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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 24, 2022 | 讻状讙 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 48

The braita stated that the process for conversion is the same for a freed slave as for a convert. The Gemara assumes they meant that a freed slave also needs to accept mitzvot upon immersing in the mikveh. However, this contradicts a braita that states it is unnecessary. Rav Sheshet reconciles this by saying that there is a tannaitic debate on this topic as can be seen in a debate between Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the rabbis regarding a female prisoner of war. What is the reason for each of their opinions? Rav Papa questions Rav Sheshet鈥檚 answer by doubting whether one can learn from a female prisoner of war to a Canaanite slave, as the cases are not the same 鈥 since the prisoner came from a place where she was not keeping mitzvot at all, and the slave was. A braita is brought to prove Rav Papa’s assertion. The contradiction is resolved in a different manner – instead of explaining the line in the braita that states that conversion for a convert and a slave is the same regarding the acceptance of mitzvot, they explain that they are the same regarding immersion in the mikveh. There are some other tannaitic debates regarding details of what a female prisoner of war needs to go through if a Jewish man wishes to marry her. Does she grow her nails or cut them? Does she cry over her parents or over the idols she is leaving behind? How many days does she cry 鈥 30 or 90? Can one keep Canaanite slaves if they don鈥檛 do a circumcision? There is a debate on this issue between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. From what verses in the Torah are their opinions derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that one who purchases a slave from a gentile and doesn鈥檛 want to be circumcised can be kept for a year but if after a year, he still doesn鈥檛 want to become circumcised, the owner must sell him back to a gentile. Does this fit only with Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 opinion or can it be explained also according to Rabbi Akiva? Ravin said in the name of others that if one purchased a slave under the condition that he not be circumcised, then he can keep him uncircumcised. Does this fit only with Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 opinion or can it be explained also according to Rabbi Akiva? Why do converts suffer in the world? The Gemara brings four answers.

讜诪讜转专 讘讛 诪讬讚

And he is permitted to marry her immediately afterward, without the need for her to undergo the process described in the Torah. The fact that the Rabbis do not suggest this course of action is evidently because they hold that even if she were to be rendered a slave and then immersed for the sake of emancipation, she would become Jewish only if she also accepted upon herself the yoke of mitzvot. Rav Sheshet assumes that the Rabbis would similarly rule that a regular slave who was immersed for the sake of emancipation becomes Jewish only if he also accepts upon himself the yoke of mitzvot.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 注讘讚 讗讬砖 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 注讘讚 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 注讘讚 讗砖讛 讗诇讗 注讘讚 讗讬砖 讗转讛 诪诇 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪诇 讘谉 讗讬砖 讘注诇 讻专讞讜

Rava said: What is the rationale for Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar鈥檚 opinion? As it is written with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淓very slave of a man that is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it鈥 (Exodus 12:44). Could the use of the phrase 鈥渟lave of a man,鈥 rather than just: Slave, possibly indicate that the verse applies only to a man鈥檚 slave but not a woman鈥檚 slave? Certainly not; rather, the phrase 鈥渟lave of a man鈥 means that the slave himself is a man, i.e., an adult, and teaches that a slave who is a man you may circumcise against his will, and there is no need for him to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot, but you may not circumcise a gentile鈥檚 son who is a man, i.e., an adult who is not a slave, against his will.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻砖诐 砖讗讬 讗转讛 诪诇 讘谉 讗讬砖 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讻讱 讗讬 讗转讛 诪诇 注讘讚 讗讬砖 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讜讗诇讗 讛讻转讬讘 讻诇 注讘讚 讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis counter this argument? Ulla said that the Rabbis reason that just as you may not circumcise a son who is a man against his will, so too, you may not circumcise a slave who is a man against his will. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淓very slave of a man鈥? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis require that verse for that which Shmuel said.

讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讞专讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 注讘讚 讗讬砖 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 注讘讚 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 注讘讚 讗砖讛 讗诇讗 注讘讚 砖讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇专讘讜 注诇讬讜 拽专讜讬 注讘讚 讜砖讗讬谉 专砖讜转 诇专讘讜 注诇讬讜 讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 注讘讚

As Shmuel said: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated, and he does not even require a bill of emancipation, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut every slave of a man that is bought for money.鈥 Could the use of the phrase 鈥渟lave of a man,鈥 rather than just: Slave, possibly indicate that the verse applies only to a man鈥檚 slave but not a woman鈥檚 slave? Certainly not; rather, the use of the phrase indicates that only a slave whose master has possession of him, and can rightfully be described as: a slave of a man, is called a slave, but a slave whose master does not have possession of him is not called a slave, and therefore he is considered a freeman and does not require a bill of emancipation.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讘讬驻转 转讜讗专 讚诇讗 砖讬讬讻讗 讘诪爪讜转 讗讘诇 注讘讚 讚砖讬讬讱 讘诪爪讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜

Rav Pappa strongly objects to Rav Sheshet鈥檚 claim that the Rabbis of the baraita would hold that a regular slave who was immersed for the sake of emancipation becomes Jewish only if he also accepts upon himself the yoke of mitzvot: Say that you heard that the Rabbis insist on the acceptance of the yoke of mitzvot with regard to the case of a beautiful female prisoner of war, who was not involved in any mitzvot before being emancipated; however, with regard to a slave, who was initially involved in mitzvot before his emancipation, since as a slave he was obligated to observe certain mitzvot, perhaps even the Rabbis would agree that there is no need for the slave to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讙专 讜讗讞讚 诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 爪专讬讱 诇拽讘诇 讛讗 诇讜拽讞 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讘诇

As it is taught in a baraita: Both in the case of a convert and in the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile whom he is now emancipating, the convert and the slave need to accept upon themselves the yoke of mitzvot in order to become Jewish. The Gemara infers: The baraita states the need to accept the yoke of mitzvot only in the case where one purchases a slave from a gentile, but if one purchases a slave from a Jew, then the slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot, since he was involved in mitzvot before his emancipation.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讗诪专 诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讘诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 爪专讬讱 诇拽讘诇 讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讘诇

In accordance with whose opinion is this taught? If one suggests that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that is incorrect because didn鈥檛 he say that also in the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile, the slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot? Rather, must it not be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? And so, conclude from this baraita that in the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile, the slave needs to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot, but in the case of one who purchases a slave from a Jew, the slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot.

讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗讞讚 讙专 讜讗讞讚 注讘讚 诪砖讜讞专专 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 转谞讬讗

The Gemara asks: But if so, it is difficult to understand the meaning of the baraita cited above: This applies both for a convert and for an emancipated slave. That phrase appears to refer to the need for both a convert and an emancipated slave to accept the yoke of mitzvot, which is mentioned in the baraita beforehand. The Gemara explains: When that clause is taught, it is taught only with regard to the matter of immersion, which is mentioned immediately beforehand, but not with regard to the need to accept the yoke of mitzvot that is mentioned prior to that.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讙诇讞讛 讗转 专讗砖讛 讜注砖转讛 讗转 爪驻专谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 转拽讜抓 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 转讙讚讬诇

搂 Having cited it above, the Gemara focuses on the case of the beautiful female prisoner of war: The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd she shall shave her head and do her nails鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:12). The phrase 鈥渄o her nails鈥 is ambiguous. Rabbi Eliezer says: It means she cuts her nails. Rabbi Akiva says: It means she grows them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞讗诪专讛 注砖讬讛 讘专讗砖 讜谞讗诪专讛 注砖讬讛 讘爪驻专谞讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讛注讘专讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讛注讘专讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 注砖讬讛 讘专讗砖 讜谞讗诪专 注砖讬讛 讘爪驻专谞讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞讬讜讜诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞讬讜讜诇

Each tanna explains the basis of his opinion: Rabbi Eliezer said: An act of doing is stated with regard to the head, that she should shave it, and an act of doing is stated with regard to the nails; just as there, with regard to the hair on her head, the Torah requires its removal, so too, here, with regard to her nails, the Torah requires their removal. Rabbi Akiva says: An act of doing is stated with regard to the head, that she should shave it, and an act of doing is stated with regard to the nails; just as there, with regard to the hair on her head, the Torah requires that she do something that makes her repulsive, so too, here, with regard to her nails, the Torah requires she do something that makes her repulsive, i.e., allowing them to grow.

讜专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪驻讘砖转 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讬专讚 诇拽专讗转 讛诪诇讱 诇讗 注砖讛 专讙诇讬讜 讜诇讗 注砖讛 砖驻诪讜 诪讗讬 注砖讬讛 讛注讘专讛

And a proof for the statement of Rabbi Eliezer may be adduced from the verse that states: 鈥淎nd Mephibosheth, the son of Saul, came down to meet the king; and he had neither done his feet nor done his mustache鈥 (II聽Samuel 19:25). What is the meaning of doing in that context? Clearly it means the removal of his toenails and his mustache.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讘讻转讛 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讜讗转 讗诪讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd she shall bewail her father and her mother a month of days and after that you may come to her鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:13).

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讘讬讛 讗讘讬讛 诪诪砖 讗诪讛 讗诪讛 诪诪砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讘讬讛 讜讗诪讛 讝讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注抓 讗讘讬 讗转讛 讜讙讜壮

Rabbi Eliezer says: 鈥淗er father鈥 means her actual father and 鈥渉er mother鈥 means her actual mother. Rabbi Akiva says: Her father and her mother; this is referring to the idolatrous deity that she had worshiped but will no longer be able to worship, and so it says: 鈥淭hey say to a tree: You are my father, and to a stone: You have given birth to us鈥 (Jeremiah 2:27).

讬专讞 讬诪讬诐 讬专讞 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 转砖注讬诐 讬讜诐 讬专讞 砖诇砖讬诐 讬诪讬诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻谉 砖诇砖讬诐

The verses states: 鈥淎 month of days and after that you may come to her鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:13). This means a thirty-day month. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She must wait ninety days. This is derived as follows: The phrase 鈥渁 month鈥 connotes thirty days; the word 鈥渄ays鈥 adds another thirty days; and the words 鈥渁fter that鈥 indicate another period equal to one previously mentioned, i.e., a further thirty days.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗讬诪讗 讬专讞 砖诇砖讬诐 讬诪讬诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻谉 讻讬 讛谞讬 拽砖讬讗

Ravina strongly objects to this: If the words 鈥渁fter that鈥 indicate another period equal to one previously mentioned, then one should say: The phrase 鈥渁 month鈥 connotes thirty days; the word 鈥渄ays鈥 adds another thirty days; and then the words 鈥渁fter that鈥 add another period which is equal to the total sum of all those days she has already waited, i.e., an additional sixty days. The Gemara concedes: Indeed, this is difficult.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 注讘讚讬诐 砖讗讬谞诐 诪诇讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬谞驻砖 讘谉 讗诪转讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇诪讜诇讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may maintain slaves that are not circumcised under one鈥檚 control; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: One may not maintain such slaves, even for a moment. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: But it says with regard to Shabbat: 鈥淎nd the son of your maidservant will be refreshed鈥 (Exodus 23:12). The verse prohibits a Jewish master from allowing his slave to perform labor on Shabbat. The Gemara will explain that this is referring to an uncircumcised slave. It is therefore apparent that it is permitted to keep such a slave. Rabbi Akiva said to him: The verse speaks of one who purchases a slave at twilight on the eve of Shabbat and therefore does not have the opportunity to circumcise him before the onset of Shabbat.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 讜讬谞驻砖 讘谉 讗诪转讱 讘注讘讚 注专诇 讻转讬讘 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讜讬谞驻砖 讘谉 讗诪转讱 讘注讘讚 注专诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘注讘讚 注专诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘注讘讚 诪讛讜诇 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇诪注谉 讬谞讜讞 注讘讚讱 讜讗诪转讱 讻诪讜讱 讛专讬 注讘讚 诪讛讜诇 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讬谞驻砖 讘谉 讗诪转讱 讘注讘讚 注专诇

The Gemara notes: In any event, in the opinion of everyone the verse: 鈥淎nd the son of your maidservant will be refreshed,鈥 is written with regard to an uncircumcised slave. From where is this inferred? As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd the son of your maidservant will be refreshed鈥; the verse speaks of an uncircumcised slave. Do you say it speaks of an uncircumcised slave, or perhaps it is speaking only of a circumcised slave? When it says elsewhere: 鈥淎nd the seventh day is a Shabbat to the Lord your God, you shall not do any labor, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your slave, and your maidservant鈥so that your slave and your maidservant may rest like you鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:13), a circumcised slave is already mentioned; how, then, do I uphold the verse 鈥淎nd the son of your maidservant will be refreshed鈥? It must refer to an uncircumcised slave.

讜讛讙专 讝讛 讙专 转讜砖讘 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讙专 转讜砖讘 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讙专 爪讚拽 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讙专讱 讗砖专 讘砖注专讬讱 讛专讬 讙专 爪讚拽 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讛讙专 讝讛 讙专 转讜砖讘

The verse continues: 鈥淎nd the stranger [ger]鈥 (Exodus 23:12). This is referring to a gentile who observes certain mitzvot [ger toshav]. Do you say that this is a ger toshav, or perhaps it is only a righteous convert [ger tzedek], who is a Jew in every sense? When it says elsewhere: 鈥淎nd your stranger [ger] that is within your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:13), a righteous convert is already mentioned. How, then, do I uphold the verse 鈥淎nd the stranger [ger]鈥? It must be that this is a ger toshav.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇诪讜诇 诪讙诇讙诇 注诪讜 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诇讗 诪诇 讞讜讝专 讜诪讜讻专讜 诇讙讜讬诐

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile and the slave does not wish to be circumcised, he abides with him up to twelve months. If, after this period, he will still not be circumcised, he then sells him on to gentiles.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 驻住拽讗 诇诪讬诇转讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚驻住拽讗 诇诪讬诇转讬讛 驻住拽讗

The Sages said this halakha before Rav Pappa and asked: In accordance with whose opinion is it? It seems that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn鈥檛 he say: One may not maintain an uncircumcised slave even for a moment? Rav Pappa said to them: You can even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, since perhaps that halakha of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi applies only where the slave did not make his refusal to be circumcised explicit; however, where he did make his refusal to be circumcised explicit, since he has made it explicit, it is prohibited to maintain him, as Rabbi Akiva rules.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讗 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 讞讚讗 诪转专讬 讟注诪讬 拽讗诪专

Rav Kahana said: I said this halakha before Rav Zevid from Neharde鈥檃. He said to me: If so, that Rabbi Akiva agrees that one may temporarily maintain a slave who has not explicitly refused to be circumcised, then when Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yishmael that the verse with regard to an uncircumcised slave is referring to one who purchases a slave at twilight on the eve of Shabbat, let him instead answer him that the verse is referring to this case of a slave who has not explicitly refused to be circumcised. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Akiva said only one out of two possible reasons why it would be permitted to be in possession of such a slave.

砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讜讻诇 专讘讜转讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬 诪砖诪讜 讗讬讝讛讜 注讘讚 注专诇 砖诪讜转专 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讝讛 砖诇拽讞讜 专讘讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 诇诪讜诇讜 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗转谞讬 讘讛讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗转谞讬 讗转谞讬

Ravin sent a message citing a halakha in the name of Rabbi Ilai: And all of my teachers said to me in his name: What is the case of an uncircumcised slave whom it is permitted to maintain? This is one whose master purchased him on condition not to circumcise him. The Sages said this halakha before Rav Pappa and asked: In accordance with whose opinion is it? It seems that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn鈥檛 he say: One may not maintain an uncircumcised slave even for a moment? Rav Pappa said to them: You can even say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, since perhaps that ruling of Rabbi Akiva applies only where the master did not make a condition with regard to the slave that he would not be circumcised; however, where he did make such a condition, since he made a condition, even Rabbi Akiva would concede it is permitted to maintain him.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讗 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇诪讜诇讜 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讗

Rav Kahana said: I said this halakha before Rav Zevid from Neharde鈥檃 and he said to me: If so, that Rabbi Akiva agrees that one may maintain a slave who was purchased on condition that he would not be circumcised, then when Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yishmael that the verse with regard to an uncircumcised slave is referring to one who purchases a slave at twilight on the eve of Shabbat and therefore does not have the opportunity to circumcise him before the onset of Shabbat, let him instead answer him that the verse is referring to this case of a slave who was purchased on condition that he would not be circumcised.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讱 讗诇讗 讞讚 诪转专讬 讜转诇转 讟注诪讬 拽讗诪专

The Gemara responds: But even according to your reasoning that Rabbi Akiva disagrees, since you do agree with Rav Pappa鈥檚 resolution of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion with the halakha of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, let Rabbi Akiva answer him that the verse is referring to that case of a slave who has not explicitly refused to be circumcised. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva said only one out of two or three possible reasons that it would be permitted to be in possession of such a slave.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 讜专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗拽讬诇注讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 注讬专 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 专爪讜 注讘讚讬讛 诇诪讜诇 讜讙诇讙诇讜 注诪讛诐 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜讞讝专讜 讜诪讻专讜诐 诇讙讜讬诐 讻诪讗谉

Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi, and Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 were sitting in the courtyard of Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣. They were sitting and saying: There was one city in Eretz Yisrael whose slaves did not wish to be circumcised. Their masters abided with them until twelve months had passed and then sold them to gentiles. In accordance with whose opinion did they act?

讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇诪讜诇 诪讙诇讙诇 注诪讜 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诇讗 诪诇 讞讜讝专 讜诪讜讻专讜 诇讙讜讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖讛讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻谞讬 讛驻住讚 讟讛专讜转 讜讘注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讗讬谉 诪砖讛讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诇 注讬拽专 砖诪讗 讬砖诪注 讚讘专 讜讬诇讱 讜讬讗诪专 诇讞讘专讜 讙讜讬

It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile and the slave does not wish to be circumcised, the master abides with him for up to twelve months. If, after this period, the slave will still not be circumcised, the master then sells him to gentiles. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may not allow him to remain in Eretz Yisrael due to the loss of ritually pure items he could cause. As long as the slave remains uncircumcised, he is considered to be a gentile; therefore, by rabbinic decree, ritually pure items that he touches are considered to be impure. And in a city that is near to the border he may not be allowed to remain at all, lest he hear some secret matter concerning security and go and say it over to his fellow gentile in an enemy country. However, once he has been circumcised and accepted the yoke of mitzvot, this concern no longer exists.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讙专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诪注讜谞讬谉 讜讬住讜专讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜 砖讘注 诪爪讜转 讘谞讬 谞讞 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讻拽讟谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪注讜谞讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讚拽讚讜拽讬 诪爪讜转 讻讬砖专讗诇 讗讘讗 讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讗讛讘讛 讗诇讗 诪讬专讗讛

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi 岣nanya, son of Rabban Gamliel, says: For what reason are converts at the present time tormented and hardships come upon them? It is because when they were gentiles they did not observe the seven Noahide mitzvot. Rabbi Yosei says: They would not be punished for their deeds prior to their conversion because a convert who just converted is like a child just born in that he retains no connection to his past life. Rather, for what reason are they tormented? It is because they are not as well-versed in the intricacies of the mitzvot as a born Jew, and consequently they often inadvertently transgress mitzvot. Abba 岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar: It is because they observe mitzvot not out of love of God, but only out of fear of the punishments for failing to observe them.

讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讛讜 注爪诪诐 诇讛讻谞住 转讞转 讻谞驻讬 讛砖讻讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讬砖诇诐 讛壮 驻注诇讱 讜转讛讬 诪砖讻专转讱 砖诇诪讛 诪注诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗砖专 讘讗转 诇讞住讜转 讜讙讜诪专

Others say: It is because they waited before entering under the wings of the Divine Presence, i.e., they are punished for not converting sooner than they did. Rabbi Abbahu said, and some say it was Rabbi 岣nina who said: What is the verse from which it is derived that one should convert at the earliest opportunity? Boaz said to Ruth: 鈥淭he Lord shall recompense your work, and your reward shall be complete from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge鈥 (Ruth 2:12).

  • 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 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 48

讜诪讜转专 讘讛 诪讬讚

And he is permitted to marry her immediately afterward, without the need for her to undergo the process described in the Torah. The fact that the Rabbis do not suggest this course of action is evidently because they hold that even if she were to be rendered a slave and then immersed for the sake of emancipation, she would become Jewish only if she also accepted upon herself the yoke of mitzvot. Rav Sheshet assumes that the Rabbis would similarly rule that a regular slave who was immersed for the sake of emancipation becomes Jewish only if he also accepts upon himself the yoke of mitzvot.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 注讘讚 讗讬砖 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 注讘讚 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 注讘讚 讗砖讛 讗诇讗 注讘讚 讗讬砖 讗转讛 诪诇 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪诇 讘谉 讗讬砖 讘注诇 讻专讞讜

Rava said: What is the rationale for Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar鈥檚 opinion? As it is written with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淓very slave of a man that is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it鈥 (Exodus 12:44). Could the use of the phrase 鈥渟lave of a man,鈥 rather than just: Slave, possibly indicate that the verse applies only to a man鈥檚 slave but not a woman鈥檚 slave? Certainly not; rather, the phrase 鈥渟lave of a man鈥 means that the slave himself is a man, i.e., an adult, and teaches that a slave who is a man you may circumcise against his will, and there is no need for him to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot, but you may not circumcise a gentile鈥檚 son who is a man, i.e., an adult who is not a slave, against his will.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻砖诐 砖讗讬 讗转讛 诪诇 讘谉 讗讬砖 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讻讱 讗讬 讗转讛 诪诇 注讘讚 讗讬砖 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讜讗诇讗 讛讻转讬讘 讻诇 注讘讚 讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis counter this argument? Ulla said that the Rabbis reason that just as you may not circumcise a son who is a man against his will, so too, you may not circumcise a slave who is a man against his will. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淓very slave of a man鈥? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis require that verse for that which Shmuel said.

讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讞专讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 注讘讚 讗讬砖 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 注讘讚 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 注讘讚 讗砖讛 讗诇讗 注讘讚 砖讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇专讘讜 注诇讬讜 拽专讜讬 注讘讚 讜砖讗讬谉 专砖讜转 诇专讘讜 注诇讬讜 讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 注讘讚

As Shmuel said: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated, and he does not even require a bill of emancipation, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut every slave of a man that is bought for money.鈥 Could the use of the phrase 鈥渟lave of a man,鈥 rather than just: Slave, possibly indicate that the verse applies only to a man鈥檚 slave but not a woman鈥檚 slave? Certainly not; rather, the use of the phrase indicates that only a slave whose master has possession of him, and can rightfully be described as: a slave of a man, is called a slave, but a slave whose master does not have possession of him is not called a slave, and therefore he is considered a freeman and does not require a bill of emancipation.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讘讬驻转 转讜讗专 讚诇讗 砖讬讬讻讗 讘诪爪讜转 讗讘诇 注讘讚 讚砖讬讬讱 讘诪爪讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜

Rav Pappa strongly objects to Rav Sheshet鈥檚 claim that the Rabbis of the baraita would hold that a regular slave who was immersed for the sake of emancipation becomes Jewish only if he also accepts upon himself the yoke of mitzvot: Say that you heard that the Rabbis insist on the acceptance of the yoke of mitzvot with regard to the case of a beautiful female prisoner of war, who was not involved in any mitzvot before being emancipated; however, with regard to a slave, who was initially involved in mitzvot before his emancipation, since as a slave he was obligated to observe certain mitzvot, perhaps even the Rabbis would agree that there is no need for the slave to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讙专 讜讗讞讚 诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 爪专讬讱 诇拽讘诇 讛讗 诇讜拽讞 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讘诇

As it is taught in a baraita: Both in the case of a convert and in the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile whom he is now emancipating, the convert and the slave need to accept upon themselves the yoke of mitzvot in order to become Jewish. The Gemara infers: The baraita states the need to accept the yoke of mitzvot only in the case where one purchases a slave from a gentile, but if one purchases a slave from a Jew, then the slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot, since he was involved in mitzvot before his emancipation.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讗诪专 诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讘诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 爪专讬讱 诇拽讘诇 讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讘诇

In accordance with whose opinion is this taught? If one suggests that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that is incorrect because didn鈥檛 he say that also in the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile, the slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot? Rather, must it not be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? And so, conclude from this baraita that in the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile, the slave needs to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot, but in the case of one who purchases a slave from a Jew, the slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot.

讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗讞讚 讙专 讜讗讞讚 注讘讚 诪砖讜讞专专 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 转谞讬讗

The Gemara asks: But if so, it is difficult to understand the meaning of the baraita cited above: This applies both for a convert and for an emancipated slave. That phrase appears to refer to the need for both a convert and an emancipated slave to accept the yoke of mitzvot, which is mentioned in the baraita beforehand. The Gemara explains: When that clause is taught, it is taught only with regard to the matter of immersion, which is mentioned immediately beforehand, but not with regard to the need to accept the yoke of mitzvot that is mentioned prior to that.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讙诇讞讛 讗转 专讗砖讛 讜注砖转讛 讗转 爪驻专谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 转拽讜抓 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 转讙讚讬诇

搂 Having cited it above, the Gemara focuses on the case of the beautiful female prisoner of war: The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd she shall shave her head and do her nails鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:12). The phrase 鈥渄o her nails鈥 is ambiguous. Rabbi Eliezer says: It means she cuts her nails. Rabbi Akiva says: It means she grows them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞讗诪专讛 注砖讬讛 讘专讗砖 讜谞讗诪专讛 注砖讬讛 讘爪驻专谞讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讛注讘专讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讛注讘专讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 注砖讬讛 讘专讗砖 讜谞讗诪专 注砖讬讛 讘爪驻专谞讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞讬讜讜诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞讬讜讜诇

Each tanna explains the basis of his opinion: Rabbi Eliezer said: An act of doing is stated with regard to the head, that she should shave it, and an act of doing is stated with regard to the nails; just as there, with regard to the hair on her head, the Torah requires its removal, so too, here, with regard to her nails, the Torah requires their removal. Rabbi Akiva says: An act of doing is stated with regard to the head, that she should shave it, and an act of doing is stated with regard to the nails; just as there, with regard to the hair on her head, the Torah requires that she do something that makes her repulsive, so too, here, with regard to her nails, the Torah requires she do something that makes her repulsive, i.e., allowing them to grow.

讜专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪驻讘砖转 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讬专讚 诇拽专讗转 讛诪诇讱 诇讗 注砖讛 专讙诇讬讜 讜诇讗 注砖讛 砖驻诪讜 诪讗讬 注砖讬讛 讛注讘专讛

And a proof for the statement of Rabbi Eliezer may be adduced from the verse that states: 鈥淎nd Mephibosheth, the son of Saul, came down to meet the king; and he had neither done his feet nor done his mustache鈥 (II聽Samuel 19:25). What is the meaning of doing in that context? Clearly it means the removal of his toenails and his mustache.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讘讻转讛 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讜讗转 讗诪讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd she shall bewail her father and her mother a month of days and after that you may come to her鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:13).

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讘讬讛 讗讘讬讛 诪诪砖 讗诪讛 讗诪讛 诪诪砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讘讬讛 讜讗诪讛 讝讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注抓 讗讘讬 讗转讛 讜讙讜壮

Rabbi Eliezer says: 鈥淗er father鈥 means her actual father and 鈥渉er mother鈥 means her actual mother. Rabbi Akiva says: Her father and her mother; this is referring to the idolatrous deity that she had worshiped but will no longer be able to worship, and so it says: 鈥淭hey say to a tree: You are my father, and to a stone: You have given birth to us鈥 (Jeremiah 2:27).

讬专讞 讬诪讬诐 讬专讞 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 转砖注讬诐 讬讜诐 讬专讞 砖诇砖讬诐 讬诪讬诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻谉 砖诇砖讬诐

The verses states: 鈥淎 month of days and after that you may come to her鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:13). This means a thirty-day month. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She must wait ninety days. This is derived as follows: The phrase 鈥渁 month鈥 connotes thirty days; the word 鈥渄ays鈥 adds another thirty days; and the words 鈥渁fter that鈥 indicate another period equal to one previously mentioned, i.e., a further thirty days.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗讬诪讗 讬专讞 砖诇砖讬诐 讬诪讬诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻谉 讻讬 讛谞讬 拽砖讬讗

Ravina strongly objects to this: If the words 鈥渁fter that鈥 indicate another period equal to one previously mentioned, then one should say: The phrase 鈥渁 month鈥 connotes thirty days; the word 鈥渄ays鈥 adds another thirty days; and then the words 鈥渁fter that鈥 add another period which is equal to the total sum of all those days she has already waited, i.e., an additional sixty days. The Gemara concedes: Indeed, this is difficult.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 注讘讚讬诐 砖讗讬谞诐 诪诇讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬谞驻砖 讘谉 讗诪转讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇诪讜诇讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may maintain slaves that are not circumcised under one鈥檚 control; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: One may not maintain such slaves, even for a moment. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: But it says with regard to Shabbat: 鈥淎nd the son of your maidservant will be refreshed鈥 (Exodus 23:12). The verse prohibits a Jewish master from allowing his slave to perform labor on Shabbat. The Gemara will explain that this is referring to an uncircumcised slave. It is therefore apparent that it is permitted to keep such a slave. Rabbi Akiva said to him: The verse speaks of one who purchases a slave at twilight on the eve of Shabbat and therefore does not have the opportunity to circumcise him before the onset of Shabbat.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 讜讬谞驻砖 讘谉 讗诪转讱 讘注讘讚 注专诇 讻转讬讘 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讜讬谞驻砖 讘谉 讗诪转讱 讘注讘讚 注专诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘注讘讚 注专诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘注讘讚 诪讛讜诇 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇诪注谉 讬谞讜讞 注讘讚讱 讜讗诪转讱 讻诪讜讱 讛专讬 注讘讚 诪讛讜诇 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讬谞驻砖 讘谉 讗诪转讱 讘注讘讚 注专诇

The Gemara notes: In any event, in the opinion of everyone the verse: 鈥淎nd the son of your maidservant will be refreshed,鈥 is written with regard to an uncircumcised slave. From where is this inferred? As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd the son of your maidservant will be refreshed鈥; the verse speaks of an uncircumcised slave. Do you say it speaks of an uncircumcised slave, or perhaps it is speaking only of a circumcised slave? When it says elsewhere: 鈥淎nd the seventh day is a Shabbat to the Lord your God, you shall not do any labor, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your slave, and your maidservant鈥so that your slave and your maidservant may rest like you鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:13), a circumcised slave is already mentioned; how, then, do I uphold the verse 鈥淎nd the son of your maidservant will be refreshed鈥? It must refer to an uncircumcised slave.

讜讛讙专 讝讛 讙专 转讜砖讘 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讙专 转讜砖讘 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讙专 爪讚拽 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讙专讱 讗砖专 讘砖注专讬讱 讛专讬 讙专 爪讚拽 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讛讙专 讝讛 讙专 转讜砖讘

The verse continues: 鈥淎nd the stranger [ger]鈥 (Exodus 23:12). This is referring to a gentile who observes certain mitzvot [ger toshav]. Do you say that this is a ger toshav, or perhaps it is only a righteous convert [ger tzedek], who is a Jew in every sense? When it says elsewhere: 鈥淎nd your stranger [ger] that is within your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:13), a righteous convert is already mentioned. How, then, do I uphold the verse 鈥淎nd the stranger [ger]鈥? It must be that this is a ger toshav.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇诪讜诇 诪讙诇讙诇 注诪讜 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诇讗 诪诇 讞讜讝专 讜诪讜讻专讜 诇讙讜讬诐

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile and the slave does not wish to be circumcised, he abides with him up to twelve months. If, after this period, he will still not be circumcised, he then sells him on to gentiles.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 驻住拽讗 诇诪讬诇转讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚驻住拽讗 诇诪讬诇转讬讛 驻住拽讗

The Sages said this halakha before Rav Pappa and asked: In accordance with whose opinion is it? It seems that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn鈥檛 he say: One may not maintain an uncircumcised slave even for a moment? Rav Pappa said to them: You can even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, since perhaps that halakha of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi applies only where the slave did not make his refusal to be circumcised explicit; however, where he did make his refusal to be circumcised explicit, since he has made it explicit, it is prohibited to maintain him, as Rabbi Akiva rules.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讗 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 讞讚讗 诪转专讬 讟注诪讬 拽讗诪专

Rav Kahana said: I said this halakha before Rav Zevid from Neharde鈥檃. He said to me: If so, that Rabbi Akiva agrees that one may temporarily maintain a slave who has not explicitly refused to be circumcised, then when Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yishmael that the verse with regard to an uncircumcised slave is referring to one who purchases a slave at twilight on the eve of Shabbat, let him instead answer him that the verse is referring to this case of a slave who has not explicitly refused to be circumcised. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Akiva said only one out of two possible reasons why it would be permitted to be in possession of such a slave.

砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讜讻诇 专讘讜转讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬 诪砖诪讜 讗讬讝讛讜 注讘讚 注专诇 砖诪讜转专 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讝讛 砖诇拽讞讜 专讘讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 诇诪讜诇讜 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗转谞讬 讘讛讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗转谞讬 讗转谞讬

Ravin sent a message citing a halakha in the name of Rabbi Ilai: And all of my teachers said to me in his name: What is the case of an uncircumcised slave whom it is permitted to maintain? This is one whose master purchased him on condition not to circumcise him. The Sages said this halakha before Rav Pappa and asked: In accordance with whose opinion is it? It seems that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn鈥檛 he say: One may not maintain an uncircumcised slave even for a moment? Rav Pappa said to them: You can even say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, since perhaps that ruling of Rabbi Akiva applies only where the master did not make a condition with regard to the slave that he would not be circumcised; however, where he did make such a condition, since he made a condition, even Rabbi Akiva would concede it is permitted to maintain him.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讗 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇诪讜诇讜 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讗

Rav Kahana said: I said this halakha before Rav Zevid from Neharde鈥檃 and he said to me: If so, that Rabbi Akiva agrees that one may maintain a slave who was purchased on condition that he would not be circumcised, then when Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yishmael that the verse with regard to an uncircumcised slave is referring to one who purchases a slave at twilight on the eve of Shabbat and therefore does not have the opportunity to circumcise him before the onset of Shabbat, let him instead answer him that the verse is referring to this case of a slave who was purchased on condition that he would not be circumcised.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讱 讗诇讗 讞讚 诪转专讬 讜转诇转 讟注诪讬 拽讗诪专

The Gemara responds: But even according to your reasoning that Rabbi Akiva disagrees, since you do agree with Rav Pappa鈥檚 resolution of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion with the halakha of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, let Rabbi Akiva answer him that the verse is referring to that case of a slave who has not explicitly refused to be circumcised. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva said only one out of two or three possible reasons that it would be permitted to be in possession of such a slave.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 讜专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗拽讬诇注讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 注讬专 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 专爪讜 注讘讚讬讛 诇诪讜诇 讜讙诇讙诇讜 注诪讛诐 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜讞讝专讜 讜诪讻专讜诐 诇讙讜讬诐 讻诪讗谉

Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi, and Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 were sitting in the courtyard of Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣. They were sitting and saying: There was one city in Eretz Yisrael whose slaves did not wish to be circumcised. Their masters abided with them until twelve months had passed and then sold them to gentiles. In accordance with whose opinion did they act?

讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇诪讜诇 诪讙诇讙诇 注诪讜 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诇讗 诪诇 讞讜讝专 讜诪讜讻专讜 诇讙讜讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖讛讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻谞讬 讛驻住讚 讟讛专讜转 讜讘注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讗讬谉 诪砖讛讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诇 注讬拽专 砖诪讗 讬砖诪注 讚讘专 讜讬诇讱 讜讬讗诪专 诇讞讘专讜 讙讜讬

It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile and the slave does not wish to be circumcised, the master abides with him for up to twelve months. If, after this period, the slave will still not be circumcised, the master then sells him to gentiles. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may not allow him to remain in Eretz Yisrael due to the loss of ritually pure items he could cause. As long as the slave remains uncircumcised, he is considered to be a gentile; therefore, by rabbinic decree, ritually pure items that he touches are considered to be impure. And in a city that is near to the border he may not be allowed to remain at all, lest he hear some secret matter concerning security and go and say it over to his fellow gentile in an enemy country. However, once he has been circumcised and accepted the yoke of mitzvot, this concern no longer exists.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讙专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诪注讜谞讬谉 讜讬住讜专讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜 砖讘注 诪爪讜转 讘谞讬 谞讞 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讻拽讟谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪注讜谞讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讚拽讚讜拽讬 诪爪讜转 讻讬砖专讗诇 讗讘讗 讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讗讛讘讛 讗诇讗 诪讬专讗讛

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi 岣nanya, son of Rabban Gamliel, says: For what reason are converts at the present time tormented and hardships come upon them? It is because when they were gentiles they did not observe the seven Noahide mitzvot. Rabbi Yosei says: They would not be punished for their deeds prior to their conversion because a convert who just converted is like a child just born in that he retains no connection to his past life. Rather, for what reason are they tormented? It is because they are not as well-versed in the intricacies of the mitzvot as a born Jew, and consequently they often inadvertently transgress mitzvot. Abba 岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar: It is because they observe mitzvot not out of love of God, but only out of fear of the punishments for failing to observe them.

讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讛讜 注爪诪诐 诇讛讻谞住 转讞转 讻谞驻讬 讛砖讻讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讬砖诇诐 讛壮 驻注诇讱 讜转讛讬 诪砖讻专转讱 砖诇诪讛 诪注诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗砖专 讘讗转 诇讞住讜转 讜讙讜诪专

Others say: It is because they waited before entering under the wings of the Divine Presence, i.e., they are punished for not converting sooner than they did. Rabbi Abbahu said, and some say it was Rabbi 岣nina who said: What is the verse from which it is derived that one should convert at the earliest opportunity? Boaz said to Ruth: 鈥淭he Lord shall recompense your work, and your reward shall be complete from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge鈥 (Ruth 2:12).

Scroll To Top