Yevamot 92

בטבל ולא מל כולי עלמא לא פליגי דמהני כי פליגי במל ולא טבל רבי אליעזר יליף מאבות ורבי יהושע באבות נמי טבילה הוה

all agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even R. Eliezer. ');">¹</span> that ritual ablution without circumcision is effective; and they differ only on circumcision without ablution. R. Eliezer infers from the forefathers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, he maintains, did not perform any ritual ablution when they were admitted to Judaism. ');">²</span> while R. Joshua [maintains that] in the case of the forefathers also ritual ablution was performed. Whence does he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joshua. ');">³</span>

מנא ליה אילימא מדכתיב (שמות יט, י) לך אל העם וקדשתם היום ומחר וכבסו שמלותם ומה במקום שאין טעון כבוס טעון טבילה מקום שטעון כבוס אינו דין שטעון טבילה

deduce it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the forefathers had performed ritual ablution. ');">⁴</span> If it be suggested, 'From that which is written, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIX, 20, ');">⁵</span> if where washing of the garments is not required<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. after nocturnal pollution; keri. v. Glos. ');">⁶</span>

ודלמא נקיות בעלמא

ablution is required,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XV, 26, ');">⁷</span> how much more should ablution be required where washing of the garments is required',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was the case when Israel received the Torah and were thus admitted into Judaism. (V. Ex, XIX, 10). ');">⁸</span> [it may be retorted that] that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The washing of the garments. ');">⁹</span>

אלא מהכא (שמות כד, ח) ויקח משה את הדם ויזרוק על העם וגמירי דאין הזאה בלא טבילה

might have been a mere matter of cleanliness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And had no reference to Levitical purity. Such washing, therefore, can have no bearing on the question of the ritual ablution of proselytes. ');">¹⁰</span> — It is rather from here:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is R. Joshua's deduction made. ');">¹¹</span> And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIV, 8. ');">¹²</span>

ורבי יהושע טבילה באמהות מנלן סברא הוא דאם כן במה נכנסו תחת כנפי השכינה

and we have a tradition that there must be no sprinkling without ritual ablution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ker, 9a. ');">¹³</span> Whence does R. Joshua infer that the mothers performed ritual ablution? — It is a logical conclusion, for, otherwise,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for if so', if even ablution was not performed. ');">¹⁴</span> whereby did they enter under the wings of the <i>Shechinah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. They could not have been initiated without any ceremonial whatsoever. ');">¹⁵</span>

א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול פשיטא יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים

R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan: A man can never become a proselyte unless he has been circumcised and has also performed the prescribed ritual ablution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ber. 47b. ');">¹⁶</span> Is not this obvious? [In a dispute between] an individual and a majority the <i>halachah</i> is, surely, in agreement with the majority!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this view is held (supra 46a) by the Sages who obviously form a majority against the individual or joint opinions of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua. ');">¹⁷</span> — The expression 'Sages' is in fact meant for<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who are the Sages'? ');">¹⁸</span>

מאן חכמים רבי יוסי

'R. Jose'. For it was taught: If [a proselyte] came and stated, 'I have been circumcised but have not performed ritual ablution' he is 'permitted to perform the ablution<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And by this act alone he is admitted as a proper proselyte. ');">¹⁹</span> and [the proper performance of the previous circumcision] does not matter;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and what is there in it'. Whether the circumcision had been valid, having been performed for the specific ritual purpose of the proselyte's initiation into Judaism, or whether it had been invalid because it was carried out as a mere surgical operation or as a non-Jewish sectarian rite, is of no consequence, since the present performance of the ritual ablution is alone sufficient for the initiation. ');">²⁰</span> so R. Judah.

דתניא הרי שבא ואמר מלתי ולא טבלתי מטבילין אותו ומה בכך דברי ר' יהודה רבי יוסי אומר אין מטבילין

R. Jose said: He is not to be allowed ablution,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because both circumcision and ablution are required. As the validity of the former is in doubt (v. supra note 1) the latter most nut be allowed unless some act of circumcision (causing a few drops of blood to flow) had again been carried out specifically for the purpose of the initiation. ');">²¹</span> Hence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to R, Akiba one act, either ablution or circumcision, suffices. ');">²²</span> it is permissible for a proselyte<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had been circumcised on Sabbath Eve in the ritually prescribed manner. ');">²³</span>

לפיכך מטבילין גר בשבת דברי ר' יהודה ור' יוסי אומר אין מטבילין

to perform the prescribed ablution on the Sabbath;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ablution being of no consequence (v. supra on. 3 and 4), the proselyte's person in no way being improved by it, it is an act which is permitted on the Sabbath. ');">²⁴</span> so R. Judah. R. Jose, however, said: He is not to be allowed to perform the ablution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ablution completes the initiation and thus effects the proselyte's improvement, which is an act forbidden on the Sabbath. Thus it has been shewn that the author of the view that both ablution and circumcision are required, given supra as the opinion of 'the Sages', is in fact R. Jose. ');">²⁵</span> The Master said, 'Hence it is permissible for a proselyte to perform the prescribed ablution on the Sabbath; so R. Judah'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V, BaH. Cur. edd. omit the last three words. ');">²⁶</span>

אמר מר לפיכך מטבילין גר בשבת פשיטא כיון דא"ר יהודה בחדא סגיא היכא דמל לפנינו מטבילין מאי לפיכך

Seeing that R. Judah stated that one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either circumcision or ablution. ');">²⁷</span> suffices is it not obvious that, if circumcision has been performed in our presence, he is permitted to perform ablution! Why then, 'Hence'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' — Hence etc.'. There is no need, surely, to state the obvious. ');">²⁸</span> — It might have been assumed that in the opinion of R. Judah, ablution forms the principal [part of the initiation],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since circumcision he stated supra does not matter. ');">²⁹</span>

מהו דתימא לרבי יהודה טבילה עיקר וטבילה בשבת לא דקא מתקן גברא קמ"ל דר' יהודה או הא או הא בעי

and that ablution is not to take place on the Sabbath because, thereby, a man is improved;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 6. ');">³⁰</span> hence we were taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the addition of 'Hence etc,'. ');">³¹</span> that R. Judah requires either the one or the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either circumcision or ablution. ');">³²</span>

ר' יוסי אומר אין מטבילין פשיטא דכיון דאמר רבי יוסי תרתי בעינן תקוני גברא בשבת לא מתקנינן

'R. Jose, however, said: He is not to be allowed to perform the ablution'. Is not this obvious? Since R. Jose said that both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Circumcision and ablution, ');">³³</span> are required [ablution must be forbidden as] the improvement of a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is completed by the ablution (v. supra p. 305, n. 6). ');">³⁴</span> may not be effected on the Sabbath! — It might have been assumed that in the opinion of R. Jose circumcision forms the principal [part of the initiation] and that the reason there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra. Where a proselyte who declared, 'I have been circumcised but have not performed ritual ablution' is not to be allowed ablution. ');">³⁵</span>

מהו דתימא לר' יוסי מילה עיקר והתם הוא דלא הואי מילה בפנינו אבל היכא דהויא מילה בפנינו אימא ליטבל זה בשבתא קמ"ל דרבי יוסי תרתי בעי

is because the circumcision had not been performed in our presence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And may be presumed to have been invalid. ');">³⁶</span> but where the circumcision had taken place in our presence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is known to us to have been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the law. ');">³⁷</span> it might have been assumed that a proselyte in such circumstances<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">³⁸</span>

אמר רבה עובדא הוה בי רבי חייא בר רבי ורב יוסף מתני רבי אושעיא בר רבי ורב ספרא מתני ר' אושעיא בר' חייא דאתא לקמיה גר שמל ולא טבל א"ל שהי כאן עד למחר ונטבלינך

may perform the prescribed ablution even on the Sabbath, hence we were taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By R. Jose's apparently superfluous statement, ');">³⁹</span> that R. Jose requires both.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Circumcision and ablution, ');">³³</span> Rabbah stated: It happened at the court of R. Hiyya b. Rabbi — (and R. Joseph taught: R. Oshaia b.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Alfasi: Berabbi, v. Nazir Sonc. ed. p. 64, n. 1. ');">⁴⁰</span>

ש"מ תלת ש"מ גר צריך שלשה וש"מ אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וש"מ אין מטבילין גר בלילה ונימא ש"מ נמי בעינן מומחין דלמא דאיקלעו

Rabbi;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Was also present. ');">⁴¹</span> and R. Safra taught: R. Oshaia b. Hiyya)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Was also present. ');">⁴¹</span> — that there came before him a proselyte who had been circumcised but had not performed the ablution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Requesting that he be allowed to perform the prescribed ablution, so as to complete his initiation. ');">⁴²</span>

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן גר צריך ג' משפט כתיב ביה

The Rabbi told him, 'Wait here until tomorrow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The incident having occurred during the night. ');">⁴³</span> when we shall arrange for your ablution'. From this incident three rulings may be deduced. It may be inferred that the initiation of a proselyte requires the presence of three men;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Safra insisted that three scholars (R. Hiyya and the two R. Oshaias) were present at the time the proselyte's request for his initiation was dealt with. ');">⁴⁴</span> and it may be inferred that a man is not a proper proselyte unless he had been circumcised and had also performed the prescribed ablution; and it may also be inferred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the ablution was postponed till the following morning. ');">⁴⁵</span>

ת"ר מי שבא ואמר גר אני יכול נקבלנו ת"ל אתך במוחזק לך בא ועדיו עמו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא יט, לג) וכי יגור אתך גר בארצכם

that the ablution of a proselyte may not take place during the night. Let it be said that from this incident it may also be inferred that qualified scholars are required!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To witness the initiation of a proselyte, as was the ease here where all the three were qualified men, v, Glos. s.v. Mumhe. ');">⁴⁶</span> — Their presence might have been a mere coincidence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And provides no proof that in all other cases the presence of qualified scholars is essential. ');">⁴⁷</span> R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan: The initiation of a proselyte requires the presence of three men; for law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num, XV, 16, One law&nbsp;… for the proselyte [H] (E.V. 'Stranger'). ');">⁴⁸</span> has been written in his case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As no point of law can be authoritatively decided by a court of less than three men who constitute a Beth din, so may no initiation of a proselyte take place unless it is witnessed by three men. ');">⁴⁹</span> Our Rabbis taught: As it might have been assumed that if a man came and said, 'I am a proselyte' he is to be accepted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a legitimate proselyte, and he should require no [initiation ceremonial. ');">⁵⁰</span> hence it was specifically stated in the Scriptures With thee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 33. And if a proselyte ([H] E.V., 'stranger') sojourn with thee. ');">⁵¹</span> only when he is well known to thee. Whence is it inferred that if he came, and had his witnesses with him, [that his word is accepted]? — It was specifically stated in Scripture, And if a proselyte sojourn&nbsp;… in your land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., i.e., as lung as he is in your land even if he is not well known to you. Cf. n. 4, supra. Cur. edd. include here 'with thee' which should be omitted since the phrase has been previously employed as proof to the contrary that the proselyte must be well known. ');">⁵²</span>