Yevamot

all agree  that ritual ablution without circumcision is effective; and they differ only on circumcision without ablution. R. Eliezer infers from the forefathers,  while R. Joshua [maintains that] in the case of the forefathers also ritual ablution was performed. Whence does he  deduce it?  If it be suggested, 'From that which is written, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments,  if where washing of the garments is not required  ablution is required,  how much more should ablution be required where washing of the garments is required',  [it may be retorted that] that  might have been a mere matter of cleanliness.  — It is rather from here:  And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people,  and we have a tradition that there must be no sprinkling without ritual ablution. Whence does R. Joshua infer that the mothers performed ritual ablution? — It is a logical conclusion, for, otherwise,  whereby did they enter under the wings of the Shechinah! R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan: A man can never become a proselyte unless he has been circumcised and has also performed the prescribed ritual ablution.  Is not this obvious? [In a dispute between] an individual and a majority the halachah is, surely, in agreement with the majority!  — The expression 'Sages' is in fact meant for  'R. Jose'. For it was taught: If [a proselyte] came and stated, 'I have been circumcised but have not performed ritual ablution' he is 'permitted to perform the ablution  and [the proper performance of the previous circumcision] does not matter;  so R. Judah. R. Jose said: He is not to be allowed ablution,  Hence  it is permissible for a proselyte  to perform the prescribed ablution on the Sabbath;  so R. Judah. R. Jose, however, said: He is not to be allowed to perform the ablution. The Master said, 'Hence it is permissible for a proselyte to perform the prescribed ablution on the Sabbath; so R. Judah'.  Seeing that R. Judah stated that one  suffices is it not obvious that, if circumcision has been performed in our presence, he is permitted to perform ablution! Why then, 'Hence'?  — It might have been assumed that in the opinion of R. Judah, ablution forms the principal [part of the initiation],  and that ablution is not to take place on the Sabbath because, thereby, a man is improved;  hence we were taught  that R. Judah requires either the one or the other. 'R. Jose, however, said: He is not to be allowed to perform the ablution'. Is not this obvious? Since R. Jose said that both  are required [ablution must be forbidden as] the improvement of a man  may not be effected on the Sabbath! — It might have been assumed that in the opinion of R. Jose circumcision forms the principal [part of the initiation] and that the reason there  is because the circumcision had not been performed in our presence  but where the circumcision had taken place in our presence  it might have been assumed that a proselyte in such circumstances  may perform the prescribed ablution even on the Sabbath, hence we were taught  that R. Jose requires both. Rabbah stated: It happened at the court of R. Hiyya b. Rabbi — (and R. Joseph taught: R. Oshaia b.  Rabbi;  and R. Safra taught: R. Oshaia b. Hiyya)  — that there came before him a proselyte who had been circumcised but had not performed the ablution.  The Rabbi told him, 'Wait here until tomorrow  when we shall arrange for your ablution'. From this incident three rulings may be deduced. It may be inferred that the initiation of a proselyte requires the presence of three men;  and it may be inferred that a man is not a proper proselyte unless he had been circumcised and had also performed the prescribed ablution; and it may also be inferred  that the ablution of a proselyte may not take place during the night. Let it be said that from this incident it may also be inferred that qualified scholars are required!  — Their presence might have been a mere coincidence. R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan: The initiation of a proselyte requires the presence of three men; for law  has been written in his case. Our Rabbis taught: As it might have been assumed that if a man came and said, 'I am a proselyte' he is to be accepted,  hence it was specifically stated in the Scriptures With thee,  only when he is well known to thee. Whence is it inferred that if he came, and had his witnesses with him, [that his word is accepted]? — It was specifically stated in Scripture, And if a proselyte sojourn … in your land.