10. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Second Temple Period, immersion during • circumcision, with immersion • immersion, Second Temple Period • immersion, circumcision and • immersion, in M. Pesahim, Yerushalmi and Bavli • immersion, in M. Pesahim, Yerushalmi and Bavli, as proselyte baptism • immersion, in M. Pesahim, Yerushalmi and Bavli, as statutory immersion required of all about to enter the temple
Found in books: Cohen (2010) 319, 320; Lavee (2017) 57
92a. והמלקט לו עצמות טובל ואוכל בקדשים,גר שנתגייר בע"פ ב"ש אומרים טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב וב"ה אומרים הפורש מן הערלה כפורש מן הקבר:,92a. And one who gathers the bones of his parents, who are buried in a temporary location for their flesh to decay and who is moving them to a permanent burial place must also observe a day of acute mourning by rabbinic decree. These mourners immerse and eat all types of sacrificial food at night. Since in these cases, even during the day, the mourning is by rabbinic decree, the Sages did not extend it into the evening.,With regard to a convert who converted on Passover eve, Beit Shammai say: He immerses and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening. And Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskin by being circumcised is ritually impure, like one who separates from the grave after coming in contact with a corpse. Consequently, he must first observe the seven-day purification process necessary to remove ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Only then, from the eighth day onward, may he partake of sacrificial meat.,What is the reason that an acute mourner may eat the Paschal lamb in the evening? The tanna of the mishna holds that the observance of acute mourning at night after the day of one’s relative’s death is a rabbinic prohibition. And with regard to the Paschal lamb, the Sages waived their prohibition because they did not uphold their statement prohibiting consumption of sacrificial food in a situation in which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment of karet, as is the case with one who neglects to offer the Paschal lamb. On the other hand, with regard to other sacrificial food, they maintained the prohibition, because they upheld their statement in a situation in which neglecting to eat the sacrificial food entails only the neglect of a positive mitzva.,We learned in the mishna: One who hears about the death of his dead relative more than thirty days after the death and one who gathers bones immerse and eat sacrificial food in the evening. The Gemara expresses surprise: Can this apply to one who gathers bones? But by doing so he came in contact with the bones of a corpse, and he needs sprinkling on the third and seventh days in order to become ritually pure. The Gemara answers: Emend the teaching of the mishna and instead say: One for whom they gathered bones, meaning that other people gathered the bones of his parents to transfer them to a new grave but he himself did not touch them, has a rabbinical requirement to observe a day of acute mourning, but he is not ritually impure.,We learned in the mishna: With regard to a convert who converted on Passover eve, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel as to whether he may immerse and eat the Paschal sacrifice in the evening. The Gemara discusses the scope of this dispute: Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥa said that the dispute is about an uncircumcised gentile that was circumcised and converted on Passover eve.,Beit Hillel hold that there is a rabbinic decree due to a concern that perhaps he will become contaminated by a corpse in the following year and he will say: Last year, even though I had come in contact with a corpse previous to Passover, did I not immerse and eat the Paschal lamb without completing the purification process for impurity imparted by a corpse? Now also, I will immerse and eat. And he does not know and understand that last year, before his conversion on Passover eve, he was a gentile and therefore he was not susceptible to ritual impurity, because gentiles do not contract ritual impurity according to Torah law, but now he is a Jew and is susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, the Sages decreed that he should complete the seven-day purification process for impurity imparted by a corpse before he can partake of sacrificial food in order to avoid such a mistake.,And Beit Shammai hold that we do not make a decree due to this concern. But with regard to an uncircumcised Jew who for some reason had not been circumcised until Passover eve, all agree that he may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening. The concern that he will err the following year does not apply, and we do not decree in the case of an uncircumcised Jew who was circumcised on Passover eve, due to concern that the case will be confused with that of an uncircumcised gentile who was circumcised and converted on Passover eve.,That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about the fact that an uncircumcised Jew who was circumcised on Passover eve may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to an uncircumcised gentile who converted on Passover eve. Beit Shammai say that he may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening, and Beit Hillel say that one who separates from the foreskin is ritually impure like one who separates from the grave.,Rava said: With regard to an uncircumcised gentile who converted, sprinkling the purification waters to purify impurity imparted by a corpse, and a circumcision scalpel izmel, the Sages upheld their statement even in a situation in which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment of karet. However, with regard to an acute mourner, a leper, and a beit haperas, an area in which a doubt exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse, they did not uphold their statement in a situation in which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment of karet.,The Gemara details all the cases Rava referred to: The case of an uncircumcised gentile who converted is as we have said previously. Beit Hillel disqualify a convert from offering the Paschal lamb, despite the fact that neglecting to do so renders one liable to receive karet.,The case of sprinkling the purification waters to purify impurity imparted by a corpse is as the Master said in a mishna: Sprinkling is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree, and it does not override Shabbat even on Passover eve, despite the fact that one who requires sprinkling will then be unable to offer the Paschal lamb.,The case of the circumcision scalpel is as it was taught in a baraita: If a circumcision scalpel was not brought to the location of the baby from before Shabbat, just as we may not bring it through a public domain in violation of Torah law, so too we may not bring it through roofs, through courtyards, and through enclosures, even though carrying in this manner is prohibited by rabbinic decree. One who has an uncircumcised member of his household may not bring a Paschal lamb and is liable for karet. The Sages maintained the prohibition of carrying the scalpel in all circumstances, even when doing so would mean the baby would remain uncircumcised on Passover eve, preventing his household from offering a Paschal lamb.,The Gemara lists the cases where the Sages waived their prohibition in the face of a prohibition carrying the punishment of karet: The case of an acute mourner is that which we said in the mishna.,The case of the leper, what is it? It is as it was taught in a baraita: A leper is ritually impure and must undergo an involved, eight-day purification process, which culminates on the eighth day with the bringing of various offerings in the Temple. If his eighth day occurs on Passover eve, such that it would be possible to bring his offerings and be fit to partake of the Paschal lamb that evening, and he saw an occurrence of semen on that day, and one who experiences such a discharge is ritually impure and prohibited from entering the Temple, he may immerse in order to purify himself from the discharge and then bring his offerings and eat the Paschal lamb at night.,The Sages said: Although normally, with regard to ritual impurity from seminal discharge, one who has immersed on that day may not enter the Temple until nightfall, this one may enter. The reason is that it is better for a positive mitzva that has a punishment of karet, i.e., the bringing of the Paschal lamb, to come and override a positive mitzva that does not have a punishment of karet, i.e., the mitzva of “They shall send out from the camp every leper and whoever has had issue, and whoever is unclean by the dead” (Numbers 5:2), which requires the removal from the Temple of one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall.,And furthermore, Rabbi Yoḥa said: By Torah law, there is not even a positive mitzva that restricts one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall from entering the Temple, as it is stated: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judea and Jerusalem, in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard” (II Chronicles 20:5). What is indicated by identifying the courtyards as the new courtyard? It indicates that they innovated something in it, and they said: One who has immersed on that day but will become pure only upon nightfall may not enter the Levite camp, which includes the entire Temple Mount. This suggests that the prohibition is of rabbinic origin and is not a positive mitzva.,The case of a beit haperas, in which the Sages did not uphold their decree, is as it was taught in a mishna: And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree''. None | |
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion) • Babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fifth (protocol of the conversion procedure) • Babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) • Babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), third (acceptance of someone who claims to be a convert) • Non-Jews, immersion and • circumcision, with immersion • immersion, baraita (first) (circumcision and immersion) • immersion, circumcision and • immersion, converted … on my own,” • immersion, emancipates slaves and • immersion, in M. Pesahim, Yerushalmi and Bavli, as proselyte baptism • immersion, in M. Pesahim, Yerushalmi and Bavli, as statutory immersion required of all about to enter the temple • immersion, not essential part of the conversion process
Found in books: Cohen (2010) 320, 341; Lavee (2017) 35, 39, 50, 51, 70, 192, 241, 244, 264, 265, 266, 280, 281, 283
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 71b. מעת לעת,והתני לודאה יום הבראתו כיום הולדו מאי לאו מה יום הולדו לא בעינן מעת לעת אף יום הבראתו לא בעינן מעת לעת,לא עדיף יום הבראתו מיום הולדו דאילו יום הולדו לא בעינן מעת לעת ואילו יום הבראתו בעינן מעת לעת,רב פפא אמר כגון דכאיב ליה עיניה לינוקא ואיתפח ביני וביני,רבא אמר כגון שהיו אביו ואמו חבושין בבית האסורין,רב כהנא בריה דרב נחמיה אמר כגון טומטום שנקרע ונמצא זכר ביני וביני,רב שרביא אמר כגון שהוציא ראשו חוץ לפרוזדור,ומי חיי והתניא כיון שיצא לאויר העולם נפתח הסתום ונסתם הפתוח שאלמלא כן אין יכול לחיות אפילו שעה אחת,הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דזנתיה אישתא אישתא דמאן אילימא אישתא דידיה אי הכי כל שבעה בעי אלא דזנתיה אישתא דאימיה ואיבעית אימא ה"מ היכא דלא מעוי אבל היכא דמעוי מחייא חיי,אמר ר\' יוחנן משום רבי בנאה ערל מקבל הזאה שכן מצינו באבותינו שקבלו הזאה כשהן ערלים שנאמר (יהושע ד, יט) והעם עלו מן הירדן בעשור לחדש הראשון,בעשרה לא מהילי משום חולשא דאורחא הזאה אימת עביד להו לאו כשהן ערלים,ודלמא לא עבוד פסח כלל לא ס"ד דכתיב (יהושע ה, י) ויעשו את הפסח,מתקיף לה מר זוטרא ודלמא פסח הבא בטומאה היה א"ל רב אשי תניא בהדיא מלו וטבלו ועשו פסחיהן בטהרה,אמר רבה בר יצחק אמר רב לא ניתנה פריעת מילה לאברהם אבינו שנאמר (יהושע ה, ב) בעת ההיא אמר ה\' אל יהושע עשה לך חרבות צורים וגו\',ודלמא הנך דלא מהול דכתיב (יהושע ה, ה) כי מולים היו כל העם היוצאים וכל העם הילודים וגו\',א"כ מאי שוב אלא לאו לפריעה ומאי שנית,לאקושי סוף מילה לתחלת מילה מה תחלת מילה מעכבת אף סוף מילה מעכבין בו דתנן אלו הן ציצין המעכבין את המילה בשר החופה את רוב העטרה ואין אוכל בתרומה,אמר רבינא ואיתימא רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב בשר החופה את רוב גובהה של עטרה,ובמדבר מאי טעמא לא מהול איבעית אימא משום חולשא דאורחא '. None | 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. 71b. that during the recovery period one must wait from the time the seven days began to the exact same time seven days later, i.e., seven complete twenty-four-hour periods. Therefore, if the child recovered in the afternoon of a particular day, one is required to wait until that same time of day a week later, and only then is he circumcised.,The Gemara asks: Didn’t the Sage from Lod teach that the day of his healing is like the day of his birth? What, is it not that just as with regard to the day of his birth we need not wait from the time he is born to the same time on the eighth day to circumcise him, so too, with regard to the day of his healing we need not wait from the time he heals to the same time seven days later?,The Gemara refutes this argument: No, the day of his healing is superior to the day of his birth: While from the day of his birth until circumcision we need not wait from the time he is born to the same time on the eighth day to circumcise him, i.e., the child may be circumcised already at the start of the eighth day, from the day of his healing we need to wait seven complete days from the time he heals to the same time seven days later.,The Gemara suggests other circumstances where a male child may be present at the time of the eating of the Paschal lamb but absent at the time of its preparation. Rav Pappa said: This would take place, for example, if the baby’s eye hurt him on the eighth day following his birth, which occurred on the eve of Passover, and he recovered in the meantime between the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and the time of its eating. In the case of a minor ailment such as eye pain, circumcision is not performed as long as the pain persists, but it may be performed as soon as the child has recovered, without first waiting seven days.,Rava said: This would occur, for example, if the infant’s father and mother were incarcerated in a prison at the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb, and they slaughtered their offering by way of an agent, and there was no one available to circumcise the infant, and the parents were released from prison before the time for eating the Paschal lamb arrived.,Rav Kahana, son of Rav Neḥemya, said: This would occur, for example, if the infant was a tumtum, one whose external sexual organs are indeterminate and it is unclear whether the infant is male or female, and in the meantime between the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and the time of its eating, he was torn open, his gender was revealed, and he was found to be a male, so that the obligation to circumcise him went into effect.,Rav Sherevya said: This would occur, for example, if seven days earlier the baby had already extended his head, but not the rest of his body, out of the corridor to his mother’s womb. In such a situation he is considered born, but he is fit for circumcision only after his entire body has emerged. If this occurs between the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and the time of its eating, the child’s father may not eat of the offering until he has circumcised his son.,The Gemara poses a question: But in a case such as this, can the child live for such a long period with only his head outside? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: Once a baby emerges into the air of the world, that which had been closed, the mouth and nostrils, open, and that which had been open, the umbilical cord, from which the child had previously received its sustece, closes, as, if this did not occur it could not live for even an hour, as it has no other way to receive nutrition. If so, this child whose head alone emerged from his mother’s womb would certainly starve, as it cannot take in any sustece.,The Gemara answers: With what case are we dealing here? It is, for example, a case where he was sustained by the heat of a fever and therefore did not need to eat. The Gemara asks: Whose fever? If we say it is his own fever, i.e., the baby himself had a fever, if so, it should be necessary to wait a full seven days after his entire body exits the womb before he can be circumcised, in accordance with the halakha governing an infant who was ill. Rather, it must be that he was sustained by his mother’s fever. And if you wish, say that this principle that a child cannot survive in such conditions applies only when he does not cry, but when he cries he can live, as his crying indicates that he has already started to breathe.,§ Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Bena’a: An uncircumcised man may receive the sprinkling of the water mixed with the ashes of a red heifer in order to purify himself from ritual impurity imparted by a human corpse, as we do not say that this sprinkling is ineffective as long as he is uncircumcised. As we found that our forefathers received the sprinkling when they were uncircumcised, as it is stated: “And the people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month” (Joshua 4:19), and the verses go on to relate that the men were all later circumcised before sacrificing the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth (see Joshua 5:10).,The Gemara clarifies: On the tenth day itself they did not circumcise themselves due to the weariness caused by their journey. When, then, was the sprinkling done to them in order to remove the ritual impurity resulting from contact with a corpse, so that they would be fit to bring the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth? The first sprinkling must have taken place no later than the tenth, as there is a four-day waiting period between the first and second sprinklings. In that case, wasn’t the initial sprinkling performed when they were still uncircumcised? This proves that an one who is uncircumcised may receive the sprinkling of the purification waters.,The Gemara counters: But perhaps they did not sacrifice the Paschal lamb at all. The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as it is written: “And they kept the Passover” (Joshua 5:10), meaning they brought the Paschal lamb.,Mar Zutra strongly objects to this: But perhaps it was a Paschal lamb that comes in a state of impurity? If the majority of the community is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, they may all sacrifice their Paschal lambs even though they are ritually impure, and there is no need for any sprinkling. Rav Ashi said to him: It is taught explicitly in a baraita that they circumcised themselves, immersed in a ritual bath, and performed the ritual of their Paschal lambs in a state of purity.,Rabba bar Yitzḥak said that Rav said: The mitzva of uncovering the corona during circumcision was not given to our Patriarch Abraham. The command given to Avraham included only the mitzva of circumcision itself, i.e., the removal of the foreskin, but not the uncovering of the corona, i.e., the folding back of the thin membrane that lies under the foreskin. As it is stated: “At that time the Lord said to Joshua: Make yourself knives of flint, and circumcise again the children of Israel a second time” (Joshua 5:2). Why was it necessary to circumcise them? Apparently, it is because before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai, some of them had been circumcised in the manner of Abraham, without uncovering the corona, and therefore they needed to be circumcised a second time in accordance with the Torah law that requires uncovering the corona.,The Gemara asks: How may it be inferred that those who were already circumcised required a second circumcision? Perhaps the verse is referring to those who had not been circumcised at all, as it is written: “For all the people who came out were circumcised; but all the people who were born in the wilderness…had not been circumcised” (Joshua 5:5)?,The Gemara responds: If so, that it was only those who had never been circumcised who required circumcision, what is the meaning of “circumcise again,” which indicates that they had to be circumcised a second time? Rather, is it not referring to uncovering the corona? And what is the meaning of “a second time,” stated in the same verse? This phrase appears redundant, as the verse already stated: “Circumcise again.”,The Gemara explains: It comes to equate the end of circumcision, when it is necessary to circumcise a second time in order to correct an improperly performed circumcision, with the beginning of circumcision: Just as an incomplete performance at the beginning of circumcision invalidates the circumcision, so too, incomplete performance at the end of circumcision, i.e., the foreskin not being fully removed, invalidates the circumcision. As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 137a): These are the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. The essential element of circumcision is the removal of the flesh that covers most of the corona, and a child who was not circumcised in this manner is considered uncircumcised, and he does not partake of teruma.,With regard to this issue Ravina said, and some say it was Rav Yirmeya bar Abba who said that Rav said: When the mishna mentioned most of the corona, it meant the flesh that covers most of the height of the corona as well as most of its circumference.,The Gemara returns to the incident involving Joshua. And what is the reason that they did not circumcise themselves in the wilderness after the Torah had already been given? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say it was due to the weariness caused by their journey. Since they were traveling continuously, they were too weak to undergo circumcision. '. None |
|
