Halacha on the Go
AskLibrary

Chapter 4

The Beit Din

ד - בית הדין

In this chapter (9)
  1. 1. The Beit Din in the Conversion Process
  2. 2. Who Is Fit to Serve as a Judge
  3. 3. It Is a Mitzva to Accept Righteous Converts
  4. 4. Conversion for the Sake of Benefits
  5. 5. The Dilemma of the Beit Din
  6. 6. The Approaches of Shammai and Hillel
  7. 7. Everything Is According to the Judgment of the Beit Din
  8. 8. A Beit Din of Laymen
  9. 9. A Valid and an Invalid Beit Din
4:1

The Beit Din in the Conversion Process

בית הדין בתהליך הגיור

Although conversion is fundamentally accomplished by the convert, who chooses to join the Jewish people – the nation destined to bring God’s word and His blessing to the world – the conversion must be performed before a beit din (rabbinical court). This is because changing the convert’s status is a legal act with implications for all of Israel, and therefore the conversion must be carried out by a beit din (Yevamot 47a). However, this does not require a Minor Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges; rather, a beit din of three judges suffices, which is the smallest judicial panel that exists in Jewish law (Yevamot 46b; Sanhedrin 3a).¹

The beit din is needed for all stages of the conversion. In the first stage, the beit din examines the convert’s desire to enter the Jewish people and to accept the Torah and mitzvot, and decides whether to accept him. In the second stage, the beit din must be present at the circumcision (brit mila) for men, and at the immersion for both men and women. Since the conversion depends on circumcision and immersion, they too are part of the legal proceeding (mishpat) of conversion, and they must take place before a beit din of three. Therefore one must also be careful that the circumcision and the immersion take place during the day. Since conversion is considered a ‘mishpat’ (judicial proceeding), just as the judicial proceedings of the Torah – including the session of the beit din for accepting the convert – must take place during the day, so too all the stages of conversion must take place during the day (SA YD 268:3).²

Notes (2)
  1. Yevamot 47a: “Our Rabbis taught: ‘And judge righteously between a man and his brother and his convert (gero)’ (Devarim 1:16). From here R. Yehuda said: A convert who converted before a beit din is a convert; by himself, he is not a convert.” Rashi and Tosafot (ibid. 46b, s.v. “mishpat”) cite another verse as the source for this: “There shall be one Torah and one law (mishpat) for you and for the convert who dwells among you” (Bamidbar 15:16). Admittedly, these verses do not deal with conversion, but only with the need to judge converts like all of Israel. However, we learn from them that as a result of conversion, converts acquire a legal status like all of Israel, and it therefore follows that the conversion itself must also have legal validity. The Aḥaronim disagree about the nature of the beit din’s role in conversion. Some maintain that the beit din is the one that accepts the convert on behalf of all of Israel. So wrote R. Shaul Yisraeli (Ḥavot Binyamin vol. 2, gate 5, 67). With this he explained the law that conversions by ‘batei din of laymen’ are valid (below, section 8), since the essence of conversion is the acceptance of the convert into the community of Israel. Likewise, several poskim wrote that the will and consent of the beit din to accept the convert are required (Yeshuot Yisrael [Trunk] 3:2; Divrei Malkiel 2:77). Others say that it is the convert who converts, by accepting Jewish identity and the mitzvot, and the beit din merely confirms this. So wrote R. Rosenthal in Mishnat Yaakov (Issurei Bi’ah 13:6). So too wrote R. Feinstein (Dibrot Moshe, Yevamot 35:3), and on this basis he ruled that even public knowledge that the convert conducts himself as a Jew is effective in having him considered Jewish. This also emerges from the words of Maharal Tzintz in Responsa Meshivat Nefesh (2:50), who wrote that even stating before three people one’s intention to convert can be considered acceptance of the mitzvot. See Masoret Ha-giyur 11:8.
  2. Regarding the fact that one cannot convert without a beit din, it is stated in Kiddushin 62b: “A convert requires three; ‘mishpat’ is written regarding him.” Likewise it is stated regarding immersion that it must take place in the presence of a beit din (Yevamot 46b; 47b). On the other hand, we learn (Yevamot 45b) that Rav Assi validated a female convert on the basis of the claim: “Did she not immerse for her nidda impurity?” – that is, since it is known that she immersed for her nidda, she has thereby converted. The Rishonim asked: How can her immersion for nidda be effective for her conversion, when it did not take place before three? Some explained that immersion without the presence of a beit din is not effective for conversion, and the halakha does not follow Rav Assi (Behag), or that Rav Assi was referring to a special case in which she immersed for her nidda before three (Ritva and Nimukei Yosef). In contrast, Tosafot (Yevamot 45b, s.v. “mi”) answered that the presence of a beit din is indispensable only for the acceptance of the mitzvot, but the immersion is valid as long as it is known to have taken place, even if it was without the presence of a beit din, and that is what happened in Rav Assi’s case. So wrote the Mordekhai, Rosh, and Agudah (Yevamot ibid.), Maharam of Rothenburg (ibid. 46b), and Ran (Kiddushin 26a in the pages of the Rif). Tosafot there wrote an additional explanation: since everyone knows that she immersed for her nidda, her immersion is considered as having been performed before a beit din. Some say, according to the Rif and Rambam, that the immersion was not before a beit din and was for nidda without explicit intention for conversion, and indeed be-di’avad immersion for nidda is effective for conversion, and the female convert’s children will be considered Jewish on the basis of this immersion. But le-khatḥila one should not marry her unless she immersed before a beit din for the sake of conversion. This refers to a situation in which it is known in the community that she regularly immerses for her nidda like a Jewish woman, or it is known that she conducts herself as a Jewish woman and hence it is reasonable that she also immerses for her nidda; therefore, in their view, this immersion is considered her conversion. (So wrote, according to the Rif: Maharal Tzintz in Meshivat Nefesh 2:50. So it appears to be the view of the Ramakh, Responsa Radbaz 4:86; Peraḥ Mateh Aharon 2:51, according to the Rif. This is also the view of the Tashbetz 3:227. According to Tzafnat Pa’ane’aḥ, Issurei Bi’ah 13:9, and Dibrot Moshe, Yevamot 35:3, this is the view of the Rambam. See chapter 16 in Masoret Ha-giyur, that some say Jewish conduct can serve as a substitute for acceptance by the beit din.) Others explain that her immersion for nidda cannot be effective for conversion; rather, in a case where it is unknown whether the female convert underwent a proper conversion, her immersion for nidda creates a presumption (ḥazaka) that she apparently converted properly and immersed before three, and therefore her children are presumed Jewish. But since there are no witnesses to her conversion before a beit din, she may not be married unless she brings witnesses that she converted properly, or immerses before a beit din (so they explained the view of the Rif and Rambam: Meiri, Maggid Mishneh in his main explanation, Maharival, Ranaḥ, Responsa Torat Emet 20, and Baḥ. Ramban and Ramakh explained the Rambam’s view this way). Ramban and Rashba (Yevamot 45b) explained the Rif along the lines of Tosafot: there was acceptance of the mitzvot in a beit din before three, but since the immersion was not before three, le-khatḥila one should not marry him. In SA 268:3 the ruling is stated anonymously according to Tosafot and the Rosh, that even be-di’avad the acceptance of the mitzvot must be before three, but if one was circumcised or immersed not before three and at night, be-di’avad the conversion is valid. He mentions the view of the Rif and Rambam by name, that without immersion before three one may not marry into Israel. Circumcision: According to many, the law of circumcision is like that of immersion; just as immersion must le-khatḥila be before three, so must circumcision. Likewise regarding be-di’avad: just as the Rishonim disagree regarding immersion whether the conversion is valid when it was not performed before three, so too regarding circumcision (Ramban, Tur, SA 268:3, and so it is implied by the Ritva). Others say that circumcision does not require three even le-khatḥila (Baḥ in explaining the Rambam and Semag), just as three are not required for the circumcision of a Jew (Arukh Ha-shulḥan 267:4; 268:3). In practice, the Baḥ wrote that one should be concerned for the view of the Ramban, and he is cited by Maharam Schick YD 248 and many Aḥaronim.
1 of 9