Issurei Biah - Chapter 13

Tosafot, Keritot 9a, refer to this as the covenant which separated the Jews from the other nations. The Rambam is emphasizing that all of these acts were. performed in preparation for the Giving of the Torah when the covenant took effect.

See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:3 which describes·the extent of the Jews’ assimilation in Egypt.

Implied is that together with these ritual acts, the gentile must also- accept the yoke of Jewish observance. As Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 268:3) emphasizes, this is a fundamental element of the conversion process.

If he had been circumcised as a gentile, a small amount of blood must be drawn from him for the sake of conversion [Chapter 14, Halachah 5; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 268:l)].

In contrast to other situations when a pair of such doves are offered and one is brought as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering.

For the Temple is destroyed.

The Rambam mentions the two acts in the desired order: circumcision and then,
immersion. Nevertheless, if a convert immerses before circumcision, there is a difference of opinion among the later Rabbis if the immersion is acceptable or not [Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 268:1)]. Hence he should immerse again because of the doubt (Siftei Cohen 268:2).

Yevamot 46a quotes an opinion which requires the convert to actually set aside the money. The Talmud’s conclusion, however, is that it would be undesirable to do so, lest the funds be used for other purposes, which would be a transgression.
It must be emphasized that even before the convert brings a sacrifice, he is considered as a full-fledged member of the Jewish people.

Numbers 15:16 states: “There will be one judgment for you and the convert.” Since the verse uses the term judgment; Yevamot 46b states that like in a judgment, three judges are necessary. There are opinions that emphasize that this is merely an asmachta, a Rabbinic ruling that uses a Biblical verse as a support. Kin ‘at Eliyahu explains the rationale for this view. Were the concept to have its source in Scriptural Law, judges possessing semichah, the unique ordination that ceased in the Talmudic era, would be required and thus it would be impossible to accept converts in the present age.

For a court does not hold sessions at these times. Another reason why the immersion should not be performed at this time is that it amends the person’s state, and that is not permitted on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, the Rambam considers the first rationale of primary importance (Kessef Mishneh).

The Rashba explains that a legal case that is begun during the day may be completed at night. Hence, the convert's immersion may also be accepted at night.

Conversion, a change in status, must be brought about through a conscious decision by the convert. A minor is not considered as able to make mature decisions and is not held responsible for his conduct. Therefore he cannot make the decision to convert. Nevertheless, the Jewish court makes this decision on his behalf.
The converted child, however, has. the option of refuting the conversion when he comes -of age. If he protests his conversion at that time, he is considered a gentile and need not observe the mitzvot. If, however, he accepts his conversion when he comes of age, but regrets afterwards, he is bound by his original decision.

A person cannot act on another person’s behalf unless it is considered to his benefit, but our Sages consider becoming part of the Jewish people a benefit sufficient to justify their actions. The Maggid Mishneh explains that although the Torah and its mitzvot compel a person to restrain his conduct, as long as he is young and has not become habituated to forbidden conduct, he will be able to accommodate himself to the Torah’s guidelines.

For the fetus is considered as part of her body and her immersion is sufficient for the fetus as well.

For two people do not constitute a court (Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:10).

For as mentioned in the previous halachah, three judges must be present.
The Rambam’s perspective is not accepted by all authorities. Rabbenu Asher maintains that the requirement applies only at the outset. After the fact, even if a gentile circumcised himself and immersed on his own, the immersion is acceptable, provided he accepted the mitzvot in the presence of three Jews.. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 268:3) mentions both opinions, but appears to favor that of Rabbenu Asher.

As indicated by Halachah 10, this refers to a situation where previously, we know that the person was a gentile. If not, different laws apply. In all instances, the person must observe the mitzvot because of his statements. We, however, do not rely on his word alone with regard to marriage.

And he is not allowed to continue living with his wife until he performs the conversion rites again.
The Siftei Cohen 268:22 quotes Rabbenu Asher who rules that his statements are of no consequence whatsoever. For example, if he enters into relations with a married Jewish woman: Were he to be a gentile, the woman would be able to continue living with her husband, but if he was Jewish (i.e., his conversion was acceptable), the relations are considered as adulterous and she is forbidden. According to Rabbenu Asher, his word is not accepted and she is not forbidden.

The Maggid Mishneh questions: How is it possible to disqualify his children? Even if he was indeed a gentile, the children would be Jewish, because of their mother. He explains that there is a halachic difference in a situation where both the parents converted privately. In that instance, were we to disqualify the children because of the father’s statements, there would be a change in their status.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger adds that according to the Rambam, he must also have blood drawn from his male organ as is the case of a convert who was circumcised while a gentile.

According to the authorities who do not require a convert’s immersion to be performed in the presence of a court after the fact, this immersion could also serve as the immersion for the sake of conversion.

I.e., we knew nothing of the person’s identity before he came before us. He was the one who raised the doubt whether he was Jewish - by saying that he was a convert - and he resolved it - by saying that he converted in a proper court. This follows the principle of miggo, if he desired to lie, he could have told a more effective lie, saying that he was a native-born Israelite.

The Ra’avad differs with the Ram. barn, explaining that there are two Talmudic opinions: one that accepts the convert’s word both in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora and one that requires him to bring proof in both places. Similarly, the Ramban and the Rashba differ and maintain that the convert’s word is accepted in all places. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 268:10) mentions the Rambam’s view, but appears to follow that of the Ramban and the Rashba. Today the custom is for a court to be careful and investigate a convert’s conversion before allowing him to marry among the Jewish people.

For becoming a servant is also a change of status, causing the servant to depart from the status of a gentile, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 11.

Yevamot 45b-46a explains the rationale for this law: The gentile owner who sold the servant does not own his physical person in the same manner as a Jew does. That degree of ownership is a new factor established through immersion. Hence, if the servant takes the initiative, he can avoid being acquired.

For taking this independent act in the presence of his master is considered as if he made an explicit statement.

He must, however, reimburse the master for his value [Maggid Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De’ah 267:9)].

By manifesting his control over him in this manner, he emphasizes that he is acquiring him as a servant.

The Maggid Mishneh cites views that maintain that this immersion is Rabbinic in origin. Rabbi Akiva Eiger cites Tosafot who emphasize that it is a Scriptural requirement.

As required of a convert (Halachah 6).

See the initial halachot of the following chapter which describe the manner in which a gentile and a servant are informed about the mitzvot.

See Hilchot Mikveot which elaborates at length concerning both concepts mentioned in this halachah: what makes a mikveh acceptable and which substances disqualify an immersion when they intervene between a person’s flesh and the water. For this reason, a servant or a convert should trim his nails and hair [Rama (Yoreh De’ah 268:2); see also Siftei Cohen 268:7].

See II Shmuel 12:25, as interpreted by Menachot 53a, et al.

Tosafot cites the narrative (Shabbat 31a) which relates that a gentile came to Hillel and asked him to convert him· on the condition that he become the High Priest. Hillel agreed. Later the convert discovered the error of his ways and accepted Jewish practice genuinely. Tosafot explains that from the outset, Hillel recognized his potential sincerity and therefore accepted him even though originally, his motives were self-oriented. The Bayit Chadash and the Siftei Cohen 268:23 state that Hillel’s example may be emulated and the Jewish courts have the prerogative of making a decision to accept a convert even though at the outset, he seeks to convert for ulterior motives.

For as the Rambam continues to explain, a convert’s lack of observance could have a negative effect on the entire people. There is no obligation to convert. A gentile who observes the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants is on a very high rung. Hence unless a gentile is motivated by a very sincere commitment, it is preferable for him not to change his status and serve God in his present state.

At first, Naomi tried to dissuade Ruth from converting. When, however, she saw her sincerity, she allowed her to join her. See Chapter 14, Halachah 1, which describes how this concept is applied.

I.e., because their motives were not genuine, as the Rambam continues to explain.

I.e., these individuals did not know that the converts should not be accepted.

I.e., would they accept Jewish practice genuinely.

See Judges 14:3, I Kings 11:4.

The Maggid Mishneh states that even if the court does not notify the potential convert of the mitzvot, the conversion is effective. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 268:12) when quoting this law, changes the text to ‘’the reward for the mitzvot,” implying that the gentile must accept the mitzvot before immersion. As the commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch explain, according to the Shulchan Aruch, if a convert does not accept the observance of mitzvot, the conversion is not acceptable even if he becomes circumcised and immerses. This concept is particularly relevant in the presence age when there are many non-halachic “conversions.”

Hence a get (formal bill of divorce) is required before the woman can marry another Jew.

The basic concept is that a convert who sins is considered as a Jew who sins. Even if he or she commits serious transgressions, the conversion is not revoked. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that if the convert intentionally worships false deities, a lost object that belonged to him is not returned, as indicated by Hilchot Gezeilah ViAvedah 11 :2.

I.e., because despite their sins, they remained Jewesses.

I.e., their connection to idolatry.

Yevamot 47a. It must be emphasized that sincere converts are given the highest praise. In a renowned letter to a convert named Ovadiah, the Rambam states: “We [i.e., native-born Jews] share a connection with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Your connection is with the One who spoke and created the world.”

Our Sages explain that in both instances, it was the erev rav, the mixed multitude of converts who accompanied the Jews out of Egypt, who enticed the people to perform these sins. Kivrot HaTa'avah refers to the incident, Numbers, ch. 11, where the people complained because they desired other food in addition to the manna.