Yevamot 46b (מו:) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

if he was circumcised but had not immersed—

everyone agrees that it is effective,

that this suffices for conversion, as in the case of the foremothers.

They disagree

in a case where he was circumcised but had not immersed.

Rabbi Eliezer derives it from the forefathers,

who were circumcised.

And Rabbi Yehoshua

holds that

with regard to the forefathers as well,

as with the foremothers,

there was immersion.

And we raised an objection to this:

From where does he derive

that Rabbi Yehoshua says that there was immersion with regard to the forefathers as well?

If you say it is from what is written [Exodus 19]:

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

And it may be derived by a

kal va-chomer:

If in a case where washing is not required,

immersion is required,

to purify oneself—

the revelation at Sinai, which was

a place where washing

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

is it not all the more so that immersion is required

to purify themselves as well?

And we reject this:

Perhaps

the intent of the verse with regard to

washing is merely cleanliness!

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

Rather, it is 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,

a matter known as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai,

that there is no sprinkling

without immersion

before it.

And Rabbi Yehoshua—

from where do we know that there was immersion with regard to the foremothers?

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

the foremothers

enter under the wings of the Divine Presence?

Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is never a convert until he is circumcised and immerses.

And we raised an objection to this:

Is this not obvious,

for

an individual

and the majority—

the halakha is in accordance with the majority!

And we answer:

Who are the “Sages”

[mentioned there]? Rabbi Yose!

This is not a dispute between an individual and the majority, and it is not obvious that the halakha follows Rabbi Yose; therefore Rabbi Yoḥanan had to teach us this ruling.

As it was taught in a beraita: If a convert came

and

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

we immerse him,

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

what difference does it make

whether his circumcision was performed for the sake of conversion, given that it is not needed and immersion alone suffices—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yose says: We do not immerse

him until we investigate whether his circumcision was performed for the sake of Judaism, because perhaps he is a circumcised Gibeonite, in which case he also requires the drawing of covenantal blood.

This is because Rabbi Yose holds that circumcision and immersion are both required for conversion.

The beraita adds that there is a practical difference between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yose with regard to immersing on Shabbat a convert who was circumcised but had not yet immersed.

Immersion for the sake of conversion is prohibited on Shabbat because of “the improvement of a person,” since the Sages decreed that one may not perform any form of improvement on Shabbat, due to the labor of “striking the final blow,” which is a primary category of labor; the basis of its law is the prohibition against making repairs on Shabbat.

However, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one may convert through circumcision alone or through immersion alone, if the convert was already circumcised on a weekday and no longer needs to immerse, yet they come to immerse him, this immersion does not constitute “the improvement of a person”—

therefore, we immerse a convert on Shabbat; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Yose says: We do not immerse

him on Shabbat, since through this he is “repaired” from a gentile into a Jew, and the Sages prohibited making repairs on Shabbat, even “the improvement of a person.”

The Master said

in the beraita:

Therefore, we immerse a convert on Shabbat.

And we are surprised:

Is this not obvious,

that according to Rabbi Yehuda we immerse him on Shabbat?

For

since Rabbi Yehuda said

that

one of them suffices,

that either circumcision or immersion is sufficient,

where

the convert has already

been circumcised

by

our presence,

having been circumcised on a weekday, it is obvious that

we immerse

him on Shabbat, since his immersion effects no improvement—

if so, the question arises:

what

is the meaning of the expression

“therefore”

used by the tanna in the beraita?

And we answer:

Lest you say,

it might have been thought that

according to Rabbi Yehuda, immersion

is

the essential

element of conversion, and it is impossible to convert without it; circumcision without immersion is ineffective.

But immersion alone is sufficient for conversion!

This distinction might have been made because all we had heard was that Rabbi Yehuda says, with regard to a convert who comes before us already circumcised, that there is no need to investigate whether his circumcision was performed properly for the sake of conversion, but rather, “we immerse him; what difference does it make?” From the fact that he was unconcerned whether the circumcision had been properly performed, it is evident that immersion alone is effective. Yet we had still not heard that Rabbi Yehuda holds that circumcision alone is also effective for conversion.

And

therefore we might have thought that

the immersion

of a convert

on Shabbat is not

performed, since

he is effecting the improvement of a person

through his conversion.

Therefore,

the tanna teaches us

in the beraita,

with regard to Rabbi Yehuda—

either this,

circumcision,

or this,

immersion,

is required.

The Gemara continues to explain what is stated in that beraita:

Rabbi Yose says: We do not immerse

on Shabbat.

And we raised an objection to this:

Is it not obvious

that according to Rabbi Yose we do not immerse him?

For since Rabbi Yose said that two

things

are required,

that both circumcision and immersion are needed for conversion, it is obvious that

we do not effect the improvement of a person on Shabbat

through immersion—

we do not perform repairs [on Shabbat]!

And we answer:

Lest you say that, according to Rabbi Yose, circumcision

is

the essential

element of the act of conversion, and immersion is not required.

And there,

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

it was

because

the circumcision had not taken place in our presence,

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

But where the circumcision took place in our presence,

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

let us immerse this one on Shabbat,

since his immersion would effect no further improvement.

Therefore,

the tanna teaches us,

when he adds the ruling that according to Rabbi Yose he may 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 Rabbi Ḥiyya was accompanied in that incident also by

Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi,

and

if

Rav Safra would teach

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

Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi Ḥiyya,

so that three Torah scholars were present—

a convert came before them

at night,

who had been circumcised but had not immersed.

He said to him: Wait

here

until tomorrow,

in the morning,

and

then

we will immerse you.

And the Gemara infers:

Conclude from this

incident

three

halakhot:

a.

Conclude from this that a convert requires three

judges. We learn this from Rav Safra’s version, which places the incident in the presence of three.

b.

And conclude from this that he is not a convert until he is circumcised and immerses.

c.

And conclude from this that we do not immerse a convert at night,

and therefore they made him wait until morning.

And we raised an objection to this:

Let us also say: Conclude from this that we require

the conversion to take place in the presence of

expert

judges, as were the three leading sages of the generation who were there!?

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

perhaps

it refers to a case where they

happened to be present,

that these three great sages happened to be there; but this does not mean that conversion is possible only in the presence of expert judges.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A convert requires

that

three

judges be present when he accepts conversion, since

“judgment” is written with regard to it.

The Sages taught: One who came

already circumcised

and said, “I am a convert”—

can we accept him,

and believe him that he converted, without requiring him to have covenantal blood drawn and to immerse?

The verse states

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

When a convert resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him.

The convert who resides with you shall be like a native among you.”

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

“with you,”

that is,

established in your eyes

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, “When a convert resides—

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

And the Sages expounded: “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.

Later it will be explained why a biblical exposition is needed in order to believe two witnesses who testify that he converted.