Yevamot

to the offspring of a union forbidden under the penalty of flogging, since the betrothal in such a case is valid  but here, in the case of an idolater and a slave, since betrothal in their case is invalid,  they are like those whose union is subject to the penalty of kareth. An objection was raised: If a slave or an idolater had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite the child [born from such a union] is a bastard. R. Simeon b. Judah said: A bastard is only he who [is the offspring of a union which] is forbidden as incest and is punishable by kareth!  — No, said R. Joseph, who [is referred to by] 'all agree'? It is Rabbi. Although Rabbi said, 'These words  are applicable only according to the view of R. Akiba who regards a haluzah as a forbidden relative',  while he himself does not share the same view,  he agrees  in the case of an idolater and a slave. For when R. Dimi came  he stated in the name of R. Isaac b. Abudimi in the name of our Master,  'If an idolater or a slave had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite the child [born from such a union] is a bastard'. R. Aha, the governor of the castle,  and R. Tanhum son of R. Hiyya of Kefar Acco  once redeemed some captives who were brought from Armon to Tiberias,  [Among these] was one who had become pregnant from an idolater. When they came before R. Ammi he told them: It was R. Johanan and R. Eleazar and R. Hanina who stated that if an idolater or a slave had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite the child born is a bastard. Said R. Joseph: Is it a great thing to enumerate persons?  Surely it was Rab and Samuel in Babylon and R. Joshua b. Levi and Bar Kappara in the Land of Israel — (others say, 'Bar Kappara' is to be altered to  the 'Elders of the South')  — who stated that if an idolater or a slave had intercourse with a daughter of an Israelite, the child born is untainted! — No, said R. Joseph, it  is [the opinion of] Rabbi.  For when R. Dimi came  he stated in the name of R. Isaac b. Abudimi that it was reported in the name of our Masters that if an idolater or a slave had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite the child [born from such a union] is a bastard. R. Joshua b. Levi said: The child  is tainted. In respect of what?  If it be suggested in respect of entry into the congregation, surely [it may be retorted] R. Joshua b. Levi stated that the child was fit! It must be then in respect of the priesthood;  for all Amoraim who declare the child  fit admit that he is ineligible for the priesthood.  This is inferred by deduction from the case of a widow a minori ad majus. If in the case of a widow who was married to a High priest whose prohibition is not equally 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.  The case of a widow who was married to a High Priest may be different, since she herself becomes profaned!  — Here also,  as soon as cohabitation occurred the woman is disqualified;  for R. Johanan stated in the name of R. Simeon:  Whence is it inferred that if an idolater or a slave had intercourse with the daughter of a priest, of a Levite or of an Israelite, he disqualified her?  It was stated But if a priest's daughter be a widow, or divorcee;  Only in the case of a man in relation to whom widowhood or divorce is applicable;  an idolater and a slave are consequently excluded since in relation to them no widowhood or divorce is applicable. Said Abaye to him:  What reason do you see for relying upon R. Dimi?  Rely rather on Rabin!  For when Rabin came  he reported that R. Nathan and R. Judah the Prince ruled that such a child is legitimate;  and  R. Judah the Prince is, of course, Rabbi! And Rab also ruled that the child is legitimate.  For once a man  appeared before Rab and asked him, 'What [is the legal position of the child] where an idolater or a slave had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite'? 'The child is legitimate', the Master replied. 'Give me then your daughter' said the man. 'I will not give her to you' [was the Master's reply]. Said Shimi b. Hiyya to Rab. 'People say that in Media  a camel can dance on a kab;  here is the kab, here is the camel and here is Media, but there is no dancing'!  'Had he been  equal to Joshua the son of Nun I would not have given him my daughter', the Master replied. 'Had he been like Joshua the son of Nun', the other retorted, 'others would have given him their daughters, if the Master had not given him his; but with this man, if the Master will not give him, others also will not give him'.  As the man refused to go away he fixed his eye upon him and he died. R. Mattena also ruled that the child is legitimate.  Rab Judah also ruled that the child is legitimate.  For when one  came before Rab Judah, the latter told him, 'Go and conceal your identity  or marry one of your own kind'.  When such a man  appeared before Raba he told him, 'Either go abroad or marry one of your own kind'. The men of Be-Mikse  sent [the following enquiry] to Rabbah: What [is the law in respect of the legitimacy of the child of] one who is a half slave and half freed man  who cohabited with the daughter of an Israelite? — He replied: If [the child of] one who is fully a slave has been declared legitimate, is there any need [to question the case of the child of one who is only] a half slave! R. Joseph said: The author of this traditional ruling