Yevamot

the child  is tainted in respect of the priesthood.  Who [is meant by] 'All agree'? — Simeon the Temanite. For although Simeon the Temanite stated that the offspring of a union forbidden under the penalty of flogging is not a bastard, he agrees that, though he is not a bastard, he is nevertheless tainted.  This is deduced a minori ad majus from the case of a widow: If in the case of a widow married to a High Priest, the prohibition of whom is not applicable to all,  her son  is tainted,  how much more should the son of a divorcee be tainted, whose prohibition is equally applicable to all.  [This argument, however], may be refuted: A widow's case may well be different  because she herself becomes profaned and;  and, furthermore, it is written in Scripture, She is an abomination,  'she'  only is an abomination but her children are not an abomination. — Furthermore, it was taught: Where a man remarried his divorced wife, or married his haluzah, or married the relative of his haluzah, R. Akiba said, his betrothal of her is not valid,  she requires no divorce from him, she is disqualified,  her child is disqualified,  and the man is compelled to divorce her. And the Sages said: His betrothal of her is valid, she requires a divorce from the man, she is fit, and her child is fit. Now, in respect of what?  Obviously in respect of the priesthood!  — No; in respect of entering the congregation. If so, in respect of whom is she  fit? If it be suggested 'in respect of entering the congregation', is not this [it may be retorted] obvious? Has she become ineligible to enter the congregation because she played the harlot!  Consequently it must mean in respect of the priesthood. Now, since she is [untainted] in respect of the priesthood, her child also must be [untainted] in respect of the priesthood!  — Is this an argument? The same term may bear different interpretations in harmony with its respective subjects.  This  is also logically sound. For in the first clause  it was stated, 'She is disqualified and her child is disqualified'. Now, in respect of what is 'she disqualified'? If it be suggested, 'in respect of entry into the congregation', does she [it may be retorted] become disqualified for entry into the congregation because she played the harlot!  Consequently it must mean 'in respect of the priesthood!' Now, again, in respect of what is 'her child disqualified'? If it be suggested, 'in respect of the priesthood' thus implying that he is permitted to enter the congregation, surely [it may be objected] R. Akiba stated that the child is a bastard!  Obviously then 'in respect of entry into the congregation'.  And, as in the first clause the same term bears different interpretations in harmony with its respective subjects, so may the same term in the final clause bear different interpretations in agreement with its respective subjects.  Also as to the expression,  This is an abomination it [may be interpreted]: 'She is an abomination but her rival is no abomination'.  Her children, however, are an abomination. The objection. however, from the 'widow' [still remains, thus]: 'A widow's case may well be different  because she herself becomes  profaned'!  — But [the fact is that] if any statement was made  it was as follows:  R. Joseph stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Rabbi, 'All agree that where a man cohabited with any of those who are subject to the penalty of kareth  the child  is tainted'.  Who [is referred to by] 'All agree'? — R. Joshua. For although R. Joshua stated that the offspring of a union forbidden under the penalty of kareth is not a bastard, he agrees that, though he is no bastard, he is nevertheless tainted.  This is deduced a minori ad majus from the case of a widow: If in the case of a widow married to a High Priest, the prohibition of whom is not 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. And were you to object: A widow's case may be different  because she herself becomes profaned,  [it may be retorted that], here also, as soon as the man had any connubial relations with her he stamped her as a harlot. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: All agree that where a slave or an idolater had intercourse with a daughter of an Israelite the child is a bastard. Who is meant by 'All agree'? — Simeon the Temanite. For although Simeon the Temanite stated that the offspring of a union forbidden under the penalty of flogging is not a bastard, his statement applies only