Kiddushin

One whose daughter you [i.e., a priest] may marry, you may marry his widow; but one whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow. Wherein do the first Tanna and R. Jose differ? — Said R. Johanan: They differ in respect to a [converted] Egyptian of the second [generation],1 and both learn it from none but a High Priest with a widow. The first Tanna holds, it is like a High Priest with a widow: just as a High Priest with a widow, since his intercourse is sinful, he disqualifies her;2 so all whose intercourse is sinful disqualify. While R. Jose holds, It is like a High Priest with a widow: just as a High Priest with a widow, his issue is unfit,3 [and] he disqualifies [the widow]; so all whose issue is unfit disqualify, thus excluding an Egyptian of the second generation, whose issue is not unfit, for the Writ saith, The children of the third generation that are born unto them shall enter into the assembly of the Lord. 4 ‘R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He whose daughter you, [i.e., a priest] may marry, you may marry his widow; but he whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow.’ Wherein do R. Jose and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel differ? — Said ‘Ulla: They differ in respect to an Ammonite and a Moabite proselyte;5 and both learn it from none but a High Priest with a widow. For R. Jose maintains, It is like a High Priest with a widow: just as a High Priest with a widow, his issue is disqualified, and he disqualifies [the widow]; so all whose issue is disqualified, disqualify. While R. Simeon b. Gamaliel maintains, It is like a High Priest with a widow; just as a High Priest with a widow, all his issue is disqualified,6 so everyone, all whose, issue, even the females, are disqualified [disqualifies his wife], thus excluding Ammonite and Moabite proselytes, whose females are eligible to enter into the assembly; for a Master said: An Ammonite [. . . shall not enter, etc.], but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite [shall not enter, etc.],7 but not a Moabitess. R. Hisda said: All agree that the widow of a member of a suspected family8 is unfit for the priesthood. [For] who is the most lenient of these Tannaim? R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Yet he says: He whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow; but he whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow. What does this exclude? It excludes the widow of a suspected family, [teaching] that she is unfit for the priesthood.9 This conflicts with the following Tannaim: For we learnt: R. Joshua and R. Judah b. Bathyra testified10 concerning the widow of a member of a suspected family, that she is fit for the priesthood. What is the reason? Because it is a double doubt,11 and a double doubt [inclines] to a lenient ruling.12 CERTAIN [UNFITS] ARE PERMITTED [TO INTERMARRY] WITH CERTAIN [UNFITS]. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Eleazar. When I stated it before Samuel, he observed to me, Hillel taught: Ten genealogical classes went up from Babylon and all are permitted to intermarry;13 yet you say that the halachah is as R. Eleazar! Now, both Rab and Samuel are self-contradictory. For it was stated: If an arusah becomes pregnant:14 Rab maintained: The child is mamzer;15 while Samuel ruled: The child is shethuki and forbidden to a mamzereth! — Reverse it: Rab maintained: The child is shethuki; and Samuel ruled: The child is mamzer. What is the need of two?16 — It is necessary. For if it were stated in this case [of our Mishnah, I would say, only] here does Rab rule thus, because the majority are eligible to her;17 but there, that the majority are unfit for her,18 I might argue that he agrees with Samuel. Again, If it were stated in the latter case, [only] there does Rab rule thus, because he [the issue] may be imputed to the arus; but in this [the former], I would say that he agrees with Samuel. Hence both are necessary. Alternatively, you need not reverse it after all, and what does Rab mean by mamzer? Not that he may marry a mamzereth, but that he is forbidden to a daughter of Israel.19 Now, when Samuel rules: The child is shethuki [it means] that he is forbidden to a daughter of Israel? If so, that is Rab's view! — But what is meant by shethuki? That he is ‘silenced’ from the rights of priesthood.20 Surely that is obvious? If he is ‘silenced’ from the rights of an Israelite,21 need it [be said] from the rights of priesthood! — But what is meant by shethuki? He is ‘silenced’ from his father's estate.22 Surely that is obvious; do we then know who his father is? — This arises only where he has taken possession.23 Alternatively, what is meant by shethuki? Beduki [examined]. That is [to say] we examine his mother, and if she maintains, ‘I cohabited with a fit person,’ she is believed.24 With whom does this agree? — With R. Gamaliel? But Samuel has already stated it once! For we learnt: If she [an unmarried woman] was pregnant, and was asked: ‘What is the nature of this child?’ And she replied: ‘He is by So-and-so, who is a priest’: R. Gamaliel and R. Eliezer said: She is believed; R. Joshua said: We do not live by her words.25 And Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The halachah agrees with R. Gamaliel? — It is necessary. For if [I were to deduce] from there, I would argue, ‘There, most men are fit for her;26 but here, most men are unfit for her,27 I would say [she is] not [believed]. Hence both are necessary. It was taught: And thus did R. Eleazar say: A Cuthean may not marry a Cuthean. What is the reason? — Said R. Joseph: He was treated as a proselyte after ten generations. For it was taught: A proselyte, until ten generations, may marry a mamzereth; thereafter he is forbidden [to marry] a mamzereth. Others state: [He is permitted] until the name of heathenism has completely fallen away from him. Said Abaye to him: How compare! There it is a proselyte of ancient [stock] and a recent mamzereth, so it will be said: He is an Israelite marrying a mamzereth,’ whereas here they are both alike? — But when R. Dimi came,28 he said: R. Eleazar agrees with R. Ishmael, being of the third generation, is not unfit. that his intercourse renders the woman unfit; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, that it does not. p. 48, n. 2 and Keth. 14a and b. forbidden. through him, we regard it as a still weaker doubt, i.e., a double doubt. views ‘doubtful’ may intermarry with ‘doubtful,’ thus disagreeing with R. Eleazar. — On ‘Hillel taught’ both Rashi and Tosaf. Ri observe: in the Baraitha based on this Mishnah of ‘TEN GENEALOGICAL CLASSES’. Weiss. Dor. I, p. 175 (1924 ed.) conjectures that this might have been taught when Herod destroyed the ancient Book of genealogical records, of which this may be an extract. (The verb shanah employed here generally refers to a Mishnah, not a Baraitha.) a certain mamzer. Thus Rab treats a doubt as a certainty, which agrees with the first Tanna on 74a, that doubt and certainty may intermarry, and not with R. Eleazar. issue is mamzer, and therefore must not intermarry with mamzer. teaches otherwise.