Yevamot

From this I only know [that the law is applicable] within the Land of Israel, whence is it inferred [that it is also applicable] within the countries outside the Land? — It was specifically stated in Scripture, With thee, i.e., 'wherever he is with thee'.  If so, why was the Land of Israel specified? — In the Land of Israel  proof must be produced;  outside the Land of Israel  no such proof need be produced; these are the words of R. Judah. But the Sages said: Proof must be produced both within the Land of Israel and outside the Land. 'If he came and had witnesses with him,' what need is there for a Scriptural text?  R. Shesheth replied: Where they  state, 'We heard that he be came a proselyte at a certain particular court'. As It might have been taught that we are not to believe them,  we were taught [that we do believe them]. 'In your land;  from this I only know [that the law is applicable] within the Land of Israel, whence is it inferred [that it is also applicable] within the countries outside the Land? — It was specifically stated in Scripture, With thee, i.e., wherever he is with thee'. But this,  surely, had been expounded already!  — One is derived from With thee  and the other from With you. 'But the Sages said: Proof must be produced both within the Land of Israel and outside the Land'. But, it is written, surely, in your land!  — That expression is required [for the deduction] that proselytes may be accepted even in the Land of Israel. As it might have been assumed that there they become proselytes only on account of the prosperity of the Land of Israel, and at the present time also, when there is no prosperity, they might still be attracted  by the Gleanings,  the Forgotten Sheaf,  the Corner  and the Poor Man's Tithe,  hence we were taught [that they may nevertheless be accepted]. R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan, 'The halachah is that proof must be produced  both in the Land of Israel and outside the Land'. Is this not obvious? [In a dispute between] an individual and a majority the halachah is, of course, in agreement with the majority!  — It might have been suggested that R. Judah's view is more acceptable since he is supported by Scriptural texts,  hence we were taught [that the halachah is in agreement with the Sages]. Our Rabbis taught: And judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the proselyte that is with him;  from this text  did R. Judah deduce that a man who becomes a proselyte  in the presence of a Beth din is deemed to be a proper proselyte; but he who does so privately is no proselyte. It once happened that a man came before R. Judah and told him, 'I have become a proselyte privately'. 'Have you witnesses'? R. Judah asked. 'No', the man replied. 'Have you children'? — 'Yes', the man replied. 'You are trusted', the Master said to him, 'as far as your own disqualification is concerned but you cannot be relied upon to disqualify your children. Did R. Judah, however, state that a proselyte is not trusted in respect of his children? Surely it was taught: He shall acknowledge  implies, 'he shall be entitled to acknowledge him before others?  From this did R. Judah deduce that a man is believed when he declares, 'This son of mine is firstborn',  And as a man is believed when he declares, 'This son of mine is firstborn' so is he believed when he declares, 'This son of mine is the son of a divorced woman' or 'the son of a haluzah'.  But the Sages say: He  is not believed!  — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: It is this that he  really told him,  'According to your own statement you are an idolater, and no idolater is eligible to tender evidence'. Rabina said: It is this that he  really told him,  'Have you children'? [And when the other replied] 'Yes' [he asked] 'Have you grandchildren'. [The reply being again] 'Yes', he told him 'You are trusted so far as to disqualify your own children  but you cannot be trusted so far as to disqualify your grandchildren'. Thus it was also taught elsewhere: R. Judah said, 'A man is trusted in respect [of the status of] his young son but not in respect of that of his grown-up son; and R. Hiyya b. Abba explained in the name of R. Johanan that 'young' does not mean actually a minor and 'grown-up' does not mean one who is actually 'of age', but any young son who has children is regarded as of age while any grown-up son who has no children is deemed to be a minor. And the law is in agreement with R. Nahman b. Isaac.  But, surely, [a Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rabina!  — That statement was made with reference to the law of acknowledgement. Our Rabbis taught: If at the present time a man desires  to become a proselyte, he is to be addressed as follows: 'What reason have you for desiring  to become a proselyte; do you not know that Israel at the present time are persecuted and oppressed, despised, harassed and overcome by afflictions'? If he replies, 'I know and yet am unworthy',  he is accepted forthwith, and is given instruction in some of the minor and some of the major commandments. He is informed of the sin [of the neglect of the commandments of] Gleanings,  the Forgotten Sheaf,  the Corner  and the Poor Man's Tithe.  He is also told of the punishment for the transgression of the commandments. Furthermore, he is addressed thus: 'Be it known to you that before you came to this condition, if you had eaten suet  you would not have been punishable with kareth, if you had profaned the Sabbath you would not have been punishable with stoning; but now were you to eat suet  you would be punished with kareth; were you to profane the Sabbath you would be punished with stoning'. And as he is informed of the punishment for the transgression of the commandments, so is he informed of the reward granted for their fulfilment. He is told, 'Be it known to you that the world to come was made only for the righteous, and that Israel at the present time are unable to bear