Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 22, 2022 | 讻状讗 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 46

This is the daf for Friday, the 7th day of Pesach. For Thursday’s daf, click here.

Rav said that one who purchases a Canaanite slave from a gentile does not yet have full rights to the slave and therefore if the slave goes to a mikveh for the sake of converting, he is considered a Jew and is freed from slavery. Why? A contradiction is brought, and is resolved. Rav Avia limits this to exclude a case where one purchases the slave directly from the slave himself, but his limitation is questioned. A Canaanite slave needs to go in a mikveh and is circumcised as he becomes part of the household of the Jewish owner. In order to prevent the slave from releasing himself during the process of going to the mikveh, Shmuel suggests doing that when putting him in the mikveh, one needs to make sure to make it clear that there is an owner/slave relationship. When Rabbi Chiya bar Abba came to a particular city, he saw a number of things that people were not doing properly. They had Jewish women impregnated by men who had become circumcised to convert but had not yet gone to the mikveh, Jews were drinking wine poured by gentiles and eating lupines cooked by gentiles. After consulting with Rabbi Yochanan, he reprimanded the people for all these actions. What was problematic about each of them? There is a three-way debate regarding partial acts of conversion 鈥 only circumcision, only mikveh 鈥 is one considered converted or not? What are the reasons for each opinion? By which opinion do we hold?

讙讜讬 讙讜驻讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讚诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讬讜谉 讚拽讚诐 讜讟讘诇 诇砖诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗驻拽注讬讛 诇砖注讘讜讚讬讛

His previous gentile owner did not have ownership of the slave鈥檚 body, since a gentile is unable to have ownership of another鈥檚 body; rather, he had rights to only the slave鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 lien upon him.

讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛拽讚砖 讞诪抓 讜砖讞专讜专 诪驻拽讬注讬谉 诪讬讚讬 砖注讘讜讚

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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪注砖讛 讘讘诇讜专讬讗 讛讙讬讜专转 砖拽讚诪讜 注讘讚讬讛 讜讟讘诇讜 诇驻谞讬讛 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 拽谞讜 注爪诪谉 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讛 诇讗

Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda 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鈥 bodies, and therefore their immersion for the sake of becoming freemen would be ineffective. However, this contradicts the Gemara鈥檚 explanation above that when a Jew gains ownership of a slave from a gentile, he has a right to only the slave鈥檚 labor.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇驻谞讬讛 讘讬谉 讘住转诐 讘讬谉 讘诪驻讜专砖 诇讗讞专讬讛 讘诪驻讜专砖 讗讬谉 讘住转诐 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讗讘诇 讙讜讬 讙讜驻讬讛 拽谞讬

Rav Avya said: They taught that one acquires only the rights to the slave鈥檚 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.

讚讻转讬讘 讜讙诐 诪讘谞讬 讛转讜砖讘讬诐 讛讙专讬诐 注诪讻诐 诪讛诐 转拽谞讜 讗转诐 拽讜谞讬诐 诪讛诐 讜诇讗 讛诐 拽讜谞讬诐 诪讻诐 讜诇讗 讛诐 拽讜谞讬诐 讝讛 诪讝讛

As it is written: 鈥淢oreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them you may acquire鈥 (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.

讜诇讗 讛诐 拽讜谞讬诐 诪讻诐 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 讗讟讜 讙讜讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗讜 诇注拽专 诪砖驻讞转 讙专 讜讗诪专 诪专 诪砖驻讞转 讙专 讝讛 讛讙讜讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗转诐 拽讜谞讬谉 诪讛诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜驻讬讛

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鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥檚 family鈥 (Leviticus 25:47), and the Master said in explanation of the phrase 鈥渁 stranger鈥檚 family鈥 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鈥檚 body, but a gentile is unable to acquire ownership of another鈥檚 body, even that of another gentile.

驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗 讗讬诪讗 讘讻住驻讗 讜讘讟讘讬诇讛 拽砖讬讗

Rav A岣 refutes Rav Avya鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜爪专讬讱 诇转拽驻讜 讘诪讬诐

Shmuel said: And if one wishes to ensure that one鈥檚 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鈥檚 dominance over the slave at that time, thereby defining the immersion as one for the sake of slavery.

讻讬 讛讗讬 讚诪谞讬诪讬谉 注讘讚讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘注讗 诇讗讟讘讜诇讬 诪住专讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讬讛讜 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讝讜 讚诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 拽讘注讬转 诇讬讛 专诪讜 诇讬讛 讗专讜讬住讗 讘爪讜讗专讬讛 讗专驻讜 诇讬讛 讜爪诪爪诪讜 诇讬讛

That is as demonstrated in this incident involving Minyamin, Rav Ashi鈥檚 slave: When he wished to immerse him, he passed him to Ravina and Rav A岣, 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.

讗专驻讜 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛 爪诪爪诪讜 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇拽讚讬诐 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 诇砖诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗谞讬 讟讜讘诇 讘讛讚讬 讚讚诇讬 专讬砖讬讛 诪诪讬讗 讗谞讞讜 诇讬讛 讝讜诇讟讗 讚讟讬谞讗 讗专讬砖讬讛 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗诪讟讬 诇讘讬 诪专讱

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讞讝讬 诪专 讛谞讬 讚讘讬 驻驻讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讬讛讘讬 讝讜讝讬 诇讗讬谞砖讬 诇讻专讙讬讬讛讜 讜诪砖注讘讚讬 讘讛讜 讻讬 谞驻拽讬 爪专讬讻讬 讙讬讟讗 讚讞讬专讜转讗 讗讜 诇讗

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鈥檚 taxes, the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba essentially purchased those people, who had become the king鈥檚 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鈥 bodies, or not, as they were owned only for the sake of their labor?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讻讜 砖讻讬讘讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讻讜 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讜讛专拽讬讬讛讜 讚讛谞讬 讘讟驻住讗 讚诪诇讻讗 诪谞讞 讜诪诇讻讗 讗诪专 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讻专讙讗 诪砖转注讘讚 诇诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讻专讙讗

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讙讘诇讗 讞讝讗 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪注讘专谉 诪讙专讬诐 砖诪诇讜 讜诇讗 讟讘诇讜 讜讞讝讗 讞诪专讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讚诪讝讙讬 讙讜讬诐 讜砖转讜 讬砖专讗诇 讜讞讝讗 转讜专诪讜住讬谉 讚砖诇拽讬 讙讜讬诐 讜讗讻诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba once happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who had become pregnant 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.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讗 讜讛讻专讝 注诇 讘谞讬讛诐 砖讛诐 诪诪讝专讬诐 讜注诇 讬讬谞诐 诪砖讜诐 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讜注诇 转讜专诪讜住谉 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛

Later, he came before Rabbi Yo岣nan and told him what he had witnessed. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

注诇 讘谞讬讛谉 砖讛诐 诪诪讝专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讙专 注讚 砖讬诪讜诇 讜讬讟讘讜诇 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讟讘讬诇 讙讜讬 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

The Gemara explains: With regard to the declaration concerning their children that they are mamzerim, Rabbi Yo岣nan conforms to his standard line of reasoning in two halakhot: The first is as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜注诇 讬讬谞诐 诪砖讜诐 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪砖讜诐 诇讱 诇讱 讗诪专讬谉 谞讝讬专讗 住讞讜专 住讞讜专 诇讻专诪讗 诇讗 转拽专讘

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.

讜注诇 转讜专诪讜住谉 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 讛讗 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 砖专讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讜讛讗 转讜专诪讜住 讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讜讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐

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鈥檛 Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k 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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讗讬讚讱 诇讬砖谞讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 注讜诇讛 注诇 砖讜诇讞谉 诪诇讻讬诐 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讜讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 讛讗 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 砖专讬

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in this matter in accordance with the opinion of the other version of what Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k 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.
搂 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 covenant 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鈥檌m disagree as to which aspects of that original conversion are to be derived for all generations.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙专 砖诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 讙专 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讗讘讜转讬谞讜 砖诪诇讜 讜诇讗 讟讘诇讜 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 诪诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 讙专 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讗诪讛讜转 砖讟讘诇讜 讜诇讗 诪诇讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 诪诇 诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 讗讬谉 讙专 注讚 砖讬诪讜诇 讜讬讟讘讜诇

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞诪讬 谞讬诇祝 诪讗讘讜转 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 谞讬诇祝 诪讗诪讛讜转 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专

The Gemara questions the opinions in the baraita: But let Rabbi Yehoshua also derive what is required for conversion from our forefathers; why didn鈥檛 he do so? And let Rabbi Eliezer also derive the halakha from our foremothers; why didn鈥檛 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇驻住讞 讚讜专讜转 砖讗讬谉 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 谞讗诪专 驻住讞 讘诪爪专讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 驻住讞 讘讚讜专讜转 诪讛 驻住讞 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪爪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讗祝 驻住讞 讛讗诪讜专 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬谉 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉

It would appear that Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that principle, as isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讬 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 专讗讬讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讜谞诇诪讚 讛讬诪谞讛

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鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer derive from the foremothers that circumcision is not essential for conversion?

讗诇讗

The Gemara concedes: Rather, the baraita must be reinterpreted as follows:

讘讟讘诇 讜诇讗 诪诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讛谞讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讬诇讬祝 诪讗讘讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讘讜转 谞诪讬 讟讘讬诇讛 讛讜讛

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.

诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 诇讱 讗诇 讛注诐 讜拽讚砖转诐 讛讬讜诐 讜诪讞专 讜讻讘住讜 砖诪诇转诐 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讘讜住 讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讟注讜谉 讻讘讜住 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛

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: 鈥淕o unto the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments鈥 (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鈥檚 body is required, then in a case where washing of clothes is required, as in the preparation for the revelation at Sinai, isn鈥檛 it logical that immersion of one鈥檚 body should also be required?

讜讚诇诪讗 谞拽讬讜转 讘注诇诪讗

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.

讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬拽讞 诪砖讛 讗转 讛讚诐 讜讬讝专拽 注诇 讛注诐 讜讙诪讬专讬 讚讗讬谉 讛讝讗讛 讘诇讗 讟讘讬诇讛

Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua derived it from here, where the verse states with regard to the formation of the covenant at Sinai: 鈥淎nd Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讗诪讛讜转 诪谞诇谉 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诐 讻谉 讘诪讛 谞讻谞住讜 转讞转 讻谞驻讬 讛砖讻讬谞讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讙专 注讚 砖讬诪讜诇 讜讬讟讘讜诇 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A man is never considered a convert until he is both circumcised and has immersed. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

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 Yo岣nan to state explicitly that the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion.

讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讘讗 讜讗诪专 诪诇转讬 讜诇讗 讟讘诇转讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜诪讛 讘讻讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉

Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 claim with regard to his circumcision, there is no benefit to having him immerse.

诇驻讬讻讱 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讙专 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉

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.

讗诪专 诪专 诇驻讬讻讱 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讙专 讘砖讘转 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞讚讗 住讙讬讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诪诇 诇驻谞讬谞讜 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 诪讗讬 诇驻讬讻讱

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鈥檛 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?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟讘讬诇讛 注讬拽专 讜讟讘讬诇讛 讘砖讘转 诇讗 讚拽讗 诪转拽谉 讙讘专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜 讛讗 讗讜 讛讗 讘注讬

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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转专转讬 讘注讬谞谉 转拽讜谞讬 讙讘专讗 讘砖讘转 诇讗 诪转拽谞讬谞谉

The Gemara analyzes the next statement in the baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: The court may not immerse him. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬诇讛 注讬拽专 讜讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 诪讬诇讛 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讬讗 诪讬诇讛 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讟讘诇 讝讛 讘砖讘转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转专转讬 讘注讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘讬 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 诪转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘专 专讘讬 讜专讘 住驻专讗 诪转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讙专 砖诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讛讬 讻讗谉 注讚 诇诪讞专 讜谞讟讘诇讬谞讱

Rabba said: There was an incident in the house of Rabbi 岣yya 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 岣yya, 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.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讙专 爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讙专 注讚 砖讬诪讜诇 讜讬讟讘讜诇 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讙专 讘诇讬诇讛 讜谞讬诪讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 诪讜诪讞讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讚讗讬拽诇注讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙专 爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 诪砖驻讟 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A convert requires a court of three to preside over conversion, because 鈥渏udgment,鈥 is written with regard to him, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd one judgment shall be both for you and for the convert that sojourns with you鈥 (Numbers 15:16), and legal judgments require a court of three judges.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬 砖讘讗 讜讗诪专 讙专 讗谞讬 讬讻讜诇 谞拽讘诇谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讱 讘诪讜讞讝拽 诇讱 讘讗 讜注讚讬讜 注诪讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 讬讙讜专 讗转讱 讙专 讘讗专爪讻诐

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: 鈥淎nd if a convert sojourns with you in your land, you shall not oppress him鈥 (Leviticus 19:33). The emphasis on 鈥渨ith you鈥 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: 鈥淎nd if a convert sojourns with you in your land.鈥

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 44-50 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week the Gemara describes different prohibited relationships that the resulting child is considered a Mamzer. This has ramifications on...

Yevamot 46

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 46

讙讜讬 讙讜驻讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讚诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讬讜谉 讚拽讚诐 讜讟讘诇 诇砖诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗驻拽注讬讛 诇砖注讘讜讚讬讛

His previous gentile owner did not have ownership of the slave鈥檚 body, since a gentile is unable to have ownership of another鈥檚 body; rather, he had rights to only the slave鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 lien upon him.

讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛拽讚砖 讞诪抓 讜砖讞专讜专 诪驻拽讬注讬谉 诪讬讚讬 砖注讘讜讚

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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪注砖讛 讘讘诇讜专讬讗 讛讙讬讜专转 砖拽讚诪讜 注讘讚讬讛 讜讟讘诇讜 诇驻谞讬讛 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 拽谞讜 注爪诪谉 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讛 诇讗

Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda 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鈥 bodies, and therefore their immersion for the sake of becoming freemen would be ineffective. However, this contradicts the Gemara鈥檚 explanation above that when a Jew gains ownership of a slave from a gentile, he has a right to only the slave鈥檚 labor.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇驻谞讬讛 讘讬谉 讘住转诐 讘讬谉 讘诪驻讜专砖 诇讗讞专讬讛 讘诪驻讜专砖 讗讬谉 讘住转诐 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讗讘诇 讙讜讬 讙讜驻讬讛 拽谞讬

Rav Avya said: They taught that one acquires only the rights to the slave鈥檚 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.

讚讻转讬讘 讜讙诐 诪讘谞讬 讛转讜砖讘讬诐 讛讙专讬诐 注诪讻诐 诪讛诐 转拽谞讜 讗转诐 拽讜谞讬诐 诪讛诐 讜诇讗 讛诐 拽讜谞讬诐 诪讻诐 讜诇讗 讛诐 拽讜谞讬诐 讝讛 诪讝讛

As it is written: 鈥淢oreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them you may acquire鈥 (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.

讜诇讗 讛诐 拽讜谞讬诐 诪讻诐 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 讗讟讜 讙讜讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗讜 诇注拽专 诪砖驻讞转 讙专 讜讗诪专 诪专 诪砖驻讞转 讙专 讝讛 讛讙讜讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗转诐 拽讜谞讬谉 诪讛诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜驻讬讛

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鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥檚 family鈥 (Leviticus 25:47), and the Master said in explanation of the phrase 鈥渁 stranger鈥檚 family鈥 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鈥檚 body, but a gentile is unable to acquire ownership of another鈥檚 body, even that of another gentile.

驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗 讗讬诪讗 讘讻住驻讗 讜讘讟讘讬诇讛 拽砖讬讗

Rav A岣 refutes Rav Avya鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜爪专讬讱 诇转拽驻讜 讘诪讬诐

Shmuel said: And if one wishes to ensure that one鈥檚 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鈥檚 dominance over the slave at that time, thereby defining the immersion as one for the sake of slavery.

讻讬 讛讗讬 讚诪谞讬诪讬谉 注讘讚讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘注讗 诇讗讟讘讜诇讬 诪住专讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讬讛讜 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讝讜 讚诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 拽讘注讬转 诇讬讛 专诪讜 诇讬讛 讗专讜讬住讗 讘爪讜讗专讬讛 讗专驻讜 诇讬讛 讜爪诪爪诪讜 诇讬讛

That is as demonstrated in this incident involving Minyamin, Rav Ashi鈥檚 slave: When he wished to immerse him, he passed him to Ravina and Rav A岣, 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.

讗专驻讜 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛 爪诪爪诪讜 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇拽讚讬诐 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 诇砖诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗谞讬 讟讜讘诇 讘讛讚讬 讚讚诇讬 专讬砖讬讛 诪诪讬讗 讗谞讞讜 诇讬讛 讝讜诇讟讗 讚讟讬谞讗 讗专讬砖讬讛 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗诪讟讬 诇讘讬 诪专讱

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讞讝讬 诪专 讛谞讬 讚讘讬 驻驻讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讬讛讘讬 讝讜讝讬 诇讗讬谞砖讬 诇讻专讙讬讬讛讜 讜诪砖注讘讚讬 讘讛讜 讻讬 谞驻拽讬 爪专讬讻讬 讙讬讟讗 讚讞讬专讜转讗 讗讜 诇讗

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鈥檚 taxes, the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba essentially purchased those people, who had become the king鈥檚 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鈥 bodies, or not, as they were owned only for the sake of their labor?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讻讜 砖讻讬讘讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讻讜 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讜讛专拽讬讬讛讜 讚讛谞讬 讘讟驻住讗 讚诪诇讻讗 诪谞讞 讜诪诇讻讗 讗诪专 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讻专讙讗 诪砖转注讘讚 诇诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讻专讙讗

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讙讘诇讗 讞讝讗 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪注讘专谉 诪讙专讬诐 砖诪诇讜 讜诇讗 讟讘诇讜 讜讞讝讗 讞诪专讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讚诪讝讙讬 讙讜讬诐 讜砖转讜 讬砖专讗诇 讜讞讝讗 转讜专诪讜住讬谉 讚砖诇拽讬 讙讜讬诐 讜讗讻诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba once happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who had become pregnant 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.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讗 讜讛讻专讝 注诇 讘谞讬讛诐 砖讛诐 诪诪讝专讬诐 讜注诇 讬讬谞诐 诪砖讜诐 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讜注诇 转讜专诪讜住谉 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛

Later, he came before Rabbi Yo岣nan and told him what he had witnessed. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

注诇 讘谞讬讛谉 砖讛诐 诪诪讝专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讙专 注讚 砖讬诪讜诇 讜讬讟讘讜诇 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讟讘讬诇 讙讜讬 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

The Gemara explains: With regard to the declaration concerning their children that they are mamzerim, Rabbi Yo岣nan conforms to his standard line of reasoning in two halakhot: The first is as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜注诇 讬讬谞诐 诪砖讜诐 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪砖讜诐 诇讱 诇讱 讗诪专讬谉 谞讝讬专讗 住讞讜专 住讞讜专 诇讻专诪讗 诇讗 转拽专讘

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.

讜注诇 转讜专诪讜住谉 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 讛讗 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 砖专讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讜讛讗 转讜专诪讜住 讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讜讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐

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鈥檛 Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k 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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讗讬讚讱 诇讬砖谞讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 注讜诇讛 注诇 砖讜诇讞谉 诪诇讻讬诐 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讜讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 讛讗 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 砖专讬

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in this matter in accordance with the opinion of the other version of what Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k 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.
搂 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 covenant 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鈥檌m disagree as to which aspects of that original conversion are to be derived for all generations.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙专 砖诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 讙专 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讗讘讜转讬谞讜 砖诪诇讜 讜诇讗 讟讘诇讜 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 诪诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 讙专 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讗诪讛讜转 砖讟讘诇讜 讜诇讗 诪诇讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 诪诇 诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 讗讬谉 讙专 注讚 砖讬诪讜诇 讜讬讟讘讜诇

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞诪讬 谞讬诇祝 诪讗讘讜转 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 谞讬诇祝 诪讗诪讛讜转 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专

The Gemara questions the opinions in the baraita: But let Rabbi Yehoshua also derive what is required for conversion from our forefathers; why didn鈥檛 he do so? And let Rabbi Eliezer also derive the halakha from our foremothers; why didn鈥檛 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇驻住讞 讚讜专讜转 砖讗讬谉 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 谞讗诪专 驻住讞 讘诪爪专讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 驻住讞 讘讚讜专讜转 诪讛 驻住讞 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪爪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讗祝 驻住讞 讛讗诪讜专 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬谉 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉

It would appear that Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that principle, as isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讬 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 专讗讬讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讜谞诇诪讚 讛讬诪谞讛

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鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer derive from the foremothers that circumcision is not essential for conversion?

讗诇讗

The Gemara concedes: Rather, the baraita must be reinterpreted as follows:

讘讟讘诇 讜诇讗 诪诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讛谞讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讬诇讬祝 诪讗讘讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讘讜转 谞诪讬 讟讘讬诇讛 讛讜讛

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.

诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 诇讱 讗诇 讛注诐 讜拽讚砖转诐 讛讬讜诐 讜诪讞专 讜讻讘住讜 砖诪诇转诐 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讘讜住 讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讟注讜谉 讻讘讜住 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛

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: 鈥淕o unto the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments鈥 (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鈥檚 body is required, then in a case where washing of clothes is required, as in the preparation for the revelation at Sinai, isn鈥檛 it logical that immersion of one鈥檚 body should also be required?

讜讚诇诪讗 谞拽讬讜转 讘注诇诪讗

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.

讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬拽讞 诪砖讛 讗转 讛讚诐 讜讬讝专拽 注诇 讛注诐 讜讙诪讬专讬 讚讗讬谉 讛讝讗讛 讘诇讗 讟讘讬诇讛

Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua derived it from here, where the verse states with regard to the formation of the covenant at Sinai: 鈥淎nd Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讗诪讛讜转 诪谞诇谉 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诐 讻谉 讘诪讛 谞讻谞住讜 转讞转 讻谞驻讬 讛砖讻讬谞讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讙专 注讚 砖讬诪讜诇 讜讬讟讘讜诇 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A man is never considered a convert until he is both circumcised and has immersed. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

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 Yo岣nan to state explicitly that the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion.

讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讘讗 讜讗诪专 诪诇转讬 讜诇讗 讟讘诇转讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜诪讛 讘讻讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉

Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 claim with regard to his circumcision, there is no benefit to having him immerse.

诇驻讬讻讱 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讙专 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉

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.

讗诪专 诪专 诇驻讬讻讱 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讙专 讘砖讘转 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞讚讗 住讙讬讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诪诇 诇驻谞讬谞讜 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 诪讗讬 诇驻讬讻讱

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鈥檛 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?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟讘讬诇讛 注讬拽专 讜讟讘讬诇讛 讘砖讘转 诇讗 讚拽讗 诪转拽谉 讙讘专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜 讛讗 讗讜 讛讗 讘注讬

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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转专转讬 讘注讬谞谉 转拽讜谞讬 讙讘专讗 讘砖讘转 诇讗 诪转拽谞讬谞谉

The Gemara analyzes the next statement in the baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: The court may not immerse him. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬诇讛 注讬拽专 讜讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 诪讬诇讛 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讬讗 诪讬诇讛 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讟讘诇 讝讛 讘砖讘转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转专转讬 讘注讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘讬 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 诪转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘专 专讘讬 讜专讘 住驻专讗 诪转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讙专 砖诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讛讬 讻讗谉 注讚 诇诪讞专 讜谞讟讘诇讬谞讱

Rabba said: There was an incident in the house of Rabbi 岣yya 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 岣yya, 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.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讙专 爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讙专 注讚 砖讬诪讜诇 讜讬讟讘讜诇 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讙专 讘诇讬诇讛 讜谞讬诪讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 诪讜诪讞讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讚讗讬拽诇注讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙专 爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 诪砖驻讟 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A convert requires a court of three to preside over conversion, because 鈥渏udgment,鈥 is written with regard to him, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd one judgment shall be both for you and for the convert that sojourns with you鈥 (Numbers 15:16), and legal judgments require a court of three judges.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬 砖讘讗 讜讗诪专 讙专 讗谞讬 讬讻讜诇 谞拽讘诇谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讱 讘诪讜讞讝拽 诇讱 讘讗 讜注讚讬讜 注诪讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 讬讙讜专 讗转讱 讙专 讘讗专爪讻诐

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: 鈥淎nd if a convert sojourns with you in your land, you shall not oppress him鈥 (Leviticus 19:33). The emphasis on 鈥渨ith you鈥 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: 鈥淎nd if a convert sojourns with you in your land.鈥

Scroll To Top