The Oral Talmud with Benay Lappe and Dan Libenson Episode 148

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? The Gemara answers: It is based on svara, as, if so, then with what were they brought under the wings of the Divine Presence?

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is never a convert until he is circumcised and has immersed. Isn’t this obvious? In all disputes between an individual Sage and many Sages the halakha is in accordance with the the many. Who are the Rabbis? It is Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who came and said: I was circumcised but I did not immerse, the court should immerse him, as what would be the problem with that -- this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? Rabbi Yosei says: The court does not immerse him. Therefore, the court may immerse a convert on Shabbat -- this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yosei says: The court may not immerse him. The Master said: Therefore, the court may immerse a convert on Shabbat. Isn’t this an obvious extension of his opinion?Since Rabbi Yehuda said that either one is sufficient, where a convert was circumcised in our presence we immerse him. What, then, is the need for the clause that begins with: Therefore? Lest you say that according to Rabbi Yehuda the immersion is in fact the principal act. And therefore performing the immersion on Shabbat would not be permitted, as it establishes the person with a new status. The latter clause is therefore necessary to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda requires either this or that.

Rabbi Yosei says: They may not immerse him. Isn’t this obvious? As, since Rabbi Yosei requires two acts, we may not establish that person with a new status on Shabbat. Lest you say that according to Rabbi Yosei circumcision is the principal act, and it is only there, in the first clause of the baraita, where the circumcision was not performed in our presence, that Rabbi Yosei states that they should not proceed to immerse him; however, where the circumcision was performed in our presence, one might say let us immerse this convert on Shabbat. The latter clause is therefore necessary to teach us that Rabbi Yosei requires two acts.

Rabba said: There was an incident in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rabbi, and as Rav Yosef teaches it, Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi was also present, and as Rav Safra teaches it, a third Sage, Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, was also present, in which a convert came before him who was circumcised but had not immersed. He said to the convert: Remain here with us until tomorrow, and then we will immerse you. Rabba said: Learn from this incident three principles: Learn from it that a convert requires three people. And learn from it that one is not a convert until he has been circumcised and immersed. And learn from it that they may not immerse a convert at night. And let us say also learn from it that we require experts. Perhaps they simply happened to be there.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A convert [ger] requires three because “judgment,” is written with regard to him, as the verse states: “And one judgment shall be both for you and for the ger that sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:16).

The Sages taught: Someone who came and said: I am a convert [ger] -- one might have thought we should accept him; therefore, the verse states: “And if a ger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not oppress him” (Leviticus 19:33) -- only someone already presumed by you. If he came and brought witnesses with him, from where is it derived that he is to be accepted? It is from the beginning of that verse, which states: “And if a ger sojourns with you in your land.”

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” -- in any place that he is with you. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: In the land? In the Land of Israel he needs to bring evidence, but outside of the Land of Israel he does not need to bring evidence. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Whether he is in the Land of Israel or whether he is outside of the Land of Israel, he needs to bring evidence.

He came and brought witnesses with him -- why do I need a verse? 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. It could enter your mind to say that they should not be relied upon; therefore, the verse teaches us that they are relied upon.

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 the Land of Israel; from where do I derive that also outside of the Land Israel? 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? One 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). The baraita states: And the Rabbis say: Whether he is in the Land of Israel or whether he is outside of the Land of Israel, he needs to bring evidence. The Gemara asks: But isn’t “in your land” written in the verse? That phrase is necessary to teach that even in the land of Israel, you should accept converts, as it could enter your mind to say that it is only for the sake of benefiting from the goodness of the Land of Israel that they are converting. And it could also enter your mind to say that even nowadays, when there is no longer the goodness, there are the gleanings, the forgotten sheaves, and the corners of fields, and the poor man’s tithe. Therefore, the verse teaches us that they are accepted even in the land of Israel.