Kiddushin 74

Kiddushin 74

וְנִיחְזֵי זוּזֵי מִמַּאן נָקֵט? לָא צְרִיכָא דְּנָקֵט מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ וְאָמַר: חַד מִדַּעְתַּאי, וְחַד בְּעַל כּוּרְחַי. וְלָא יְדִיעַ הֵי מִדַּעְתּוֹ וְהֵי לֹא מִדַּעְתּוֹ.

The Gemara asks: And let us see from whom he took the money, as it will be obvious that he is the one who bought it. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the seller took money from both of them, and he then said: One payment I accepted willingly, and one payment was given to me against my will, and it is not known which person gave him money in accordance with his will and which did so against his will. In that case, if the item is no longer in the seller’s possession, he is not deemed credible to testify to whom he sold it.

נֶאֱמָן דַּיָּין לוֹמַר: לָזֶה זִכִּיתִי וְלָזֶה חִיַּיבְתִּי. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁבַּעֲלֵי דִינִים עוֹמְדִים לְפָנָיו, אֲבָל אֵין בַּעֲלֵי דִינִים עוֹמְדִים לְפָנָיו – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. וְנִיחְזֵי זְכוּתָא מַאן נָקֵיט?

The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: Similarly, a judge is deemed credible to say: I found this person victorious in a civil case, and I found this one obligated to pay. In what case is this statement said? When the litigants are still standing before him. But if the litigants are not standing before him but have left, he is not deemed credible. The Gemara asks: And let us see who holds the writ of a favorable verdict. Why is there a need to rely on the statement of the judge?

לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּקְרִיעַ זְכוּתַיְיהוּ. וְנִיהְדַּר וְנִידַיְּינִינְהוּ! בְּשׁוּדָא דְּדַיָּינֵי.

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where their writs of a favorable verdict have been torn up and cannot be examined. The Gemara asks: If so, then let him return and judge them again, and presumably the same verdict will be issued. The Gemara answers: It was a case of the judges’ discretion [shuda dedayyanei]. In certain cases, the verdict depends on the decision of the judges based solely on their sense of which litigant deserves to win. There is no guarantee that they will make the same decision the second time around.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: שְׁלֹשָׁה נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַבְּכוֹר, אֵלּוּ הֵן: חַיָּה, אָבִיו, וְאִמּוֹ. חַיָּה – לְאַלְתַּר, אִמּוֹ – כׇּל שִׁבְעָה, אָבִיו – לְעוֹלָם. כִּדְתַנְיָא. ״יַכִּיר״ – יַכִּירֶנּוּ לַאֲחֵרִים.

The Gemara continues to discuss the credibility of various people with regard to a firstborn. Rav Naḥman says: Three are deemed credible with regard to stating that a child is a firstborn, and they are: A midwife, his father, and his mother. A midwife is deemed credible only immediately; his mother is deemed credible all of the first seven days after his birth; his father is deemed credible forever. As it is taught in a baraita: Expounding the verse: “But he shall acknowledge the firstborn” (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Sages said: The father shall acknowledge him to others. In other words, he is deemed credible to tell others that this is his firstborn.

מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר: ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמָן לוֹמַר: ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״, כָּךְ נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר: ״זֶה בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה״ וְ״זֶה בֶּן חֲלוּצָה״. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

From here, Rabbi Yehuda said: A person is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son. And just as he is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, so too, if he is a priest he is deemed credible to say about his son: This is a son of a divorced woman, or: This is a son of a ḥalutza. And the Rabbis say: As far as these latter claims are concerned, he is not deemed credible. He is deemed credible to state only which son is his firstborn.

אַבָּא שָׁאוּל הָיָה קוֹרֵא לַשְּׁתוּקִי ״בְּדוּקִי״. מַאי ״בְּדוּקִי״? אִילֵימָא שֶׁבּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאוֹמֶרֶת: לְכָשֵׁר נִבְעַלְתִּי – נֶאֱמֶנֶת, כְּמַאן – כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא! דִּתְנַן: הָיְתָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ: מָה טִיבוֹ שֶׁל עוּבָּר זֶה? אָמְרָה לָהֶם: מֵאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכֹהֵן הוּא. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

§ The mishna teaches that Abba Shaul would call a shetuki by the label of beduki. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of beduki? If we say that they examine [bodekin] his mother, and if she says: I engaged in sexual intercourse with a man of unflawed lineage, in which case she is deemed credible, then with whose opinion does this halakha accord? With that of Rabban Gamliel. But we already learned this on another occasion, as we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 13a): If an unmarried woman was pregnant, and they said to her: What is the status of this fetus, and she said to them: It is from so-and-so, and he is a priest, then Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: We don’t live from, i.e., we don’t rely on, the words of her mouth, and she is not trusted. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. What, then, did Abba Shaul add beyond what was taught in that mishna?

– חֲדָא לְהַכְשִׁיר בָּהּ, וַחֲדָא לְהַכְשִׁיר בְּבִתָּהּ. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְשִׁיר בָּהּ – פּוֹסֵל בְּבִתָּהּ.

The Gemara answers: Abba Shaul’s statement that the woman is deemed credible when she states that the father of the child was of unflawed lineage is nevertheless necessary. One halakha was stated in order to render her fit to marry a priest, and one halakha was stated to render her daughter fit to marry a priest as well. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: According to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he nevertheless deems her daughter unfit, as her credibility does not extend to her daughter, who never had a presumptive status of unflawed lineage. Abba Shaul therefore presents a novel ruling, that if she claims to have engaged in intercourse with a man of unflawed lineage, she is deemed credible even with regard to the status of her daughter.

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְשִׁיר בָּהּ – מַכְשִׁיר בְּבִתָּהּ, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל מַאי אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן?

But according to the one who says: According to the statement of the one who deems her fit to marry a priest, he deems her daughter fit to do so as well, what is Abba Shaul coming to teach us?

דְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל עֲדִיפָא מִדְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. דְּאִי מֵהָתָם הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָתָם, דְּרוֹב כְּשֵׁרִין אֶצְלָהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּרוֹב פְּסוּלִין אֶצְלָהּ – אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא. אָמַר רָבָא: הֲלָכָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל.

The Gemara answers: The statement of Abba Shaul is preferable and is more far-reaching than that of Rabban Gamliel, as, if the halakha were learned only from there, the case of an unmarried woman, I would say: There it is a case when most are fit with regard to her, as it is permitted for most people to engage in intercourse with a single woman. But in a circumstance where most are unfit with regard to her, e.g., if she was betrothed and claimed that the man betrothed to her was the father, you might say this: She is not deemed credible when she claims to have engaged in intercourse with a man that would result in the child being of unflawed lineage, as only a small minority of people, i.e., her betrothed, would not render the child unfit, while the rest of the people in the world would render him unfit. Therefore, Abba Shaul’s halakha was necessary in order to include that case. Rava says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Abba Shaul.

מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הָאֲסוּרִין לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל – מוּתָּרִים לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר.

MISHNA: All those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation, i.e., to marry a Jew of unflawed lineage, are permitted to marry into each other’s families. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits them from marrying anyone other than those who share their specific flaw.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: וַדָּאָן בְּוַדָּאָן – מוּתָּר, וַדָּאָן בִּסְפֵיקָן, וּסְפֵיקָן בְּוַדָּאָן, וּסְפֵיקָן בִּסְפֵיקָן – אָסוּר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַסְּפֵיקוֹת: שְׁתוּקִי, אֲסוּפִי, וְכוּתִי.

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is permitted for those with definite flaws to marry with those with definite flaws. For example, it is permitted for mamzerim and Gibeonites to marry each other. By contrast, it is prohibited for those with definite flaws, such as mamzerim, to marry with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, such as a child of unknown paternity [shetuki] and a foundling; and it is prohibited for those whose flaws result from an uncertainty to marry with those with definite flaws; and it is prohibited for those whose flaws result from an uncertainty to marry with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, such as a shetuki and a female shetuki. And these are the ones whose flaws result from an uncertainty: A shetuki, a foundling, and a Samaritan.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי כׇּל הָאֲסוּרִין לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל? אִילֵימָא מַמְזֵירֵי וּנְתִינֵי שְׁתוּקֵי וַאֲסוּפֵי – הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא, מַמְזֵירֵי וּנְתִינֵי שְׁתוּקֵי וַאֲסוּפֵי מוּתָּרִים לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה!

GEMARA: What is the meaning of: All those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation? If we say mamzerim and Gibeonites, shetukim, and foundlings, wasn’t it already taught in the first clause of the first mishna of the chapter that with regard to mamzerim and Gibeonites, shetukim, and foundlings, it is permitted for men and women in these categories to marry into each other’s families?

וְתוּ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר, אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַוַּדָּאָן בִּסְפֵיקָן – הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: וַדָּאָן בְּוַדָּאָן – מוּתָּר, וַדָּאָן בִּסְפֵיקָן, וּסְפֵיקָן בִּסְפֵיקָן – אָסוּר, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ!

And furthermore, to which case in the mishna here is it referring when it states: Rabbi Yehuda prohibits them? If we say it is referring to those with definite flaws marrying with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, and it is teaching that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits them from marrying each other, this is difficult. But from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is permitted for those with definite flaws to marry with those with definite flaws; by contrast, it is prohibited for those with definite flaws to marry with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, and it is prohibited for those whose flaws result from an uncertainty to marry with those with definite flaws, and it is prohibited for those whose flaws result from an uncertainty to marry with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty; then by inference, it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda does not maintain this opinion.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר אַגֵּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת, מִידֵּי גֵּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת קָתָנֵי? כׇּל הָאֲסוּרִין לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל קָתָנֵי!

And if you would say that when Rabbi Yehuda prohibits those with flawed lineage from marrying each other, he is referring to the prohibition against a convert marrying with a mamzeret, does the mishna teach the halakha of a convert marrying with a mamzeret? It teaches: All those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation, which does not include a convert.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה:

Rav Yehuda says:

הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הָאֲסוּרִים לָבֹא בִּקְהַל כְּהוּנָּה, מַאי נִינְהוּ – גִּיּוֹרֶת פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי – מוּתָּרִין לָבוֹא זֶה בָּזֶה.

This is what the mishna is saying: All those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation of the priesthood. Rav Yehuda adds parenthetically: And who are they? Even a female who became a convert at less than three years and one day old, and this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who holds that such a girl is permitted to marry a priest. Rav Yehuda resumes his presentation of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: They are permitted to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another.

וְנוֹקְמַהּ בְּבַת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי! אִם כֵּן, מִצִּידַּהּ תָּבְרַהּ.

The Gemara asks: And let us establish the mishna as referring to a girl who became a convert at three years and one day old or older, and then it will accord even with Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s opinion, as he agrees that this convert may not marry a priest. The Gemara answers: If so, the mishna is broken, i.e., contradicted, from within itself, as if the mishna states that even a female who converted when she was older than three years and a day may marry one with flawed lineage, one would make an incorrect inference, as follows.

אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דְּבַת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, הָא פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, דְּמוּתֶּרֶת לָבֹא בִּקְהַל כְּהוּנָּה, אֲסוּרָה לָבוֹא זֶה בָּזֶה? הֲרֵי פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי, דְּמוּתֶּרֶת לָבֹא בִּקְהַל כְּהוּנָּה וּמֻותֶּרֶת לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה!

Rather, the reason that she may marry one with flawed lineage is that she converted when she was already three years and one day old. But if she converted when she was less than three years and one day old, as she is permitted to enter into the congregation of the priesthood, is she prohibited from marrying into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another? This cannot be, since according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, there is also the case of a female who converted when she was less than three years and one day old, who is permitted to enter the congregation of the priesthood and is also permitted to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another. Consequently, the mishna cannot be explained to accord with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai.

וּכְלָלָא הוּא דְּכׇל הָאֲסוּרִים לָבֹא בִּקְהַל כְּהוּנָּה מוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה? וַהֲרֵי אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה וְזוֹנָה דַּאֲסוּרִים לָבֹא בִּקְהַל כְּהוּנָּה, וַאֲסוּרִים לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה! וְתוּ: הָא מוּתָּר אָסוּר? וַהֲרֵי גֵּר שֶׁמּוּתָּר בְּכֹהֶנֶת וּמוּתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת!

The Gemara continues to ask: But is it an established principle that all those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation of the priesthood are permitted to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another? But a widow, who may not marry a High Priest, and a divorcée, and a woman disqualified from marrying a priest [ḥalala], and a woman who has engaged in sexual intercourse with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [zona], are prohibited to enter into the congregation of the priesthood and are also prohibited to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another. And furthermore, can it be inferred: But one who is permitted to enter into the congregation of the priesthood is prohibited from marrying a man of flawed lineage? But there is the convert, who is permitted to marry a daughter of a priest, and is also permitted to marry a mamzeret.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל שֶׁכֹּהֵן אָסוּר לִישָּׂא אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיּוֹרֶת. וּכְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב – מוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה.

Rather, Rav Natan bar Hoshaya said: This is what the tanna of the mishna is saying: Any person about whom the halakha is that a priest may not marry his daughter. Rav Natan bar Hoshaya adds parenthetically: And who is that? A convert who married a female convert, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who prohibits the daughter of two converts to marry a priest. Rav Natan bar Hoshaya resumes his presentation of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: People of that status are permitted to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another, since converts are not in the category of “congregation.”

וּכְלָלָא הוּא דְּכׇל שֶׁכֹּהֵן אָסוּר לִישָּׂא אֶת בִּתּוֹ מוּתָּרִים לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה? הֲרֵי חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּכֹהֵן אָסוּר לִישָּׂא בִּתּוֹ, וַאֲסוּרִין נָמֵי לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה! לָא קַשְׁיָא, כְּרַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בֶּן יְהוּדָה.

The Gemara asks: But is it an established principle that anyone whose daughter a priest may not marry is permitted to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another? But there is the case of a priest disqualified due to flawed lineage [ḥalal] who married a Jewish woman, as a priest may not marry his daughter, since she is a ḥalala. And despite this, she is included among those who are prohibited to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, since this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda, who holds that the daughter of a ḥalal and a Jewish woman may marry a priest.

וַהֲרֵי חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֲלָלָה וְכֹהֵן אָסוּר לִישָּׂא בִּתּוֹ, וְאָסוּר נָמֵי לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה! וְתוּ: הָא מוּתָּר אָסוּר? וַהֲרֵי גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְכֹהֵן מוּתָּר לִישָּׂא בִּתּוֹ, וּמוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה!

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of a ḥalal who married a ḥalala, as a priest may not marry his daughter, since she is a ḥalala. And despite this, she is included among those who are prohibited to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another. And furthermore, can it be inferred: One with regard to whom it is permitted for a priest to marry his daughter, is he prohibited from marrying Jews of flawed lineage? But there is the case of a convert who married a Jewish woman, and a priest is permitted to marry his daughter. And despite this, people of that status are permitted to marry into those families that are prohibited from entering into the congregation but are permitted to marry one another.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הָכָא מַמְזֵר מֵאֲחוֹתוֹ וּמַמְזֵר מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

Rather, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said a different explanation of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda: Here, the difference between them concerns a mamzer resulting from intercourse between a man and his sister, and a mamzer resulting from intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband.

תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ מַמְזֵר מֵאֲחוֹתוֹ נָמֵי הָוֵי מַמְזֵר. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָוֵי מַמְזֵר, מֵאֲחוֹתוֹ – לָא הָוֵי מַמְזֵר.

The first tanna holds: Even a mamzer resulting from intercourse between a man and his sister is also considered a mamzer. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: The offspring resulting from intercourse with a married woman is a mamzer, but offspring resulting from intercourse between a man and his sister is not a mamzer. According to this explanation, the dispute is that according to the first tanna, offspring resulting from intercourse between siblings may marry offspring resulting from intercourse with a married woman, while according to Rabbi Yehuda, the offspring resulting from intercourse between siblings is of unflawed lineage and may not marry a mamzer.

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: אֵיזֶהוּ מַמְזֵר – כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בְּ״לֹא יָבֹא״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna teaching us with this? We already learned this in a mishna (Yevamot 49a): Who is a mamzer? Any offspring who is born of a union prohibited by the verse: “He shall not enter” (Deuteronomy 23:2). In other words, if the union was a violation of any kind of prohibition, even that of a prohibition that is not subject to the punishment of karet, the child is a mamzer; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, וַהֲלָכָה כִּדְבָרָיו. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין.

The mishna continues: Shimon HaTimni says: Any offspring who is born of a union enjoined by a prohibition for which one is liable to receive karet at the hand of Heaven, and the halakha is in accordance with his statement. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any offspring who is born of a union enjoined by a prohibition for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. This demonstrates that the question of whether mamzer status results from sexual intercourse between siblings, for which one is liable to receive karet rather than capital punishment, has already been addressed in a mishna. Therefore, Rav Naḥman’s explanation of this mishna must be rejected.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הָאֲסוּרִים לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל, וּמַאי נִיהוּ: גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי – מוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה.

Rather, Rava said: The difference between them involves the halakha of a male Ammonite and a male Moabite convert, and this is what the tanna is saying: All those for whom it is prohibited to enter into the congregation. Rava adds parenthetically: And who are they? A male Ammonite and a male Moabite convert. Rava resumes his presentation of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: They are permitted to marry one another.

אִי הָכִי מַאי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר גֵּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת, הָנֵי מִילֵּי גֵּר דְּרָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל, אֲבָל גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי דְּאֵין רְאוּיִין לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל – לָא.

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda for prohibiting these marriages? Rabbi Yehuda should also permit an Ammonite convert to marry a mamzeret, as an Ammonite is not fit to enter the congregation. The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna is saying: Although Rabbi Yehuda generally prohibits a convert from marrying a mamzeret, this matter applies only to a regular convert, who is fit to enter into the congregation. But a male Ammonite convert and a male Moabite convert, who are not fit to enter into the congregation, are not prohibited from marrying a mamzeret, and there is no dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the first tanna.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, מִצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי, כּוּתִי וְנָתִין, חָלָל וּמַמְזֵר שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל הַכֹּהֶנֶת וְעַל הַלְוִיָּה וְעַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל – [פְּסָלוּהָ]. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל – פּוֹסֵל, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל – אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר:

The Sages taught (Tosefta, Yevamot 8:1): A boy nine years and one day old, whose sexual intercourse is considered an act of intercourse with regard to sexual transgressions, who was an Ammonite or Moabite convert, or an Egyptian or Edomite convert, or a Samaritan, or a Gibeonite, a ḥalal, or a mamzer, and who engaged in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest, or the daughter of a Levite, or an Israelite woman, has thereby disqualified her from the priesthood. Rabbi Yosei says: Anyone whose offspring is unfit to marry a priest disqualifies a woman with whom he engages in intercourse from marrying a priest; and anyone whose offspring is not unfit does not disqualify her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: