Kiddushin

a proselyte who marries a mamzereth, where the kiddushin is valid and there is no sin, and yet the issue follows the status of the inferior?1 For it was taught: If a proselyte marries a mamzereth, the issue is mamzer: this is the view of R. Jose! He replied: Do you think that our Mishnah agrees with R. Jose?2 Our Mishnah is according to R. Judah, who maintained: A proselyte may not marry a mamzereth; hence there is kiddushin, but there is transgression, [and so] the issue follows the status of the inferior. Then let it be taught [in the Mishnah]?3 — ‘WHEREVER’ of the second clause is taught as an extension.4 Alternatively, it is after all, according to R. Jose, but ‘THIS IS THE CASE’5 is taught as a limitation.6 Does then the ‘THIS IS THE CASE’ imply that there are no others? But what of a halal7 who marries the daughter of an Israelite, where there is kiddushin and there is transgression, yet the issue follows the male?8 — That is no difficulty: he [the Tanna of our Mishnah] holds with R. Dosethai son of R. Judah.9 But what of an Israelite who marries a halalah,10 where there is kiddushin and there is no transgression, and yet the issue follows the male? — ‘WHEREVER’ is stated in the first clause as an extension.11 Then let it be explicitly taught? — Because it cannot be [conveniently] taught. [For] how shall it be stated: ‘The daughter of a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite or a halalah who marries a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite?’ Is then a halalah eligible to [marry] a priest?12 But there is the case of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah. For Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: If an Egyptian of the second degree13 marries an Egyptian woman of the first degree, her son ranks as third degree!14 — ‘WHEREVER’ of the first clause is stated as an extension; whereas according to R. Dimi, who maintained that he belongs to the second degree,15 ‘THIS IS THE CASE’ is taught as a limitation. But there is [the following]: For when Rabin came,16 he said in the name of R. Johanan: In the case of [other] nations, follow the male;17 if they become proselytes, follow the more inferior status18 of the two! — ‘THIS IS THE CASE’ is taught as a limitation. [Reverting to the authorship of the Mishnah:] How now! If you say that our Mishnah agrees with R. Judah, it is well: then ‘WHEREVER’ of the first clause includes an Israelite who marries a halalah19 and the case of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah; while ‘THIS IS THE CASE’ excludes the cases of R. Dimi and Rabin.20 enumerated. ‘WHEREVER’. the issue follows the male. followed.