והשפחה? A woman who converted, a woman who was taken into captivity, והשפחה, a woman who was a maid servant, שנפדו, ושנתגיירו, ושנשתחררו. And these women either were freed A woman who was taken captive was freed. ושנתגיירו Or a woman who was not Jewish became a גיורת. ושנשתחררו, a woman who was a שפחה, she became, she was freed. So, if this happened פחותות מבנות שלש שנים ויום אחד, if it happened under the age of three, okay, כתובתן מאתים, they're assumed to be a בתולה. ויש להן טענת בתולים. They also have טענת בתולים. That is the Mishnah. So, I just, a moment to just start, a little bit of background here. The general rule is that a woman who is either not Jewish, okay, or if she was Jewish and she was taken into captivity, mhm And thirdly, a שפחה, which is a woman who was a maid servant, non-Jewish maid servant, that is, uh, is it owned by a Jew, these women are assumed not to be virgins, not to be בתולות. Mhm. A woman who was taken to captivity, we assume that they've been abused by the cap- by the captives. The גיורת and the שפחה, we just assume don't have the morals of בנות ישראל, and therefore No matter the age. No matter All right, no matter the age, we assume that they're either abused or were נבעלו, and therefore, it's the understanding of anyone who marries them, number one, to expect them not to be a בתולה, and number two, we, the חכמים, the בית דין don't expect their כתובה to be like that of a בתולה. So, the two הלכות that follow here under normal circumstances before we talk about our Mishnah is that one of these kind of women, her כתובה would only be like that of a בעולה, which we said is only half, only uh 100 זוז, כתובתן מנה. And they also, the husband who marries them does not have any claim with her בתולים, טענת בתולים with regard to her virginity because it's expected that they are not a בתולה. That is a regular woman who was taken captive, not Jewish, or שפחה. Now,

our משנה, though, is talking about one of these kind of women who were either not Jewish before the age of three, okay, or the שפחה born into slavery before age three, and taken captive before age three, and then they either were freed, or became a convert, or a שפחה also was נשתחרר, also got freed before the age three. So, what is the הלכה with these women? So, imagine two and a half convert. We're going to talk about how that could be. That's that'll be the Gemara. A convert? Yeah. But she converted at the age of two and a half, or she was taken captive, family was captured, she was born, whatever the story is. In פרשת משפטים that we learned last week. Oh, last week. Yes. We're talking about the הלכה if You're freeing the slaves. You have a freed slave and you can have children with her, right? Uh what Oh you're probably thinking of the beginning of פרשת משפטים where an עבד עברי, a Jewish slave can marry can marry the שפחה כנענית. Hebrew slave, but also talks about She could marry He could marry the שפחה כנענית. It's not And the children are his. The children are his. No. You mean the children of the owner of the master. Right, but you're are You so there do we assume that שפחה כנענית, whether she's בתולה or not? Yeah, all שפחה כנענית, we assume she's not a בתולה. So, then he can marry her He's allowed to marry her, yeah. She's not She's not a בתולה. Correct. Okay. But what we're talking about is if the שפחה כנענית became freed, and she became a regular ישראלית, and now he wants to marry her. Mhm. Okay. So,

under normal circumstances, he could assume that she is not a בתולה. But what happens if the whole story completed itself before she turned three? What? Oh, we need one more Gemara. Is that a Ketubot? Let's see. What do we have, um? Let's check what Gemara we have. Looking for Ketubot. Taharot. Okay, Yossi. Nope, that's fine. Nope, that ain't it. Iron is it. Okay. So, this brings us back to to to a halacha that we learned about earlier. Okay. There was a halacha that we learned earlier that a woman who is under the age of three and someone is בועל her, the halacha is her בתוליה is חוזרים. The בתולים comes back. And I think the the the It's compared to one who poked a finger in the eye. It'll let out a tear. Then it replenishes, you get poked again, then another tear will come out. So similarly, a woman who was פחות מבת שלש שנים, a girl that's under the age of three, so even if we halachically assume that she was נבעלת, because she was taken into captivity, or whatever the reason may be why she loses her like חזקה of כשרות, and we assume that she was a בעולה, nonetheless, being that she became a regular she became either freed or ישראלית before the age of three, then, and after age of three there's no reason to assume that anyone was מזנה with her, so therefore she would be בחזקת בתולה. We would consider her to be a בתולה, being that her status changed before the age of three, okay? That is the halacha of our Mishnah, yes. How does one convert before the age of before the age of three? Very good question. Nobody asked the question? Rambam? No, the Gemara talks about it. This is this is the famous sugya of the גר קטן. Just took a stab at Rambam. Why not? This is this is this is the famous sugya of of what's known in the yeshiva world as as the sugya of גר קטן.

How could a קטן, who's a minor, who halachically does not have any שכל, does not have any דעת, how could they convert to to to Yiddishkeit? And we see from our Mishnah that it has to be possible, because the Mishnah started out with three cases: firstly a גיורת, or a שבויה, גיורת being a female גיורת, a שבויה, a woman who was taken, a girl really, we're talking about under three, was taken into captivity, and lastly a שפחה, a maidservant who was really, probably I guess born into slavery, and she's also under age three. And the Mishnah continues that they, either the one who was taken into captivity שנפדו was redeemed, the one who was not Jewish שנתגיירו converted, and שנתשתחררו and became became free. Would have to be the the parents wanted to convert? Yeah, we're gonna, yeah, we're gonna get into all the details about that, yeah, we're gonna talk about that. So let's let's just take the Mishnah at face value, and and what the Mishnah, the Gemara is going to get off topic here, but what the Mishnah is telling us is that when there was a reason to assume she was a בעולה before the age of three, and that status changed before she turned three, and three and onwards she had a דין of a regular ישראלית, then we could assume that she's a בתולה, and there thereon she gets married she gets the full כתובה, and her husband has a טענת בתולים, meaning if he finds her not to be a בתולה, then then then he could go to beit din and claim, \"Hey, she's supposed to be a בתולה, where's the בתולים?\" It's not a matter of when the hymen goes back, like before the age of three or after, or before she's Israeli, or or a Jew or not? No, it's age three. The cutoff point is three. Any any any girl who whose בתוליה were punctured before the age of three, comes back, and three and onward is only the only time it will make an everlasting impression. This is really what we learned earlier about דף ט. You're thinking a step ahead already. My question is, so like at three and on, let's say she's being watched. If she's three and on, what? Well, they were talking about her status. Our Mishnah is talking about her status changed before the age of three. Once she had a status of a regular ישראלית, or if she was not in captivity anymore, the woman who was taken captive, we could assume everything's fine. We don't have to have, you know, eyes watching her all day. It's only when she was when she was taken into captive where we assume that she may have been abused, even I guess at this young age, or or a woman who who wasn't Jewish or was a שפחה, also they have this chazakah they don't have the same morals as a as ישראלית. As the status, right. The status changed before the age of three. That's it, yeah, too late, too late. You have to assume she's a בעולה. She might not be, but you have to assume halachically she's considered a בעולה. And one who marries her should expect her to be like a בעולה. Pay for a בעולה, exactly. And she can't marry a כהן. All right, oh wait a second, a כהן can't marry a גיורת, but a שבויה, a כהן could marry her, yeah. Yeah. Cuz even if something happened, it was before the age of three. So a כהן would be allowed to marry her. Good, so that that's the Mishnah. This is pretty straightforward and that's really the connection to what we've been learning about all along, cuz now the Gemara is going to go on a completely new topic. So, I'm happy that everybody made it here tonight because we're starting a completely new sugya tonight that's really gonna get into these הלכות about a גר קטן. And what everybody's asking is how could a minor, one who doesn't have any שכל under age of bar mitzvah, how could they join Klal Yisrael and become a גר without any kind of דעת? That's the same that's the רצון of a of a person who's a גדול. Oh, you picked up on that? Very good. So, so is asking a good question. a few minutes ago. is asking a question. I I I tried to I tried to read it quickly so nobody would go over it. No, it isn't noge'a. It happens to be it is נוגע. is asking very very good question. I tried to, you know, see if it would go over, but the Mishnah starts off with ההלכה. Now we're talking about cases. The first case is a גיורת, second case is a שבויה, a woman who was taken into captivity. The last case is what? A שפחה. So now each one of these women, their status changed. That's what the Mishnah is going to talk about. A woman who was not Jewish converted, a woman who was taken into captive was freed, and a woman who was a שפחה was freed. Her her her master gave her a שטר שחרור. So the Mishnah seems to play around with the order here and reverse the order somewhat. We started off The first part of the Mishnah talks about the three kind of women, גיורת, שבויה, שפחה. And then we we say שנשבית, who was freed, that's referring to the woman who was taken into captive. And only after that we get to the שנתגיירה, who converted, and then lastly the שנשתחררה, became freed. We're not consistent. The order is inconsistent. That's your question, ? Yeah, you see an inconsistency here? חס ושלום. So it happens to be the Ritva was bothered by this question, the Ritva in Kiddushin. Right? And the

Ritva says no, everything is מדויק. The the תנא wrote it this way for a reason. It's true that the order is inconsistent, but the reason is as follows: that the first part of the it's the first part of this Mishnah is in order of importance, חשיבותייהו, and what we first start with is the גיורת, who was חביבא ליה, the certain חביבות, how do you translate חביבות? The the lovingness, I guess Cherished. Cherished. שנכנסה תחת כנפי השכינה. She joined the תחת, becoming on the תחת כנפי השכינה. And then we talk about the woman who was taken into captivity, and lastly the the שפחה. Whereas the second part of the Mishnah talks about the stage where there's a status change, we we go in the order of priority. A woman who's taken captive and is held by captors, that's an important mitzvah of פדיון שבויים. The first thing you have to do is try to redeem them. And secondly is the שנתגיירה, and then what would come second on the list is helping someone to convert, and the שנשתחררה lastly, which we know is is even a a negative commandment, by the way, to free a עבד, עבד כנעני. The Torah tells us, לעולם בהם תעבודו. You're not supposed to free an עבד כנעני. So they takes the the less they're the last on the list. That is what the Ritva speaks out. So that that's the Mishnah. Okay, so you hit it on the nail. It's that's not for now, but yes. Not נוגע. Not נוגע right now, yeah. Okay. There's a Gemara in Berachot that talks about how they needed a minyan. Certain Tannaim needed a minyan. So for a דבר מצוה could be you're allowed to be lenient on this. מילא Okay, עיין שם, it's a sugya for itself really, not for now. So אמר רב הונא, says Rav Huna, what do we see from our sugya? גר קטן, a young convert. Now, I first want to go over an overview of the shakla v'tarya of the Gemara. There's a few steps here, and then we'll take it step-by-step here. The first way the Gemara says גר קטן, a a גר who's a קטן, מטבילין אותו, you could be tovel him, put him in the mikveh, על דעת בית דין, with the understanding, consent, support, whichever word you like, of Beit Din. Beit Din could arrange that a גר קטן could be טובל על דעתם, which is really what we're really right now is addressing this issue. How is it that we have in our Mishnah this woman who converted under the age of three? She became a גיורת, she's not even 3 years old. So says רב הונא, אמר רב הונא, a גר קטן, בית דין could be tovel them in the mikveh על דעת בית דין in order to convert. So we're going to talk about if there are parents, there aren't parents. what role the parents are playing. We're going to get to that, because these are these are details. If it's just the parents. Yeah, these are details, we're going to get to that. But this is the מימרא of Rav Huna. Asks the Gemara: מאי קא משמע לן? Rav Huna, what are you trying to teach us? What what's the chidush? That's obvious. Why wouldn't Beit Din be allowed to do this? Are you telling me that the reason is זכות הוא לו? Because this is a something which is beneficial for the קטן. And we know that there's a הלכה, זכין לאדם שלא בפניו. There's a halachah in general, nothing really to do with our sugya per se, but there's a halachah in general that you have the ability, or anyone has the ability, to acquire something for someone on behalf of someone else, even without his knowledge or consent or he did not appoint you to be a שליח for this. Okay, so if one wants to purchase an item on behalf of his friend, and his friend did not did not ask him to do so and you're not you're using your own money and you want to buy something for someone else, it could become his. You could be זוכה something, you can acquire something for someone else on their behalf. Because it's a zechut. זכין לאדם, זה זכות, it's something beneficial. No harm done by by שלא בפניו means right without his awareness. He has no idea you're doing this for him. You could be a millionaire and you don't know it, someone else זוכה the money for you, and you really הלכתית could own it now. Someone else could do it for you. So here too says the Gemara, this is something which is beneficial, zechus for the katan. So it's obvious, there's no chidush. Rav Huna, what are you telling us? Of course beis din has a right to award I guess this geirus and be tovel the katan in order for him to join כלל ישראל. It's a zechus. It's a privilege. Why not? What does he have to lose? No chidush, something which is obvious. That's the Gemara's question. Good? Hang on a second. So the Gemara says like this: תנינא, we already learned this הלכה, זכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין לאדם שלא בפניו. You have the ability, the right, to acquire something for someone which is a privilege for him שלא בפניו, without his awareness or his knowledge, but you don't have the right to do something which could be detrimental for him, okay? So the

Gemara right now is assuming that converting to Yiddishkeit is obvious that it's considered a zechus. When we say it's considered a zechus, that means that this katan really if he had the daas, he had the seichel, he would want to convert. So the Gemara continues, so what's the chidush? מהו דתימא עובד כוכבים בהפקירא ניחא ליה. The Gemara challenges מהו דתימא, one may think that עובד כוכבים, one who is an idol worshipper, בהפקירא ניחא ליה, would prefer to be in his state of hefker. Hefker meaning no restrictions, you can do what you want. ודקיימא לן and we support this theory with a pesak that עבד ודאי בהפקירא ניחא ליה. A slave certainly wants to would prefer to be hefker, not be bound by any by any rules. קא משמע לן דהני מילי גדול, this is only talking about one who is already a gadol, one who already grew up, דטעם טעם דאיסורא, he already experienced the taste of issur, he knows what it's like to be hefkerus. אבל קטן, who he has no idea what it's like to to be, דלא טעם טעם דאיסור, then זכות הוא לו. Then it is zechus for him. So I just want to give give you a little bit of background, I want to get the pshat here straight. The Gemara really is referring us to a machloket that we have in the Gemara in in Gittin, if I'm not mistaken, Gemara in Gittin. Now this

Gemara talks about a a slave, an עבד כנעני. And the master wants to free the עבד כנעני. How do you free an עבד כנעני? You have to give him a שטר שחרור. Document that you write up similar to like that of a גט, and you write up this שטר and it has to be given over to the עבד. Now, the master, used to being a master, is a little lazy, he's not going to go chase after his slave. Or you can poke his eye out. Well that's yeah, that's a whole separate thing, yeah. But then you're מחוייב to give the שטר שחרור, then you have to give the שטר שחרור, but but the the master does not either have the time or interest, whatever reason, and he wants to appoint a messenger, a shaliach, to bring the שטר שחרור to the slave. So he says, Yair please, do me a favor. I got a slave that lives down the block. Please go ahead and give him the שטר שחרור. Now the question is like this: do you have the ability to now acquire the שטר שחרור on behalf have the ability? And you don't have to wait till the till that document actually reaches his hand for him to become free? Or do you have to wait for the actual paper to get to his hand? Could maybe the shaliach be מזכה it on behalf of the slave? Maybe it's a zechut, a privilege. He's a slave, he wants his freedom. Huh? So the master is not a katan. And the עבד is not a katan in this case. This this case I'm talking about the All right, the machloket is Gemara Gittin. If the if the shaliach, the messenger, has the ability to to acquire this שטר שחרור, the document document which will free the slave, because it's beneficial for the slave, he's now going to go to freedom. It seems Is the עבד like a דין מטלטלין or not? עבד is like קרקע. קרקע. Right. So you would think no, because it's a a possession. It was in the דעת of the You mean the owner didn't want him freed until the last moment? Right, or the owner didn't want him It's the property of the owner, you can't acquire something without Well the owner wants to free him. The owner wants to free him, so he gave it to a I I wouldn't see why he wouldn't have why there is even a nafka mina that a a shaliach could acquire the עבד. So the nafka mina will be There's the I'm sorry, he's not he's not acquiring the עבד. He's acquiring for the עבד his שטר שחרור. And that I mean the master is trying is trying to set the עבד free. Right. He's the slave, he's a עבד כנעני, and he wants to set him free. The way you do that is by writing what we call a שטר שחרור, and if you want to do it the real way, is you actually give it to the עבד, you put it in his hand, now he's a free man. So, instead of just putting it in his hand, you give it to a middleman. You give it to a messenger, a shaliach, and the shaliach now brings the שטר to the slave. And the question is here is if the shaliach could acquire the שטר on behalf of the slave, and earn him his freedom immediately when it reaches the hand of the messenger. In the hand of the shaliach, that's Why Why not? What's the What's the reason? What's Why not? Might not be beneficial. Oh, so it might not be beneficial. So, here's the machloket. The machloket is is it considered beneficial? Is it considered a zechut? Or the way we פסקן למעשה, is that it's not considered a zechut, because being that he is And we're seeing from our Gemara, that being that he's a גדול, he already he already he already grew up, and he's what we call טעם טעם איסור. He had by him, as Rashi says, he had all the שפחות in the world, that could have been מזנה with all

day long as much as he wanted, and not restricted by the morals of the Torah, and he already knew of that, and he enjoyed that that came along with his with his with his slavery, with his עבדות. So, therefore, we can't really consider it a complete zechut, completely beneficial for him to be free. So, therefore, the middleman can't just be zocheh it without his consent. It has to get to his hand from the master, however it goes there. Because the master actually gives it to him, or the master gives it to the shaliach, the shaliach has to bring it to the עבד, and once it reaches the hand of the עבד, that's when the עבד will be freed. This is how we pasken, and what we see from this Gemara that we're bringing now from this Gemara Gittin, is that this עבד would prefer If it was up to him, if you would ask him, would he rather be תחת כנפי השכינה and be bound to the mitzvot, or would he rather be in a state of הפקרות? He would choose, prefer to be in הפקרות, and have all the issurim at his hands without any worries. And what our Gemara is telling us, is that this applies specifically to one who's already matured, and experienced what the Gemara calls as טעם איסור, the flavor of the forbidden. And once he experienced it already, so then we say that this is something that he may choose, and he may opt for if he had the choice. However, if he's a קטן, and he's a minor, and he does not know what he's missing, as they say, if you don't know what you're missing, it doesn't hurt, right? So he doesn't know what he's missing. It's fine. So,

therefore, the Gemara tells us that it is considered a zechut, and therefore בית דין has the ability to be zocheh for him in either the טבילה or the גירות, we'll talk about exactly what step they're being mezakeh for him, but בית דין has the right to do this for him. That is the That is the Gemara, general overview. I remember once reading, I'm trying to remember where I saw this, I remember once reading about how one of these gedolim was walking by the yeshiva, and he saw yeshiva bochurim playing. He got into a whole argument about if you should be jealous of them or of the baalei teshuvah, like which one was more of like a struggle. They They never knew what it was like, you know, to experience all the תאוות עולם הזה, and maybe they're in their innocence they're just, you know, going, riding the course. They don't know any better. So on the one hand, is that in a way considered more challenging? Maybe on the one hand they have this, you know, urge deep down. Maybe there was like maybe there's a better life out there. Or no, the person who saw the better life and chose to chose to to to stick to the to the books and and learn. And there was a little back and forth about this, it reminded me of this Gemara here. The ma'alah of a baal teshuvah. Ma'alah of baal teshuvah. Listen, each thing has its, you know, challenges and pros and cons, you know. On the on the one hand, Right. If the עבד came by him, then it's no problem. The point is somebody else wanted to do it, but he can't. He mixed in, nobody asked him to. Can I get a tissue? Excuse me. Yeah. Would a בעל מום also Would a בעל מום make a shehecheyanu? Who doesn't make a shehecheyanu? What? Who doesn't make a shehecheyanu? So let me ask you a question. The geder of a baal teshuvah, is

one who accepts upon himself ol malchut shamayim or the every aveirah he did and now doesn't do it? You understand? Baal teshuvah can mean different things. A frum person is a baal teshuvah. Yeah, we're also all baalei teshuvah. We know the famous story about Yeah, yeah, with the with the I don't remember, there's there's a famous story about You heard the story about the guy who was going around, who was it? Is that at times? I don't he says, \"We're all...\" I don't remember. I don't remember. I think I think it was back in the day when it was accepted, most people I think had beards back then. And everyone was wishing a gut Shabbos, introducing himself to the Rav of the of the community, and someone was clean-shaven, and he told the Rav, \"Don't worry, I'm not a baal teshuvah.\" He said, \"Why not?\" \"We're all baalei teshuvah. Born in America.\" Right, so I don't I don't I don't remember the פתגם, mister. Yeah, I don't remember exactly what the פתגם was, but the point is... Al kol panim, getting back here to the point, so so that is the overview of the Gemara. So the

Gemara is trying to tell us that it's considered a zechut for a katan, and a katan who doesn't know any better, so it's decided by the beit din and the Gemara, Rav Huna tells us that it is zechut, and to be zocheh in the gerut for him is a privilege, and something which beit din will do even without his da'at, without him asking, or his even if he does ask, well it doesn't mean anything really, he's a לאו בר דעת, therefore therefore we could be מטביל אותו על דעת בית דין. Okay, so this First and foremost, what we have to understand here is under what circumstances does beit din just go ahead and take a minor, take a katan The Gemara was talking about two-and-a-half-year-old, but even a seven-year-old, whatever age it may be, and make a ger out of them? We just go pick people off the street? I mean it's a zechut, why not? So let's see Rashi. Rashi says, first רש״י, ואין לו אב, רש״י says we're talking about that this non-Jew did not have a father, שאין ואין לו אב, he did not have a father, ואמו, his mother, הביאתו להתגייר. His mother brought him to become a to to become a ger. What does that mean? No father, and his mother brought him. So, number one Number one, okay, well number one, is it important that his mother brought him? Let's say he came on his own. He came, knocked on beit din's door, \"I want to convert.\" Would we accept him? Is it important that his mother brought him? And additionally we need to understand why did Rashi mention that he didn't have a father? What if he did have a father? Would that would that change the would that would that would that change anything? Well, yeah, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it. Right? Yeah, well, it's a good point. So the Rashba, the

Rashba starts off by saying that Rashi is not coming to tell us that we need that his mother has to bring him. If he comes on his own, we will also we will also accept him. Why did Rashi say that his mother brought him? Why did Rashi mention ואמו הביאתו? So the Rashba explains that the reason why Rashi said this is because Rashi is trying to tell us that the beit din is not just going to go on the street and try to find someone and make a convert out of him. There has to be If he came, fine, that's one thing. If he came knocking on the door on his own, no problem. Or if his mother brought him, then we would also we would also accept him. And if his father brought him? Oh, so we're going to get to the father, hang on a moment for that. So he's coming on... Who cares? Rashi is trying to say אמו הביאתו להתגייר, this is where the Ritva really asks. Right, what the Ritva asked is that because our Mishnah, we're coming off of our Mishnah. Our Mishnah was talking about she was so young, they're talking about she was under the age of three. So she's not coming to beit din. She's not, right. But the Gemara's just talking about katan. But we teach this behalacha, in general, could it could have applications to even a girl that maybe a katan that's maybe less than three. So where would it apply to less than three? We're not going to go take someone out of their crib to make them a ger. So that's what Rashi is telling us, that if they don't have any sechel, no da'at, we're talking about, I don't know exactly what the cut-off point would be, maybe like what we mentioned earlier, If they don't have any sechel, then the mother has to bring them, at least the mother, we'll talk about the father soon. It can't be the father, because if it's the father, you have to investigate who the mother is, right? If the mother is Jewish or not. Okay, we're assuming we're assuming that they're both not Jewish. So if if it's the katan is so young, it doesn't have any da'at at all, no sechel, no intelligence, then we won't just do it beit din will not just do it on their own. It has to be coming from one of the parents or Rashi says the mother, which we'll talk about why the mother. But if the katan does have some da'at on his own, so the Ritva, the Rishonim are saying Rashi still agrees that if the katan on his own, he's 10 years old, he already has, you know, somewhat of a seichel, not full complete daas, not bar mitzvah, but he still has enough daas to make, you know, smaller decisions, and therefore if he comes knocking on the door, we could accept him. Now, the question that we're still left with here, as Jeff was me'ir, why does Rashi say that he doesn't have a father? Who cares? What and what if his father brought him? I mean, would the halacha be different? So... Beis din in place of the father. So

I'm going to read you a lashon I'm going to read you a lashon of the Tur. The Tur says the following: He says, \"A גוי קטן, אם יש לו אב,\" if he has a father, \"then יכול לגייר אותו.\" Listen carefully, \"יכול,\" he could convert him, which we're going to see seems to apply that the father himself could do it, okay? This is what the Bach is going to explain. \"ואם אין לו אב,\" if he does not have a father, \"ובא להתגייר,\" he's coming to convert, the Shulchan Aruch adds, coming on his own or his mother is bringing him, \"then בית דין מגיירין אותו,\" that's when the beis din converts him. \"שזכות הוא לו,\" because it's a zechus, \"וזכין לאדם שלא בידיעתו,\" you could be mezakeh something to someone without his yediah. So what the Bach explains here is that the reason why we're not focusing on the father is because if there was a father, we don't even have to come onto the halacha of our Gemara. Our Gemara's like a chidush that beis din is the one that plays the role of the conversion. Beis din acts as if it was this קטן. Says the Bach, that if the father's here and the father is bringing him to convert, then the father himself has the ability to convert his son without the daas, the understanding of beis din. Obviously beis din plays the same role that they would play with any convert, but not but not a special role. Even if he's not Jewish? So the Oh, so right, and this, seemingly, bifshitus, this is talking about lichorah, this is talking about even if the father himself, this is a chidush, even if the father himself is not converting, bifshitus. Because, I'll tell you why in a moment, because when one of the parents converts, the the rishonim explain that you have the conversion of the parents. The Gemara later tells us that there, it's a דבר פשוט, that it's a zechus, our Gemara doesn't even get off the ground, so obvious, because a קטן, a young kid, is best interest is to follow after his parents. And if his parents are converting, the Gemara tells us we don't need Rav Huna's chiddush that beis din has to be מזכה for him, and it's a privilege. It's obvious as the day that a minor, a katan, wants to be under the influence of his parents. And if his parents are converting, and the Rishonim speak about, the Ritva and the Shitah Mekubetzet say it doesn't have to be only the father, it could be the mother, both the mother or father, whichever one, if they're converting themselves, they're becoming a ger, then he is like נגרר אחריהם. They automatically kind of it's understood and it's clear that they want that they would want to convert just like the parents. Although, pshatus, I think the pshatus of the Bach here is that here we're talking about the father has this יכולת, this this the supposed ability for control or acquisition, so to speak, of the son, and a certain they call it a zechus, not saying that he has like a little bit of a kinyan. He has a little bit of ownership of the son that a father has that he could do the geirus for his son without this דעת בית דין. And that's why Rashi says that there is no father here, because if there was a father, then it's obvious the father himself could do it, we don't need the beis din. And if we look carefully, the next Rashi, when he says we do it על דעת בית דין, Rashi says when we're talking about they don't have the father, and the mother brought him, Rashi says you'll have three people, שלושה יהיו בטבילה. You'll have three people by the טבילה, כי דין כל טבילה needs, requires, ג׳, like every גר that needs three. And listen to these words: והם, this בית דין, נעשו לו כאב, they are becoming to this קטן like a father. So if anything, they're in a way playing like the role of a father here. So if anything, it's in reverse. The father it's obvious can convert his children. It's the fact that the beis din has the יכולת to also do so, they are playing the role of the father, that is the chiddush here of Rav Huna. So just to

conclude here is what we have: והם נעשו לו כאב, they're becoming to him like a father. Beis din is doing like the father. So if anything the the one who is the least of a chiddush that has the ability to be megayer is the father. The father has this zechus to be megayer his son. And what Rav Huna is telling us that the beis din themselves, because this is a privilege and a zechus, they could like to a certain extent are playing the role of the father here. That could be that the father is Jewish and the mother is not Jewish. That could be. But then the kid is still the kid is still not going to be Jewish then. Yeah. You're saying what's the difference between if the father is Jewish or not, does that make any I don't I don't speak to it. Why would the father The kid could be Jewish. So why did the father bring him? If the father's Jewish, he wants the kid to be Jewish. You know what Rashi said, the mother brought him. But we're talking about the father. How could you bring Where's the mother? The whole thing is if the father did bring him, then it's then it's pashut. Where Rashi is telling us we need this chiddush is no no father. No father, the mother comes, then we need this chidush. So just to summarize, what we have here is again, if if the parents themselves are, yes, converting, either one of the two, then it goes without saying. It's a zechut, it's a privilege, the kid wants to follow and be together with the parents. That goes without saying. If neither of them are converting, and they just want to convert the son, so then if the mother brought him or if the kid came on their own, then we have to have this halachah of דעת בית דין. בית דין has to be doing the geirut for this for the young kid, for the child. And if we have the father here, the father wants to do the conversion, then he himself could do it without this דעת בית דין that the Gemara here is talking about. That summarizes the different shittot here about exactly when we apply this halachah of doing the טבילה על דעת בית דין. And

tomorrow, be'ezrat Hashem, we're going to talk about why the Gemara specifically is mentioning tevillah, going to the mikveh. We know there's also some other criteria, such as the brit milah, such as קבלת המצות. And why are we mention why is this one the one that's singled out? And stay tuned, be'ezrat Hashem, for tomorrow. Yashar koach. Yishar kochachem. Yishar koach. Mai nafka minah? Difference between rabbanan and de'oraita. If he, if the katan when he converted is de'rabbanan, yeah? If the katan when he converted is only de'rabbanan, it's not de'oraita, until he becomes a gadol, until he becomes bar mitzvah, until he becomes de'oraita. You're asking me that? I'm asking the question. No, no, I'm asking, I'm asking. Hold it, hold it. No idea. What's the question? Okay, anyway, a katan is not מחויב במצות, right? He's only מחויב בחינוך, but whose obligation? It's on the father. You want to hear it? No, not here. Let's do it on Shabbos. Let's do it on Shabbos. Shabbos, הא? Yeah.