Yevamot 45
מֵחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין דְּתָפְסִי בְּהוּ קִדּוּשִׁין, אֲבָל הָכָא, גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא תָּפְסִי בְּהוּ קִדּוּשִׁין — כְּחַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת דְּמֵי.
to forbidden relations for which one is liable for violation of a prohibition concerning which a betrothal between the couple would take effect. However, here, with regard to a gentile and a slave, since their betrothal of a Jewish woman would not take effect, a union with them is comparable to forbidden relations for which one is liable to receive karet, and therefore the offspring of such a union will be a mamzer.
מֵיתִיבִי: גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַמְזֵר אֶלָּא מִמִּי שֶׁאִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר עֶרְוָה וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring born from such a union is a mamzer. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says: The offspring is a mamzer only if born from relations with one who is forbidden by a prohibition of forbidden relations that are punishable by karet. It is apparent from the baraita that one who holds, as does Shimon HaTimni, that only the offspring from forbidden relations for which one is liable to receive karet is a mamzer, nevertheless holds that the offspring of a slave or gentile and a Jewish woman is not a mamzer.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאן ״הַכֹּל מוֹדִים״ — רַבִּי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּרַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֵין הַדְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, שֶׁהָיָה עוֹשֶׂה חֲלוּצָה כְּעֶרְוָה, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, בְּגוֹי וְעֶבֶד מוֹדֶה. דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אֲבוּדִימִי מִשּׁוּם רַבֵּינוּ: גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.
Rather, Rav Yosef said: Who is included by saying: All agree? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as although Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says in a baraita (52b) concerning the mishna (50a–51b) that states that a levirate betrothal between a yavam and a yevama with whom he had already performed ḥalitza is ineffective: This statement was said only according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, as he would consider a ḥalutza like a forbidden relative such that if the yavam betrothed her it would not take effect. And although Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi himself does not hold accordingly with regard to that issue, with regard to the offspring of a union with a gentile or a slave he concedes that the offspring is a mamzer. As, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said in the name of our Master, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer.
רַבִּי אַחָא שַׂר הַבִּירָה וְרַבִּי תַּנְחוּם בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ פְּרוּק הָנְהוּ שְׁבוּיָיתָא דַּאֲתוֹ מֵאַרְמוֹן לִטְבֶרְיָא. הֲוָה חֲדָא דְּאִעַבַּרָא מִגּוֹי, וַאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא דְּאָמְרִי: גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.
The Gemara cites a related incident: Rabbi Aḥa, lord of the capital, and Rabbi Tanḥum, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, the man of Akko village, redeemed those captives who came from Armon to Tiberias. One of them had been impregnated by a gentile, and they came before Rabbi Ami to ask what the offspring’s status would be when born. He said to them that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Ḥanina all say: With regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רְבוּתָא לְמִחְשַׁב גַּבְרֵי?! הָא רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל בְּבָבֶל, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי וּבַר קַפָּרָא בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ חַלּוֹפֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא וְעַיֹּילֵי זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם, דְּאָמְרִי: גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר!
Upon hearing this, Rav Yosef said: Is it so great to enumerate men? The fact that several great Sages held this opinion does not prove that their opinion is the accepted halakha. But there are Rav and Shmuel in Babylonia, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and bar Kappara in Eretz Yisrael, and some say to remove bar Kappara from this list and insert instead the Elders of the South, who all say: With regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed, and he or she may marry into the congregation of Israel.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי הִיא. דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אֲבוּדִימִי: מִשּׁוּם רַבֵּינוּ אָמְרוּ: גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.
Rather, Rav Yosef said the halakha is in fact that the offspring is a mamzer because this is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said in the name of our Master, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that they say: With regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אוֹמֵר: הַוָּלָד מְקוּלְקָל. לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לַקָּהָל — הָא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר! אֶלָּא לִכְהוּנָּה, דְּכוּלְּהוּ אָמוֹרָאֵי דְּמַכְשְׁרִי — מוֹדוּ שֶׁהַוָּלָד פָּגוּם לִכְהוּנָּה.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The lineage of the offspring is sullied, and if the child is a girl she is restricted in whom she may marry. The Gemara asks: To whom is she prohibited from marrying? If we say it is to the congregation of Israel, but didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua himself say that the lineage of the offspring is unflawed and he or she may marry into the congregation of Israel? Rather, the offspring is prohibited to marry into the priesthood, as all of the amora’im who render the offspring fit to enter the congregation of Israel agree that the offspring has flawed lineage and is forbidden to marry into the priesthood.
מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר מֵאַלְמָנָה: מָה אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרָהּ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל — בְּנָהּ פָּגוּם, זוֹ שֶׁאִיסּוּרָהּ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁבְּנָהּ פָּגוּם.
This is derived from an a fortiori inference from the halakha of a widow, as follows: Just as in the case of a widow who is married to a High Priest, where the prohibition that pertains to her is not equally applicable to all Jews, i.e., only a High Priest is prohibited from marrying a widow, and nevertheless her child from that union will have flawed lineage, then so too with regard to this woman who engaged in relations with a gentile or slave, where the prohibition that pertains to her is equally applicable to all Jews, isn’t it logical that her child from that union will have flawed lineage?
מָה לְאַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁכֵּן הִיא עַצְמָהּ מִתְחַלֶּלֶת! הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה — פְּסָלָהּ.
And if one would say that the logic of this a fortiori inference could be refuted by claiming that what is true with regard to a widow who is married to a High Priest, where her union with him is what makes her herself disqualified from subsequently marrying any priest and, if she is the daughter of a priest, from eating teruma, is not true with regard to the prohibition against a Jewish woman engaging in relations with a gentile or a slave. This is not correct, because here, too, once he has engaged in intercourse with her, he thereby renders her unfit to marry into the priesthood.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מִנַּיִן לְגוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל הַכֹּהֶנֶת וְעַל הַלְּוִיָּה וְעַל הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית שֶׁפְּסָלוּהָ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה״, מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַלְמְנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין בָּהּ, יָצְאוּ גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַלְמְנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין בָּהּ.
As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: From where is it derived with regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a daughter of a priest or with a female Levite or with a female Israelite that they thereby render her unfit to marry into the priesthood? As it is stated: “But a priest’s daughter when she will become a widow, or a divorcée, and have no child, she returns to her father’s house as in her youth” (Leviticus 22:13). The verse indicates that she returns to her father’s house and enjoys the rights of the priesthood only in a case where she engaged in intercourse with one to whom widowhood and divorce can apply, i.e., one with whom her marriage would be valid and would be broken only through death or divorce. Excluded from this is a union with a gentile or a slave, to whom neither widowhood nor divorce can apply, as no marriage bond can be formed with them.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַאי חָזֵית דְּסָמְכַתְּ אַדְּרַב דִּימִי — סְמוֹךְ אַדְּרָבִין! דְּכִי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר: רַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא מוֹרוּ בַּהּ לְהֶיתֵּירָא. וּמַאן רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא — רַבִּי.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What did you see that you rely upon Rav Dimi and his tradition that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the offspring of a gentile or a slave and a Jewish woman is a mamzer? Rely instead upon Ravin, as when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi both rule that the offspring is permitted to marry into the congregation of Israel. And who is the Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi referred to in Ravin’s report? It is the one who is simply referred to as Rabbi, the redactor of the Mishna, whose opinion is accepted as the halakha.
וְאַף רַב מוֹרֵה בַּהּ [לְ]הֶיתֵּירָא. דְּהָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מַהוּ?
The Gemara notes: And even Rav rules that the offspring is permitted, as is evident from an incident involving a certain individual who came before Rav and said to him: With regard to the offspring of a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, what is its halakhic status?
אָמַר לֵיהּ: הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי בְּרַתָּךְ. לָא יָהֵיבְנָא לָךְ.
Rav said to him: The lineage of the offspring is unflawed. The individual who asked the question was himself such a child, and he said to Rav: If so, give me your daughter in marriage. He said to him: I will not give her to you.
אָמַר שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב, אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: גַּמְלָא בְּמָדַי אַקַּבָּא רָקְדָא. הָא קַבָּא, וְהָא גַּמְלָא, וְהָא מָדַי — וְלָא רָקְדָא!
Shimi bar Ḥiyya, Rav’s grandson, said to Rav: People often say that a camel in Medes can dance upon a small space that holds only a single kav of produce. However, clearly that is an exaggeration, since if one would go to Medes one could demonstrate that this is a space that holds a kav, and this is a camel, and this is Medes, and yet the camel is not dancing, i.e., the truth of a statement becomes apparent when it is put to the test. So too, it would appear that you do not truly believe in your ruling because when put to the test, you are unwilling to rely on it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי נִיהְוֵי כִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן — לָא יָהֵיבְנָא לֵיהּ בְּרַתִּי. אָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הֲוָה כִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, אִי מָר לָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ — אַחֲרִינֵי יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ, הַאי אִי מָר לָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ — אַחֲרִינֵי לָא יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ.
He said to him: Even if he were as great as Joshua, son of Nun, I would not give him my daughter in marriage. My refusal to give her to him in marriage is not that I do not stand by my ruling; it is for other reasons. He said to him: If he were as great as Joshua, son of Nun, then even if the Master would not give him his daughter, others would still give him their daughters. However, with regard to this man, if the Master does not give him his daughter, others will not give him their daughters either out of fear of damaging the family lineage. Nevertheless, Rav remained unwilling to give his daughter to that individual.
לָא הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל מִקַּמֵּיהּ. יְהֵיב בֵּיהּ עֵינֵיהּ וּשְׁכֵיב.
That individual would not go from standing before Rav and continued to plead with him. Rav placed his eyes upon him and he died.
וְאַף רַב מַתְנָה מוֹרֵה בַּהּ לְהֶיתֵּירָא, וְאַף רַב יְהוּדָה מוֹרֵה בַּהּ לְהֶיתֵּירָא. דְּכִי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אִיטַּמַּר, אוֹ נְסֵיב בַּת מִינָּךְ. וְכִי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אוֹ גְּלִי, אוֹ נְסֵיב בַּת מִינָּךְ.
The Gemara adds: And even Rav Mattana rules that the offspring is permitted, and even Rav Yehuda rules that the offspring is permitted, as is evident from the fact that when a child of a gentile or slave and a Jewish woman came before Rav Yehuda, he said to him: Go and conceal your paternal lineage so that people will not refrain from giving you their daughters in marriage, as it is permitted for you to marry into the congregation of Israel, or otherwise, marry a woman of your own kind, i.e., a woman of similar lineage. And similarly, when such a person came before Rava, he said to him: Either go into exile to a place where your lineage is unknown, so that others will give you their daughters in marriage, or marry a woman of your own kind.
שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ בְּנֵי בֵּי מִיכְסֵי לְרַבָּה: מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הַשְׁתָּא עֶבֶד כּוּלּוֹ, אָמְרִינַן כָּשֵׁר — חֶצְיוֹ מִיבַּעְיָא?
The residents of Bei Mikhsei sent the following question to Rabba: With regard to the offspring of one who is a half-slave half-freeman, who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, what is its halakhic status? He said to them: Now that with regard to the offspring of a full slave we say that his lineage is unflawed, is it necessary to ask about a half-slave?
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מָרָא דִשְׁמַעְתָּא
Rav Yosef said: The Master who is responsible for dissemination of this halakha that the offspring of a slave and a Jewish woman is not a mamzer,
מַנּוּ — רַב יְהוּדָה. וְהָא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — אוֹתוֹ וָלָד אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה!
who is he? He is Rav Yehuda, as the Gemara cited above. But didn’t Rav Yehuda himself say: With regard to one who is a half-slave half-freeman who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, that offspring of that union has no recourse to be able to marry? It is apparent, then, that even one who permits the offspring of a slave to marry into the congregation of Israel does not permit the offspring of a half-slave to do so, contrary to Rava’s assertion.
כִּי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, כְּגוֹן דְּקַדֵּישׁ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּנִמְצָא צַד עַבְדוּת שֶׁבּוֹ מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ.
The Gemara resolves the difficulty: When this ruling of Rav Yehuda was stated, it was referring to a case where the half-slave betrothed a Jewish woman. Since a slave’s betrothal does not take effect, the result of that betrothal is that the woman is married to only the free half of the half-slave half-freeman, such that it emerges that when he has relations with her, the slave side of him is engaging in relations with a married woman to whom that side of him is not married, and so the offspring of that union is a mamzer.
וְהָאָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: לְדִבְרֵי הַפּוֹסֵל — פּוֹסֵל אֲפִילּוּ בִּפְנוּיָה, לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְשִׁיר — מַכְשִׁיר אֲפִילּוּ בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ.
The Gemara raises an objection: But didn’t the Sages of Neharde’a say in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: According to the statement of the one who renders the child of a gentile or slave and a Jewish woman unfit to marry into the congregation of Israel, he renders the child unfit even when the mother is an unmarried woman. And according to the statement of the one who renders the child fit, he renders the child fit even when the mother is a married woman.
וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לֹא לְמָדוּהָ אֶלָּא מֵאֵשֶׁת אָב. מַאן דְּפָסֵיל סָבַר: מָה אֵשֶׁת אָב דְּלָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין [הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר], אַף כֹּל דְּלָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין — הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.
And both of them derived their opinions only from the halakha of one’s father’s wife, as follows: The one who renders the child unfit holds that just as with regard to one’s father’s wife, one’s betrothal of her does not take effect even after she is widowed or divorced, and so the offspring of such a union is a mamzer, so too, with regard to any one for whom betrothal of her does not take effect, including a gentile or a slave, the offspring is a mamzer.
וּמַאן דְּמַכְשַׁר סָבַר: מָה אֵשֶׁת אָב, דִּלְדִידֵיהּ לָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין, לְאַחֲרִינֵי תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין, לְאַפּוֹקֵי גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד דְּלָא תָּפְסִי בְּהוּ קִדּוּשִׁין כְּלָל.
And the one who renders the child fit holds that the derivation from the halakha of one’s father’s wife is more limited, and it is derived that the offspring is a mamzer only in a case just like one’s father’s wife, in that although his betrothal of her does not take effect, with someone else his betrothal of her does take effect. This is to the exclusion of a gentile and a slave, for whom betrothal of any Jewish woman does not take effect at all, and so the offspring of such a union will not be a mamzer. It is apparent from this statement of the Sages of Neharde’a that according to the lenient opinion, the offspring of a slave is never a mamzer, irrespective of the marital status of the Jewish woman. Therefore, the Gemara’s resolution is undermined.
אֶלָּא: כִּי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְנִמְצָא צַד חֵירוּת שֶׁבּוֹ מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ.
The Gemara offers a different resolution: Rather, when this statement of Rav Yehuda was stated, it was referring to a case where the half-slave half-freeman engaged in intercourse with a married woman who was married to someone else, and it therefore emerges that although the woman’s union with the slave side of him will not render the offspring a mamzer, the free side of him is engaging in relations with a married woman to whom he is not married, and due to that side of him the offspring is a mamzer.
אָמַר רָבִינָא, אָמַר לִי רַב גַּזָּא: אִיקְּלַע רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין לְאַתְרִין וַהֲוָה עוֹבָדָא בִּפְנוּיָה, וְאַכְשַׁר. בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וּפְסַיל. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְדִידִי אָמַר לִי רַב גַּזָּא: לָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין הֲוָה אֶלָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי זְבִידָא הֲוָה, וְאַכְשַׁר בֵּין בִּפְנוּיָה בֵּין בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה לְרָבִינָא: אִיקְּלַע אַמֵּימָר לְאַתְרִין וְאַכְשַׁר בֵּין בִּפְנוּיָה בֵּין בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ.
Ravina said: Rav Gazza said to me that Rabbi Yosei bar Avin once happened to come to our place, and there was an incident involving an unmarried woman who had engaged in intercourse with a slave, and Rabbi Yosei bar Avin rendered her offspring fit to marry into the congregation of Israel. And there was another incident involving a married woman who had engaged in intercourse with a slave, and he rendered her offspring unfit to marry into the congregation of Israel by ruling the offspring was a mamzeret. Rav Sheshet said: Rav Gazza told me that it was not Rabbi Yosei bar Avin; rather, it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Zevida, and he rendered the offspring fit both in the case of an unmarried woman and in the case of a married woman. Rav Aḥa, son of Rabba, said to Ravina: Ameimar once happened to come to our place and rendered the offspring fit both in the case of an unmarried woman and in the case of a married woman.
וְהִלְכְתָא: גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר, בֵּין בִּפְנוּיָה בֵּין בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ.
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that with regard to a gentile or slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed, whether she was an unmarried or a married woman.
רָבָא אַכְשְׁרֵיהּ לְרַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל וּמַנְּיֵיהּ בְּפוּרְסֵי דְּבָבֶל, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר מָר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״ — כׇּל מְשִׂימוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה מֵשִׂים אַל יְהוּ אֶלָּא מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ, הַאי, כֵּיוָן דְּאִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל — ״מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ״ קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara cites a related halakha: Rava ruled that Rav Mari bar Raḥel, who was the son of a gentile father and a Jewish mother, was fit to marry into the congregation of Israel, and furthermore he appointed him as one of the officials [pursei] of Babylonia. And although the Master said that from the verse, “You shall place a king over you whom the Lord your God shall chose; from among your brethren shall you place a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) it is derived that not only with regard to the kingship but also with regard to all positions of authority that you appoint, the incumbents may be selected only from among your brethren who share your Jewish lineage. Nevertheless, with regard to this one, i.e., Rav Mari bar Raḥel, since his mother is of Jewish lineage, we call him “from among your brethren,” and so he is eligible.
עַבְדֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַמֵּי אַטְבְּלַהּ לְהָהִיא גּוֹיָה לְשֵׁם אִנְתְּתָא. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: יָכֵילְנָא לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי בַּהּ וּבִבְרַתַּהּ.
§ A gentile slave purchased by a Jew must be circumcised and then immersed in a ritual bath. By being immersed for the sake of slavery, he takes on the status of a full slave, which, among other things, obligates him to keep certain mitzvot. However, if the slave, or any gentile, is immersed for the sake of conversion, he then becomes a full Jew and fully obligated in mitzvot like any other Jew.
The Gemara considers the result of different intentions accompanying an immersion: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami’s slave immersed a certain gentile woman for the sake of having intimate relations, i.e., to purify her from her menstrual impurity. Rav Yosef said: I am able to render both her and her daughter fit to marry into the congregation of Israel.
בַּהּ, כִּדְרַב אַסִּי. דְּאָמַר רַב אַסִּי, מִי לָא טְבַלָה לְנִדּוּתַהּ?
With regard to her, I can render her fit in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi, as Rav Asi said concerning a woman whose status as a convert was unclear but who lived as a part of the Jewish people and acted like all other Jewish women: Didn’t she immerse for the sake of purifying herself from her menstruation? Therefore, even if the original immersion was invalid, her intention in subsequent immersions was sufficient to be considered for the sake of conversion, since ultimately she immersed as an expression of her commitment to Judaism. She is therefore fully Jewish.
בִּבְרַתַּהּ, גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר.
And with regard to her daughter, she is the daughter of a gentile or slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, and the halakha is that the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.
הַהוּא דַּהֲווֹ קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בַּר אַרְמָיְיתָא״, אֲמַר רַב אַסִּי: מִי לָא טְבַלָה לְנִדּוּתַהּ? הָהוּא דַּהֲווֹ קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בַּר אַרְמָאָה״. אֲמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מִי לָא טְבַל לְקִרְיוֹ?
The Gemara details the circumstances of Rav Asi’s ruling: There was a certain man whom people would call: Son of the Aramean woman, as they cast aspersions on the validity of his mother’s conversion. With regard to that case, Rav Asi said: Didn’t she immerse for the sake of purifying herself from her menstruation? A similar incident is recounted: There was a certain man whom people would call: Son of an Aramean man, as they cast aspersions on the validity of his father’s conversion. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Didn’t he immerse for the sake of purifying himself from his seminal emission? That intention is sufficient to consider the immersion an immersion for the sake of conversion.
אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: הַלּוֹקֵחַ עֶבֶד מִן הַגּוֹי, וְקָדַם וְטָבַל לְשֵׁם בֶּן חוֹרִין, קָנָה עַצְמוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין. מַאי טַעְמָא —
Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: In the case of a Jew who purchased a slave from a gentile, and before he managed to immerse him for the sake of slavery the slave preempted him and immersed for the sake of conversion to render himself a freeman, he thereby acquired himself and becomes a freeman, i.e., his immersion effects a full conversion and he is no longer a slave. What is the reason for this halakha?
