Kiddushin

one refers to priests, one to Levites, one to Israelites; one to permit a mamzer [to intermarry] with a shethuki;1 and one to permit a shethuki to [intermarry] with an Israelite.2 As for the assembly of proselytes it is not designated ‘assembly’.3 But R. Judah argues: Priests and Levites are deduced from one ‘assembly’;4 hence [one] is left in respect of an assembly of proselytes.5 Alternatively, it indeed is so that they [sc. Priests and Levites] are two ‘assemblies’; [but that] a mamzer [may intermarry] with a shethuki, and a shethuki with an Israelite, is deduced from one ‘assembly’: A mamzer shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord:6 only a certain mamzer may not enter, but a doubtful mamzer may enter; [and again,] only into a certain assembly he may not enter, but he may enter into a doubtful assembly.7 Another alternative: These too are two ‘assemblies’;8 but R. Judah's opinion is [derived] from this: For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you, and for the ger [proselyte] that sojourneth with you.9 But in R. Jose's view, ‘one statute’ breaks across the subject. 10 ‘A proselyte, a freed slave and a halal are permitted to [marry] a priest's daughter.’ This supports Rab. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Fit women [sc. daughters of priests] were not admonished against being married to the unfit.11 R. Zera lectured in Mahuza: A proselyte may marry a mamzereth. Thereupon everyone pelted him with stones.12 Said Raba: Is there anyone who lectures thus in a place where proselytes abound! [Now] Raba lectured in Mahuza: A proselyte may marry a priest's daughter, [whereupon] they loaded him with silks. Then he lectured to them again: A proselyte is permitted [to intermarry] with a mamzereth. Said they to him: You have destroyed your first [teaching]. He replied: I have done what is best for you: if one [a proselyte] wishes, he can marry here [sc. a mamzereth]; if he wishes, he can marry there [sc. a priest's daughter]. Now, the law is: A proselyte is permitted to a priest's daughter and he is permitted to a mamzereth. He is permitted to a priest's daughter: fit women were not admonished against being married to the unfit.13 And he is permitted to a mamzereth, in accordance with R. Jose. NOW, THESE ARE THEY: SHETHUKI: HE WHO KNOWS [etc.] Raba said: By Biblical law a shethukiis considered fit. What is the reason? The majority are fit for her [sc. the mother],14 while only a minority are unfit for her.15 Now, if they went to her, then he who separates himself [from a mass] separates himself from out of the majority. What will you say: that she went to them? Then it is kabua’,16 and every case of kabua’ is as half and half, whilst the Torah said: ‘A mamzer shall not enter’: only a certain mamzer may not enter, but a doubtful mamzer may enter; only into a certain assembly may he not enter, but he may enter into a doubtful assembly.17 Then what is the reason that they [the Rabbis] ruled that a shethuki is unfit? — For fear lest he marry his paternal sister. If so, a shethuki should not marry a shethukith,18 for fear lest he marry his paternal sister? — Do all such go [eternally] a-whoring?19 Then let him not marry the daughter of a shethukith, lest he marry his paternal sister? But [you must answer that] it is rare: then here too,20 it is rare!21 — But [the reason is:] a higher standard was set up in respect to genealogy. Raba also said: By Biblical law, a foundling is fit. What is the reason? A married woman ascribes [an illegitimate child] to her husband.22 What [fear] is there?23 [Because of] a minority of arusoth24 and a minority whose husbands have gone overseas?25 But since there are unmarried [women], and also [children thrown away] on account of poverty,26 it is half and half, and the Torah said: ‘A mamzer shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord’: only a certain mamzer may not enter, but a doubtful mamzer may; only into a certain assembly may he not enter, but he may enter into a doubtful one. Why then did they [the Rabbis] rule that a foundling is unfit? Lest he marry his paternal sister.27 If so, one foundling should not marry another, lest he marry his sister by his father or and his mother? — Do all these go throwing [their children away]!28 Let him not marry the daughter of a foundling, lest he marry his sister? But [you must answer that] it is rare: then here too29 it is rare!30 — But [the reason is:] a higher standard was set up in respect to genealogy. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: If he [the foundling] is found circumcised, the text infra. with an Israelite. wherever it is found. freedman or proselyte, the daughter of a priest may marry one of these. — This does not refer to the ordinary unfit, such as mamzerim or Nethinim. consanguineous relations; for a heathen or slave does not produce mamzer. Thus only a minority are unfit in this respect. a street, nine of which supply kasher meat (ritually fit), and one supplies trefa meat (not fit), and a piece of meat is found in that street, it is assumed to be kosher, following the majority. If, however, meat is bought in one of the shops, but it is not known of which, it is accounted as though there were an equal number of each, and on the usual principle in such cases, unfit. For in the first instance the meat was ‘separated’ from its appointed place, sc. the shop, whereas in the second it remained fixed (kabua’) until purchased, when the doubt arose. Here too, all men are jointly looked upon as a mass stationed in one place. If one goes to the mother of this child, he ‘separated himself from the majority, hence was probably eligible. But even if she goes to him, so that the minority count as much as the majority, it is still a matter of equal doubt, which in the case of mamzer is not forbidden. remains, why is a shethuki forbidden? do not suspect her of adultery and that this may be her son (Rashi). Of course, the same might be urged of his intended father-in-law, but that it is easier for a man to conceal an illegitimate liaison than for a woman (Maharsha).