Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Bet, Part 3

 

גמ׳ תנן התם אין תורמין מן התלוש על המחובר ואם תרם אין תרומתו תרומה

בעא מיניה רב אסי מר’ יוחנן אמר פירות ערוגה זו תלושים יהיו תרומה על פירות ערוגה זו מחוברים פירות ערוגה זו מחוברים יהיו תרומה על פירות ערוגה זו תלושים לכשיתלשו ונתלשו מהו

א"ל כל שבידו לאו כמחוסר מעשה דמי

 

GEMARA. We learned elsewhere: Terumah must not be separated from detached [grain] for that which is attached, and if one does separate, his separation is not considered terumah.

R. Assi asked R. Yohanan: What if one declares, The detached produce of this furrow will be terumah for the detached produce of this one, when it is detached and then it is detached?

He answered him: Whatever lies in his power to do, is not as though that act were lacking.

 

The Talmud discusses a mishnah from elsewhere because our mishnah will be brought up as part of the discussion. Terumah cannot be separated from detached produce in order to exempt produce still attached to the ground. R. Assi then asks what if someone takes some detached produce and declares that the terumah he is separating will count as terumah for the attached produce when the attached produce becomes detached from the ground. R. Yohanan says that this works. Since he can detach the produce from the ground, we treat it as if it was already detached.

 

איתיביה האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי לאחר שאתגייר לאחר שתתגיירי לאחר שאשתחרר לאחר שתשתחררי לאחר שימות בעליך לאחר שתמות אחותיך לאחר שיחלוץ ליך יבמיך אינה מקודשת בשלמא כולהו לאו בידו אלא גר הוי בידו

 

He raised an objection: If he says to a woman, Behold, you are betrothed to me after I convert, or after you convert, After I am freed from slavery, or after you are freed from slavery ; After your husband dies or, after your sister dies ; After your yavam performs halizah for you ; she is not betrothed. As for all, it is well, for they are not in his power; but [to be] convert surely lies in his power!

 

In most of these cases the kiddushin is not effective because it is not in his power to free her himself or to cause her husband or sister to die or to cause the yavam to perform halitzah for her. However, right now the Talmud assumes that he has the power to convert. Therefore, he should, according to R. Yohanan, be able to say behold, you are betrothed to me after I convert.

 

גר נמי לאו בידו דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר ר’ יוחנן גר צריך שלשה מ"ט (ויקרא כד, כב) משפט כתיב ביה כדין מי יימר דמזדקקו ליה הני תלתא

 

To convert is not in his power either, for R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: A convert requires [a court] of three. What is the reason? Judgment [mishpat] is written in connection with conversion, as in a case of a court. Who can say that these three will assemble for him?

 

The Talmud answers that conversion also cannot be done by the man himself, for he needs a court to convert and it is not clear that he will find three to serve for him in such a capacity.

Conversion is a legal matter (see Leviticus 24:22).

I should note that in earlier rabbinic literature it seems that conversion was a self-administered process. A person just decides to become Jewish, goes through the proper ritual and thereby becomes Jewish. Only later in the Talmudic period do we hear of the necessity for a court. I wrote an article about this you can find it on academia.com if you are interested. And let me know what you think!