Giyyur 003

10:
In the previous shiur we
studied a midrash from which if becomes quite clear that the sages recognised that non-Jews who completed all the ritual requirements of conversion to Judaism were to be regarded as full converts even if their motives were considerably less than ideal. However, it might be claimed that a midrash is designed for spiritual "uplift" and therefore may not accurately reflect the more sober halakhic views of the sages. That this is not so we shall learn today from study of a mishnah and the Gemara on that mishnah. The importance to our topic of this passage from the Talmud is that conversion is not the main point of the mishnah and the discussion in the Gemara is almost incidental.

11:
Our mishnah is to be found in Tractate Yevamot, Chapter Two, Mishnah Eight. Tractate Yevamot is concerned with the biblical command that requires a woman whose husband dies leaving her a childless widow to marry her deceased husband's brother (her yavam) and thus to become his yevamah. The title of the tractate is the plural form of this latter term . In western parlance this procedure is called Levirate Marriage from the Latin word for a brother-in-law, levir. For the sake of clarity, in the translation of the mishnah which follows I have numbered the clauses:

If you would like to read the Hebrew text of this mishnah please click here.

12:
In the Babylonian Talmud the first clause of this mishnah is treated as a separate mishnah, but nevertheless let us briefly explain the mishnah in its entirety.

Clause 1 of the mishnah: when a man dies leaving a childless widow the mitzvah of effecting a levirate marriage with her devolves upon his eldest surviving brother. But if one of the younger brothers does so the union is legitimate, may be maintained and the biblical command is considered as having been fulfulled.

Clauses 2 and 4 of the mishnah: if a man is brought to court on a charge that he has been having sexual relations with a female indentured servant it is proper that even if he is cleared of the charge he should not marry the woman if she has meanwhile been manumitted and given her freedom. (At the very end of the discussion the Gemara will answer the quesation why this union is not "proper".) However, if he and this woman do the "improper" thing and do get married the marriage is perfectly valid and the Bet Din will not require them to put an end to the marriage. In this context the term 'maidservant' or 'indentured servant' refers to what is called in Hebrew Eved Kena'ani. For a brief explanation of this institution please use this link and navigate to explanations 13 and 14.

Clauses 3 and 4 of the mishnah: a similar stipulation is made concerning a non-Jewish woman: if a man is brought to court on a charge that he has been having sexual relations with a non-Jewish woman it is proper that even if he is cleared of the charge he should not marry the woman if she has meanwhile converted to Judaism. However, if he and this woman do the "improper" thing and do get married the marriage is perfectly valid and the Bet Din will not require them to put an end to the marriage.

Clause 5 of the mishnah: this is not the case when a man is charged with having sexual relations with a married woman (during the lifetime of her marriage) and he must be separated from the woman entirely and cannot marry her – even if she has been divorced in the meantime.

13:
We shall now turn our attention to the Gemara on this mishnah – or, at least, that section of the Gemara that is relevant to our topic. The Gemara may be found in Yevamot 24b. First, here is the text in as literal a translation as I can offer:

If you would like to read the Aramaic text of this Gemara please click here.

14:
Now let us explain the course of the discussion in the Gemara on our mishnah:

The editor of the Gemara immediately pounces on the matter that is of concern to us. He draws a conclusion from the mishnah: if a marriage contracted between a man and a female convert is valid even if "improper" it must follow that her conversion is valid even though there is a strong suspicison that she only converted in order to marry the man. This certainly is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the text of the mishnah.

However, there is a barayta which flatly contradicts this logical conclusion. (A barayta is a mishnah that was not included in the Mishnah as finally edited by Rabbi Yehudah, the President of the Sanhedrin. For more information about this please see the Introduction to the Mishnah which may be accessed here.) The barayta gives the view of Rabbi Neĥemyah who claims that any conversion for ulterior motives is invalid. The barayta brings six examples of such invalid conversions:

• Someone who converts for the sake of marriage: this is quite straightforward and needs no explanation.
• Someone who converts for the royal table: these are people who convert to Judaism when Israel is powerful and independent in order to share in the benefits of belonging to a 'top nation'.
• Someone who converts to join Solomon's servants: very similar; it refers to someone who converts in order to be eligible to be a part of the government.
• Someone who converts because of lions: Rashi brings the obvious reference to the Samaritans who, according to 2 Kings 17, converted to Judaism because a plague of lions that was devastating the countryside.
• Someone who converts because of a dream: Rashi explains that a dream interpreter told them to convert.
• The converts of Mordechai and Esther: this is a clear reference to all the citizens of the Persian empire who converted to Judaism out of fear of the reprisals that Mordechai and Esther might take after the downfall of Haman [Esther 8:17].

15:
The barayta says that Rabbi Neĥemyah only recognizes converts that convert in his day and age. The Gemara immediately notes that this cannot be his meaning, because that would mean that no one could convert to Judaism after the time of Rabbi Neĥemyah! The editor of the Gemara says that we should understand Rabbi Neĥemyah as saying that only those who convert in an age such as his are valid converts. Rabbi Neĥemyah lived during and after the Bar-Kokhba revolt (mid 2nd century CE). The complete defeat of the Jewish insurgents by the Romans and the prohibition of Judaism by the Emperor Hadrian that followed that defeat marked the darkest of times for the Jewish people. Rabbi Neĥemyah implies that the only converts who can be trusted not to have an ulterior motive are those who seek to join the Jewish people when Jewish fortunes are at their lowest ebb.

16:
However, the editor of the Gemara now explains that the opinion of Rabbi Neĥemyah is not accepted halakhah. The greatest of the Amoraïim (sages of the Gemara, as opposed to Rabbi Neĥemyah who was a sage of the Mishnah) of the first generation was Rav, and he stated quite categorically: "the law is according to him who says that they are converts". Thus the original assumption of the editor of the Gemara is justified: even if the woman in the mishnah converts for the ulterior motive of marrying a Jew her conversion is nevertheless valid.

17:
One last point needs to be clarified. If the marriage of the women mentioned in the mishnah is valid why is it considered to be "improper"? Rav Assi quotes the bible [Proverbs 4:23]:

In other words, they should not marry in the first place because vicious tongues will start wagging and besmirch their good name; but if they do, nevertheless, marry the marriage is valid because the conversion is valid.

18:
Thus we see quite clearly that the sages, even from the halakhic point of view, considered conversions that were prompted by less than perfect altruism were nevertheless valid conversions.

To be continued.