Yevamot 47a (מז.) — the Talmud in English

I have only

that converts are accepted

only in Eretz Yisrael.

Outside Eretz Yisrael—

from where

do we know that converts are accepted?

The verse states: “

When a convert resides

with you”—

wherever you are!

If so, what is the verse teaching by stating, “in the land”?

In the land—

he must bring

the convert

proof

that he converted in a court. And the fact that he is circumcised is not proof, because perhaps he is a circumcised Gibeonite. In Eretz Yisrael, there is concern that he wants to present himself as a convert, despite being a gentile, because of the praise of the land.

Outside Eretz Yisrael—

he need not bring proof,

since there the gentiles do not want to convert, on account of the lowly status of the Jews outside Eretz Yisrael,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

And the Sages say: Both in the land and outside the land—

he must bring proof.

The Gemara now discusses the statement of the beraita.

We learned in the beraita:

He comes

—the convert—

and his witnesses are with him—

from where do we know that we accept him? The verse states: “And when a convert resides in your land”—in any event.

And we raised a difficulty: Since the convert brings witnesses with him concerning his conversion,

why do I need the verse?

His witnesses are with him, and witnesses are trusted everywhere!

Rav Sheshet said,

here we are dealing with a case in which

the witnesses say:

the witnesses

“We heard that he converted in the court of so-and-so!”

It might enter your mind to say that we should not rely on them

in this matter, since this is not testimony about a conversion that they witnessed, but merely hearsay testimony.

The verse teaches us

that one relies on such hearsay testimony in order to establish him as a convert.

We learned further in the beraita:

“In the land.”

I have only

that converts are accepted

only in the land.

Outside the land, from where

do we know that converts are accepted?

The verse states: “With you”—

wherever you are.

And we raised a difficulty:

But you have already used it!

You already used the word “with you” for another exposition: to learn from the phrase “with you” that we do not believe a convert who comes and says that he converted, unless he is “with you,” meaning that it is established to you that he is a convert! And we answer: There are two teachings before us, from which both matters can be learned:

One teaching

one

can learn

from “

when a convert resides

with you.” [Leviticus 19:33]

Leviticus 19:33]

And

one teaching

one

can learn

from

the following verse: “Like a native among you, so shall the convert who resides

among you” [according to the version of the Vilna Gaon].

We learned further in the beraita:

“And the Sages say:

Both in the land and outside the land”—

he must bring proof

that he converted.

And we raised a difficulty:

But is it not written, “in the land”?

Rabbi Yehuda learned from here that only in the land must he bring proof, but not outside the land!

And we answer: According to the Sages,

that “

in the land” does not come to say that only in the land must he bring proof.

Rather,

it is needed to teach that converts are accepted even in the land.

As it might enter your mind to say that it is because of the goodness of Eretz Yisrael,

which flows with milk and honey,

that they convert,

and we would not accept them, since they are not converting for the sake of Heaven.

And

even

now as well, when there is no goodness,

as it does not now flow with milk and honey, nevertheless

there is

in it

gleanings, forgotten sheaves, the corner of the field, and the poor man’s tithe,

which apply even in the present era, and they convert in order to receive them when they are poor—

the verse teaches us

by stating “in the land” that converts are accepted even in the land.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha

is in accordance with the Sages, that

both in the land and outside the land—

the convert must

bring

proof

that he converted.

And we express astonishment:

It is obvious

that the halakha is in accordance with the Sages, for

when there is an individual and a majority—

the halakha follows the majority!

And we answer:

It might enter your mind to say that Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is compelling, for

indeed,

the verses support him.

For the beginning of the verse, “when a convert resides with you,” teaches that converts are accepted in the land, from the teaching “wherever you are.” And the continuation of the verse—“in your land”—

is superfluous. And it supports Rabbi Yehuda’s statement that only in the land must the convert bring proof of his conversion, because it flows with milk and honey, but not outside the land.

The verse teaches us

that nevertheless, the halakha is in accordance with the Sages.

The Sages taught: At the beginning of the Book of Deuteronomy [chapter 1], it is written:

“

And you shall judge righteously between a man and his brother and his convert”—

From here,

from the fact that the verse used the term “his convert” when it said, “And you shall judge,”

Rabbi Yehuda said:

The verse teaches that only

a convert who converted in a court—

he is a convert.

But if he converted

between himself and himself—

he is not a convert.

There was an incident involving

one

convert,

who was presumed to be a properly valid Jew,

who came before Rabbi Yehuda and said to him: “I converted between myself and myself!”

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehuda asked him:

Rabbi Yehuda:

Do

you have witnesses

to disqualify yourself, to testify that you converted without a court and that you are a gentile and not a Jew?

He said to him: No.

He asked him further:

Do you have sons?

He said to him: Yes.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehuda:

You are trusted to disqualify yourself

alone,

but you are not trusted to disqualify your sons,

who have been established in our eyes as properly valid Jews.

And we raised a difficulty:

But

is it so that

Rabbi Yehuda said that he is not trusted

regarding his sons,

to disqualify them?

to disqualify them?

But it was taught

with regard to the recognition of the firstborn: It is stated in Deuteronomy [21:17]:

“For he must recognize the firstborn son of the hated wife, to give him a double portion.”

“He must recognize”—

its meaning is:

he must make him known to others.

From here Rabbi Yehuda said:

The Torah granted the father special trust to recognize his son with regard to others.

If the court does not know which of his sons is the firstborn,

a person is trusted to say

about his son:

“This is my son,”

he is my

firstborn,

and he is entitled to receive a double portion of my property when I die.

And

on the basis of this innovation of the Torah, which granted the father the power of trust concerning recognition of his son, Rabbi Yehuda learned:

Just as he is trusted

—the father—

to say

about his son:

“This

is

my son,

the

firstborn,”—

so he is trusted

to disqualify him; if he is a kohen, he can

say

about his son:

“This son of mine is a disqualified kohen—because

he is the

son of a divorced woman, or because

he is the

son of a ḥalutza!”

And the Sages say: He is not trusted

to disqualify him.

It is explicit in this beraita that according to Rabbi Yehuda, a person is trusted to disqualify his sons. Why, then, did Rabbi Yehuda say to the convert who came before him that he is not trusted to disqualify his sons? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak and Ravina disagree in explaining Rabbi Yehuda’s statement:

Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This is what he said to him:

The power of trust that the Torah granted the father, making him as trusted as two witnesses to recognize his son even to disqualify him, applies only to a Jew, since only a Jew is fit to give testimony.

But

according to your statement, you are a gentile. And there is no testimony from a gentile!

And since your sons are presumed before us to be valid, you have no ability to testify concerning them in order to disqualify them.

But

Ravina said

in explanation of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement:

This is what he said to him,

Rabbi Yehuda to the convert who came before him:

Do

you have sons?—

He said to him:

Yes.

Do

you have grandsons?—

He said to him:

Yes.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehuda:

You are trusted to disqualify

only

your sons, but you are not trusted to disqualify your grandsons.

Ravina maintains that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the father’s trust by virtue of “he must recognize” applies even to a gentile, since it is not in the category of testimony, but rather a special innovation of trust that a father has concerning his son.

However, this innovation of “he must recognize” was stated only with regard to trust concerning one’s sons, and not concerning one’s grandsons.

Therefore, if he already has grandsons, he is not trusted to disqualify even his son, because it is impossible for his son to be disqualified while his grandsons are valid [Tosafot].

It was likewise taught,

in accordance with Ravina’s statement:

Rabbi Yehuda says: A person is trusted to say that his son is a minor, but he is not trusted concerning his son who is an adult.

And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan

explained his statement:

Not a minor—

an actual minor, and not an adult—

an actual adult.

Rather,

if his son is

“young”

relatively young],

and he has

—his younger son—

sons—

this is his “

son

who is older,”

concerning whom he is not trusted to disqualify him.

Since he is not trusted to disqualify his grandsons, he is likewise unable to disqualify his son, because it is impossible for his son to be disqualified while his grandsons are valid [Tosafot].

But if he has an

older son

relatively older],

and he does not have

—his older son—

sons—

this is his “

son

who is young,”

and he is trusted to disqualify him.

And the Gemara concludes:

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak

in explaining Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, who said to him: According to your statement, you are a gentile! And even concerning his son, he is not trusted to disqualify him when he is a gentile.

And we express astonishment:

But it was taught

in the beraita cited by the Gemara

in accordance

with what

Ravina

said,

namely,

that according to Rabbi Yehuda, even a gentile is trusted to disqualify his son when his son has no sons.

The Gemara assumed that the beraita cited as proof for Ravina concerns the trust of a gentile regarding the disqualification of his son.

The Gemara rejects this: This beraita is not proof for Ravina, because

that

which is stated in that beraita was

stated with regard to “he must recognize”

in the case of a Jew

it was stated.

We can learn from the verse that the father is trusted to say which of his sons is the firstborn with regard to inheritance; likewise, he is trusted to disqualify him from the priesthood.

And concerning this, the beraita says that he is trusted to disqualify only his son and not his grandson.

But this trust is an innovation concerning testimony, and a gentile cannot testify. And when he says, “I converted between myself and myself,” then according to his own statement he is a gentile, and there is no testimony from a gentile; therefore, he cannot disqualify even his son.

The Sages taught: With regard to a convert who comes to convert nowadays, they say to him: What did you see that brought you to convert?

And

do you not know that the Jews nowadays are afflicted, oppressed, downtrodden

lowly],

and harried

moving and wandering from place to place],

and suffering comes upon them!

If he says: “I know, and I am unworthy”

at present I am not worthy to share in their suffering, and would that I be worthy to suffer with them]—

he is accepted immediately.

And they inform him of some of the less severe mitzvot and some of the more severe mitzvot,

and they inform him of the transgression concerning gleanings, forgotten sheaves, the corner of the field, and the poor man’s tithe.

And they inform him of the punishments for the mitzvot.

They say to him: Know that before you came to this status,

of Judaism, if

you ate forbidden fat, you were not liable to karet,

and if

you desecrated Shabbat, you were not liable to stoning.

But now,

once you become a Jew, if

you eat forbidden fat,

you

are liable to karet,

and if

you desecrate Shabbat,

you

are liable to stoning.

And just as they inform him of the punishments for the mitzvot, so they inform him of the rewards for the mitzvot.

They say to him: Know that the World-to-Come is made only for the righteous.