Yevamot 47b — the Talmud in English

And Israelites at this time -

are unable to accept ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

an abundance of good,

for if they live very good lives, there is concern that their minds will become haughty and they will sin, since the evil inclination pursues them especially in order to cause them to sin.

Nor an abundance of calamity.

And they do not elaborate for him

on matters, to threaten him that he should refrain from his desire to convert,

and they do not scrutinize him.

He accepted

what they told him concerning the mitzvot, their punishments and rewards, and concerning the people of Israel, and agreed to become an Israelite -

they circumcise him immediately!

If there remained on him

in the place of the circumcision

strips,

pieces of flesh from the skin of the foreskin, because they did not completely uncover the skin of the foreskin, and these were

strips that invalidate the circumcision

[unclear: the source’s bracketed wording refers forward to the Gemara, where these strips are defined] -

they circumcise him again a second time.

And they wait for him until the place of the circumcision heals, so that they can immerse him.

When he has healed, they immerse him immediately.

And two Torah scholars stand over him,

at the time of the immersion, through which he enters the category of conversion, and at this time he must accept upon himself the yoke of the mitzvot,

and they inform him of some minor mitzvot and some major mitzvot.

He immersed and emerged -

behold, he is like an Israelite in all his matters.

And in the immersion of

a woman

for conversion -

women seat her in the water up to her neck.

And two Torah scholars stand for her outside, and they inform her of some minor mitzvot and some major mitzvot.

One is a convert and one is an emancipated slave

their law is equal to that of conversion, as will be explained below.

And in the place where a menstruant immerses,

in a ritual bath of forty seahs,

there a convert and an emancipated slave immerse,

even though their immersion is not at all for purification.

And anything that intervenes

between his flesh and the water

in immersion

ordinary, which is for purification from ritual impurity, so that the ritually impure person should not render pure things impure through his contact -

behold, it

intervenes

also

in

the immersion of

a convert, an emancipated slave, and a menstruant

who immerses in order to become pure for her husband, even though none of these immerse so that they should not render pure things impure through their contact.

The master said

in the beraita, on the preceding folio:

“A convert who comes to convert, they say to him: What did you see that you came to convert?”

“And they inform him of some minor mitzvot and some major mitzvot.”

What is the reason

they say this to him?

For if he withdraws

from converting -

let him withdraw,

for we have no interest in his converting.

Because of

that which Rabbi Helbo said: Converts are difficult for Israel like

a

lesion,

which is an affliction.

As it is written

[Isaiah 14]

“And the convert shall join himself to them, and they shall attach themselves to the house of Jacob.”

For Scripture called them with the expression “lesion.”

And the reason for the matter is that they continue in their former deeds even after their conversion, and thereby influence Israel negatively, those who learn from them or rely upon them in ruling concerning what is forbidden and what is permitted.

We further learned there in the beraita:

“And they inform him of the iniquity of”

refraining from giving

gleanings, forgotten sheaves, the corner of the field, and the tithe for the poor.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason

they inform him specifically of the iniquity of this mitzva?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

since gentiles are very particular about their property, therefore they inform them of the matter of the gifts to the poor, lest they withdraw from converting because they will take pity on their property.

And we find that gentiles are so particular about their property that they are unwilling to forgo even less than the value of a peruta.

And therefore the law is that

a descendant of Noah

who robbed, for which he is liable to death, since descendants of Noah are punished with death for transgressing the seven mitzvot in which they are obligated -

behold, he is

killed

even

for

robbing

less than the value of a peruta,

because they are particular even about less than the value of a peruta.

And the robbery cannot be

the robbery

restored

for descendants of Noah, who cannot rectify it by returning the stolen property, because only concerning Israelites did the Torah say that returning the stolen property is the rectification of the sin of robbery, but not concerning descendants of Noah.

We further learned in the beraita:

“And they do not elaborate for him, and they do not scrutinize him.”

Rabbi Elazar said: What verse indicates this?

As it is written

in the Scroll of Ruth [chapter 1]

“And she saw

Naomi

that she was determined

[Ruth]

to go with her -

and she ceased speaking to her.”

She said to her

Naomi to Ruth:

“It is forbidden to us,”

it is forbidden for us to go on Shabbat beyond the

Shabbat boundary!

Ruth answered her:

“Wherever you go” -

“I will go.”

Naomi said to her:

“It is forbidden to us to be secluded

with a married woman’s husband!”

Ruth answered her:

“Wherever you lodge” -

“I will lodge.”

Naomi said:

“Six hundred and thirteen mitzvot are imposed upon us!”

Ruth answered:

“Your people” -

“are my people.”

Naomi said:

“The worship of stars is forbidden to us!”

Ruth answered:

“And your God” -

“is my God.”

Naomi said:

“Four modes of execution were delivered to the court!”

Ruth answered:

“Wherever you die” -

“I will die.”

Naomi said:

“Two graves”

[cemeteries]

were delivered to the court!”

The first, for those liable for severe modes of execution, who are those burned and stoned, because they acted wickedly in committing severe transgressions.

And the second, for those liable for lenient modes of execution, who are those executed by the sword and strangled.

Ruth answered:

“And there I shall be buried.”

Immediately, “And she saw that she was determined

to go with her - and she ceased speaking to her.”

We further learned in the beraita:

“He accepted” -

“they circumcise him immediately.”

What is the reason

they hurry to accept him immediately?

Delaying a mitzva -

we do not delay.

We further learned in the beraita:

“If there remained on him strips that invalidate the circumcision,”

they return and circumcise him a second time.

As we learned

in tractate Shabbat [137a]:

“These are the strips that invalidate the circumcision,”

and he remains uncircumcised if they are not removed:

If there remained

flesh

from the skin of the foreskin

that covers most of the corona.

And

if he is a koen,

he does not eat teruma.

For it is forbidden for an uncircumcised koen to eat teruma.

And Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said:

the intention of the Mishna is not to say that only if flesh remained that covers most of the circumference of the corona is he uncircumcised.

Rather, even if flesh remained in one place

that covers

the

majority of the height of the corona, even though it does not cover most of its circumference, he is uncircumcised.

We further learned in the beraita:

“When he has healed, they immerse him immediately.”

And the Gemara infers:

“When he has healed, yes,”

then they immerse him.

But if

the place has not healed

of the circumcision,

they do not

immerse him.

What is the reason? -

Because water

which is water

aggravates,

they intensify the illness of the

wound.

We further learned in the beraita:

“And two Torah scholars stand over him.”

And we object:

But Rabbi Hiyya said that Yohanan said: A convert requires three,

who are a court, for his conversion!?

And we answer:

This is Yohanan speaking to the tanna,

who was reciting the beraitot before him:

Teach

in this beraita:

three

Torah scholars stand over him.

We further learned in the beraita:

“He immersed and emerged” -

“behold, he is like an Israelite in all his matters.”

And we investigate this: Since from now he is an Israelite,

for what halakhic purpose

did we learn that he is like an Israelite “in all his matters”? And we answer: “in all his matters” teaches us

that if he goes back on it,

if he regrets his conversion, he cannot go back from it.

And

if

he betroths an Israelite woman

after he went back and changed his religion to become a gentile -

“an apostate Israelite” is what we call him, and his betrothals are betrothals.

We further learned in the beraita:

“One is a convert and one is an emancipated slave.”

It might have entered your mind

that the intention of the beraita is to equate a convert who immerses with a Canaanite slave who immerses for his emancipation, who must be informed of some mitzvot at the time of the immersion, in order

to accept upon himself the yoke of the mitzvot

then.

And we raise a contradiction

to this from another beraita:

For it was taught:

“In what case are these words stated,

that he must accept upon himself the yoke of the mitzvot at the time of the immersion? -

With a convert.

But with an emancipated slave,

who immerses for his emancipation -

he need not accept

the yoke of the mitzvot then, since at the time that they immersed him for servitude he was already obligated in mitzvot like a woman!

Rav Sheshet said: It is not difficult:

This,

the beraita that an emancipated slave must accept the mitzvot upon himself at the time of his immersion for emancipation -

is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

[speaking].

This,

the beraita in which we learned that an emancipated slave need not accept the yoke of the mitzvot at the time of his immersion for emancipation, because he had already accepted the mitzvot at the time of his immersion for servitude -

is the Rabbis

[speaking].

For it was taught

concerning the verse about the beautiful woman [Deuteronomy 21]:

“And she shall weep for her father and her mother

a month of days.”

In what case are these words stated,

that one must wait for her to weep for a month of days -

when she has not accepted upon herself

to convert.

But when she has accepted upon herself

to convert immediately -

he immerses her

for Judaism,

and he is permitted to her immediately.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even though she has not accepted upon herself

to convert, if he wishes, he

forces

her against her will,

and immerses her

first

for the sake of servitude.

For in his view he can immerse her for the sake of a Canaanite maidservant against her will, even though she does not accept upon herself some mitzvot as a woman, and she becomes obligated in them against her will!

For in his view all immersions of slaves are performed against their will!

And he immerses her again

against her will

for the sake of emancipation, and emancipates her.