The Oral Talmud with Benay Lappe and Dan Libenson Episode 142

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba once happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who had become pregnant from converts who were circumcised but had not immersed; and he saw wine of Jews that gentiles were pouring, and Jews were drinking it; and he saw lupines that gentiles were cooking, and Jews were eating them; but he did not say anything to them. Later, he came before Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go and make a declaration concerning their children that they are mamzerim, and concerning their wine that it is forbidden because it is like wine poured as an idolatrous libation, and concerning their lupines because they are food cooked by gentiles -- because they are not well-versed in Torah.

Concerning their children that they are mamzerim, Rabbi Yoḥanan conforms to his standard line of reasoning: As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One is never considered a convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And since he had not immersed, he is considered a gentile. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman -- the offspring is a mamzer. And concerning their wine -- because it is like wine poured as an idolatrous libation due to the maxim that: Go, go, we say to a nazirite, go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard.

And concerning their lupines -- because they are food cooked by gentiles, because they are not well versed in Torah. Were they students of the Torah, would they be permitted? Didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say in the name of Rav: Any food that is eaten as it is -- raw -- is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles? But a lupine is not eaten as it is -- raw -- and therefore it is subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles. Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in accordance with the other version of what Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Any food that does not appear on the table of kings to eat bread with it is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles. And consequently, the only reason to make a declaration prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is because they are not well versed in Torah. To those well versed in Torah, it is permitted.

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who was circumcised but did not immerse, Rabbi Eliezer says that this is a convert, as so we found with our forefathers that they were circumcised but were not immersed. One who immersed but was not circumcised -- Rabbi Yehoshua says that this is a convert, as so we found with our foremothers that they immersed but were not circumcised. And the Rabbis say: Whether he immersed but was not circumcised or whether he was circumcised but did not immerse, he is not a convert until he is circumcised and he immerses.

But let Rabbi Yehoshua also derive from our forefathers! And let Rabbi Eliezer also derive from our foremothers! And if you would say one cannot derive the possible from the impossible, isn’t it taught that Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived with regard to the Paschal lamb brought throughout the generations that it may be brought only from non-sacred animals? A Paschal lamb is stated in Egypt, and a Paschal lamb is stated in the generations. Just as the Paschal lamb stated in reference to Egypt was only brought from non-sacred animals, so too, with regard to the Paschal lamb stated in reference to the generations, it may be brought only from non-sacred animals. Rabbi Akiva said to him: But can one derive the possible from the impossible? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Although it was impossible, it is still a great proof, and we may learn from it.

Rather,

with regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, everyone agrees that immersion alone is effective. Where they disagree is with regard to one who was circumcised but had not immersed; Rabbi Eliezer derives from the forefathers, and Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees because he maintains that in the conversion of the forefathers there was also an immersion. From where did he derive this? If we say from the fact that it is written: “Go unto the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments” (Exodus 19:10): Just as in a case where washing of clothes is not required but immersion is required, then in a case where washing of clothes is required, isn’t it logical that immersion should be required? But perhaps it was merely for cleanliness. Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua derived it from here: “And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people” (Exodus 24:8), and it is learned that there is no sprinkling without immersion. And with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, from where do we derive that also in the case of our foremothers there was immersion? It is based on svara, as, if so, then with what were they brought under the wings of the Divine Presence?