Parallel
יבמות 45
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
to the offspring of a union forbidden under the penalty of flogging, since the betrothal in such a case is valid but here, in the case of an idolater and a slave, since betrothal in their case is invalid, they are like those whose union is subject to the penalty of kareth. An objection was raised: If a slave or an idolater had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite the child [born from such a union] is a bastard. R. Simeon b. Judah said: A bastard is only he who [is the offspring of a union which] is forbidden as incest and is punishable by kareth! — No, said R. Joseph, who [is referred to by] 'all agree'? It is Rabbi. Although Rabbi said, 'These words are applicable only according to the view of R. Akiba who regards a haluzah as a forbidden relative', while he himself does not share the same view, he agrees in the case of an idolater and a slave. For when R. Dimi came he stated in the name of R. Isaac b. Abudimi in the name of our Master, 'If an idolater or a slave had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite the child [born from such a union] is a bastard'. R. Aha, the governor of the castle, and R. Tanhum son of R. Hiyya of Kefar Acco once redeemed some captives who were brought from Armon to Tiberias, [Among these] was one who had become pregnant from an idolater. When they came before R. Ammi he told them: It was R. Johanan and R. Eleazar and R. Hanina who stated that if an idolater or a slave had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite the child born is a bastard. Said R. Joseph: Is it a great thing to enumerate persons? Surely it was Rab and Samuel in Babylon and R. Joshua b. Levi and Bar Kappara in the Land of Israel — (others say, 'Bar Kappara' is to be altered to the 'Elders of the South') — who stated that if an idolater or a slave had intercourse with a daughter of an Israelite, the child born is untainted! — No, said R. Joseph, it is [the opinion of] Rabbi. For when R. Dimi came he stated in the name of R. Isaac b. Abudimi that it was reported in the name of our Masters that if an idolater or a slave had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite the child [born from such a union] is a bastard. R. Joshua b. Levi said: The child is tainted. In respect of what? If it be suggested in respect of entry into the congregation, surely [it may be retorted] R. Joshua b. Levi stated that the child was fit! It must be then in respect of the priesthood; for all Amoraim who declare the child fit admit that he is ineligible for the priesthood. This is inferred by deduction from the case of a widow a minori ad majus. If in the case of a widow who was married to a High priest whose prohibition is not equally applicable to all her son is tainted, how much more should the son of this woman be tainted whose prohibition is equally applicable to all. The case of a widow who was married to a High Priest may be different, since she herself becomes profaned! — Here also, as soon as cohabitation occurred the woman is disqualified; for R. Johanan stated in the name of R. Simeon: Whence is it inferred that if an idolater or a slave had intercourse with the daughter of a priest, of a Levite or of an Israelite, he disqualified her? It was stated But if a priest's daughter be a widow, or divorcee; Only in the case of a man in relation to whom widowhood or divorce is applicable; an idolater and a slave are consequently excluded since in relation to them no widowhood or divorce is applicable. Said Abaye to him: What reason do you see for relying upon R. Dimi? Rely rather on Rabin! For when Rabin came he reported that R. Nathan and R. Judah the Prince ruled that such a child is legitimate; and R. Judah the Prince is, of course, Rabbi! And Rab also ruled that the child is legitimate. For once a man appeared before Rab and asked him, 'What [is the legal position of the child] where an idolater or a slave had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite'? 'The child is legitimate', the Master replied. 'Give me then your daughter' said the man. 'I will not give her to you' [was the Master's reply]. Said Shimi b. Hiyya to Rab. 'People say that in Media a camel can dance on a kab; here is the kab, here is the camel and here is Media, but there is no dancing'! 'Had he been equal to Joshua the son of Nun I would not have given him my daughter', the Master replied. 'Had he been like Joshua the son of Nun', the other retorted, 'others would have given him their daughters, if the Master had not given him his; but with this man, if the Master will not give him, others also will not give him'. As the man refused to go away he fixed his eye upon him and he died. R. Mattena also ruled that the child is legitimate. Rab Judah also ruled that the child is legitimate. For when one came before Rab Judah, the latter told him, 'Go and conceal your identity or marry one of your own kind'. When such a man appeared before Raba he told him, 'Either go abroad or marry one of your own kind'. The men of Be-Mikse sent [the following enquiry] to Rabbah: What [is the law in respect of the legitimacy of the child of] one who is a half slave and half freed man who cohabited with the daughter of an Israelite? — He replied: If [the child of] one who is fully a slave has been declared legitimate, is there any need [to question the case of the child of one who is only] a half slave! R. Joseph said: The author of this traditional ruling
—
is, of course, Rab Judah. But surely Rab Judah had explicitly stated: Where one who is a half slave and half freed man cohabited with the daughter of an Israelite the child born from such a union can have no redress! — Rab Judah's ruling was made only in the case where he betrothed the daughter of an Israelite, in consequence of which his partial slavery cohabits with a married woman. But did not the Nehardeans state in the name of R. Jacob that according to him who regards [the offspring] as illegitimate, the child is so regarded even [where cohabitation had taken place] with an unmarried woman; and according to him who regards [the child] as legitimate, the child is so regarded even [if the cohabitation had taken place] with a married woman! And the deduction by both was made from none other than the wife of one's father. He who regards the child as illegitimate is of the opinion that as with the wife of one's father, betrothal with whom is invalid, the child is a bastard. So is the child a bastard in the case of all those betrothal with whom is invalid. And he who regards the child as legitimate is of the opinion [that the comparison is]: As with the wife of one's father, betrothal with whom is invalid in the case of the son only, but is valid in the case of others; an idolater and a slave betrothal with whom is in all cases invalid are consequently excluded! Hence the statement of R. Judah must have been made in respect of one who had intercourse with a married woman, so that his emancipated side cohabits with a married woman. Rabina said: R. Gaza told me, 'R. Jose b. Abin happened to be at our place when an incident occurred with an unmarried woman and declared the child to be legitimate: [and when it occurred] with a married woman he declared the child to be illegitimate'. R. Shesheth said: R. Gaza told me that it was not R. Jose b. Abin but R. Jose son of R. Zebida, and that he declared the child to be legitimate, both in the case of the married, as well as in that of the unmarried woman. R. Aha son of Raba said to Rabina: Amemar once happened to be in our place and he declared the child to be legitimate in the case of a married, as well as in that of an unmarried woman. And the law is that if an idolater or a slave had cohabited with the daughter of an Israelite the child [born from such a union] is legitimate, both in the case of a married, and in that of an unmarried woman. Raba declared R. Mari b. Rachel to be a legitimate Israelite and appointed him among the pursers of Babylon. And although a Master said: Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee … one from among thy brethren, all appointments which you make must be made only 'from among thy brethren', [means that] such a man, since his mother was a descendant of Israel, may well 'be regarded as 'one from among thy brethren'. The slave of R. Hiyya b. Ammi once made a certain idolatress bathe for a matrimonial purpose. Said R. Joseph: I could declare her to be a legitimate Jewess and her daughter to be of legitimate birth. In her case, in accordance with the view of R. Assi; for R. Assi said, 'Did she not bathe for the purpose of her menstruation'? In the case of her daughter, because when an idolater or a slave has intercourse with a daughter of an Israelite, the child [born of such a union] is legitimate. A certain person was once named 'son of the female heathen'. Said R. Assi, 'Did she not bathe for the purpose of her menstruation'?' A certain person was once named 'son of the male heathen'. Said R. Joshua b. Levi, 'Did he not bathe in connection with any mishap of his'? R. Hama b. Guria said in the name of Rab: If a man bought a slave from an idolater and [that slave] forestalled him and performed ritual ablution with the object of acquiring the status of a freed man, he acquires thereby his emancipation. What is the reason?
—