1. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, authority over the procedure shifts Found in books: Lavee (2017) 54| 15.16. "תּוֹרָה אַחַת וּמִשְׁפָּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר אִתְּכֶם׃", | 15.16. "One law and one ordice shall be both for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.", |
|
2. Tosefta, Kiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, authority over the procedure shifts Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53| 4.1. "הנותן רשות לשלשה לקדש לו אשה ר' נתן אומר בית שמאי אומרים יכולין שנים להעשות עדים ואחד שליח ב\"ה אומרים שלשתן שלוחין ואין יכולין להעיד.", 4.1. "ב' אחים שקדשו שתי אחיות זה אינו יודע לאיזו קדש וזה אינו יודע לאיזו קדש שניהם אסורין מן הספק אם היו עסוקין בגדולה לגדול ובקטנה לקטן אומר אני גדולה לא נתקדשה אלא לגדול וקטנה לא נתקדשה אלא לקטן.", | 4.1. "A man who gave permission to 3 people to betroth for him a wife—Rabbi Natan says: Beit Shammai say: Two of them can be witnesses and one of them an agent; but Beit Hillel say: All of them are agents and they are not able to testify.", |
|
3. Tosefta, Qiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, authority over the procedure shifts Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53| 4.1. "הנותן רשות לשלשה לקדש לו אשה ר' נתן אומר בית שמאי אומרים יכולין שנים להעשות עדים ואחד שליח ב\"ה אומרים שלשתן שלוחין ואין יכולין להעיד.", 4.1. "ב' אחים שקדשו שתי אחיות זה אינו יודע לאיזו קדש וזה אינו יודע לאיזו קדש שניהם אסורין מן הספק אם היו עסוקין בגדולה לגדול ובקטנה לקטן אומר אני גדולה לא נתקדשה אלא לגדול וקטנה לא נתקדשה אלא לקטן.", | 4.1. "A man who gave permission to 3 people to betroth for him a wife—Rabbi Natan says: Beit Shammai say: Two of them can be witnesses and one of them an agent; but Beit Hillel say: All of them are agents and they are not able to testify.", |
|
4. Tosefta, Sotah, 7.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, authority over the procedure shifts Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53| 7.5. "ברכת כהנים אלו בשעה שהכהנים אומרים על מעלות האולם הכל כשרין לעלות במעלות האולם בין תמימים בין בעלי מומין בין במשמר שלו בין במשמר שאינו שלו חוץ ממי שיש בו מום בפניו בידיו וברגליו [שלא ישא את כפיו מפני שהעם מסתכלין בו] וכשם שנשיאות כפים במקדש כך נשיאות כפים בגבולין.", | |
|
5. Tosefta, Yevamot, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, authority over the procedure shifts Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53| 8.1. "בן תשע שנים ויום אחד עמוני ומואבי מצרי ואדומי ועובד כוכבים נתין וממזר שבא על בת כהן ועל בת לוי ועל בת ישראל פסלה מן הכהונה ר' יוסי אומר כל שזרעו כשר היא כשרה וכל שזרעו פסול היא פסולה רשב\"ג אומר כל שאתה מותר לישא בתו אתה מותר לישא אלמנתו וכל שאי אתה מותר לישא בתו אי אתה מותר לישא אלמנתו לויה שנשבית בתה כשרה לכהונה לוים המזוהמין באמן לא חששו להם חכמים לויה שנשבית ושנבעלה בעילת זנות נותנין לה את המעשר בת לוי מן הנתינה ומן הממזרת אין נותנין לה את המעשר כהן הדיוט שנשא [את] איילונית הרי זה מאכילה בתרומה כהן גדול לא ישא אנוסתו ומפותתו אבל נושא הוא את הממאנת כה\"ג שמת אחיו חולץ אם יש שם אחין אין חולץ [מפני] מה אמרו כהן גדול שעשה מאמר ביבמתו לא יכנוס שאין מאמר קונה קנין גמור.", | |
|
6. Mishnah, Negaim, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, authority over the procedure shifts Found in books: Lavee (2017) 198| 7.1. "אֵלּוּ בֶהָרוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת. שֶׁהָיוּ בוֹ קֹדֶם לְמַתַּן תּוֹרָה, בְּנָכְרִי וְנִתְגַּיֵּר, בְּקָטָן וְנוֹלַד, בְּקֶמֶט וְנִגְלָה, בָּרֹאשׁ וּבַזָּקָן, בַּשְּׁחִין וּבַמִּכְוָה וְקֶדַח וּבַמּוֹרְדִין. חָזַר הָרֹאשׁ וְהַזָּקָן וְנִקְרְחוּ, הַשְּׁחִין וְהַמִּכְוָה וְהַקֶּדַח וְנַעֲשׂוּ צָרֶבֶת, טְהוֹרִים. הָרֹאשׁ וְהַזָּקָן עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱלוּ שֵׂעָר, הֶעֱלוּ שֵׂעָר וְנִקְרְחוּ, הַשְּׁחִין וְהַמִּכְוָה וְהַקֶּדַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשׂוּ צָרֶבֶת, נַעֲשׂוּ צָרֶבֶת וְחָיוּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב מְטַמֵּא, שֶׁתְּחִלָּתָן וְסוֹפָן טָמֵא. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִים: \n", | 7.1. "The following bright spots are clean:Those that one had before the Torah was given, Those that a non-Jew had when he converted; Or a child when it was born, Or those that were in a crease and were subsequently uncovered. If they were on the head or the beard, on a boil, a burn or a blister that is festering, and subsequently the head or the beard became bald, and the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, they are clean. If they were on the head or the beard before they grew hair, and they then grew hair and subsequently became bald, or if they were on the body before the boil, burn or blister before they were festering and then these formed a scar or were healed: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said that they are unclean since at the beginning and at the end they were unclean, But the sages say: they are clean.", |
|
| 7. Mishnah, Qiddushin, 3.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, authority over the procedure shifts Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53 |
8. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, authority over the procedure shifts Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53| 11a. אף אנו נאמר איילונית דוכרנית דלא ילדה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הגיורת והשבויה והשפחה שנפדו ושנתגיירו ושנשתחררו פחותות מבנות שלש שנים ויום אחד כתובתן מאתים ויש להן טענת בתולין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב הונא גר קטן מטבילין אותו על דעת בית דין,מאי קמ"ל דזכות הוא לו וזכין לאדם שלא בפניו תנינא זכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין לאדם שלא בפניו,מהו דתימא עובד כוכבים בהפקירא ניחא ליה דהא קיימא לן דעבד ודאי בהפקירא ניחא ליה,קמ"ל דהני מילי גדול דטעם טעם דאיסורא אבל קטן זכות הוא לו,לימא מסייע ליה הגיורת והשבויה והשפחה שנפדו ושנתגיירו ושנשתחררו פחותות מבנות שלש שנים ויום אחד מאי לאו דאטבלינהו על דעת בית דין,לא הכא במאי עסקינן בגר שנתגיירו בניו ובנותיו עמו דניחא להו במאי דעביד אבוהון,אמר רב יוסף הגדילו יכולין למחות איתיביה אביי הגיורת והשבויה והשפחה שנפדו ושנתגיירו ושנשתחררו פחותות מבנות שלש שנים ויום אחד כתובתן מאתים ואי ס"ד הגדילו יכולין למחות יהבינן לה כתובה דאזלה ואכלה בגיותה,לכי גדלה לכי גדלה נמי ממחייא ונפקא כיון שהגדילה שעה אחת ולא מיחתה שוב אינה יכולה למחות,מתיב רבא אלו נערות שיש להן קנס הבא על הממזרת ועל הנתינה ועל הכותית ועל הגיורת ועל השבויה ועל השפחה שנפדו ושנתגיירו ושנשתחררו פחותות מבנות שלש שנים ויום אחד יש להן קנס ואי אמרת הגדילו יכולין למחות יהבינן לה קנס דאזלה ואכלה בגיותה,לכי גדלה לכי גדלה נמי ממחייא ונפקא כיון שהגדילה שעה אחת ולא מיחתה שוב אינה יכולה למחות,אביי לא אמר כרבא התם קנסא היינו טעמא שלא יהא חוטא נשכר,רבא לא אמר כאביי כתובה היינו טעמא שלא תהא קלה בעיניו להוציאה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הגדול שבא על הקטנה וקטן שבא על הגדולה ומוכת עץ כתובתן מאתים דברי רבי מאיר וחכ"א מוכת עץ כתובתה מנה,בתולה אלמנה גרושה וחלוצה מן הנישואין כתובתן מנה | 11a. b We too will say: i Ailonit /i , /b a sexually underdeveloped woman, is a term meaning: Like a b ram [ i dukhranit /i ], because /b like a male sheep [ i ayyil /i ] b she does not bear children. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant, who were ransomed /b with regard to the captive, or b who converted /b with regard to the convert, b or who were freed /b with regard to the maidservant, when they were b less than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is two hundred /b dinars, as their presumptive status is that of a virgin. Even if they were subject to intercourse when they were younger than that age, the hymen remains intact. b And they are /b subject to b a claim /b concerning their b virginity. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rav Huna said: /b With regard to b a convert /b who is b a minor, one immerses him /b in a ritual bath b with the consent of the court. /b As a minor lacks the capacity to make halakhic decisions, the court is authorized to make those decisions in his stead., b What is /b Rav Huna b coming to teach us? /b Is he teaching b that it is a privilege for /b the minor to convert, b and one may act in a person’s interests /b even b in his absence? We /b already b learned /b that explicitly in a mishna ( i Eiruvin /i 81b): One b may act in a person’s interests in his absence, but one may not act against a person’s interests in his absence. /b ,Rav Huna’s statement was necessary b lest you say: /b With regard to b a gentile, licentiousness is preferable for him, /b so conversion is contrary to his interests, just b as we maintain that /b with regard to b a slave, licentiousness is certainly preferable. /b Just as a slave has no interest in assuming the restrictions that come with freedom, in that a freed Canaanite slave is a convert to Judaism, a gentile would have the same attitude toward conversion.,Therefore, Rav Huna b teaches us: That applies /b only with regard to b an adult, who has experienced a taste of prohibition. /b Therefore, presumably he prefers to remain a slave and indulge in licentiousness. b However, /b with regard to a b minor, /b who did not yet engage in those activities, b it is a privilege for him /b to convert.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that the mishna b supports /b Rav Huna’s statement: With regard to b a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant, who were ransomed /b with regard to the captive, or b who converted /b with regard to the convert, b or who were freed /b with regard to the maidservant, when they were b less than three years and one day old; what, is it not /b referring to a case where b they immersed /b the minor converts and the maidservants b with the consent of the court? /b Apparently, a conversion of that sort is valid.,The Gemara rejects that proof: b No, with what are we dealing here? /b It is b with a convert whose /b minor b sons and daughters converted with him, as they are content with whatever their father does /b in their regard. However, that does not apply to a child who is converting on his own., b Rav Yosef said: /b In any case where minors convert, when b they reach majority they can protest /b and annul their conversion. b Abaye raised an objection to his /b opinion from the mishna: With regard to b a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant who were ransomed, /b or b who converted, or who were freed /b when they were b less than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is two hundred /b dinars. b And if it enters your mind /b to say that when b they reach majority they can protest /b and annul their conversion, b do we give her /b the payment of the b marriage contract that she /b will b go and consume in her gentile /b state?,The Gemara answers: She receives payment of her marriage contract b once she has reached majority /b and does not protest, but not while still a minor. The Gemara asks: b When she reaches majority too, /b is there not the same concern that b she will protest and abandon /b Judaism? The Gemara answers: b Once she reached majority /b for even b one moment and did not protest, she may no longer protest. /b This mishna poses no difficulty to the opinion of Rav Yosef., b Rava raised an objection /b from a mishna (29a): b These /b are the cases of b young women for whom there is a fine /b paid to their fathers by one who rapes them: b One who engages in intercourse with a i mamzeret /i ; or with a Gibeonite woman [ i netina /i ], /b who are given [ i netunim /i ] to the service of the people and the altar (see Joshua 9:27); b or with a Samaritan woman [ i kutit /i ]. /b In addition, the same applies to one who engages in intercourse b with a female convert, or with a captive woman, or with a maidservant, /b provided b that /b the captives b were ransomed or that /b the converts b converted, or that /b the maidservants b were freed /b when they were b less than three years and one day old, /b as only in that case do they maintain the presumptive status of a virgin. In all of these cases, b there is a fine /b paid b to their /b fathers if they are raped. b And if you say /b that b when they reach majority they can protest /b and annul their conversion, b do we give her /b payment of the b fine that she /b will b go and consume in her gentile /b state?,The Gemara answers: Her father receives payment of the fine b once she has reached majority /b and does not protest, but not while she is still a minor. The Gemara asks: b When she reaches majority too, /b is there not the same concern that b she will protest and abandon /b Judaism? The Gemara answers: b Once she reached majority /b for even b one moment and did not protest, she may no longer protest. /b , b Abaye did not state /b his objection from the same source b as /b did b Rava, /b because b there, /b in the mishna cited by Rava, it is referring to b a fine, /b and in that case b this is the reason: So that the sinner will not profit. /b The Sages did not absolve the rapist from payment of the fine merely due to the concern that the woman he raped may ultimately negate the conversion., b Rava did not state /b his objection from the same source b as /b did b Abaye, as /b with regard to b a marriage contract, this is the reason /b that the Sages instituted it: b So that /b his wife b will not be inconsequential in his eyes, /b enabling him b to /b easily b divorce her. /b As long as this woman does not negate her conversion, she is a Jewish woman and the Sages saw to her interests., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b an adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl /b less than three years old; b or a minor boy /b less than nine years old b who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman; or a /b woman who had her hymen b ruptured by wood /b or any other foreign object, for all these women b their marriage contract is two hundred /b dinars, as their legal status is that of a virgin. This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The marriage contract /b of a woman whose hymen was b ruptured by wood is one hundred dinars, /b as physically, since her hymen is not intact, she is no longer a virgin.,With regard to b a virgin /b who is either a b widow, /b a b divorcée, or a i ḥalutza /i /b who achieved that status b from /b a state of b marriage, /b for all these women b their marriage contract is one hundred dinars, /b |
|
| 9. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, authority over the procedure shifts Found in books: Lavee (2017) 54 |
10. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, authority over the procedure shifts Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53| 39a. שכל העולם כולו נזדעזע בשעה שאמר הקב"ה בסיני (שמות כ, ו) לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לשוא,וכל עבירות שבתורה נאמר בהן ונקה וכאן נאמר לא ינקה וכל עבירות שבתורה נפרעין ממנו וכאן ממנו וממשפחתו שנאמר (קהלת ה, ה) אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך ואין בשרו אלא קרובו שנאמר (ישעיהו נח, ז) ומבשרך לא תתעלם,וכל עבירות שבתורה נפרעין ממנו וכאן ממנו ומכל העולם כולו שנאמר (הושע ד, ב) אלה וכחש,ואימא עד דעביד להו לכולהו לא ס"ד דכתיב (ירמיהו כג, י) מפני אלה אבלה הארץ וכתיב (הושע ד, ג) על כן תאבל הארץ ואומלל כל יושב בה,וכל עבירות שבתורה אם יש לו זכות תולין לו שנים ושלשה דורות וכאן נפרעין ממנו לאלתר שנאמר (זכריה ה, ד) הוצאתיה נאם ה' צבאות ובאה אל בית הגנב ואל בית הנשבע בשמי לשקר ולנה בתוך ביתו וכלתו ואת עציו ואת אבניו,הוצאתיה לאלתר ובאה אל בית הגנב זה הגונב דעת הבריות שאין לו ממון אצל חבירו וטוענו ומשביעו ואל בית הנשבע בשמי לשקר כמשמעו ולנה בתוך ביתו וכלתו ואת עציו ואת אבניו הא למדת דברים שאין אש ומים מכלין אותן שבועת שקר מכלה אותן,אם אמר איני נשבע פוטרין אותו מיד ואם אמר הריני נשבע העומדין שם אומרים זה לזה (במדבר טז, כו) סורו נא מעל אהלי האנשים הרשעים האלה וגו' וכשמשביעין אותו אומרים לו הוי יודע שלא על דעתך אנו משביעין אותך אלא על דעת המקום ועל דעת ב"ד,שכן מצינו במשה רבינו כשהשביע את ישראל אמר להן דעו שלא על דעתכם אני משביע אתכם אלא על דעת המקום ועל דעתי שנאמר (דברים כט, יג) ולא אתכם לבדכם וגו',כי את אשר ישנו פה אין לי אלא אותן העומדין על הר סיני דורות הבאים וגרים העתידין להתגייר מנין ת"ל (דברים כט, יד) ואת אשר איננו,ואין לי אלא מצוה שקיבלו עליהם מהר סיני מצות העתידות להתחדש כגון מקרא מגילה מנין ת"ל (אסתר ט, כז) קימו וקבלו קיימו מה שקבלו כבר,מאי אף היא בלשונה נאמרה,כדתנן אלו נאמרין בכל לשון פרשת סוטה וידוי מעשר קריאת שמע ותפלה וברכת המזון ושבועת העדות ושבועת הפקדון וקאמר נמי שבועת הדיינין אף היא בלשונה נאמרה,אמר מר אומרין לו הוי יודע שכל העולם כולו נזדעזע בשעה שאמר הקב"ה לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לשוא מ"ט אילימא משום דאתיהב בסיני עשר דברות נמי אתיהב,ואלא משום דחמירא ומי חמירא והתנן אלו הן קלות עשה ולא תעשה חוץ מלא תשא חמורות זו כריתות ומיתות ב"ד ולא תשא עמהן,אלא כדקתני טעמא וכל עבירות שבתורה נאמר בהן ונקה וכאן נאמר לא ינקה,וכל עבירות שבתורה לא נאמר בהן לא ינקה והכתיב (שמות לד, ז) ונקה לא ינקה,ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרבי אלעזר דתניא רבי אלעזר אומר אי אפשר לומר ונקה שכבר נאמר לא ינקה א"א לומר לא ינקה שכבר נאמר ונקה הא כיצד מנקה הוא לשבים ואינו מנקה לשאינן שבים,כל עבירות שבתורה נפרעין ממנו וכאן ממנו וממשפחתו וכל עבירות שבתורה ממשפחתו לא,והכתיב (ויקרא כ, ה) ושמתי אני את פני באיש ההוא ובמשפחתו ותניא אמר ר"ש אם הוא חטא משפחתו מה חטאת לומר לך אין לך משפחה שיש בה מוכס שאין כולה מוכסין ושיש בה לסטים שאין כולה לסטים מפני שמחפין עליו,התם בדינא אחרינא הכא בדינא דידיה כדתניא רבי אומר והכרתי אותו מה ת"ל לפי שנאמר ושמתי אני את פני יכול כל המשפחה כולה בהיכרת ת"ל אותו אותו בהיכרת ולא כל המשפחה כולה בהיכרת,וכל עבירות שבתורה נפרעין ממנו וכאן ממנו ומכל העולם כולו (שנאמר אלה וכחש וכתיב על כן תאבל הארץ ואימא עד דעביד להו לכולהו לא ס"ד דכתיב מפני אלה אבלה הארץ),וכל עבירות שבתורה מכל העולם לא והכתיב (ויקרא כו, לז) וכשלו איש באחיו איש בעון אחיו מלמד שכל ישראל ערבים זה בזה | 39a. b that the entire world trembled when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said at /b Mount b Sinai: “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, /b for the Lord will not hold guiltless one who takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7)., b And /b be aware that b with regard to all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah it is stated: “And will…clear the guilty [ i venakkeh /i ]” /b (Exodus 34:7); b whereas here, /b with regard to taking a false oath, b it is stated: “Will not hold guiltless [ i lo yenakkeh /i ].” And /b be aware that with regard to b all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah, punishment is exacted /b only b from /b the transgressor, whereas b here, /b punishment is exacted b from him and from his family, as it is stated: “Do not allow your mouth to bring your flesh into guilt” /b (Ecclesiastes 5:5). The verse indicates that one who sins with his mouth, by taking a false oath, causes his flesh to be punished as well; b and one’s flesh is nothing other than his relative, as it is stated: “And that you not hide yourself from your own flesh” /b (Isaiah 58:7)., b And /b be aware that with regard to b all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah, punishment is exacted /b only b from /b the transgressor; whereas b here, /b punishment is exacted b from him and from the entire world, as it is stated: “Swearing, and lying, /b and murdering, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break all bounds…Therefore, the land mourns, and everyone who dwells therein languishes” (Hosea 4:2–3).,The Gemara suggests: b And /b why not b say /b that punishment is not exacted from the entire world b unless he commits all of /b the sins mentioned in the verse? The Gemara answers: This should b not enter your mind, as it is written: “Because of swearing the land mourns” /b (Jeremiah 23:10), indicating that taking a false oath is sufficient to cause the land to mourn. b And it is /b similarly b written /b in the verse in Hosea: b “Therefore, the land mourns, and everyone who dwells therein languishes.” /b Both verses employ a term of mourning.,The i baraita /i continues with the judges’ forewarning: b And /b be aware that with regard to b all the /b other b transgressions in the Torah, if /b the transgressor b has merit, /b God b suspends his /b punishment for b two or three generations, /b and only if his descendants follow in his ways are they punished. Whereas b here, punishment is exacted from him immediately, as it is stated: /b “This is the curse that goes forth over the face of the whole land… b I cause it to go forth, says the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of he who swears falsely by My name; and it shall abide in the midst of his house and shall consume it, with its timber and its stones” /b (Zechariah 5:3–4).,The i baraita /i analyzes the verse: b “I cause it to go forth” /b means b immediately. “And it shall enter into the house of the thief”; this /b is referring to b one who deceives people, /b e.g., one b who has no money in the possession of another, but claims /b money from b him and administers an oath to him /b in court, thereby causing an oath to be taken in vain. b “And into the house of he who swears falsely by My name” /b is b as it indicates, /b in accordance with its straightforward meaning. From the end of the verse: b “And it shall abide in the midst of his house and shall consume it, with its timber and its stones,” you have therefore learned /b that b a false oath consumes things that /b even b fire and water do not consume, /b such as stones.,The i baraita /i continues: b If /b the defendant b says /b at this point: b I will not take an oath, /b the court b dismisses him immediately, /b and rules him liable to pay. b And if he says: I will take an oath, the /b people b standing there say to each other: “Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, /b and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be swept away in all their sins” (Numbers 16:26). b And when /b the judges b administer the oath to him, they say to him: Be aware that we administer an oath to you not according to your understanding /b of the oath, b but according to the /b objective b understanding of the Omnipresent and according to the understanding of the court, /b i.e., the judges’ intention.,This is b as we /b have b found /b written b with regard to Moses, our teacher. When he administered an oath to the Jewish people /b in the plains of Moab so that they would accept the Torah upon themselves, b he said to them: Know that /b it is b not according to your understanding that I administer an oath to you, but according to the understanding of the Omnipresent and according to my understanding. As it is stated: “Neither with you only /b do I make this covet and this oath” (Deuteronomy 29:13), which is homiletically interpreted to mean: Not only according to your intention.,Having quoted a verse, the i baraita /i tangentially interprets the subsequent verse. From the phrase: b “But with he who stands here /b with us this day” (Deuteronomy 29:14), b I have /b derived b only /b that b those who stood at Mount Sinai /b were included in this covet. b From where /b do I derive that b the subsequent generations, and the converts who will convert in the future, /b were also included? b The verse states: “And also with he who is not here /b with us this day” (Deuteronomy 29:14)., b And I have /b derived b only /b that the b mitzvot that /b the Jewish people b accepted upon themselves at Mount Sinai /b were included in the oath. b From where /b is it derived that b mitzvot that were to be initiated in the future, for example, the reading of the Megilla, /b the Scroll of Esther, on Purim, were also included? b The verse states: /b “The Jews b ordained and took /b upon themselves…that they would keep these two days” (Esther 9:27), which is homiletically interpreted to mean: b They ordained, /b in the generation of Esther, mitzvot b that they had already accepted /b upon themselves by oath in the plains of Moab.,§ The Gemara analyzes the i baraita /i . b What /b is the precise meaning of the statement: An oath imposed by the judges b may also /b be b recited in its language? /b ,The Gemara answers: It is b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Sota /i 32a): b These are recited in any language /b and it is not required that they be recited in Hebrew: b The portion of /b the warning and the oath administered by the priest to b a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [ i sota /i ]; the declaration of tithes, /b which occurs after the third and the sixth year of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, when one declares that he has given his tithes appropriately; b the recitation of i Shema /i ; and /b the i Amida /i b prayer; and Grace after Meals; and the oath of testimony, /b where one takes an oath that he does not have any testimony to provide on a given issue; b and the oath on a deposit, /b where one takes an oath that he does not have possession of another’s deposit. All these may be recited in any language. b And /b the i baraita /i b also states, /b as an addendum to this i halakha /i , that b an oath /b imposed b by the judges may also /b be b recited in its language, /b i.e., in any language.,§ b The Master said /b in the i baraita /i above that the judges b say to him: Be aware that the entire world trembled when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.” What is the reason /b that the entire world trembled? b If we say /b it was b because /b this prohibition b was given at /b Mount b Sinai, /b this is difficult, as when the entire world trembled, the rest of the b Ten Commandments were also given /b at Mount Sinai. This quality is not unique to this specific prohibition., b And /b if it is b rather due to /b the fact b that /b this prohibition is b severe, is it /b more b severe /b than all the other prohibitions? b But didn’t we learn /b in a i baraita /i : b These are minor /b transgressions: Violation of an ordinary b positive /b mitzva b and /b an ordinary b negative /b mitzva, b except for: “You shall not take /b the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.” And these are b major /b transgressions: Those for which one is liable to receive b excision from the World-to-Come [ i karet /i ] or a court /b -imposed b death /b penalty; b and “You shall not take /b the name of the Lord, your God, in vain” is also b among them. /b Evidently, this transgression is no more severe than transgressions that incur i karet /i or the death penalty., b Rather, the reason /b the world trembled particularly when this prohibition was given is b as it is taught /b subsequently in the i baraita /i : b And with regard to all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah it is stated: “And will…clear the guilty,” whereas here, it is stated: “Will not hold guiltless.” /b ,The Gemara asks: b And is it not stated with regard to all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah /b that God b “will not hold guiltless [ i lo yenakkeh /i ]” /b one who transgresses? b But isn’t it written: “And Who will by no means clear the guilty [ i venakkeh lo yenakkeh /i ]” /b (Exodus 34:7)?,The Gemara answers: b That /b verse is b necessary for /b that which is derived through the homiletic interpretation b of Rabbi Elazar, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Elazar says: It is not possible to say: And will clear the guilty [ i venakkeh /i ], /b about all transgressions, b since: Will not clear the guilty [ i lo yenakkeh /i ], is already stated. /b And b it is not possible to say: Will not clear the guilty [ i lo yenakkeh /i ], since: And will clear the guilty [ i venakkeh /i ], is already stated. How /b can b these /b texts be reconciled? The Holy One, Blessed be b He, clears those /b guilty ones b who repent and does not clear those who do not repent. /b ,§ It is stated in the i baraita /i that with regard to b all of the transgressions in the Torah, punishment is exacted /b only b from /b the transgressor, whereas b here, /b punishment is exacted b from him and from his family. /b The Gemara asks: b And /b is punishment b not /b exacted b from /b the transgressor’s b family /b with regard to b all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah? /b , b But isn’t it written /b in the Torah with regard to one who worships Molech: b “Then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, /b and I will cut him off” (Leviticus 20:5)? b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Shimon said: If he sinned, how did his family sin? /b Why are they punished? This serves b to tell you /b that b there is no family that has /b an unauthorized b tax collector among them /b in b which all of /b the family members b are not /b regarded as unauthorized b tax collectors, and /b similarly, there is no family b that has a bandit [ i listim /i ] among them /b in b which all of /b the family members b are not /b regarded as b bandits. /b This is b because they cover for him. /b Evidently, punishment is exacted from the transgressor’s family with regard to transgressions other than taking a false oath.,The Gemara answers: b There, /b with regard to other transgressions, the transgressor’s family is punished b with another punishment, /b less severe than the one the transgressor receives, whereas b here, /b with regard to a false oath, the transgressor’s family is punished b with his punishment. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: Why /b must b the verse state /b with regard to one who worships Molech: b “And I will cut him off”? Since it is stated /b earlier in the verse: b “Then I will set My face /b against that man, and against his family,” one b might /b have thought that b the entire family /b is liable b to /b be punished with b i karet /i . /b Therefore, b the verse states: /b “And I will cut b him /b off,” indicating that only b he /b is liable b to /b be punished with b i karet /i , /b whereas b his entire family is not /b liable b to /b be punished with b i karet /i . /b ,§ The i baraita /i teaches: b And /b with regard to b all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah, punishment is exacted /b only b from him, /b whereas b here, /b punishment is exacted b from him and from the entire world, as it is stated: “Swearing and lying, /b and murdering, and stealing, and committing adultery,” b and it is written: “Therefore, the land mourns.” /b The Gemara suggests: b And /b why not b say /b that punishment is not exacted from the entire world b unless he commits all /b the sins mentioned in the verse? The Gemara answers: This should b not enter your mind, as it is written: “Because of swearing the land mourns” /b (Jeremiah 23:10), indicating that a false oath is sufficient to cause the land to mourn.,The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah, /b is punishment b not /b exacted b from the entire world? But isn’t it written: “And they shall stumble one upon another” /b (Leviticus 26:37)? This verse is homiletically interpreted to mean that they shall stumble spiritually, b one due to the iniquity of another, /b which b teaches that the entire Jewish people are /b considered b guarantors for one another. /b Apparently, any transgression makes the entire world liable to be punished. |
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, authority over the procedure shifts Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53, 54| 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 | 46b. b With regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, everyone, /b i.e., both Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer, b agrees that /b the i halakha /i is derived from the foremothers that immersion alone b is effective. Where they disagree /b is b with regard to one who was circumcised but had not immersed; Rabbi Eliezer derives /b that it is effective b from the forefathers, and Rabbi Yehoshua /b disagrees because he maintains that b in /b the conversion of the b forefathers there was also an immersion. /b ,The Gemara asks: b From where did he /b derive this? b If we say /b that he derived it b from /b the fact b that it is written /b that in preparation for the revelation at Sinai, God commanded Moses: b “Go unto the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments” /b (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 i a fortiori /i inference: b Just as in a case where /b one became impure through contact with some source of impurity, b washing, /b i.e., immersion, of clothes b is not required /b but b immersion /b of one’s body b is required, /b then b in a case where washing /b of clothes b is required, /b as in the preparation for the revelation at Sinai, b isn’t it logical that immersion /b of one’s body b should /b also b be required? /b ,The Gemara rejects the proof: b But perhaps /b when the verse states that they had to wash their clothes, it was b merely for cleanliness /b and not for the sake of ritual purity. If so, no i a fortiori /i inference can be drawn from it to the case of immersion for ritual purity., b Rather, /b Rabbi Yehoshua derived it b from here, /b where the verse states with regard to the formation of the covet at Sinai: b “And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people” /b (Exodus 24:8), b and it is learned /b as a tradition b that there is no /b ritual b sprinkling without immersion. /b Therefore, our forefathers also must have immersed at Sinai, and consequently that is also an essential requirement for all conversions.,The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua, from where do we /b derive that also b in /b the case of our b foremothers /b there was b immersion? /b The Gemara answers: b It is /b based on b logical reasoning, as, if so, /b that they did not immerse, then b with what were they brought under the wings of the Divine Presence? /b Therefore, they also must have immersed., b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b A man is b never /b considered b a convert until he is /b both b circumcised and has immersed. /b The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b this b obvious? /b In all disputes between b an individual /b Sage b and many /b Sages the b i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b the many /b Sages; it is therefore obvious that the i halakha /i is in accordance with the Rabbis.,The Gemara explains: b Who are the Rabbis /b referred to in the i baraita /i ? It is b Rabbi Yosei. /b Since Rabbi Yosei is merely an individual Sage, it was necessarily for Rabbi Yoḥa to state explicitly that the i halakha /i is ruled in accordance with his opinion.,Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to a convert b who came and said: I was circumcised /b for the sake of conversion b but I did not immerse, /b the court b should immerse him, /b as b what /b would be the problem b with that; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. /b 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. b Rabbi Yosei says: /b The court b does not immerse /b 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 i baraita /i states a ramification of their dispute: b Therefore, /b the court b may immerse a convert /b who was already circumcised b on Shabbat; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. /b 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. b And Rabbi Yosei says: /b The court b may not immerse /b 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: b The Master said /b in the i baraita /i : b Therefore, /b the court b may immerse a convert /b who was already circumcised b on Shabbat. /b The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b this an b obvious /b extension of his opinion; b since Rabbi Yehuda said that /b either b one /b of circumcision or immersion b is sufficient, where /b a convert b was circumcised in our presence /b the court may certainly b immerse /b him, even on Shabbat. b What, /b then, is the need for the i baraita /i to include the clause that begins with: b Therefore? /b ,The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification b lest you say /b that b according to Rabbi Yehuda the immersion is /b in fact b the principal /b 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. b And /b therefore performing the b immersion on Shabbat /b would b not /b be permitted, b as it establishes the person /b 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 b teach us that Rabbi Yehuda requires either this or that, /b i.e., either immersion or circumcision alone is sufficient to effect a conversion.,The Gemara analyzes the next statement in the i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yosei says: /b The court b may not immerse /b him. The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b this an b obvious /b extension of his opinion? b As, since Rabbi Yosei requires two /b acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion, b we may /b certainly b not establish /b that b person /b with a new status b on Shabbat /b by completing his conversion by immersing him.,The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification b lest you say /b that b according to Rabbi Yosei circumcision is /b in fact b the principal /b act that effects conversion, b and /b it is only b there, /b in the first clause of the i baraita /i , b where the circumcision was not performed in our presence /b 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; b however, where the circumcision was performed in our presence, /b one might b say /b that the conversion was already effected by the circumcision, and therefore b let us immerse this /b convert b on Shabbat. /b The latter clause is therefore necessary to b teach us that Rabbi Yosei requires two /b acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion., b Rabba said: There was an incident in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rabbi, and /b as b Rav Yosef teaches /b it, b Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi /b was also present, b and /b as b Rav Safra teaches /b it, a third Sage, b Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, /b was also present, in b which a convert came before him who was circumcised but had not immersed. He said to /b the convert: b Remain here /b with us b until tomorrow, and /b then b we will immerse you. /b ,Rabba said: b Learn from /b this incident b three /b principles: b Learn from it /b that b a convert requires /b a court of b three /b people to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra taught that the case involved three Sages. b And learn from it /b that b one is not /b considered to be b a convert until he has been /b both b circumcised and immersed. And learn from it /b that the court b may not immerse a convert at night, /b as they instructed him to remain there until the following day. The Gemara suggests: b And let us say /b that one should b also learn from it /b that b we require /b a court of b experts /b to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra identified that three expert Sages were present. The Gemara rejects this: b Perhaps they /b simply b happened to be /b there, but in fact three laymen would suffice., b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: A convert requires /b a court of b three /b to preside over conversion, because b “judgment,” is written with regard to him, /b 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., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b someone who came and said: I am a convert, /b one b might /b have thought that b we should accept him; /b therefore, b the verse states: /b “And if a convert sojourns b with you /b in your land, you shall not oppress him” (Leviticus 19:33). The emphasis on “with you” suggests that only someone who was already b presumed by you /b to be a valid convert should be accepted as a convert. If b he came and /b brought b witnesses /b to his conversion b with him, from where /b is it derived that he is to be accepted? It is from b the /b beginning of that b verse, /b which b states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land.” /b |
|
| 12. Mishnah, Malachi, 8 Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, authority over the procedure shifts Found in books: Lavee (2017) 198 |
