Giyyur 012

of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel
and the Masorti Movement
HALAKHAH STUDY GROUP
THE HALAKHAH OF GIYYUR (Conversion to Judaism)
Wherever you go I will go; wherever you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die and there I will be buried. Thus and more may God do to me if anything but death parts me from you. [Ruth 1:16-17].
(For the Hebrew text of this passage please click here.)
Part Three (continued).
13:
We are still following the discussion in the Gemara [Yevamot 46b] concerning what actually constitutes the act of conversion. We saw in the last shiur that the dispute between Rabbi Eli'ezer and Rabbi Yehoshu'a about the rôle in the conversion process of circumcision and bathing in a mikveh was still open a generation later because we saw Rabbi Yehudah holding that either element was sufficient to effect a conversion. However, the halakhah was established by Rabbi Yoĥanan according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosé, that both elements are essential (for males). (We shall discuss this further in the Discussion section of the next shiur, God willing.)
14:
The Gemara now continues the discussion, by citing a case in point.
Rabba says: There was a case in point in the Bet Din of Rabbi Ĥiyya bar-Rabbi. Rav Yosef holds that Rabbi Oshaya bar-Rabbi [was also present] and Rav Safra holds that Rabbi Oshaya bar-Ĥiyya [was also present]. A convert appeared before [the Bet Din, claiming] that he had been circumcised but had not bathed [in a mikveh]. He [the sage] said to him, "Stay here until tomorrow and we will have you bathe."
The situation is clear: a man appeared in the Bet Din of Rabbi Ĥiyya bar-Rabbi and admitted that although he had been circumcised he had not bathed in a mikveh. It is possible that he had only begun the conversion process and not completed it; or it is possible that his conversion had been effected by a Bet Din that relied on the opinion of Rabbi Eli'ezer that circumcision was sufficient; or it is possible that his conversion had been effected by a Bet Din that relied on the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah that either element was sufficient. What is clear is that the present Bet Din was of the opinion that the circumcision was not enough and that this man must also bathe in a mikveh – according to the opinion of the sages/Rabbi Yosé. Rashi says that this incident took place in the evening, and, as we shall see, that makes good sense. From this incident the Gemara now deduces three things:
Deduce from this three things:
- Deduce that [the conversion of] a candidate requires [a Bet Din of] three [judges];
- deduce that [a candidate] does not become a convert unless he is both circumcised and also bathes [in a mikveh];
- and [also] deduce that we do not have a convert bathe at night [but only by day].
May we not also say that we should deduce that [conversion] requires expert [judges]? [No, because] they [the visiting sages] may just have happened to be there.
What the Gemara seeks to deduce from this story is clear and incontrovertible: a conversion requires a Bet Din of three judges. When we studied Tractate Sanhedrin we noted that in some cases a renowned sage might receive special permission to sit in sole judgement. The fact that in our present story Rabbi Ĥiyya bar-Rabbi was accompanied by two other visiting sages indicates that conversion must be supervised by three judges. The fact that this Bet Din did not accept the candidate as a convert even though he had already been circumcised, but required him to bathe the following morning indicates that both circumcision and bathing are required. Lastly, the fact that the Bet Din did not have the candidate bathe in the mikveh there and then but told him to come back the following morning indicates that bathing in a mikveh for the purposes of effecting a conversion should not be done at night. Since this event records the presence of three eminent sages perhaps we might also deduce that the three judges of the Bet Din in a conversion case must be fully qualified sages. But the Gemara rejects this, pointing out that it is quite possble that the other two sages just happened to be there at the time.
(If you would like to read the Hebrew text of this discussion in the Gemara please click here.)
15:
We now turn our attention to another discussion in the Gemara [Yevamot 47a]. As usual, first let us present the text of the discussion:
Our sages have taught [in a barayta]: [It is written] "And you shall judge justly between each person and his fellow-Jew and a convert" [Deuteronomy 1:16]. From this [verse] Rabbi Yehudah deduced that a person who converted in a Bet Din is a [fully qualified] convert; [but] a person who converted privately is not a [true] convert.
This is straightforward. Rabbi Yehudah understands the verse in Deuteronomy as requiring a Bet Din to supervise a conversion. He reads the verse as follows:
And you shall exercise judgement [i.e. in a Bet Din] be it for an individual or [for an individual and] his neighbour or a convert.
Since the Torah thus requires it follows that anyone who does not perform the conversion process through a duly constituted Bet Din has not converted at all.
16:
The Gemara now takes this matter a stage further. It recounts a case in point that came before this same Rabbi Yehudah bar-Ilai:
A man actually appeared before Rabbi Yehudah and admitted that he had converted privately. Rabbi Yehudah asked him whether he had witnesses [to his conversion]. The man replied that he had not. Rabbi Yehudah then asked him if he had children. The man replied that he had [children who had been born after he 'converted']. Rabbi Yehudah said, "Your testimony may be accepted in so far as it disqualifies you, but your testimony is not acceptable to disqualify your children."
In other words: the man's own statement indicates that his own conversion had been invalid. Therefore Rabbi Yehudah determines that he is not a Jew and must now undergo a conversion process to become a Jew. However, his children have grown up believing themselves to be Jewish and behaving like Jews: this man's statement about himself cannot be held to disqualify his children as well.
(If you would like to read the Hebrew text of this discussion in the Gemara please click here.)
17:
This statement can have such important repercussions in modern times that I am going to depart from my usual custom of separating later halakhah from the sources in the Talmud. Here is how Rabbi Yosef Karo defines this law in his code, Shulĥan Arukh [Yoreh De'ah 268:11]:
A person who has been presumed to be Jewish but says that he converted privately, if he has children his testimony may not disqualify his children; but his testimony does disqualify him from any relationship with a Jewish woman until he bathes [in a mikveh] before a Bet Din.
(If you would like to read the Hebrew text of this Halakhah please click here.)
18:
Let us now summarise what we have learned about the conversion process from the Gemara. A candidate should be warned about the enormity of the step he or she is about to take and its consequences for them in the eyes of Heaven. They should be instructed in a selection of 'easy' mitzvot and a selection of 'serious' mitzvot. If they still indicate their willingness the conversion process moves on to the next stage. For a conversion to be valid first a male must be circumcised. Both a male and a female do not effect their conversion to Judaism and initiation into membership of the Jewish people until they have bathed in a mikveh. This ritual bathing must take place in the presence of the members of the Bet Din and must be done in the daytime. The members of the Bet Din do not have to be qualified rabbis.

Donation Form