## Yevamot Daf 46b

###### Yevamot 46b:1
[Yevamot 46b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:1)

בְּטָבַל וְלֹא מָל — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמַהְנֵי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּמָל וְלֹא טָבַל. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר יָלֵיף מֵאָבוֹת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: בְּאָבוֹת נָמֵי טְבִילָה הֲוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, everyone,** i.e., both Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer, **agrees that** the *halakha* is derived from the foremothers that immersion alone **is effective. Where they disagree** is **with regard to one who was circumcised but had not immersed; Rabbi Eliezer derives** that it is effective **from the forefathers, and Rabbi Yehoshua** disagrees because he maintains that **in** the conversion of the **forefathers there was also an immersion.**


###### Yevamot 46b:2
[Yevamot 46b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:2)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where did he** derive this? **If we say** that he derived it **from** the fact **that it is written** that in preparation for the revelation at Sinai, God commanded Moses: **“Go unto the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments”** (Exodus 19:10), as Rabbi Yehoshua understands that the washing mentioned in this verse is the ritual immersion of clothes, this leads to the following *a fortiori* inference: **Just as in a case where** one became impure through contact with some source of impurity, **washing,** i.e., immersion, of clothes **is not required** but **immersion** of one’s body **is required,** then **in a case where washing** of clothes **is required,** as in the preparation for the revelation at Sinai, **isn’t it logical that immersion** of one’s body **should** also **be required?**


###### Yevamot 46b:3
[Yevamot 46b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:3)

וְדִלְמָא, נְקִיּוּת בְּעָלְמָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the proof: **But perhaps** when the verse states that they had to wash their clothes, it was **merely for cleanliness** and not for the sake of ritual purity. If so, no *a fortiori* inference can be drawn from it to the case of immersion for ritual purity.


###### Yevamot 46b:4
[Yevamot 46b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:4)

אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַדָּם וַיִּזְרֹק עַל הָעָם״, וּגְמִירִי דְּאֵין הַזָּאָה בְּלֹא טְבִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rabbi Yehoshua derived it **from here,** where the verse states with regard to the formation of the covenant at Sinai: **“And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people”** (Exodus 24:8), **and it is learned** as a tradition **that there is no** ritual **sprinkling without immersion.** Therefore, our forefathers also must have immersed at Sinai, and consequently that is also an essential requirement for all conversions.


###### Yevamot 46b:5
[Yevamot 46b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:5)

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, טְבִילָה בָּאִמָּהוֹת מְנָלַן? סְבָרָא הוּא, דְּאִם כֵּן, בַּמֶּה נִכְנְסוּ תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **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 **logical reasoning, as, if so,** that they did not immerse, then **with what were they brought under the wings of the Divine Presence?** Therefore, they also must have immersed.


###### Yevamot 46b:6
[Yevamot 46b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ גֵּר עַד שֶׁיִמּוֹל וְיִטְבּוֹל. פְּשִׁיטָא, יָחִיד וְרַבִּים הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** A man is **never** considered **a convert until he is** both **circumcised and has immersed.** The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** this **obvious?** In all disputes between **an individual** Sage **and many** Sages the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **the many** Sages; it is therefore obvious that the *halakha* is in accordance with the Rabbis.


###### Yevamot 46b:7
[Yevamot 46b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:7)

מַאן חֲכָמִים — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Who are the Rabbis** referred to in the *baraita*? It is **Rabbi Yosei.** Since Rabbi Yosei is merely an individual Sage, it was necessarily for Rabbi Yoḥanan to state explicitly that the *halakha* is ruled in accordance with his opinion.


###### Yevamot 46b:8
[Yevamot 46b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:8)

דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּא וְאָמַר מַלְתִּי וְלֹא טָבַלְתִּי — מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ, וּמָה בְּכָךְ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַטְבִּילִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to a convert **who came and said: I was circumcised** for the sake of conversion **but I did not immerse,** the court **should immerse him,** as **what** would be the problem **with that;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.** Since in any case the court immerses him, Rabbi Yehuda does not require proof of the convert’s claim that he was circumcised for the sake of conversion because he holds that it is sufficient to be either circumcised or immersed for the sake of conversion. **Rabbi Yosei says:** The court **does not immerse** him. He holds that both circumcision and immersion must be performed specifically for the sake of conversion and are indispensable parts of the conversion process. Therefore, since it is impossible to verify the convert’s claim with regard to his circumcision, there is no benefit to having him immerse.


###### Yevamot 46b:9
[Yevamot 46b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:9)

לְפִיכָךְ מַטְבִּילִין גֵּר בְּשַׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַטְבִּילִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* states a ramification of their dispute: **Therefore,** the court **may immerse a convert** who was already circumcised **on Shabbat;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.** Since he holds that circumcision alone effected conversion, the immersion will not effect any further change in his status, and so it is permitted on Shabbat. **And Rabbi Yosei says:** The court **may not immerse** him. Since he holds that both circumcision and immersion are necessary to effect a conversion, the immersion will effect a change in his status by making him Jewish. Therefore it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat by rabbinic decree, because it appears similar to preparing a vessel for use.


###### Yevamot 46b:10
[Yevamot 46b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:10)

אָמַר מָר: לְפִיכָךְ מַטְבִּילִין גֵּר בְּשַׁבָּת. פְּשִׁיטָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּחֲדָא סַגִּיא, הֵיכָא דְּמָל לְפָנֵינוּ — מַטְבִּילִין, מַאי ״לְפִיכָךְ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the latter clause: **The Master said** in the *baraita*: **Therefore,** the court **may immerse a convert** who was already circumcised **on Shabbat.** The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** this an **obvious** extension of his opinion; **since Rabbi Yehuda said that** either **one** of circumcision or immersion **is sufficient, where** a convert **was circumcised in our presence** the court may certainly **immerse** him, even on Shabbat. **What,** then, is the need for the *baraita* to include the clause that begins with: **Therefore?**


###### Yevamot 46b:11
[Yevamot 46b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:11)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה טְבִילָה עִיקָּר, וּטְבִילָה בְּשַׁבָּת לָא, דְּקָא מְתַקֵּן גַּבְרָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹ הָא אוֹ הָא בָּעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification **lest you say** that **according to Rabbi Yehuda the immersion is** in fact **the principal** act that effects conversion, and when he said in the first clause that a convert who claims to have been circumcised should be immersed since there is no problem with that, his reasoning was that he holds it is only immersion that effects the conversion. **And** therefore performing the **immersion on Shabbat** would **not** be permitted, **as it establishes the person** with a new status and so would be prohibited by a rabbinic decree because it appears similar to preparing a vessel for use. The latter clause is therefore necessary to **teach us that Rabbi Yehuda requires either this or that,** i.e., either immersion or circumcision alone is sufficient to effect a conversion.


###### Yevamot 46b:12
[Yevamot 46b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:12)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַטְבִּילִין. פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֵינַן — תַּקּוֹנֵי גַּבְרָא בְּשַׁבָּת לָא מְתַקְּנִינַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the next statement in the *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei says:** The court **may not immerse** him. The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** this an **obvious** extension of his opinion? **As, since Rabbi Yosei requires two** acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion, **we may** certainly **not establish** that **person** with a new status **on Shabbat** by completing his conversion by immersing him.


###### Yevamot 46b:13
[Yevamot 46b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:13)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification **lest you say** that **according to Rabbi Yosei circumcision is** in fact **the principal** act that effects conversion, **and** it is only **there,** in the first clause of the *baraita*, **where the circumcision was not performed in our presence** and so there is no way to verify whether it was done for the sake of conversion, that Rabbi Yosei states that the court should not proceed to immerse him; **however, where the circumcision was performed in our presence,** one might **say** that the conversion was already effected by the circumcision, and therefore **let us immerse this** convert **on Shabbat.** The latter clause is therefore necessary to **teach us that Rabbi Yosei requires two** acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion.


###### Yevamot 46b:14
[Yevamot 46b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:14)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Yevamot 46b:15
[Yevamot 46b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:15)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba said: **Learn from** this incident **three** principles: **Learn from it** that **a convert requires** a court of **three** people to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra taught that the case involved three Sages. **And learn from it** that **one is not** considered to be **a convert until he has been** both **circumcised and immersed. And learn from it** that the court **may not immerse a convert at night,** as they instructed him to remain there until the following day. The Gemara suggests: **And let us say** that one should **also learn from it** that **we require** a court of **experts** to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra identified that three expert Sages were present. The Gemara rejects this: **Perhaps they** simply **happened to be** there, but in fact three laymen would suffice.


###### Yevamot 46b:16
[Yevamot 46b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גֵּר צָרִיךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה, ״מִשְׁפָּט״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A convert requires** a court of **three** to preside over conversion, because **“judgment,” is written with regard to him,** as the verse states: “And one judgment shall be both for you and for the convert that sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:16), and legal judgments require a court of three judges.


###### Yevamot 46b:17
[Yevamot 46b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/46b:17)

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״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **someone who came and said: I am a convert,** one **might** have thought that **we should accept him;** therefore, **the verse states:** “And if a convert sojourns **with you** in your land, you shall not oppress him” (Leviticus 19:33). The emphasis on “with you” suggests that only someone who was already **presumed by you** to be a valid convert should be accepted as a convert. If **he came and** brought **witnesses** to his conversion **with him, from where** is it derived that he is to be accepted? It is from **the** beginning of that **verse,** which **states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land.”**