Commentary for Yevamot 94:19

ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר אע"פ שלא קבלה עליה כופה ומטבילה לשם שפחות וחוזר ומטבילה לשם שחרור ומשחררה

'Should any shreds which render the circumcision invalid remain etc.', as we learned: These are the shreds which render the circumcision invalid: Flesh which covers the greater part of the corona,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the membrum virile. ');">²⁹</span> [a priest having been so circumcised] is not permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>; and R. Jeremiah b. Abba explained in the name of Rab: Flesh which covers the greater part of the height of the corona.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if only on a minor portion of the circumference. ');">³⁰</span> 'As soon as he is healed arrangements are made for his immediate ablution'. Only after he is healed but not before!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he was healed, yes; he was not healed, no'. ');">³¹</span> What is the reason? — Because the water might irritate the wound. 'When two learned men must stand by his side'. Did not R. Hiyya, however, state in the name of R. Johanan that the initiation of a proselyte requires the presence of three? — But, surely. R. Johanan told the tanna:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who recited before him the Baraitha under discussion. ');">³²</span> Read, 'three'. 'When he comes up after his ablution he is deemed to be an Israelite in all respects'. In respect of what practical issue? — In that if he retracted and then betrothed the daughter of an Israelite he is regarded as a non-conforming Israelite and his betrothal is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Separation cannot be effected except by means of a letter of divorce. The betrothal of an idolater is of no validity at all and no divorce is required. ');">³³</span> 'The same law applies to a proselyte and to an emancipated slave'. Assuming this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The comparison between the proselyte and the slave. ');">³⁴</span> to apply to the acceptance of the yoke of the commandments,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the proselyte who must at the time of his ablution accept the yoke of the commandments is made acquainted with some of them so must an emancipated slave when he performs ablution on the occasion of his emancipation. ');">³⁵</span> the following contradiction may be pointed out: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That at the ablution a declaration of acceptance most be made. ');">³⁶</span> applies only to a proselyte. but an emancipated slave need not accept!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His duty to observe the commandments having commenced at the moment he had performed his first ablution on the occasion of his initiation as the slave of an Israelite. ');">³⁷</span> — R. Shesheth replied: This is no contradiction, One statement is that of R. Simeon; the other, that of the Rabbis. For it was taught: And bewail her father and her mother etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 13. ');">³⁸</span> This only applies when she did not accept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The obligations of a proselyte. ');">³⁹</span> but if she did accept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The obligations of a proselyte. ');">³⁹</span> her ablution may be arranged, and he is permitted to marry her forthwith. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Even though she did not accept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The obligations of a proselyte. ');">³⁹</span> he may force her to perform one ablution as a mark of her slavery and a second ablution as a mark of her emancipation, and having liberated her

Explore commentary for Yevamot 94:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.