Yevamot

Might it not be suggested that it excludes those who are subject to the penalties of negative precepts? — R. Papa  replied: The betrothal of those forbidden under negative precept is valid,  for it is written in the Scriptures, If a man have two wives, the one beloved and the other hated;  can it be said that the Omnipresent loves the one  or hates the other?  But 'beloved' means beloved in her marriage;  'hated' means hated in her marriage;  and yet the All Merciful has said if … have.  Might it be taken to exclude those who are liable to kareth?  — Raba replied: Scripture said, The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born at home, or born abroad,  whether your father is told, 'You may keep her' or whether your father is told, 'Let her go',  the All Merciful said, 'She is thy sister'. Will you suggest [that what is meant is]: Whether your father is told, 'You may keep her' or whether your father is told, 'Let her go'. the All Merciful said, 'She is thy sister', to include his sister from a slave and a heathen! — Scripture stated, The father's wife's daughter,  only she with whom your father can enter into marital relationship, but a sister from a slave or a heathen is excluded.  And what ground is there for this?  — It is logical to include those subject to kareth since generally  their betrothal is valid.  On the contrary! A slave and a heathen should have been included since on embracing the Jewish faith, betrothal with himself is also valid! — When any of these adopts the Jewish faith she becomes a different person. Whence do the Rabbis deduce the exclusion of a slave and a heathen? — They deduce it from The wife and her children shall be her master's.  And R. Jose son of R. Judah? — One text refers to a slave and the other to a heathen. And both are required; for had we been informed [concerning the exclusion of the] slave, it might have been thought [that this was so in her case] because she has no recognized ancestry, but not in that of a heathen who has recognized ancestry. And had we been informed [of the exclusion of the] heathen, it might have been assumed [that this was so In her case] because she stands under no obligation In relationship to the observance of commandments,  but not In that of a slave who is [in some respects] attached to the observance of the commandments.  Hence both were required. With reference to the Rabbis, we have discovered [the reason for the exclusion of a] slave; whence do they derive [the exclusion of the] heathen? And should you suggest that we might derive it by inference from the slave, those  were surely needed!  R. Johanan replied in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Scripture stated, For he will turn away thy son from following Me;  'thy son born from an Israelitish woman is called thy son  but 'thy son who was born from a heathen is not called thy son  but her son.  Said Rabina: From this it follows  that the 'son of your daughter' who derives from a heathen is called 'thy son'.  Does this imply that Rabina is of the opinion that if a heathen or a slave had intercourse with a daughter of Israel the child is considered fit! — Though he is admittedly no bastard neither is he considered fit; he is rather regarded  as a tainted Israelite. But does not that text  occur in connection with the seven nations?  — For he will turn away  includes all who turn away. This is satisfactory if we follow R. Simeon who expounds  his own reasons for Scriptural precepts;  whence, however, do the Rabbis  derive it according to their view?  — Who is the Tanna  who disputes the opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah? It is R. Simeon.