Yevamot 47
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ, בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִתְּךָ״ — בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁאִתְּךָ. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בָּאָרֶץ״? בָּאָרֶץ — צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה, בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ — צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה.
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.
בָּא הוּא וְעֵדָיו עִמּוֹ, קְרָא לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: דְּאָמְרִי: שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא לָא לְיהֵמְנִייהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
״בָּאָרֶץ״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ. בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ מִנַּיִן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִתְּךָ״, בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁאִתְּךָ. וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ? חֲדָא מֵ״אִתְּךָ״ וַחֲדָא מֵ״עִמָּךְ״.
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).
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. וְאֶלָּא הָא כְּתִיב ״בָּאָרֶץ״!
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?
הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בָּאָרֶץ מְקַבְּלִים גֵּרִים. דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מִשּׁוּם טֵיבוּתָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָמִגַּיְּירִי, וְהַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי דְּלֵיכָּא טֵיבוּתָא, אִיכָּא לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה, בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. פְּשִׁיטָא, יָחִיד וְרַבִּים הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִסְתַּבַּר טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּקָמְסַיְּיעִי לֵיהּ קְרָאֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan to teach us that the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּשְׁפַטְתֶּם צֶדֶק בֵּין אִישׁ וּבֵין אָחִיו וּבֵין גֵּרוֹ״, מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר בְּבֵית דִּין — הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּר, בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ — אֵינוֹ גֵּר.
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.
מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁבָּא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאָמַר לוֹ: נִתְגַּיַּירְתִּי בֵּינִי לְבֵין עַצְמִי. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: יֵשׁ לְךָ עֵדִים? אָמַר לוֹ: לָאו. יֵשׁ לְךָ בָּנִים? אָמַר לוֹ: הֵן. אָמַר לוֹ: נֶאֱמָן אַתָּה לִפְסוֹל אֶת עַצְמְךָ, וְאִי אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן לִפְסוֹל אֶת בָּנֶיךָ.
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.
[וּמִי] אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַבָּנִים לָא מְהֵימַן? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״יַכִּיר״ — יַכִּירֶנּוּ לַאֲחֵרִים. מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״, וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמָן לוֹמַר ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״, כָּךְ נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר: ״בְּנִי זֶה בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה הוּא״, אוֹ ״בֶּן חֲלוּצָה הוּא״. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן!
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?
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: לִדְבָרֶיךָ גּוֹי אַתָּה, וְאֵין עֵדוּת לְגוֹי. רָבִינָא אָמַר, הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: יֵשׁ לְךָ בָּנִים? הֵן. יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּנֵי בָנִים? הֵן. אָמַר לוֹ: נֶאֱמָן אַתָּה לִפְסוֹל בָּנֶיךָ, וְאִי אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן לִפְסוֹל בְּנֵי בָנֶיךָ.
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.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר עַל בְּנוֹ קָטָן, וְאֵין נֶאֱמָן עַל בְּנוֹ גָּדוֹל. וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא קָטָן קָטָן מַמָּשׁ, וְלֹא גָּדוֹל גָּדוֹל מַמָּשׁ. אֶלָּא, קָטָן וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים — זֶהוּ גָּדוֹל. גָּדוֹל וְאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים — זֶהוּ קָטָן.
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 Yoḥanan 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.
וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק. וְהָתַנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא! הָהוּא, לְעִנְיַן ״יַכִּיר״ אִיתְּמַר.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גֵּר שֶׁבָּא לְהִתְגַּיֵּיר בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: מָה רָאִיתָ שֶׁבָּאתָ לְהִתְגַּיֵּיר? אִי אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה דְּווּיִים, דְּחוּפִים, סְחוּפִים וּמְטוֹרָפִין, וְיִסּוּרִין בָּאִין עֲלֵיהֶם? אִם אוֹמֵר: יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי, וְאֵינִי כְּדַאי — מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד.
§ 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.
וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ מִקְצָת מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת וּמִקְצָת מִצְוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת, וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ עֲוֹן לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי. וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ עׇנְשָׁן שֶׁל מִצְוֹת. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: הֱוֵי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתָ לְמִדָּה זוֹ, אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב — אִי אַתָּה עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. חִלַּלְתָּ שַׁבָּת — אִי אַתָּה עָנוּשׁ סְקִילָה. וְעַכְשָׁיו, אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, חִלַּלְתָּ שַׁבָּת — עָנוּשׁ סְקִילָה.
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.
וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמּוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ עׇנְשָׁן שֶׁל מִצְוֹת, כָּךְ מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ מַתַּן שְׂכָרָן. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: הֱוֵי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא אֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי אֶלָּא לְצַדִּיקִים, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה אֵינָם יְכוֹלִים לְקַבֵּל
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;
לֹא רוֹב טוֹבָה וְלֹא רוֹב פּוּרְעָנוּת. וְאֵין מַרְבִּין עָלָיו, וְאֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין עָלָיו.
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.
קִיבֵּל — מָלִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. נִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ בּוֹ צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — חוֹזְרִים וּמָלִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁנִיָּה. נִתְרַפֵּא — מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וּשְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים עוֹמְדִים עַל גַּבָּיו וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ מִקְצָת מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת וּמִקְצָת מִצְוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת. טָבַל וְעָלָה — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכׇל דְּבָרָיו.
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.
אִשָּׁה — נָשִׁים מוֹשִׁיבוֹת אוֹתָהּ בְּמַיִם עַד צַוָּארָהּ, וּשְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים עוֹמְדִים לָהּ מִבַּחוּץ, וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתָהּ מִקְצָת מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת וּמִקְצָת מִצְוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת.
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.
אֶחָד גֵּר, וְאֶחָד עֶבֶד מְשׁוּחְרָר. וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁנִּדָּה טוֹבֶלֶת, שָׁם גֵּר וְעֶבֶד מְשׁוּחְרָר טוֹבְלִין. וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁחוֹצֵץ בִּטְבִילָה, חוֹצֵץ בְּגֵר וּבְעֶבֶד מְשׁוּחְרָר וּבְנִדָּה.
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.
אָמַר מָר: גֵּר שֶׁבָּא לְהִתְגַּיֵּיר, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: מָה רָאִיתָ שֶׁבָּאתָ לְהִתְגַּיֵּיר? וּמוֹדִיעִים אוֹתוֹ מִקְצָת מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת וּמִקְצָת מִצְוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאִי פָּרֵישׁ — נִפְרוֹשׁ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ: קָשִׁים גֵּרִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּסַפַּחַת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנִלְוָה הַגֵּר עֲלֵיהֶם וְנִסְפְּחוּ עַל בֵּית יַעֲקֹב״.
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.
וּמוֹדִיעִים אוֹתוֹ עֲוֹן לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֶּן נֹחַ נֶהֱרָג עַל פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה — וְלֹא נִיתָּן לְהִשָּׁבוֹן.
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 Yoḥanan 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 if he converts, he will be required to relinquish some of his property to others.
(וּמוֹדִיעִים אוֹתוֹ עֲוֹן שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה) וְאֵין מַרְבִּים עָלָיו וְאֵין מְדַקְדְּקִים עָלָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי קְרָאָה — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתֵּרֶא כִּי מִתְאַמֶּצֶת הִיא לָלֶכֶת אִתָּהּ וַתֶּחְדַּל לְדַבֵּר אֵלֶיהָ״.
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.
אֲמַרָה לַהּ: אֲסִיר לַן תְּחוּם שַׁבָּת — ״בַּאֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכִי אֵלֵךְ״. אֲסִיר לַן יִחוּד — ״בַּאֲשֶׁר תָּלִינִי אָלִין״.
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.
מִפַּקְדִינַן שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת וּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִצְוֹת — ״עַמֵּךְ עַמִּי״. אֲסִיר לַן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — ״וֵאלֹהַיִךְ אֱלֹהָי״. אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת נִמְסְרוּ לְבֵית דִּין — ״בַּאֲשֶׁר תָּמוּתִי אָמוּת״. שְׁנֵי קְבָרִים נִמְסְרוּ לְבֵית דִּין — ״וְשָׁם אֶקָּבֵר״.
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).
מִיָּד, ״וַתֵּרֶא כִּי מִתְאַמֶּצֶת הִיא וְגוֹ׳״.
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.
קִיבֵּל — מָלִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. מַאי טַעְמָא — שַׁהוֹיֵי מִצְוָה לָא מְשַׁהֵינַן.
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.
נִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ בּוֹ צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין הַמִּילָה וְכוּ׳. כְּדִתְנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין הַמִּילָה — בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הָעֲטָרָה. וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה. וְאָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה רוֹב גּוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל עֲטָרָה.
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.
נִתְרַפֵּא — מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. נִתְרַפֵּא — אִין, לֹא נִתְרַפֵּא — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּמַיָּא מַרְזוּ מַכָּה.
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.
וּשְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים עוֹמְדִים עַל גַּבָּיו. וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גֵּר צָרִיךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה! הָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְתַנָּא: תְּנִי, שְׁלֹשָׁה.
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 Yoḥanan said that a convert requires a court of three to be present at his conversion? The Gemara answers: In fact, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to the tanna reciting the mishna: Do not teach that there are two Torah scholars; rather, teach that there are three.
טָבַל וְעָלָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכׇל דְּבָרָיו. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? דְּאִי הָדַר בֵּיהּ וּמְקַדֵּשׁ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ, וְקִידּוּשָׁיו קִידּוּשִׁין.
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.
אֶחָד גֵּר וְאֶחָד עֶבֶד מְשׁוּחְרָר. קָסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, לְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עוֹל מִצְוֹת. וּרְמִינְהוּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּגֵר, אֲבָל בְּעֶבֶד מְשׁוּחְרָר — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל!
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.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, הָא — רַבָּנַן.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּבָכְתָה אֶת אָבִיהָ וְאֶת אִמָּהּ וְגוֹ׳״. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁלֹּא קִבְּלָה עָלֶיהָ. אֲבָל קִבְּלָה עָלֶיהָ — מַטְבִּילָהּ, וּמוּתָּר בָּהּ מִיָּד.
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.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קִבְּלָה עָלֶיהָ, כּוֹפָהּ וּמַטְבִּילָהּ לְשֵׁם שִׁפְחוּת, וְחוֹזֵר וּמַטְבִּילָהּ לְשֵׁם שִׁחְרוּר, וּמְשַׁחְרְרָהּ,
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.
