Siman 268

It is written in Parashat Shelach: "And if a stranger sojourns with you... and will offer an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor... as you do, so shall he do... an everlasting statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the stranger be." And our sages, of blessed memory, expounded at the beginning of the second chapter of Keritot: "As you are, so shall the stranger be" – that when he enters into holiness, he shall do as you did, as your forefathers. Just as your forefathers did not enter the covenant except through mila, tevilah, and the presentation of blood. For regarding mila it is written: "For all the people who came out of Egypt were circumcised." And our teacher, Moses, circumcised them. And regarding tevilah it is written: "And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people," and it is learned by tradition that there is no sprinkling without tevilah. And the Rambam at the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of Issurei Biah brought the verse "And sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes," that they immersed before the giving of the Torah. And I wonder why he did not bring the exposition of the Shas. Furthermore: for this tevilah that he brought was because of the impurity of a seminal emission, as is explained in the Mishnah and Gemara in Shabbat (Shabbat 86a). And it requires further study. And sacrifices, as it is written: "And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings... and he sprinkled on the people." And so the convert for all generations requires mila, tevilah, and the presentation of blood. And if it is a female, she requires tevilah and a sacrifice. And what is the sacrifice? A burnt offering of an animal, as it is written (ibid.): "And they offered burnt offerings." And our sages, of blessed memory, expounded: that two turtledoves or young pigeons are also sufficient. And both of them are burnt offerings, as it is written: "An offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto Hashem." Which is the thing that is entirely for Hashem? You must say it is the burnt offering of a bird.

And according to this, it would have been possible to say that during the time of the destruction, when there is no sacrifice, we should not accept converts. The verse teaches: "throughout your generations," and he enters through milah and tevilah, and a woman through tevilah alone. And the sacrifice remains an obligation upon him, so that when the Beit HaMikdash is rebuilt, he will be required to bring a sacrifice. And initially they enacted that he should set aside money for the sacrifice. And afterwards they nullified this enactment because of a potential pitfall, meaning: that when he sets aside the money for a sacrifice—it becomes hekdesh, and it is inevitable that they will use it over the course of time, and they would commit me'ilah with hekdesh (ibid.). And even though it is written, "And when a convert dwells with you in your land" (Leviticus 19:33)—one should not say that we only accept converts in Eretz Yisrael and not in the diaspora. For thus our sages, of blessed memory, expounded in Yevamot (Yevamot 47b): I only have "in the land," from where do we know in the diaspora? The verse teaches "with you"—in every place that is with you. If so, why does the verse teach "in the land"? In the land one must bring proof that he converted in a beit din, lest he is a circumcised Gibeonite, and it is because of the praise of Eretz Yisrael that he says this and lies (Rashi). And in the diaspora one does not need to bring proof. But the halacha is not so, for in every place one must bring proof (ibid.), and it will be explained in section 14.

Regarding the matter of a convert, it is written "judgment," to teach that it requires a beit din of three experts (Yevamot 46b). And if you should say, behold, nowadays there is no semikhah? For in truth, we are acting as agents of the earlier ones, as in all monetary laws (Tosafot ibid.). And we have already explained this in Choshen Mishpat at the beginning of siman 1, see there. And since it requires a beit din according to the law, therefore we do not immerse him at night, nor on Shabbat or Yom Tov. And post facto, if they immersed him—it is a valid immersion. And know that the Rambam did not mention a beit din except regarding immersion. However, the Tur required that there be a beit din for circumcision as well. And we have already explained their reasoning in siman 267, section 4, see there. And there is no convert without circumcision and immersion. And if he immersed but did not circumcise, or circumcised but did not immerse—it is nothing. And the circumcision is before immersion. And if he immersed and afterwards circumcised, there are those who say that post facto it is effective, for behold, a pregnant gentile woman who converted, her son does not require immersion as will be explained, and for him the immersion is before the circumcision. And there are those who say that it is not effective. And it is not similar to a fetus, where it is impossible in any other way. Furthermore: when he is born, behold he is a complete Israelite, but for an ordinary convert it is an essential requirement that the circumcision be before the immersion. Therefore, even if he immersed beforehand—he should immerse himself again after the circumcision before three (Shach, subsection 2). And if he was circumcised while he was an idolater or if he was born circumcised—it is necessary to draw from him the blood of the covenant. And we do not recite a blessing over it, because it is a doubt whether it is necessary to draw blood or not. And if the organ was completely severed, his circumcision does not hinder him, and immersion alone is sufficient for him, since he has nothing to circumcise.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: All matters of the ger—whether informing him of the mitzvot to accept them, whether the milah, or whether the tevilah—must be before three who are fit to judge and by day. However, this is specifically ab initio. But ex post facto, if he did not undergo milah or tevilah except before two or relatives or at night, even if he did not undergo tevilah for the sake of conversion but rather a man who immersed for his seminal emission or a woman who immersed for her menstruation—he is a ger and is permitted to a Jewish woman. Except for the acceptance of the mitzvot, which is an absolute requirement if it is not by day and before three. But according to the Rif and the Rambam, even ex post facto, if he immersed or underwent milah before two or at night—it is an absolute requirement, and he is forbidden to a Jewish woman. But if he married a Jewish woman and fathered a son from her—we do not disqualify him. Thus far his words. That is to say: that it is forbidden to call him "the son of an idolater," for a complete disqualification is not relevant at all, for even a complete idolater who cohabits with a Jewish woman and fathers a son from her, [the son] is a complete Jew. Rather, the intent of "disqualification" is merely a term of disgrace (Taz, sub-section 10). And I am astonished at what he wrote, that according to the Rambam if he underwent milah before two it is an absolute requirement, for the Rambam even ab initio did not mention three regarding milah, only regarding tevilah, as I wrote in section 3. And in truth, the Tur did not mention anyone but the Rif, see there. (And perhaps the Beit Yosef holds as he wrote in his great work, that even though milah was not mentioned in the Gemara as requiring three, we learn it from tevilah. But it is impossible to say so according to the Rambam, for he explicitly was precise only regarding tevilah. And it requires further study.)

One who circumcises converts recites the blessing: Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to circumcise converts. And afterward he recites the blessing: Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to circumcise converts and to extract from them the blood of the covenant. For were it not for the blood of the covenant, heaven and earth would not endure, as it is said: "If not for My covenant day and night, I would not have set the statutes of heaven and earth." Blessed are You, Hashem, Who makes the covenant. And see what I wrote in siman 267, section 10. And an Egyptian who comes to have his foreskin cut because of a wound or because of boils that developed on it – it is forbidden for an Israelite to cut it. Therefore, if he intended for the sake of milah – it is a mitzvah to circumcise him. And the reason that it is forbidden to cut it is for the reason that was explained above in siman 158. Therefore, in a place where it is permitted to heal – it is permitted in any case.

One should not incite any gentile to convert himself. On the contrary, thus our sages, of blessed memory, said in Yevamot (Yevamot 47a): When a star-worshiper comes to us and requests that they convert him, they say to him: "What did you see that you came to convert? Do you not know that Israel in this time are pained, oppressed, and tossed about, and sufferings come upon them?" And if he goes his way—let him go. And if he says: "I know, and I am not worthy to join with them"—they accept him immediately. And they inform him of some of the minor mitzvot and some of the major mitzvot. And if he retracts—let him retract, for converts are as difficult for Israel as a scab (ibid.). And they inform him of the sin regarding leket, shikhecha, peah, and the tithe for the poor. And this was in the Land of Israel at the time when these mitzvot were practiced so that he would know of this, and not say of the poor who come to take, "they are robbers." And in this time this is not applicable, and therefore they did not mention this in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. And they inform him of some of the punishments for the mitzvot, as they say to him: "Before you came to this status, had you eaten chelev you would not be punished with karet, had you profaned the Shabbat you would not be liable for stoning. And now, if you eat chelev you will be liable for karet, if you profane the Shabbat you will be liable for stoning." And they do not overwhelm him, and they are not exacting with him. That is to say: they should not threaten him excessively, for if so, he will be forced to withdraw. And behold, this person has come to take refuge under the wings of the Shekhinah.

And just as they inform him of the punishment for the mitzvot, so too they inform him of the reward for the mitzvot. And they inform him that through their performance he will merit the life of the World to Come, and that there is no completely righteous person except for one who performs these mitzvot and knows them. And they say to him: Be aware that the World to Come is hidden only for the righteous. And as for seeing them in suffering in this world—it is a hidden good for them, for they cannot receive a multitude of good in this world, lest their hearts become haughty and they stray from the path of the Torah, and lose the reward of the eternal world. And all the pleasures of this world are as nothing at all compared to a small pleasure of the pleasures of the World to Come. And the Holy One, blessed be He, does not bring upon them a multitude of retribution so that they shall not perish. And you shall contemplate the survival of Israel after the destruction, and the providence of Hashem over them. Do you not see that the ancient nations, their memory has already perished, yet Israel endures, as the Holy One, blessed be He, promised us: "And yet for all that, etc." And they have all ceased, yet they are alive and enduring and standing forever. And they elaborate for him on this matter in order to make them beloved. And if he accepted—they circumcise him immediately. And they wait for him until he is healed a complete healing, and afterwards they immerse him in a proper immersion in a kosher mikveh, and that there shall be no chatzitzah on his flesh. And some say that he should shave his hair, and trim the nails of his hands and feet before the immersion. However, this is not a requirement that invalidates, provided only that there is no chatzitzah in his hair, according to the law of the immersion of a niddah.

And three talmidei chachamim stand over him at the time he stands in the water, and they inform him once again of some of the minor mitzvot and some of the major mitzvot, while he stands in the water. And for a woman—women seat her in the water up to her neck, and the dayyanim stand outside. And they inform her as well of some of the minor and major mitzvot while she is sitting in the water up to her neck. And she immerses her head specifically in their presence. And they immediately turn their faces and exit, so that they do not see her naked when she ascends from the water. And after the immersion, he or she recites the blessing: "Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us concerning the immersion." And after the immersion—he is like an Israelite. And if he returned to his former ways—he is like a transgressor. And if he betrothed a woman—his betrothal is a valid betrothal.

And when he comes to convert, they investigate him, lest he has some ulterior motive and his intention is not for the sake of Heaven. Lest they promised him money or some appointment, or due to some fear he desires to enter the religion of Israel. Or perhaps he set his eyes upon a Jewish woman. And if she is a woman, perhaps she set her eyes upon one of the young men of Israel. And if the matter is found to be so—they do not accept them at all. And so our sages, of blessed memory, said in Yevamot (Yevamot 24b) that they did not accept converts neither in the days of David nor in the days of Solomon, for they suspected them that they were converting not for the sake of Heaven but because Israel stood in prosperity. And likewise, they will not accept converts in the days of the Mashiach, because then Israel will be in a supreme state, and they will convert because of this and not for the sake of Heaven. And as for that which Solomon accepted the daughter of Pharaoh, it was because regarding her there is no reason to suspect that she would convert because of the prosperity, for she is the daughter of a king (Tosafot). And regarding this it is written in Esther, "And many of the people of the land became Jews," meaning they became Jews on their own, and became "dragged-along converts." Just as in the days of David and Solomon "dragged-along converts" were added on their own, and just as from Egypt the "mixed multitude" ascended upon seeing the greatness of Israel, and they became a snare for Israel.

Therefore, they examine him very thoroughly. And if no ulterior motive is found for him and it appears that his intention is for the sake of Heaven—they inform them of the heavy yoke of the Torah and the mitzvot. And if they withdraw from the conversion—it is good. And if they accepted them upon themselves—they accept them. And ex post facto, if they did not examine him, or did not inform him of the reward of the mitzvot and their punishment, and he underwent milah and immersed before three laymen, as Torah scholars would not involve themselves in this—he is a ger. And even if it became known that he is converting for the sake of something else, for in any case he underwent milah and immersed and left the category of the children of Noah, and we are concerned for him until his righteousness is clarified. And if he returned and worshipped stars—he is like a transgressing Israelite, and his kiddushin are kiddushin. And a transgressing Israelite who performed teshuvah does not require immersion, and only by rabbinic decree should he immerse and accept upon himself the matters of chaverut before three. (And the Tosafot wrote there, that regarding the one who came before Hillel in Shabbat 31a and said: "On the condition that you make me a Kohen Gadol"—Hillel was certain that in the end his intention would be for the sake of Heaven. And therefore the Beit Yosef and the Shach in subsection 23 wrote that everything is according to the assessment of the beit din.)

We say in Yevamot (Yevamot 78a): A gentile woman who was pregnant and converted, her son does not require immersion. It is explained from the discussion of the Shas there that if we say "the fetus is the thigh of its mother" — there is no need for a reason for this at all, for he is a part of his mother. And if the fetus is not the thigh of its mother, and he is like a body unto himself, then it must be considered as if he also immersed, and the body of the mother would be a chatzitzah. And we say there that therefore it is not a chatzitzah, because that is its growth. That is to say: that such is the way of its growth, and it is not a chatzitzah. And I saw one of the great ones who wrote that the beit din must know that she is pregnant (D.G.M.R.). And I say that they do not need to, for our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, ruled in Bava Kamma (Bava Kamma 47a) that the fetus is the thigh of its mother, see there. And according to what we explained in siman 267, section 85, the Rambam and the Tur also hold accordingly, see there. And if so, it is not relevant at all to say that the beit din must know of this. And when he grows up, he cannot protest.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 7 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 267:7): A minor gentile, if he has a father—he can convert him. And if he does not have a father and comes to convert, or his mother brings him to convert—beit din converts him. For it is a benefit for him, and one may act for a person's benefit in his absence. And whether it is a minor whom his father converted, or whom the beit din converted—he may protest once he becomes an adult, and his status is not like a Jewish transgressor but rather like a gentile (and when he betrothes a woman, it is not a betrothal). In what case does this apply? When he did not conduct himself according to Jewish custom when he became an adult. But if he conducted himself according to Jewish custom in his adulthood—he can no longer protest. Thus far his words. And if he recanted—his status is like a transgressor, and his betrothal is a betrothal. And know that in Ketubot (Ketubot 11a) it is explained: Since she became an adult for one moment and did not protest—she can no longer protest, see there. And so it is explained from the wording of the Rambam in the tenth chapter of Melachim, law 3, who wrote: And if he was a minor etc. he can protest at the time he becomes an adult. And since he did not protest at his time—he no longer protests etc. Thus far his words. For it is explained explicitly that the protest must be exactly at the time he reaches the status of adulthood.

And in truth, our teachers the Rishonim labored over this: how is it possible to be exact? And some say that he may protest from his childhood until one hour after he reaches majority (the Ra'avad and the Rashba there). And their intention appears to me to be that certainly if he does not desire this even in his childhood when he reaches some level of understanding – he protests, but we do not heed his protest while he is a minor until he reaches majority. And if he persists in his protest – he may retract. And if he consented at that hour – he cannot retract. And some say that this refers to after he reached majority and they warned him regarding the mitzvot, and at that hour he must protest, and thereafter he cannot protest. But if they did not inform him, even though he reached majority, he may protest (Shitah Mekubetzet in the name of Tosafot). And some say that as long as he has not performed an act of a Jew in his adulthood – he may protest. And once he has performed an act of a Jew – he cannot protest (ibid. in the name of the Rosh). And the words of the Rambam can be aligned with the first resolution. (And see the Ran, who also wrote both resolutions.)

One who was established as a gentile, and comes and says, "I converted in the beit din of so-and-so properly" – he is not believed to marry an Israelite woman until he brings witnesses. And he is not believed to validate his sons and daughters until he brings complete witnesses. However, if we saw them behaving in the ways of Israel and performing all the mitzvot – behold, these are in the status of righteous converts, even though there are no witnesses there to testify before whom they converted, for a chazaka is effective like witnesses. Nevertheless, if they come to intermingle with Israel – we do not marry them until they bring witnesses or until they immerse before us, for it is a higher standard in matters of lineage. And this is all regarding one established as a gentile. But one whom we did not know at all, whether he is a gentile or not, and he comes and says, "I was a gentile and I converted in the beit din of so-and-so" – he is believed, for the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted. That is to say: for he has a migo, since if he wanted, he could have said, "I am an Israelite." For do we require witnesses for all people whom we do not know and who say they are Israelites? And it appears to me that nevertheless, when he says that he converted in the beit din of so-and-so, and it is possible to clarify – we must clarify. For even regarding a chazaka we say: wherever it is possible to clarify – we clarify. And so too regarding a majority, as I wrote in siman 1, see there. And all the more so in a great matter such as this.

The Rambam wrote in the thirteenth chapter of the laws of forbidden relations (Rambam Hilkhot Issurei Biah 13), that this is specifically in the Land of Israel and in those days, when the presumption of everyone there was the presumption of being an Israelite. But in the diaspora, one must bring proof and only afterward may he marry an Israelite woman, for they applied a higher standard to lineage. Thus far his words. And in the Gemara this is not explicitly stated. And it is possible that his reasoning is that we follow the majority of the world, who are not Israelites. However, according to the letter of the law there is no concern here, for every person is believed regarding himself, as regarding oneself it is not relevant to follow the majority, as is understood. And they wrote that even according to the Rambam, this is when he said that he converted, but when he says "I am an Israelite" – he is believed in every place and at every time (Bach and Shach subsection 21).

It has already been explained that conversion must be in the presence of a beit din. And if one converted by himself—it is nothing. And one who was established among us as an Israelite, and came and said "I was a Cuthean and I converted by myself," and he has children—he is not believed regarding the children to remove them from the status of an Israelite. However, regarding himself he is believed to make himself a "forbidden piece," such that he is forbidden to a daughter of Israel until he performs conversion in the presence of a beit din. And a Jewish transgressor who performed repentance does not require immersion according to the essential law. Only despite all this, according to rabbinic law one should immerse him, and he should accept upon himself the matters of fellowship in the presence of three, as I wrote in section 10. And it is permitted to immerse even on Shabbat (Magen Avraham siman 326, subsection 8).