יבמות מח

יבמות מח

וּמוּתָּר בָּהּ מִיָּד.

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר — דִּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל עֶבֶד אִישׁ מִקְנַת כָּסֶף״. ״עֶבֶד אִישׁ״, וְלֹא עֶבֶד אִשָּׁה? אֶלָּא ״עֶבֶד אִישׁ״ — אַתָּה מָל בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה מָל בֶּן אִישׁ בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ.

Rava said: What is the rationale for Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s opinion? As it is written with regard to the Paschal lamb: “Every slave of a man that is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it” (Exodus 12:44). Could the use of the phrase “slave of a man,” rather than just: Slave, possibly indicate that the verse applies only to a man’s slave but not a woman’s slave? Certainly not; rather, the phrase “slave of a man” 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’s son who is a man, i.e., an adult who is not a slave, against his will.

וְרַבָּנַן? אָמַר עוּלָּא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מָל בֶּן אִישׁ בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ, כָּךְ אִי אַתָּה מָל עֶבֶד אִישׁ בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ. וְאֶלָּא הָכְתִיב ״כׇּל עֶבֶד אִישׁ״? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִכְדִשְׁמוּאֵל.

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’t it written: “Every slave of a man”? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis require that verse for that which Shmuel said.

דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמַּפְקִיר עַבְדּוֹ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת וְאֵין צָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל עֶבֶד אִישׁ מִקְנַת כָּסֶף״. ״עֶבֶד אִישׁ״, וְלֹא עֶבֶד אִשָּׁה? אֶלָּא: עֶבֶד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְרַבּוֹ עָלָיו — קָרוּי עֶבֶד, וְשֶׁאֵין רְשׁוּת לְרַבּוֹ עָלָיו — אֵין קָרוּי עֶבֶד.

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: “But every slave of a man that is bought for money.” Could the use of the phrase “slave of a man,” rather than just: Slave, possibly indicate that the verse applies only to a man’s slave but not a woman’s 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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן בִּיפַת תּוֹאַר, דְּלָא שָׁיְיכָא בְּמִצְוֹת. אֲבָל עֶבֶד, דְּשָׁיֵיךְ בְּמִצְוֹת, הָכִי נָמֵי דַּאֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ.

Rav Pappa strongly objects to Rav Sheshet’s 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.

דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד גֵּר וְאֶחָד לוֹקֵחַ עֶבֶד מִן הַגּוֹי — צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל. הָא לוֹקֵחַ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל.

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.

מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, הָאָמַר: לוֹקֵחַ מִן הַגּוֹי נָמֵי אֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל! אֶלָּא לָאו רַבָּנַן, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: דְּלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַגּוֹי — צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל, אֲבָל לוֹקֵחַ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל.

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’t 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.

וְאֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא אֶחָד גֵּר וְאֶחָד עֶבֶד מְשׁוּחְרָר! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא — לְעִנְיַן טְבִילָה תַּנְיָא.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְגִלְּחָה אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ וְעָשְׂתָה אֶת צִפׇּרְנֶיהָ״, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: תָּקוֹץ, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: תְּגַדֵּיל.

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

אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: נֶאֶמְרָה עֲשִׂיָּה בָּרֹאשׁ, וְנֶאֶמְרָה עֲשִׂיָּה בַּצִּפׇּרְנַיִם. מָה לְהַלָּן הַעֲבָרָה — אַף כָּאן הַעֲבָרָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נֶאֶמְרָ[ה] עֲשִׂיָּה בָּרֹאשׁ, וְנֶאֶמְרָ[ה] עֲשִׂיָּה בַּצִּפׇּרְנַיִם. מָה לְהַלָּן נִיוּוּל — אַף כָּאן נִיוּוּל.

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.

וּרְאָיָה לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: ״וּמְפִבֹשֶׁת בֶּן שָׁאוּל יָרַד לִקְרַאת הַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא עָשָׂה רַגְלָיו וְלֹא עָשָׂה שְׂפָמוֹ״, מַאי עֲשִׂיָּה — הַעֲבָרָה.

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּבָכְתָה אֶת אָבִיהָ וְאֶת אִמָּהּ״,

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

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״אָבִיהָ״ — אָבִיהָ מַמָּשׁ, ״אִמָּהּ״ — אִמָּהּ מַמָּשׁ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״אָבִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ״ — זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אוֹמְרִים לָעֵץ אָבִי אַתָּה וְגוֹ׳״.

Rabbi Eliezer says: “Her father” means her actual father and “her mother” 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: “They say to a tree: You are my father, and to a stone: You have given birth to us” (Jeremiah 2:27).

״יֶרַח יָמִים״ — יֶרַח שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם: ״יֶרַח״ — שְׁלֹשִׁים, ״יָמִים״ — שְׁלֹשִׁים, ״וְאַחַר כֵּן״ — שְׁלֹשִׁים.

The verses states: “A month of days and after that you may come to her” (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 “a month” connotes thirty days; the word “days” adds another thirty days; and the words “after that” indicate another period equal to one previously mentioned, i.e., a further thirty days.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: אֵימָא: ״יֶרַח״ — שְׁלֹשִׁים, ״יָמִים״ — שְׁלֹשִׁים, ״וְאַחַר כֵּן״ — כִּי הָנֵי? קַשְׁיָא.

Ravina strongly objects to this: If the words “after that” indicate another period equal to one previously mentioned, then one should say: The phrase “a month” connotes thirty days; the word “days” adds another thirty days; and then the words “after that” 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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְקַיְּימִין עֲבָדִים שֶׁאֵינָם מָלִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין מְקַיְּימִין. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן אֲמָתְךָ״! אָמַר לוֹ: בְּלוֹקֵחַ עֶבֶד בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְמוּלוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: One may maintain slaves that are not circumcised under one’s 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: “And the son of your maidservant will be refreshed” (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.

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהַת ״וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן אֲמָתְךָ״ — בְּעֶבֶד עָרֵל כְּתִיב, מַאי מַשְׁמַע? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן אֲמָתְךָ״ — בְּעֶבֶד עָרֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּעֶבֶד עָרֵל, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּעֶבֶד מָהוּל? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ כָּמוֹךָ״, הֲרֵי עֶבֶד מָהוּל אָמוּר. הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן אֲמָתְךָ״ — בְּעֶבֶד עָרֵל.

The Gemara notes: In any event, in the opinion of everyone the verse: “And the son of your maidservant will be refreshed,” is written with regard to an uncircumcised slave. From where is this inferred? As it is taught in a baraita: “And the son of your maidservant will be refreshed”; 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: “And 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…so that your slave and your maidservant may rest like you” (Deuteronomy 5:13), a circumcised slave is already mentioned; how, then, do I uphold the verse “And the son of your maidservant will be refreshed”? It must refer to an uncircumcised slave.

״וְהַגֵּר״ — זֶה גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר זֶה גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא גֵּר צֶדֶק? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְגֵרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״, הֲרֵי גֵּר צֶדֶק אָמוּר. הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְהַגֵּר״ — זֶה גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב.

The verse continues: “And the stranger [ger]” (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: “And your stranger [ger] that is within your gates” (Deuteronomy 5:13), a righteous convert is already mentioned. How, then, do I uphold the verse “And the stranger [ger]”? It must be that this is a ger toshav.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הַלּוֹקֵחַ עֶבֶד מִן הַגּוֹי וְלֹא רָצָה לָמוּל — מְגַלְגֵּל עִמּוֹ עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. לֹא מָל — חוֹזֵר וּמוֹכְרוֹ לְגוֹיִם.

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.

אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, כְּמַאן — דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. דְּאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הָאָמַר: אֵין מְקַיְּימִין! אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פָּפָּא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא פַּסְקַהּ לְמִילְּתֵיהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּפַסְקַהּ לְמִילְּתֵיהּ — פַּסְקַהּ.

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’t 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.

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אַמְרִיתָא לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב זְבִיד מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא, אָמַר לִי: אִי הָכִי, כִּי אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּלוֹקֵחַ עֶבֶד בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, לִישַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ הָא! חֲדָא מִתְּרֵי טַעְמֵי קָאָמַר.

Rav Kahana said: I said this halakha before Rav Zevid from Neharde’a. 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.

שְׁלַח רָבִין מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אִילְעַאי, וְכׇל רַבּוֹתַי אָמְרוּ לִי מִשְּׁמוֹ: אֵיזֶהוּ עֶבֶד עָרֵל שֶׁמּוּתָּר לְקַיְּימוֹ — זֶה שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ רַבּוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא לְמוּלוֹ. אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הָאָמַר: אֵין מְקַיְּימִין! אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פָּפָּא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא אַתְנִי בַּהֲדֵיהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאַתְנִי — אַתְנִי.

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’t 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.

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אַמְרִיתָא לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב זְבִיד מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא, וַאֲמַר לִי: אִי הָכִי, כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּלוֹקֵחַ עֶבֶד בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְמוּלוֹ — לִישַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ הָא!

Rav Kahana said: I said this halakha before Rav Zevid from Neharde’a 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.

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, לִישַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ הָךְ! אֶלָּא, חַד מִתְּרֵי וּתְלָת טַעְמֵי קָאָמַר.

The Gemara responds: But even according to your reasoning that Rabbi Akiva disagrees, since you do agree with Rav Pappa’s resolution of Rabbi Akiva’s 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.

יְתֵיב רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפִּי וְרַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא אַקִּילְעָא דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, וְיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: עִיר אַחַת הָיְתָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא רָצוּ עֲבָדֶיהָ לָמוּל, וְגִלְגְּלוּ עִמָּהֶם עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְחָזְרוּ וּמְכָרוּם לְגוֹיִם. כְּמַאן —

Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, and Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa were sitting in the courtyard of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa. 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?

כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: הַלּוֹקֵחַ עֶבֶד מִן הַגּוֹי וְלֹא רָצָה לָמוּל — מְגַלְגֵּל עִמּוֹ עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, לֹא מָל — חוֹזֵר וּמוֹכְרוֹ לְגוֹיִם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מְשַׁהִין אוֹתוֹ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִפְּנֵי הֶפְסֵד טְהָרוֹת. וּבָעִיר הַסְּמוּכָה לַסְּפָר אֵין מְשַׁהִין אוֹתוֹ כׇּל עִיקָּר, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁמַע דָּבָר וְיֵלֵךְ וְיֹאמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ גּוֹי.

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.

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מִפְּנֵי מָה גֵּרִים בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה מְעוּנִּין, וְיִסּוּרִין בָּאִין עֲלֵיהֶן — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא קִיְּימוּ שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת בְּנֵי נֹחַ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר — כְּקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד דָּמֵי. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי מָה מְעוּנִּין — לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין בְּדִקְדּוּקֵי מִצְוֹת כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. אַבָּא חָנָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵאַהֲבָה, אֶלָּא מִיִּרְאָה.

§ It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ḥananya, 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 Ḥanan 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.

אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשִּׁהוּ עַצְמָם לְהִכָּנֵס תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, מַאי קְרָאָה: ״יְשַׁלֵּם ה׳ פׇּעֳלֵךְ וּתְהִי מַשְׂכֻּרְתֵּךְ שְׁלֵמָה מֵעִם ה׳ אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר בָּאת לַחֲסוֹת וְגוֹמֵר״.

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 Ḥanina who said: What is the verse from which it is derived that one should convert at the earliest opportunity? Boaz said to Ruth: “The 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” (Ruth 2:12).