SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA

ritual bath, this child, all agree, does not require the ritual bath (even if he did need separate conversion) because his mother’s ritual bath is deemed to have been effective for him

In Nimugei Yosef(Joseph ibn Chabib) to Chapter 4 of Yevamot, near the end of the chapter(bottom of 16a in Vilna editions) there is a discussion of the status of such an embryo, and the opinion of Nachmanides is cited that such an embryo does not require the ritual bath to be converted; and Aaron Halevi adds that when he is born, he is circumcised as any Jewish child is circumcised(i.e., not for the purpose of conversion) and the opinion of Rashi to Yevamot 78a is quoted to virtually the same effect.

In other words, the general tendency of the law is to hold that the child does not require ritual bathing and his circumcision is that of a Jewish child(cf. Yoreh Deah 268:6 and Yad, Hil. Issurei Biah XIII, 7). In general, therefore, it is correct to say that he is

converted through the act of his mother’s conversion. And, of course, this also applies to a girl child, who could not be circumcised anyhow. In fact, Aaron Halevi indicated that although all male converts require both the ritual bath and circumcision, the

male embryo is considered to have had the ritual bath when his mother took it and his conversion is not incomplete on the ground that he is still uncircumcised since he cannot be circumcised at the time, and thus it is analogous to the conversion of a girl baby.

Tzvi Pesach Frank in the responsum mentioned cites the opinion of Ma’aseh Hiyah(Hiyah Rofe, Responsum#1,[Safed , died 1620]), which clearly is based on the idea that the mother’s conversion completely converts the unborn child. Tsvi Pesach Frank in this responsum(#223, end of column 195) derives the conclusion from Rashi to Yevamot 78a that the unborn child of a pregnant proselyte is completely converted by his mother’s

155