Says the Gemara [Yevamos 46b-47b]:
ת"ר מי שבא ואמר גר אני יכול נקבלנו ת"ל אתך במוחזק לך בא ועדיו עמו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא יט, לג) וכי יגור אתך גר בארצכם
The Sages taught in a braisa: With regard to someone who came and said: I am a convert, one might have thought that we should accept him; therefore, the verse states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land, you shall not oppress him” (Leviticus 19:33). The emphasis on “with you” suggests that only someone who was already presumed by you to be a valid convert should be accepted as a convert. If he came and brought witnesses to his conversion with him, from where is it derived that he is to be accepted? It is from the beginning of that verse, which states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land [Rashi says that from the words וכי יגור we learn that no matter what we accept him if he brought witnesses].”
אין לי אלא בארץ בח"ל מנין תלמוד לומר אתך בכל מקום שאתך אם כן מה ת"ל בארץ בארץ צריך להביא ראיה בח"ל אין צריך להביא ראיה דברי ר' יהודה וחכמים אומרים בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ צריך להביא ראיה
I have derived only that a convert is accepted in Eretz Yisrael; from where do I derive that also outside of Eretz Yisrael he is to be accepted? The verse states “with you,” which indicates that in any place that he is with you, you should accept him. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: In the land? This indicates that in Eretz Yisrael he needs to bring evidence that he is a convert, but outside of Eretz Yisrael he does not need to bring evidence that he is a convert; rather, his claim is accepted [Rashi says that in E"Y he might lie in order to enjoy the benefits of the Land]. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Whether he is in Eretz Yisrael or whether he is outside of Eretz Yisrael, he needs to bring evidence.
בא הוא ועדיו עמו קרא למה לי אמר רב ששת דאמרי שמענו שנתגייר בב"ד של פלוני סד"א לא ליהמנייהו קמ"ל
The Gemara analyzes the braisa: In the case when he came and brought witnesses to his conversion with him, why do I need a verse to teach that he is accepted? In all cases, the testimony of witnesses is fully relied upon. Rav Sheshes said: The case is where they say: We heard that he converted in the court of so-and-so, but they did not witness the actual conversion. And it is necessary to teach this because it could enter your mind to say that they should not be relied upon; therefore, the verse teaches us that they are relied upon.
So a huuuugeee chiddush emerges from this Gemara, namely that the pasuk teaches that a testimony that is עד מפי עד [hearsay] and is not seen directly by the עד is accepted. The Rosh suggests that this is only according to R' Yehuda who is lenient and doesn't require proof in חו"ל, so he is similarly lenient here regarding עד מפי עד. But according to the Rabbis who say that he must bring proof in both א"י and חו"ל, we don't allow עד מפי עד. So writes the Tur [Yo"d 268]. The Beis Yosef also proves that the Rambam holds this way.
However the Yam Shel Shlomo [4-47] and the Korban Nesanel and the Keren Orah all asked that this law of עד מפי עד being valid here is derived from the pasuk of כי יגור, so how can we say that the Rabbis argue? The YS"S and K"A do not resolve the issue.
Based on the foregoing we can say as follows: The drasha of "אתך - במוחזק לך" is not just a regular drasha from the extra word "אתך" but is an outgrowth of the pshat of "אתך", which teaches that you should treat him as if he is one of you and not a stranger. But this is only if he is מוחזק as a Ger. If we don't know whether or not he is a Ger then he doesn't merit such special treatment. Now this must NOT be the opinion of R' Yehuda, who distinguishes between א"י and חו"ל based on the סברא that in א"י he is more likely to be lying that he is Jew, because as Rashi says he wants to partake of the good of the Land. This only works if the issue is how believable he is. However we explained that the גזירת הכתוב of "אתך" is not about how much we can believe him but is a special din of "מוחזק לך" - if he is already presumed to be a Ger, only then is he אתך and a Ger, so how can there be a distinction between א"י and חו"ל? We have to say that according to R' Yehuda this ["אתך"] is only a drasha relating to his נאמנות. On this the Gemara wondered that if this is so, then why do we need a pasuk to teach us that he is believed with עדים - of course they are believed??! To that the Gemara answered that it is teaching us that even עד מפי עד works.
But according to the Rabbis we can say that that they argue with R' Yehuda, even though he has a pasuk on his side ["וכי יגור"]. Because they hold that אתך is not about his נאמנות and therefore there is no distinction between א"י and חו"ל because bottom line, if in חו"ל he is not אתך [presumed to be a Ger], he can't be accepted as a Ger. So according to the Rabbis we need the pasuk of "כי יגור" to teach that עדים suffice to prove that he is a Ger despite the fact that he is not "אתך". Only according to R' Yehuda who says that the issue is נאמנות is the din that עדים are good enough superfluous. Of course עדים are believed!! So we have to be מחדש that even עד מפי עד is valid. But according to the Rabbis who require אתך - מוחזק לך, the fact that עדים are also enough to prove he is a Ger is a chiddush in and of itself and that is what the pasuk is teaching. But there is no proof that anything less than עדים is enough. THAT is what the Rosh meant when he said that only according to R' Yehuda who is lenient and holds that it is about proofs, reliability, נאמנות, we can say that he is believed in חו"ל based on סברא [that only in א"י he will lie to benefit from the land but not in חו"ל] and have a question why we would need a pasuk to teach us that he is believed with עדים. We know that עדים are the best נאמנות!? We answer that by saying that the pasuk is teaching us that even עד מפי עד is OK. But the Rabbis are מחמיר and the issue for them is "אתך" - is he מוחזק as a Ger or not, which means that there can't be a distinction between א"י and חו"ל. Hence, they need the pasuk to teach that proper עדות proves that he is a Ger [despite the fact that he is not אתך] and we have no source that less than this, i.e. עד מפי עד, is enough.
That TOTALLY rocks!!!😊😊😊
[עפ"י תורת מו"ר הגאון הגדול רבי ד"י מן זצ"ל]
