Yevamot

as R. Zakkai recited  in the presence of R. Johanan, '[The expression,] But a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife,  includes a woman who is fundamentally a proselyte  who is eligible to marry a priest', and the other said to him, 'I learn: ["Since. instead of] 'His people'. Of his people [was written]. a virgin who descended from two peoples  is also included", and you mention only a fundamental proselyte and no other!' Now. what is meant by 'two peoples'? If it be suggested that it refers to the case of an Ammonite who married an Ammonitess. and that these are described as of 'two peoples' because the males are forbidden and the females are permitted, such a case [it may be objected] is the same as that of a fundamental proselyte! Consequently it must refer to an Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite. Others say: He said to him,  'I learn: ["Since, instead of] 'His people'. Of his people  [was written], a virgin who is descended from two peoples  and from a people consisting of two groups of people  is included", and you mention only a fundamental proselyte and no other!' According to this latter version, however,  whence is it inferred that the daughter of an Egyptian of the second generation  is eligible to marry a priest? And should you suggest that this might be inferred from the case of an Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite, [it may be objected that] the case of the Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite is different since the Ammonite females are eligible.  — An Egyptian of the second generation who married an Egyptian woman of the second generation might prove it.  But [it may be objected that the case] of an Egyptian of the second generation who married an Egyptian woman of the second generation is different since his cohabitation constitutes no transgression? — An Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite might prove it,  and thus the argument would go round etc. Said R. Joseph: This  then it is that I heard Rab Judah expounding on 'His people. Of his people' and I did not [at the time] understand what he meant. When R. Samuel b. Judah came, he stated: Thus he  recited in his  presence: An Ammonite woman is eligible;  her son that is born from an Ammonite is ineligible; and her daughter that is born from an Ammonite is eligible. This, however, applies only to an Ammonite and an Ammonitess who were converted; but her daughter that was born from an Ammonite is ineligible. [On hearing this] the other said to him, 'Go recite this outside. For your statement that "an Ammonite woman is eligible" [is quite acceptable, since] Ammonite  excludes the Ammonitess. That "her son that is born from an Ammonite is ineligible" [is also correct] since he is in fact an Ammonite. In what respect, however, is "her daughter that was born from an Ammonite eligible"? If in respect of entering the assembly, is there, now that her mother is eligible. any need to mention her! The eligibility must consequently be in respect of marrying a priest. [But then what of the statement], "this, however, applies only to an Ammonite and an Ammonitess who were converted; but her daughter that was born from an Ammonite is ineligible"? What is meant by "her daughter that was born of an Ammonite"? If it be suggested that it refers to an Ammonite who married an Ammonitess,  then this is the same case as that of a fundamental proselyte!  Consequently it must refer to an Ammonite who married the daughter of an Israelite'.  [Concerning this] he told him. 'Go recite this outside'. AN EGYPTIAN AND AN EDOMITE ARE FORBIDDEN ONLY etc. What is the OBJECTION?  — Raba b. Bar Hana replied in the name of R. Johanan: Because it may be said that the case of forbidden relatives proves it,  since in respect of them the prohibition extends to the third generation only  [and is nevertheless applicable to] both males and females.  [But can it not be argued that the case] of forbidden relatives is different.  since in their case the penalty of kareth is involved?  — [The case of the] bastard  proves it. [But can it not be suggested that the case] of the bastard is different  since he is forever ineligible to enter the congregation?  — [The case of] forbidden relatives  proves it. Thus the argument could go round.  The aspects of one are unlike those of the other and the aspects of the other are unlike those of the first. Their common characteristic, however, is that both males and females are equally forbidden; so might one also include the Egyptian man and the Egyptian woman so that in their case also both males and females should be equally forbidden.  This common characteristic, however, [it may be retorted,] is different.  since in one respect it also involves kareth.  And the Rabbis?  They infer it  from the halal  who is the offspring of a union between those who through it, are guilty of transgressing a positive commandment;  and in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob.  Then what is meant by, NOT SO?  — It is this that he said to them: As far as I am concerned, I do not accept the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob;  but according to you, since your view is that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob,  [my reply is that] IT IS AN HALACHAH THAT I AM REPORTING. It was taught: R. Simeon said to them,  'I am reporting an halachah and, moreover, a Scriptural text supports my view, [it having been written] sons  but not daughters'. Our Rabbis taught: Sons,  but not daughters; so R. Simeon. R. Judah, however, said: Behold it is said in Scripture. The sons of the third generation that are born unto them;  Scripture has made them dependent on birth. R. Johanan said: Had not R. Judah declared, 'Scripture made them dependent on birth',  he would not have found his hands and feet at the house of study.  For as a Master said that a congregation of proselytes is also called an assembly.