the flesh that covers the greater part of the height of the corona.,The baraita continues: When he is healed from the circumcision, they immerse him immediately. The Gemara infers from the precise formulation of the baraita that when he has healed, then yes, he is immersed, but as long as he has not healed, then no, he is not. What is the reason for this? It is because water agitates a wound.,The baraita continues: And two Torah scholars stand over him at the time of his immersion. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya say that Rabbi Yoḥa said that a convert requires a court of three to be present at his conversion? The Gemara answers: In fact, Rabbi Yoḥa said to the tanna reciting the mishna: Do not teach that there are two Torah scholars; rather, teach that there are three.,The baraita continues: Once he has immersed and emerged he is a Jew in every sense. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this said? It is that if he reverts back to behaving as a gentile, he nevertheless remains Jewish, and so if he betroths a Jewish woman, although he is considered to be an apostate Jew, his betrothal is a valid betrothal.,The baraita continues: This applies both for a convert and for an emancipated slave. The Gemara considers the meaning of this clause: If it enters your mind to interpret the baraita to mean that a convert and an emancipated slave are the same with regard to accepting upon oneself the yoke of mitzvot, then one could raise a contradiction from that which is taught in another baraita: In what case is this statement that there is a need to accept the yoke of mitzvot said? It is with respect to a convert; however, an emancipated slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot when he immerses for the sake of emancipation. Rather, the immersion alone is sufficient to emancipate him and thereby render him a Jew.,Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult, as this baraita that states that an emancipated slave is not required to accept the yoke of mitzvot is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, whereas that baraita that implies he is required to do so is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the first tanna of the following baraita.,As it is taught in a baraita: The Torah permits a Jewish soldier to take a beautiful female prisoner of war out of her captivity in order to marry her. Before he may do so, she must first undergo the process that the Torah describes: “And she shall shave her head, and do her nails; and she shall remove the raiment of her captivity from upon her, and she shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a month of days” (Deuteronomy 21:12–13). She may then be immersed for the sake of conversion, even though she does not accept upon herself the yoke of mitzvot. At that point it is permitted to marry her. The baraita asks: Under what circumstance are these matters stated? It is when she did not accept upon herself the yoke of mitzvot; however, if she willingly accepted upon herself the yoke of mitzvot, he may immerse her for the sake of conversion, and he is permitted to marry her immediately without the need for her to undergo the process described in the Torah.,Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if she did not accept upon herself the yoke of mitzvot, the need for the process can still be circumvented if he forces her and immerses her for the sake of slavery, and then he again immerses her for the sake of emancipation and thereby emancipates her, rendering her a Jewess. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that the immersion of a slave for the sake of emancipation is effective even if the slave does not accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot. '. None |
|
