Yevamot 46a — the Talmud in English

Gentile—actually:

He does not acquire him!

For a gentile cannot acquire a slave with ownership of his person. Only a Jew can acquire ownership of the person of a Canaanite slave, but not a gentile, as the source for this will be explained below.

Therefore, only

that which he acquires

for the gentile,

is what he

can

transfer to a Jew.

For a gentile cannot sell to a Jew more than he possesses in the slave. He possesses only a lien on him: the slave has undertaken and obligated himself to work for him, but the gentile does not own his person.

And since

the slave

preceded him and immersed for the sake of becoming a free Jew,

before the Jewish purchaser had time to immerse him for the sake of becoming a Canaanite slave,

he nullified

the slave, through his immersion,

his lien

in him, namely, the right to have him work for him.

And

so

it is

clear according to Rava.

For Rava said: Consecration, leaven, and emancipation—

nullify a lien

that another person has on one’s property.

For example, if someone made his ox an apotiki for the collection of a debt—that is, he designated that particular ox as security for collection of the debt—and afterward the debtor consecrated the ox with the sanctity of an offering for the altar, the creditor’s lien on the ox is nullified.

Or, if he made his leaven an apotiki for a gentile, and the time for removing leaven arrived on Passover eve, the gentile’s lien on the leaven is nullified, and the debtor is obligated to remove it.

Or, if he made his slave an apotiki for another person and then emancipated the slave, the other person’s lien on the emancipated slave is nullified.

Therefore, here too, when the slave preceded him and immersed himself to become a free Jew, his emancipation, when he became a free Jew, nullifies his obligation to work.

Rav Ḥisda raised an objection: There was an incident involving Biloraya the convert, whose slaves preceded her

when she came to convert,

and immersed

for the sake of conversion

before her.

And the incident came before the Sages, and they said: They have acquired themselves as free men.

Rav Ḥisda infers: If they preceded her and immersed

before her,

while she was still a gentile and had no ability to own the persons of her slaves,

yes,

only then did their immersion help to nullify their obligation to her.

But if they had immersed

after her,

after she had converted, then

no,

they would not have been able to immerse for the sake of becoming free men!

If so, why did Rav say that when a Jew purchases a slave from a gentile, the slave may precede him and immerse for the sake of becoming a free Jew!?

Rava said

to resolve Rav Ḥisda’s difficulty:

Actually, the slave may precede his immersion and immerse himself for the sake of becoming a free man even while he is in the possession of a Jew, as long as his owners have not immersed him for the sake of becoming a Canaanite slave.

Rather, there is a distinction between one who immerses while in the possession of a gentile and one who immerses while in the possession of a Jew, with regard to the need to specify at the time of his immersion that he is immersing for the sake of becoming a free man:

If the slaves immerse

before her,

while she is still a gentile, then

whether without specification,

when they did not specify that they were immersing for the sake of becoming free men,

or explicitly,

when they specified that they were immersing for the sake of becoming free men, they become free men.

But if they immerse

after her,

after she has become a Jew, then only if they say

explicitly

that they are immersing for the sake of becoming free men,

yes,

do they become free men. But if they immerse

without specification, then

no,

they do not become free men.

And in the case of Rav Ḥama bar Gurya, Rav explained that the one immersing specified that he was immersing for the sake of becoming a free man; therefore, his immersion was effective in making him a free man.

The reason is that a gentile cannot immerse him for the sake of servitude. Therefore, when he immerses without specification, even if he does not specify that it is for the sake of freedom, it is considered to be for the sake of freedom.

But a Jew, who can immerse him for the sake of servitude: if he immerses him without specification, he immerses him for the sake of servitude. Therefore, only if the slave precedes him and explicitly declares that his immersion is for the sake of emancipation does he become a free man. But without specification, he becomes a Canaanite slave.

Rav Avya said: They taught

that the slave may precede his immersion and immerse for the sake of becoming a free man

only when one purchases

a slave

from a gentile.

But

if the Jew purchased the

gentile himself,

who sold himself into slavery for money, then

he acquires

him with ownership of his person, and he cannot precede him and immerse for the sake of becoming a free man.

Rav Avya proves this from that

which is written [Leviticus 25]:

“

And also from the children of the resident aliens who reside with you, from them you may purchase

[slaves].”

.

a.

You purchase from them

slaves.

b.

But they do not purchase from you

slaves.

c.

And they do not purchase from one another

slaves.

And we must analyze: Regarding that which the verse said,

“But they do not purchase from you”—

for what purpose?

What type of servitude do they not purchase from you?

If you say

that a gentile cannot purchase a Jew even

for the work of his hands,

that is not so. For

is it so—

does

a gentile not

acquire a Jew for the work of his hands?

But it is written

in Leviticus, in the passage concerning the redemption of relatives [chapter 25]: “

When the hand of a stranger or resident alien among you prospers, and your brother becomes impoverished with him, and he sells himself to the stranger, the resident alien among you,

or to the family of a stranger.”

And the Master said: “The family of a stranger”—

this is a gentile!

Rather, is it not

that the verse intends to say that a gentile does not purchase a Jew

with regard to his person?

And

regarding this

the Merciful One says: “You purchase from them!”

That is,

even with regard to his person!

Rav Aḥa refuted

Rav Avya:

Say

that the intent of the verse is that you purchase from them

with money and immersion!

As is the law regarding a Canaanite slave.

But before the gentile immerses for the sake of servitude, the Jew cannot acquire him with ownership of his person, just as a gentile cannot acquire a Jew in that manner. There is no proof from the verse that one may acquire ownership of the person of a gentile when he sells himself. Therefore, if the gentile precedes him and immerses, he goes free.

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is difficult.

Shmuel said: And it is necessary

for the Jew who purchases a slave from a gentile and immerses him for the sake of becoming a Canaanite slave—which entails a partial entry into Judaism—

to restrain him

while the slave is immersing

in the water,

to place the full yoke of labor upon him, so that his immersion will appear to be an immersion for the sake of servitude, and he will not be able to say that he is immersing for the sake of becoming a free man.

For since the master displays his ownership over him at the time of immersion, there is no substance to the slave’s claim that he is immersing for the sake of becoming a free man.

This is like the case of Minyamin, Rav Ashi’s slave, who wanted

Rav Ashi

to immerse

him in order to make him a Canaanite slave.

He handed him over

to

Ravina and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava,

so that they would immerse him for the sake of servitude, and

he said to them

Rav Ashi:

Be careful,

take heed that if my slave Minyamin succeeds in immersing himself for the sake of becoming a free man,

I will demand payment for him from you,

I will demand from you payment of his value!

They placed a kind of chain

around him

on his neck,

and while they immersed him

they loosened it,

they loosened the knot of the chain,

and

afterward

they tightened

it

around him.

The Gemara explains:

They loosened it—

so that it would not be

the chain

a separation

during the immersion.

They tightened it around him—

so that Minyamin would not precede

and

say to them, “I am immersing for the sake of becoming a free man.”

When he raised his head from the water,

when Minyamin raised his head from the water,

they placed a vessel of clay on his head,

they placed a vessel filled with mud on his head,

and said to him: “Go, bring it to my master’s house.”

Go and bring this basket filled with mud to your master’s house.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Master, see,

please see how

these

wealthy men

of the house of

the family of

Pappa bar Abba, who give money to people for their poll tax, conduct themselves.

In those days, it was customary to pay the king a poll tax, and the king’s collectors would seize anyone who did not pay the tax.

The wealthy men of the house of Pappa bar Abba would pay the king’s collectors the taxes of gentiles who were unable to pay them,

and

in exchange for the money they gave those people, they would

enslave them,

acquiring them as slaves.

Rav Pappa asked Rava:

When they leave,

when those whom they acquired as slaves leave their possession, do they

require a bill of emancipation

as is the law regarding a Canaanite slave,

or not?

He said to him: If only I had died,

as had those Sages who preceded me and passed away—

would they not have told you this matter!?

For

this is what Rav Sheshet said: The slave seals

the mark of servitude

of these

people

are in the

king’s chest,

where they are placed.

And the king said: Whoever does not pay the poll tax

whoever does not pay the poll tax

becomes enslaved to the one who pays the poll tax,

he shall become a slave to the one who pays the tax on his behalf.

Therefore, the payment made to the king’s collectors on their behalf is considered as though the king sold them to the purchasers as slaves, and they require a bill of emancipation if they wish to convert and become permitted to a Jewish woman.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba happened to come to Gavla.

He saw

there

Jewish women who were pregnant

who had conceived

from converts who had been circumcised but had not immersed.

And he saw wine

wine

belonging to Jews, which they diluted,

which they poured with water,

and gentiles, and Jews drank it; and he saw lupines, which

gentiles boiled, and Jews ate them

which they boiled in hot water,

and Jews ate them.

But he did not say anything to them,

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba,

and did nothing.

He did nothing to prevent them from acting in this manner.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba came

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba

before Rabbi Yoḥanan,

and told him what he had seen there.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Go

there

and proclaim:

Regarding their sons—

that they are mamzerim,

because there is no conversion without circumcision and immersion, and these men who did not immerse are gentiles; their sons born to Jewish women are mamzerim.

And regarding their wine—

because of wine touched by a gentile,

because gentiles diluted it.

And regarding their lupines—

which are forbidden to eat

because of food cooked by gentiles.

The prohibition that you should proclaim regarding the lupines is not the fundamental law. Rather, one should be stringent and forbid them even the lupines boiled by gentiles,

because they are not learned in Torah,

and one must be more stringent with them than the fundamental law requires, so that they will not treat the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles lightly.

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yoḥanan told him to proclaim

regarding their sons, that they are mamzerim—

Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his own reasoning:

For Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A convert is never a convert until he is circumcised and immerses.

And since he did not immerse—

he is a gentile.

And

likewise,

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: If a gentile or a slave engages in intercourse with a Jewish woman—

the offspring is a mamzer.

And

he told him to proclaim

regarding their wine

that it is forbidden

because of wine touched by a gentile,

even though they did not touch it—

because they say: “Go away, they say to the nazirite; go around, go around; do not approach the vineyard.”

That is, just as one warns a nazirite not to approach a vineyard of grapes but to go around it, so too one must prevent the stumbling block of wine touched by a gentile by forbidding even dilution without touching it. [unclear: the source sentence is incomplete]

.

И о люпине — из-за варки идолопоклонниками, поскольку они не знатоки Торы.

The Gemara infers:

This

is in a place where they are

learned in Torah

and will not treat the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles lightly—

it is permitted!

This is difficult:

But Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Anything that is eaten raw—

there is no prohibition of food cooked by gentiles,

even if gentiles cooked it.

But lupines are not eaten raw, and

if so,

there is a prohibition of food cooked by gentiles!

And we answer:

Rabbi Yoḥanan

holds in accordance with the other formulation:

For Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Anything that is not served on the table of kings as an accompaniment to bread—

there is no prohibition of food cooked by gentiles!

And

therefore, the

reason

that he prohibited their lupines, even though they are not an important food served on the table of kings, is

that they are not learned in Torah.

This

is in a place where they are

learned in Torah—

it is permitted.

The Sages taught: With regard to a convert who was circumcised but did not immerse—

Rabbi Eliezer says: He is a convert.

For so we find with our ancestors

at the Exodus from Egypt, when they too underwent a form of conversion, at the time they left the status of descendants of Noah in order to receive the Torah and encounter the Divine Presence [in the wording of Rashi],

that they were circumcised

then

but did not immerse.

And if

he immersed

the convert

but was not circumcised—

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He is a convert, for so we find with the matriarchs,

the wives of our ancestors at the time of the Exodus from Egypt,

that they immersed but were not circumcised.

For they immersed in order to enter under the wings of the Divine Presence, since entry under the wings of the Divine Presence through circumcision does not apply to them; and if they did not immerse, through what did they enter?

And the Sages say: A convert who

окунился,

immersed but was not circumcised, or who

или

was circumcised but did not immerse—

is not a convert until he is circumcised and immerses.

And we raise a difficulty:

And Rabbi Yehoshua,

who learned from the matriarchs that immersion alone is effective,

also—

let him derive

let him learn as well

from the ancestors,

that circumcision alone is effective for conversion!

And

likewise,

Rabbi Eliezer,

who learned from the ancestors that circumcision alone is effective,

also—

let him derive

let him learn as well

from the matriarchs,

that immersion alone suffices for conversion!

And if you would say

to resolve the difficulty for Rabbi Eliezer, that

“one does not derive ‘possible’,”

the conversion of males, who can also undergo circumcision,

from ‘impossible’,”

from the matriarchs, who cannot undergo circumcision—

that cannot be the answer, because Rabbi Eliezer holds that one does derive “possible” from “impossible.”

For it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived that the Paschal offering throughout the generations may come only from non-sacred funds

and not from second-tithe money?

It says

“Paschal offering”

with regard to the Passover offering in Egypt, and it says

“Paschal offering”

with regard to the Passover offering throughout the generations—

Just as

the

Paschal offering mentioned with regard to Egypt could come only from non-sacred funds,

since there was no second tithe at that time,

so too, the Paschal offering mentioned with regard to the generations may come only from non-sacred funds!

Rabbi Akiva said to him: Do you derive “possible” from “impossible”?

For the reason they brought the Passover offering in Egypt from non-sacred funds was that it was impossible to bring it from second-tithe money, since second tithe did not yet exist. How, then, can one learn from this with regard to the Passover offering throughout the generations, when second-tithe money can exist? Why should one not bring it from such funds?

He said to him,

Rabbi Eliezer:

Although it was impossible

at that time to bring it from second-tithe money,

it is a powerful proof, and we derive the law from it!

On the basis of this difficulty, the Gemara presents the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva differently: