הָכִי קָאָמַר: כָּל 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.

וְנוֹקְמָהּ בְּבַת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי! אִם כֵּן מִצִּידָּהּ תַּבְרָה.

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 טַעֲמָא – 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 – וּמוּתָּרוֹת 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 prohibited from marrying 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 דְּכָל 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 אֲמַר רַב נָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעֲיָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר, כָּל 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 דְּכָל שֶׁכֹּהֵן אָסוּר לִישָּׂא אֶת בִּתּוֹ מוּתָּרִים לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה? הֲרֵי חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּכֹהֵן אָסוּר לִישָּׂא בִּתּוֹ, וַאֲסוּרִין נַמִי 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 נַמִי 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 אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן אֲמַר 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 נַמִי 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 לָן? תָּנֵינָא: אֵיזֶהוּ מַמְזֵר – כָּל 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: כָּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, וַהֲלָכָה כִּדְבָרָיו. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כָּל 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 אֲמַר רָבָא: גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כָּל 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 הַלְּוִיָּה וְעַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל – [פְּסָלוּהָ]. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כָּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל – פּוֹסֵל, וְכָל 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, 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: