Yevamot

is, of course,  Rab Judah.  But surely Rab Judah had explicitly stated: Where one who is a half slave and half freed man cohabited with the daughter of an Israelite the child born from such a union can have no redress!  — Rab Judah's ruling  was made only in the case where he  betrothed  the daughter of an Israelite,  in consequence of which his partial slavery cohabits with a married woman. But did not the Nehardeans state in the name of R. Jacob that according to him who regards [the offspring]  as illegitimate, the child is so regarded even [where cohabitation had taken place] with an unmarried woman; and according to him who regards [the child] as legitimate, the child is so regarded even [if the cohabitation had taken place] with a married woman! And the deduction by both  was made from none other than the wife of one's father.  He who regards the child  as illegitimate is of the opinion that as with the wife of one's father, betrothal with whom is invalid, the child is a bastard. So is the child a bastard in the case of all those  betrothal with whom is invalid. And he who regards the child as legitimate is of the opinion [that the comparison is]: As with the wife of one's father, betrothal with whom is invalid in the case of the son only,  but is valid in the case of others;  an idolater and a slave betrothal with whom is in all cases invalid are consequently excluded! Hence the statement of R. Judah  must have been made in respect of one  who had intercourse with a married woman, so that his emancipated side  cohabits with a married woman. Rabina said: R. Gaza told me, 'R. Jose b. Abin happened to be at our place when an incident  occurred with an unmarried woman and declared the child to be legitimate: [and when it occurred] with a married woman he declared the child to be illegitimate'. R. Shesheth said: R. Gaza told me that it was not R. Jose b. Abin but R. Jose son of R. Zebida, and that he declared the child to be legitimate, both in the case of the married, as well as in that of the unmarried woman. R. Aha son of Raba  said to Rabina: Amemar once happened to be in our place and he declared the child  to be legitimate in the case of a married, as well as in that of an unmarried woman. And the law is that if an idolater or a slave had cohabited with the daughter of an Israelite the child [born from such a union] is legitimate, both in the case of a married, and in that of an unmarried woman. Raba declared R. Mari b. Rachel  to be a legitimate Israelite and appointed him among the pursers  of Babylon. And although a Master said: Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee … one from among thy brethren,  all appointments which you make must be made only 'from among thy brethren', [means that] such a man,  since his mother was a descendant of Israel, may well 'be regarded as 'one from among thy brethren'. The slave of R. Hiyya b. Ammi once made a certain idolatress bathe for a matrimonial purpose.  Said R. Joseph: I could declare her to be a legitimate Jewess  and her daughter  to be of legitimate birth.  In her case, in accordance with the view of R. Assi; for R. Assi said, 'Did she not bathe for the purpose of her menstruation'?  In the case of her daughter, because when an idolater or a slave has intercourse with a daughter of an Israelite, the child [born of such a union] is legitimate. A certain person was once named 'son of the female heathen'.  Said R. Assi, 'Did she not bathe for the purpose of her menstruation'?' A certain person was once named 'son of the male heathen'.  Said R. Joshua b. Levi, 'Did he  not bathe in connection with any mishap  of his'? R. Hama b. Guria said in the name of Rab: If a man bought a slave from an idolater and [that slave] forestalled him and performed ritual ablution with the object of acquiring the status of a freed man, he acquires thereby his emancipation. What is the reason?