Save " The Oral Talmud  with Benay Lappe and Dan Libenson  Episode 144 "
The Oral Talmud with Benay Lappe and Dan Libenson Episode 144

רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אִיקְּלַע לְגַבְלָא. חֲזָא בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל דִּמְעַבְּרָן מִגֵּרִים שֶׁמָּלוּ וְלֹא טָבְלוּ, וַחֲזָא חַמְרָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל דְּמָזְגִי גּוֹיִם וְשָׁתוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַחֲזָא תּוֹרְמוֹסִין דְּשָׁלְקִי גּוֹיִם וְאָכְלִי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְלָא אֲמַר לְהוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי.אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: צֵא וְהַכְרֵז עַל בְּנֵיהֶם שֶׁהֵם מַמְזֵרִים, וְעַל יֵינָם מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ, וְעַל תּוֹרְמוֹסָן מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן בְּנֵי תוֹרָה.

עַל בְּנֵיהֶן שֶׁהֵם מַמְזֵרִים — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְעוֹלָם אֵין גֵּר עַד שֶׁיָּמוּל וְיִטְבּוֹל. וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא טָבֵיל, גּוֹי הוּא. וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.וְעַל יֵינָם מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ — מִשּׁוּם: ״לֵךְ לֵךְ, אָמְרִין נְזִירָא, סְחוֹר סְחוֹר, לְכַרְמָא לָא תִּקְרַב״.

וְעַל תּוֹרְמוֹסָן מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם — לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן בְּנֵי תוֹרָה. הָא בְּנֵי תוֹרָה שְׁרֵי? וְהָאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: כָּל הַנֶּאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא חַי — אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם. וְהָא תּוֹרְמוֹס אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא חַי, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם!רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּאִידַּךְ לִישָּׁנָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין עוֹלֶה עַל שׁוּלְחַן מְלָכִים לֶאֱכוֹל בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת — אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם, וְטַעְמָא דְּאֵינָן בְּנֵי תוֹרָה, הָא בְּנֵי תוֹרָה שְׁרֵי.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גֵּר שֶׁמָּל וְלֹא טָבַל, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּר, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בַּאֲבוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁמָּלוּ וְלֹא טָבְלוּ. טָבַל וְלֹא מָל, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּר, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בָּאִמָּהוֹת שֶׁטָּבְלוּ וְלֹא מָלוּ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: טָבַל וְלֹא מָל, מָל וְלֹא טָבַל — אֵין גֵּר עַד שֶׁיָּמוּל וְיִטְבּוֹל.

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נָמֵי נֵילַף מֵאָבוֹת, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי נֵילַף מֵאִמָּהוֹת! וְכִי תֵימָא, אֵין דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר.וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְפֶסַח דּוֹרוֹת שֶׁאֵין בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין — נֶאֱמַר פֶּסַח בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְנֶאֱמַר פֶּסַח בְּדוֹרוֹת. מָה פֶּסַח הָאָמוּר בְּמִצְרַיִם — אֵין בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, אַף פֶּסַח הָאָמוּר לְדוֹרוֹת — אֵין בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין.אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וְכִי דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר? אָמַר לוֹ: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר — רְאָיָה גְּדוֹלָה הִיא, וְנִלְמַד הֵימֶנָּה.

אֶלָּא

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba once happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who had become pregnant from converts who were circumcised but hadnot immersed;and he saw wine of Jews that gentiles were pouring, and Jews were drinking it; and he saw lupines that gentiles were cooking, and Jews were eating them; but he did not say anything to them.Later, he came before Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go and make a declaration concerning their children that they are mamzerim, and concerning their wine that it is forbidden because it is like wine poured as an idolatrous libation, and concerning their lupinesbecause they are food cooked by gentiles --because they are not well-versed in Torah.

Concerning their children that they are mamzerim, Rabbi Yoḥanan conforms to his standard line of reasoning: As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One is never considered a convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And since he had not immersed, he is considered a gentile. AndRabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:A gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman -- the offspringis a mamzer.Andconcerning their wine -- because it is like wine poured as an idolatrous libationdue to the maxim that: Go, go, we say to a nazirite, go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard.

Andconcerning their lupines -- because they are food cooked by gentiles,because they are not well versed in Torah.Were they students of the Torah, would they be permitted? Didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say in the name of Rav: Any food that is eaten as it is -- raw -- is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles? But a lupine is not eaten as it is -- raw -- and therefore it is subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.Rabbi Yoḥanan holdsin accordance withthe other version of what Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Any food that does not appear on the table of kingsto eat bread with it is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles. And consequently, the only reason to make a declaration prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is because they are not well versed in Torah. To those well versed in Torah, it is permitted.

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who was circumcised but did not immerse, Rabbi Eliezer says that this is a convert, as so we found with our forefathersthat they were circumcised but were not immersed. One who immersed but was not circumcised -- Rabbi Yehoshua says that this is a convert, as so we found with our foremothers that they immersed but were not circumcised. And the Rabbis say: Whether he immersed but was not circumcised or whether he was circumcised but did not immerse, he is not a convert until he is circumcised and he immerses.

But let Rabbi Yehoshua also derivefrom our forefathers!And let Rabbi Eliezer also derivefrom our foremothers!And if you would sayone cannot derive the possible from the impossible,isn’t it taught that Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived with regard to the Paschal lamb brought throughout the generations that it may be brought only from non-sacred animals? A Paschal lamb is statedinEgypt, and a Paschal lamb is stated in the generations.Just as the Paschal lamb stated in reference to Egypt was only brought from non-sacred animals, so too, with regard to the Paschal lamb stated in reference to the generations, it may be brought only from non-sacred animals.Rabbi Akiva said to him: But can one derive the possiblefrom the impossible? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Although it was impossible, it is still a great proof, and we may learn from it.

Rather,

בְּטָבַל וְלֹא מָל — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמַהְנֵי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּמָל וְלֹא טָבַל. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר יָלֵיף מֵאָבוֹת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: בְּאָבוֹת נָמֵי טְבִילָה הֲוָה.מְנָא לֵיהּ? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּכְתִיב: ״לֵךְ אֶל הָעָם וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר וְכִבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָם״, וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין טָעוּן כִּבּוּס — טָעוּן טְבִילָה, מְקוֹם שֶׁטָּעוּן כִּבּוּס — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן טְבִילָה.וְדִלְמָא, נְקִיּוּת בְּעָלְמָא?!אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַדָּם וַיִּזְרֹק עַל הָעָם״, וּגְמִירִי דְּאֵין הַזָּאָה בְּלֹא טְבִילָה.וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, טְבִילָה בָּאִמָּהוֹת מְנָלַן? סְבָרָא הוּא, דְּאִם כֵּן, בַּמֶּה נִכְנְסוּ תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה?

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ גֵּר עַד שֶׁיִמּוֹל וְיִטְבּוֹל. פְּשִׁיטָא, יָחִיד וְרַבִּים הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים!מַאן חֲכָמִים — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּא וְאָמַר מַלְתִּי וְלֹא טָבַלְתִּי — מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ, וּמָה בְּכָךְ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַטְבִּילִין.לְפִיכָךְ מַטְבִּילִין גֵּר בְּשַׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַטְבִּילִין.אָמַר מָר: לְפִיכָךְ מַטְבִּילִין גֵּר בְּשַׁבָּת. פְּשִׁיטָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּחֲדָא סַגִּיא, הֵיכָא דְּמָל לְפָנֵינוּ — מַטְבִּילִין, מַאי ״לְפִיכָךְ״?מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה טְבִילָה עִיקָּר, וּטְבִילָה בְּשַׁבָּת לָא, דְּקָא מְתַקֵּן גַּבְרָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹ הָא אוֹ הָא בָּעֵי.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַטְבִּילִין. פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֵינַן — תַּקּוֹנֵי גַּבְרָא בְּשַׁבָּת לָא מְתַקְּנִינַן!מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִילָה עִיקָּר, וְהָתָם הוּא דְּלָא הֲוַאי מִילָה בְּפָנֵינוּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דַּהֲוַאי מִילָה בְּפָנֵינוּ — אֵימָא (לִיטְבֹּל זֶה) [לַיטְבְּלֵיהּ] בְּשַׁבְּתָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֵי.

אָמַר רַבָּה: עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בֵּי רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר רַבִּי, וְרַב יוֹסֵף מַתְנִי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא בַּר רַבִּי, וְרַב סָפְרָא מַתְנֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ גֵּר שֶׁמָּל וְלֹא טָבַל. אָמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁהִי כָּאן עַד לִמְחַר וְנַטְבְּלִינָךְ.שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תְּלָת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: גֵּר צָרִיךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אֵינוֹ גֵּר עַד שֶׁיִמּוֹל וְיִטְבּוֹל. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אֵין מַטְבִּילִין גֵּר בַּלַּיְלָה. וְנֵימָא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ נָמֵי בָּעֵינַן מוּמְחִין? דִּלְמָא דְּאִיקְּלַעוּ.

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גֵּר צָרִיךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה, ״מִשְׁפָּט״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִי שֶׁבָּא וְאָמַר ״גֵּר אֲנִי״, יָכוֹל נְקַבְּלֶנּוּ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִתְּךָ״, בְּמוּחְזָק לְךָ. בָּא וְעֵדָיו עִמּוֹ, מִנַּיִן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם״.

with regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, everyoneagrees that immersion alone is effective. Where they disagree is with regard to one who was circumcised but had not immersed; Rabbi Eliezer derivesfrom the forefathers, and Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees because he maintains that in the conversion of the forefathers there was also an immersion.From where did he derive this? If we sayfrom the fact that it is written: “Go unto the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments” (Exodus 19:10): Just as in a case wherewashing of clothes is not required but immersionis required, then in a case where washing of clothes is required,isn’t it logical that immersionshouldbe required?But perhaps it was merely for cleanliness. Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua derived it from here: “And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people” (Exodus 24:8), and it is learnedthat there is nosprinkling without immersion. And with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, from where do we derive that also in the case of our foremothers there was immersion? The Gemara answers: It is based on svara, as, if so, then with what were they brought under the wings of the Divine Presence?

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is nevera convert until he iscircumcised and has immersed.Isn’t this obvious? In all disputes between an individual Sage and many Sages the halakha is in accordance with the the many. Who are the Rabbis? It is Rabbi Yosei.Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who came and said: I was circumcisedbut I did not immerse, the court should immerse him, as what would be the problem with that -- this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda?Rabbi Yosei says: The court does not immerse him. Therefore, the court may immerse a converton Shabbat -- this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.And Rabbi Yosei says: The court may not immerse him.The Master said: Therefore, the court may immerse a converton Shabbat.Isn’t this an obvious extension of his opinion?Since Rabbi Yehuda said that either oneis sufficient, where a convert was circumcised in our presenceweimmerse him. What, then, is the need for the clause that begins with: Therefore?Lest you say that according to Rabbi Yehuda the immersion is in fact the principal act. And therefore performing the immersion on Shabbat would not be permitted, as it establishes the person with a new status. The latter clause is therefore necessary to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda requires either this or that.

Rabbi Yosei says: They may not immerse him. Isn’t this obvious? As, since Rabbi Yosei requires two acts, we maynot establish that person with a new status on Shabbat.Lest you say that according to Rabbi Yosei circumcision isthe principal act, and it is only there, in the first clause of the baraita, where the circumcision was not performed in our presence, that Rabbi Yosei states that they should not proceed to immerse him; however, where the circumcision was performed in our presence, one might saylet us immerse this convert on Shabbat. The latter clause is therefore necessary to teach us that Rabbi Yosei requires two acts.

Rabba said: There was an incident in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rabbi, and as Rav Yosef teaches it, Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi was also present, and as Rav Safra teaches it, a third Sage, Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, was also present, in which a convert came before him who was circumcised but had not immersed. He said to the convert: Remain here with us until tomorrow, and then we will immerse you.Rabba said: Learn from this incident three principles: Learn from it that a convert requiresthree people. And learn from it that one is nota convert until he has beencircumcised and immersed. And learn from it that they may not immerse a convert at night. And let us sayalso learn from it that we requireexperts. Perhaps they simply happened to be there.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A convert requiresthree because “judgment,” is written with regard to him, as the verse states: “And one judgment shall be both for you and for the ger that sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:16).

Visit The Oral Talmud's web site at www.OralTalmud.com
Learn more Talmud with Benay Lappe at SVARA by checking out www.svara.org
Check out Dan Libenson's Judaism Unbound podcast and find other interesting learning opportunities at www.JudaismUnbound.com and www.jewishLIVE.org