Yevamot 46b — the Talmud in English

Rather— ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

if he immersed but was not circumcised—

everyone agrees that it is effective,

that it is effective for him to convert through this, as with the matriarchs.

When they disagree—

if he was circumcised but did not immerse.

Rabbi Eliezer derives it from the forefathers,

who were circumcised.

And Rabbi Joshua

holds that

with the forefathers also,

as with the matriarchs—

there was immersion.

And we raised an objection to it:

from where does he have it

that Rabbi Joshua says that there was immersion also with the forefathers?

If you say, from that which is written [Exodus 19]:

“Go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments.”

And let us derive it by a

kal va-chomer:

Just as in a case where washing is not required,

immersion is required

to purify himself,

the standing at the receiving of the Torah at Sinai, which is

a place where washing is required [for the immersion]

of garments, for their purification, as explained in the verse, “and let them wash their garments”—

is it not logical that immersion is required

to purify themselves also!

And we reject this:

perhaps

the intent of the verse with “washing” is

mere cleanliness!

For we do not find in it an obligation of immersion for purification of a person, and it is possible that the meaning of the washing of the garments is not their immersion for purification, but rather their washing for the sake of cleanliness.

Rather, from here [Exodus 24]:

“And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people”—

he sprinkled the blood upon them.

And it is a received tradition,

they know this as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai,

that there is no sprinkling—

without immersion

before it.

And Rabbi Joshua—

from where do we know immersion for the matriarchs?

It is a logical inference: for if so, by what did

the matriarchs

enter beneath the wings of the Divine Presence?

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

And we raised an objection to it: Is this

obvious

since

an individual and

the many—

the halakha is in accordance with the many!

And we answer:

whom does “the Sages” mean—

Rabbi Yose!

And this is not a dispute between an individual and the many, and it is not obvious that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yose; therefore Rabbi Yoḥanan had to teach us this.

As it was taught in a beraita: If one who came

as a convert

said, “I was circumcised but I did not immerse”—

they immerse him,

and through this he becomes a complete Jew, and there is no need to investigate whether his circumcision was for the sake of conversion. Since

what of it

if his circumcision was not for the sake of conversion, for there is no need for it, but immersion alone suffices—

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Yose says: They do not immerse

him until they investigate whether his circumcision was for the sake of Judaism, for perhaps he is a circumcised Gibeonite, and he also requires the drawing of covenantal blood.

For Rabbi Yose holds that circumcision and immersion are required in order to convert.

The beraita adds that there is a practical difference between Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Yose concerning the immersion on Shabbat of a convert who was circumcised but has not yet immersed.

For immersion for conversion is forbidden on Shabbat because of “repairing a person,” since the Sages decreed not to perform any repair on Shabbat, on account of the labor of “striking the final blow,” which is a primary category of labor, and the basis of its law is the prohibition against repairing on Shabbat.

But according to Rabbi Judah, who holds that one can convert through circumcision alone or through immersion alone, if it happened that the convert had already been circumcised on a weekday and no longer needs to immerse, and nevertheless they come to immerse him, this immersion does not constitute “repairing a person”—

therefore they immerse a convert on Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Judah.

And Rabbi Yose says: They do not immerse

him on Shabbat, for through this he is “repaired” from a gentile into a Jew, and the Sages prohibited repairing on Shabbat, even “repairing a person.”

The Master said

in the beraita:

“Therefore they immerse a convert on Shabbat.”

And we wonder:

Is this obvious,

that they immerse him on Shabbat according to Rabbi Judah!

For

since Rabbi Judah said

that

one is sufficient,

that one of the two, circumcision or immersion, is sufficient,

where

he has already

been circumcised

the convert

before us,

having been circumcised on a weekday, it is obvious that they

immerse

him on Shabbat, since his immersion involves no repair—

and if so, the difficulty is:

what

is the meaning of

“therefore”

used by the tan­〔nay〕 in the beraita?

And we answer:

lest you say,

it might have been said that

according to Rabbi Judah, immersion

is

the principal

act of conversion, and it is impossible without it, and circumcision without immersion is not effective.

But immersion alone is sufficient for conversion!

And there would be room for this distinction, since we heard only that Rabbi Judah says concerning a convert who came before us circumcised that there is no need to investigate whether his circumcision was performed properly for the sake of conversion, but rather, “they immerse him, and what of it.” And from the fact that he did not show concern about whether the circumcision was performed properly or not, it is proven that immersion alone is effective. But we still had not heard that Rabbi Judah holds that circumcision alone is also effective for conversion.

And

therefore we would have thought that

the immersion

of a convert

on Shabbat is not

performed, since

he is repairing a person

through his conversion.

And therefore

he teaches us

the tan­〔nay〕 in the beraita

with regard to Rabbi Judah—

either this,

circumcision,

or this,

immersion,

is required.

And the Gemara continues to explain what is stated in that beraita:

Rabbi Yose says: They do not immerse

on Shabbat.

And we raised an objection to it:

Is it obvious

that according to Rabbi Yose they do not immerse!

Since Rabbi Yose said that two

things

are required

in order to convert, both circumcision and immersion, it is obvious that

repairing a person on Shabbat

through immersion—

we do not perform it!?

And we answer:

lest you say, according to Rabbi Yose, circumcision

is

the principal

act of conversion, and immersion is not required.

And there,

in the case of a convert who came before us circumcised, whom Rabbi Yose did not accept,

it

was because

the circumcision did not take place before us,

and we do not know whether it was performed according to its law for the sake of Judaism.

But where the circumcision took place before us,

circumcision alone would suffice to convert him, and immersion would not be required. And if so,

let him immerse on Shabbat,

since his immersion would add no repair.

Therefore

he teaches us

the tan­〔nay〕, in introducing the law that according to Rabbi Yose he should not be immersed on Shabbat,

that according to Rabbi Yose two

things, circumcision and immersion,

are required!

Rabba said: There was an incident at the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rabbi.

And

if

Rav Yosef would teach,

that in that incident, together with Rabbi Ḥiyya,

Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi was also present.

And

if

Rav Safra would teach,

that in that incident there was present with both of them yet another Torah scholar,

Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi Ḥiyya,

and together there were three Torah scholars there—

there came before him

at night

a convert who had been circumcised but had not immersed.

He said to him: Stay

—remain—

here until tomorrow,

in the morning,

and

then

we will immerse you.

And the Gemara infers:

infer from it

from that incident

three,

three halakhot:

a.

Infer from it that a convert requires three.

And this we learned from Rav Safra’s version, which established it with three.

b.

And infer from it that he is not a convert until he is circumcised and immerses.

c.

And infer from it that they do not immerse a convert at night,

and therefore he delayed him until morning.

And we raised an objection to it:

And let us say: infer from it also that we require

the conversion to take place before judges who are

experts,

like the three eminent men of the generation who were there!?

And we answer: There is no proof from here that this is required, because

perhaps

it happened that they

happened to be present,

that these three eminent men happened to be there, but this does not mean that one can convert only in the presence of expert judges.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A convert requires

that there be

three

judges present at the acceptance of his conversion, since

“judgment” is written with regard to it.

The Sages taught: One who came

when he was circumcised

and said, “I am a convert”—

can we accept him,

and believe him that he converted, and not require him to undergo the drawing of covenantal blood and immersion?

The verse states

in the passage concerning holiness [Leviticus 19:33]:

“And when a convert resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him.

Like a native among you shall be the convert who resides with you.”

And the Sages expounded: “And when a convert resides with you”—he is a convert only when he is

“with you”,

that is,

established by you

as a convert, and not one who comes and says that he is a convert.

And if

the convert came

and

his witnesses were with him,

testifying to his conversion—

from where

do we know that we accept him?

The verse states, “And when a convert resides—

in your land.” [According to the emendation of the Bach]

And the Sages expounded: “And when a convert resides”—in any event. Even if he is not established as a convert, we accept him on the basis of the witnesses.

And below it will be explained why a derivation from the verse is required in order to believe two witnesses that he converted.