Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow. If a priest is permitted to marry someone’s daughter, he is likewise permitted to marry that person’s widow; she has not become disqualified to marry a priest by having engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband. And anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow either.

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the first tanna of the mishna and Rabbi Yosei, as they appear to be saying the same thing? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The practical difference between them concerns a Jewish woman who engaged in intercourse with a second-generation Egyptian. The Torah prohibits Egyptian converts and their children from entering into the congregation by marriage, but the grandchildren of the Egyptian convert, i.e., the third generation, are permitted to marry Jews with unflawed lineage. And both of them learned their respective opinions only from the halakha of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, although they derived the halakha in different ways.

How so? As the first tanna holds that this case is like that of a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow, his act of intercourse with her is performed by means of a transgression and he disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood, so too anyone whose act of intercourse is by means of a transgression, such as a second-generation Egyptian who engages in intercourse with a Jewish woman, likewise disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood.

And Rabbi Yosei holds that the derivation is as follows: It is like a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow, whose offspring is unfit for the priesthood, as they have the status of a ḥalal, and he similarly disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her, so too, anyone whose offspring is unfit for the priesthood also disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her. This comparison serves to exclude a second-generation Egyptian, whose offspring is not unfit, as the verse states: “The children of the third generation that are born to them may enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:9). Therefore, a second-generation Egyptian does not disqualify a woman with whom he engages in intercourse from marrying a priest.

The baraita also taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow. And anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow either. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? They seem to be stating the same halakha. Ulla said: The difference between them involves a male Ammonite convert and a male Moabite convert. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, male Ammonite and Moabite converts disqualify a woman with whom they engage in sexual intercourse from marrying a priest, whereas Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says they do not disqualify her. And both of them learned their respective opinions only from the halakha of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, although they derived the halakha in different ways.

How so? As Rabbi Yosei holds that this case is like that of a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow, the halakha is that his offspring are unfit for the priesthood, as they have the status of a ḥalal, and he similarly disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her, so too, anyone whose offspring is unfit for the priesthood, including a male Ammonite or Moabite convert, also disqualifies her from marrying a priest by engaging in intercourse with her.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the derivation is as follows: It is like a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow. Just as with regard to a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow, as all his offspring are unfit, the females as well as the males, and he disqualifies her by engaging in intercourse with her, so too, everyone about whom the halakha is that all his offspring are unfit, even the females, disqualifies a woman with whom he engages in intercourse from marrying a priest. This comparison serves to exclude a male Ammonite or Moabite convert, as the females born to them are fit to enter into the congregation. As the Master said: An Ammonite man is prohibited from entering into the congregation, but not an Ammonite woman; similarly a Moabite man is prohibited from doing so, but not a Moabite woman.

Rav Ḥisda says: All concede with regard to a widow of questionable lineage, i.e., a widow whose husband was possibly a ḥalal, that she is unfit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara explains: Who is the most lenient of these tanna’im? It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and he says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow; and anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow either. He said the latter clause to exclude what? It is to exclude a widow of questionable lineage; and it teaches that she is unfit to marry into the priesthood, since the daughter of one who was possibly a ḥalal is prohibited from marrying a priest.

The Gemara comments: This statement of Rav Ḥisda serves to exclude the opinion of these following tanna’im. As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 8:3): Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira testified with regard to a widow of questionable lineage, that she is fit to marry into the priesthood. What is the reason for this lenient ruling? It is a case of a compound uncertainty, and the principle is that in a case of a compound uncertainty the ruling is to be lenient.

§ The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Eliezer, 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 to marry with those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, and it is also prohibited for those whose flaws result from an uncertainty to marry those whose flaws result from an uncertainty. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Yehuda added: When I said that halakha in front of Shmuel, he said to me: Hillel the Elder teaches the mishna as stating: Jews with ten types of lineage ascended from Babylonia, and all of them, i.e., all of those who may not enter into the congregation, even those whose flaws result from an uncertainty, are permitted to marry into each other’s families; and you said the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer?

The Gemara comments: And a contradiction can be raised from this statement of Rav against another statement of Rav, and similarly a contradiction can be raised from this statement of Shmuel against another statement of Shmuel. As it was stated that they had the following dispute: With regard to a betrothed woman who became pregnant during her period of betrothal, and it is unknown whether it was her betrothed or someone else who impregnated her, Rav says that the offspring is a mamzer. The assumption is that she was impregnated by a different man and that the child is the offspring of a betrothed woman and a man other than her betrothed. And Shmuel says that the offspring is a shetuki, since there is no proof that it is a mamzer; she might have been impregnated by her betrothed.

The Gemara explains their respective opinions: Rav says the offspring is a mamzer and is therefore permitted to marry a mamzeret; and Shmuel says the offspring is a shetuki and is prohibited to marry a mamzeret. It is seen here that Shmuel prohibits one whose flaw results from an uncertainty from marrying one with definite mamzer status, whereas Rav permits such a person to marry one with definite mamzer status. This contradicts their earlier statements, in which Rav prohibited one whose flaw results from an uncertainty from marrying one with definite mamzer status and Shmuel permitted it. The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in this dispute, so that Rav is the one who says: The offspring is a shetuki and is prohibited to marry a mamzeret; and Shmuel says: The offspring is a mamzer and may marry a mamzeret.

The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need two instances of the same dispute? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state the dispute twice, because if it were stated only with regard to that mishna, which discusses an unmarried woman whose offspring is a shetuki, one could have said: It was with regard to that case that Rav states his opinion, because the majority are fit with regard to her and only a minority of men are those who are forbidden to her as relatives or are those who are disqualified from entering into the congregation. But there, in the case of a betrothed woman who became pregnant, where the majority are unfit with regard to her and she is forbidden to everyone other than her betrothed, one might say that Rav concedes to Shmuel that her child is a definite mamzer.

And conversely, if it was stated only in this case of a betrothed woman, one could have said it was with regard to this case that Rav states the offspring is a shetuki, because it is most reasonable to ascribe the pregnancy to the betrothed man, which would mean that the offspring is not a mamzer, but in that case of an unmarried woman, one might say that he agrees with Shmuel that the child is considered to be a definite mamzer. It is therefore necessary to state both cases.

And if you wish, say: Actually, do not reverse the opinions, and what is the meaning of the term mamzer that Rav is saying? It does not signify that this offspring is permitted to marry a mamzeret, but merely that he is prohibited from marrying a Jewish woman. And when Shmuel says the offspring is a shetuki, he meant that he is prohibited from marrying a Jewish woman. The Gemara asks: If so, that is the same as Rav. Rather, what is the meaning of the term shetuki in Shmuel’s statement? It is that one silences [meshattekin] him, i.e., disqualifies him, from the halakha of the priesthood. In other words, even if the betrothed man was a priest, the child is not considered a priest.

The Gemara questions this: Isn’t this obvious? Now, if one silences him from the halakha of a Jew with unflawed lineage, and he is not allowed to enter into the congregation, is it necessary to say that he is silenced from the halakha of the priesthood? Rather, what is the meaning of shetuki in Shmuel’s statement? It is that one silences him from his presumed father’s property, i.e., he does not inherit from him. The Gemara again questions: This too is obvious; do we know who his father is? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where this son seized possession of the property of the betrothed man, claiming that the betrothed man is his father. It is with regard to such a scenario that Shmuel said that the property is taken away from him, and one does not say that the burden of proof rests upon the other inheritors to demonstrate conclusively that the betrothed man is not his father.

And if you wish, say: What is the meaning of shetuki in Shmuel’s statement? It means beduki, meaning that they examine his mother, and if she says: I engaged in sexual intercourse with a man with unflawed lineage, she is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel? But didn’t Shmuel already say it once? As we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 13a): If an unmarried woman was pregnant, and people 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; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible; and Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is not deemed credible. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. This shows that Shmuel had already issued an explicit ruling in Rabban Gamliel’s favor; why did he repeat himself?

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for Shmuel to rule twice. As, if he had learned it only from there, from the mishna discussing an unmarried pregnant woman, I would say he rules that way there, when the majority are fit with regard to her, as her unmarried status means that the offspring resulting from sexual intercourse with most men would be of unflawed lineage. But here, in the case of a betrothed woman, when the majority of men are unfit with regard to her, as she is forbidden to everyone other than her betrothed, you might say that she should not be deemed credible to say she engaged in intercourse with the betrothed man. It is therefore necessary for Shmuel to state his ruling twice.

§ It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:2): And similarly Rabbi Elazar says: A Samaritan man may not marry a Samaritan woman. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rav Yosef said: The Sages established him to be like the descendant of a convert, after ten generations. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the descendant of a convert, he is permitted to marry a mamzeret if he is within ten generations of both parents being descendants of converts; from this point forward the descendant of a convert is prohibited from marrying a mamzeret, as people no longer remember that he has the lineage of a convert.

The baraita continues: And some say that the descendant of a convert is permitted to marry a mamzeret until the name of idol worship is forgotten from him, i.e., as long as people remember that his roots are from gentiles he remains permitted to marry a mamzeret, regardless of the passage of time. Rav Yosef understands that Rabbi Elazar regards a Samaritan as being like a convert after ten generations, who may not marry a mamzeret. Since Samaritans assimilated among the Jewish people and are no longer recognized by the public as having Samaritan lineage, they may not marry those of flawed lineage, including, presumably, other Samaritans.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is it comparable to the case of a convert? There, he is an old convert, i.e., the conversion occurred a long time ago, and she is a new mamzeret, i.e., her status as a mamzeret is known. Consequently, people who see him marrying a mamzeret will say: A Jewish man is marrying a mamzeret. Here, this and that, the two Samaritans, are the same as each other. If people consider the Samaritan man as being assimilated among the Jewish people, and consequently he may not marry a woman of flawed lineage, the Samaritan woman should likewise be considered a Jew of unflawed lineage. Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation in favor of the following: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael,