Giyyur 011

Today's shiur is dedicated by Sol Freedman
in memory of his father, Louis Freedman,
Elazar bar Shlomo Yehuda z"l,
whose Yahrzeit was on Shabbat, Av 22nd.

6:
We are following the discussion in the Gemara [Yevamot 46a-b] concerning what actually constitutes the act of conversion. We saw in the last shiur that a barayta states that there were three opinions among the sages of the Mishnah:

• According to Rabbi Eli'ezer it is sufficient that a convert be circumscised; bathing in a mikveh is not essential.
• According to Rabbi Yehoshu'a bathing in a mikveh is essential while the absence of circumcision is not.
• According to the rest of the sages both circumcision and bathing in a mikveh are essential to the conversion process.

After the Gemara reviewed the reasoning that led Rabbi Eli'ezer and Rabbi Yehoshu'a each to his respective opinion we find that the great amora, Rabbi Yoĥanan, who lived nearly a century and a half after those two sages, states quite categorically that the third opinion, the opinion of the rest of the sages, is the rule.

7:
On this statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan the Gemara now makes the comment that it seems to be quite superfluous. The simple rule of halakhah is that the rule is decided by the opinion of the majority of the sages. That is the reason why, in tannaïtic literature, often the name of a sage whose opinion is accepted halakhah was omitted and the opinion is ascribed to "the rest of the sages". So, in the case of the barayta which we are studying, we know that halakhah follows neither Rabbi Eli'ezer nor Rabbi Yehoshu'a, but is according to the view of the rest of the sages. So, asks the Gemara, what point is there in Rabbi Yoĥanan simply stating the obvious?

8:
But, for the sages of the Mishnah and the Gemara brevity was certainly "the soul of wit" and so there must be a purpose to the statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan. The Gemara now suggests that Rabbi Yoĥanan wanted thus to identify the one sage whose opinion was disguised as "the rest of the sages". The Gemara uncovers his identity by citing a maĥloket [difference of opinion] between two tannaïim.

Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosé belong to the generation of sages that came after Rabbi Eli'ezer and Rabbi Yehoshu'a. The earlier generation had to cope with the aftermath of the defeat of the Jews in the year 70 CE; the next generation had to cope with the aftermath of the Bar-Kokhba revolt in the year 135 CE and the Hadrianic persecution that followed it. Rabbi Yehudah does not seem to espouse the view of either Rabbi Yehoshu'a or Rabbi Eli'ezer. Rabbi Yehoshu'a had said that bathing in a mikveh was the essential element in conversion; Rabbi Eli'ezer had said that circumcision was the essential. But according to Rabbi Yehudah either element is sufficient. Therefore, he says, there is no need to enquire whether the circumcision in the above-mentioned maĥloket was valid or not – performed for the purpose of the mitzvah of conversion or not – because it is no more an essential element in the conversion process than is bathing. Either element is sufficient. Therefore, if the present Bet Din supervises the bathing that is all that is necessary. Regarding the circumcision in this particular case: "what of it?"

9:
Rabbi Yosé disagrees: he would not permit the claimant to bathe in the mikveh before the Bet Din had ascertained the validity of the circumcision. In other words, Rabbi Yosé holds that both circumcision and bathing in a mikveh are essential elements in the conversion process and both must be supervised by the officiating Bet Din. In this Rabbi Yosé is stating the view of "the rest of the sages" in the original barayta.

10:
However, the altercation between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosé is not yet complete. The Gemara continues:

This second part of the discussion is about a different situation. Let us assume that a man appears before the Bet Din and is accepted for conversion. He is circumcised and has healed and is ready for the mikveh at the first opportunity. (You will remember that in Giyyur 009, at the very end of the shiur, we established that giyyur is a mitzvah and therefore should not be postponed.) Let us assume that the first opportunity falls on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehudah says that the bathing should take place on Shabbat. His reasoning is consistent: if any one element of the conversion process is sufficient the moment the circumcision had been completed the candidate was a Jew. Therefore, bathing in the mikveh would in no way change his status – which is what is forbidden on Shabbat. Rabbi Yosé, of course, forbids the bathing of a conversion candidate on Shabbat. For him both elements are essential and therefore the bathing in the mikveh effects the change from non-Jew to Jew, and that change of status is forbidden on Shabbat.

11:
The Gemara now asks the same question about this part of the discussion that it asked earlier: the whole section about bathing on Shabbat is superfluous because each view follows consistently with the previously known view of each sage, so we could have deduced the opinion of each concerning this matter. However, the Gemara now shows that this is not the case and that without that clarificatory paragraph we have drawn erroneous conclusions.

A similar argument is used regarding the opinion of Rabbi Yosé:

12:
This long excursus has established three things:

1. That both circumcision and bathing in a mikveh are essential to the conversion process.
2. That the bathing of a candidate in a mikveh on Shabbat is not permitted because it is the bathing that changes his (or her) status.
3. That "the rest of the sages" in the original barayta was probably Rabbi Yosé.

(If you would like to read the Hebrew text of this discussion in the Gemara please click here.)

To be continued.