that the offspring, even if not a mamzer, has flawed lineage and, if the offspring is a girl, is unfit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara clarifies: Who is included by saying: All agree? It is Shimon HaTimni, as although Shimon HaTimni said that the offspring of relations for which one is liable for violating a prohibition is not a mamzer, nevertheless, granted that Shimon HaTimni holds that he is not a mamzer; he would agree, however, that he is of flawed lineage.

This is derived through an a fortiori inference from the halakha pertaining to 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, 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 divorcée, who married another man and is therefore prohibited from marrying her original husband, where the prohibition that pertains to her is equally applicable to all Jews, as the prohibition to remarry one’s divorcée after she was married to another man applies to all Jews, isn’t it logical that her child from that union will have flawed lineage?

The Gemara raises a number of objections: The logic of this a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is true with regard to a widow, where her union with a High Priest 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 a remarried divorcée, where her remarriage to another man is permitted and is not the cause of any further disqualification. Therefore, one case cannot be deduced from the other.

And furthermore, “She is an abomination” (Deuteronomy 24:4) is written with regard to remarrying with one’s divorcée, and the emphasis on the word “she” teaches that only she is considered so, but her children are not abominations and they have unflawed lineage.

And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who remarries his divorcée, and one who marries his ḥalutza, and one who marries a relative of his ḥalutza, Rabbi Akiva says that one’s betrothal of such women is not effective. And therefore, even if he attempts to do so, it is meaningless and she does not require a bill of divorce from him in order to separate from him. And if she has relations with him she is rendered unfit and her child is unfit, and we force him to send her away. The Rabbis say that one’s betrothal of such women is effective, and therefore if he betrothed her she requires a bill of divorce from him, and if she has relations with him she remains fit and her child is fit.

The Gemara clarifies: When the baraita states she and her child are rendered unfit, to whom are they unfit to be married? Is it not to the priesthood? No, it is to the congregation of Israel. If so, when the baraita states she is fit, to whom is she fit to be married? If we say it is to the congregation of Israel, this is obvious; could it be that because she engaged in forbidden sexual relations that she is rendered unfit from marrying into the congregation of Israel? Although by doing so she is rendered a zona, that can disqualify her only from marrying a priest. Rather, is it not that the intention is that she is fit to marry into the priesthood?

The Gemara suggests: And since in reference to her the word fit in the baraita means fit for the priesthood, it follows that for the child as well, the word fit means fit for the priesthood. The Gemara objects: Are these cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is, and although the two cases are juxtaposed in the baraita they need not be relating to the same issue. Rather, when referring to the mother the baraita mentions fitness for the priesthood, and when referring to the child it mentions fitness for the congregation of Israel.

The Gemara notes: So, too, it is reasonable to assume that the two clauses concern different issues, as the first clause teaches in the name of Rabbi Akiva: She is unfit and her child is unfit. When that first clause states: She is unfit, to whom is she unfit to be married? If we say it is to the congregation of Israel, could it be that because she engaged in forbidden sexual relations she is rendered unfit to marry into the congregation of Israel? Rather, is it not that the intention is that she is rendered unfit to marry into the priesthood?

And then when the first clause continues and states: And her child is unfit, to whom is she unfit to be married? If we say that it is to the priesthood, that would imply that the child is fit to marry into the congregation of Israel. However, this is untenable because didn’t Rabbi Akiva himself say in the mishna here that the offspring is a mamzer and is unfit from entering the congregation of Israel? Rather, it is obvious that the intention of the baraita is that the child is unfit even to marry into the congregation of Israel.

And since in the first clause of the baraita it is apparent that, although two cases are juxtaposed, this case is as it is and that case is as it is, in the latter clause as well one should assume that this case is as it is and that case is as it is.

Having resolved the objection raised from the baraita, the Gemara returns to its preceding objection: And the objection raised from the verse: “She is an abomination,” in which the Gemara suggested that the emphasis on “she” teaches that only she is an abomination but her children are not, can also be resolved, as the emphasis on “she” could be interpreted differently to teach: “She is an abomination” but her rival wife is not an abomination, and if they both fell together for levirate marriage, the yavam may consummate the levirate marriage with her rival wife. However, it is possible that her children are in fact abominations and are unfit to marry into the priesthood.

The Gemara concludes: However, although two of the objections were resolved, the objection to the logic of the a fortiori inference from the case of a widow remains difficult, as the Gemara noted earlier: What is true with regard to a widow, where her union with a High Priest 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 a remarried divorcée, where her remarriage to another man is permitted and is not the cause of any further disqualification. Therefore, there is no basis for assuming that the child of one who remarries his divorcée after she had been married to another man will have flawed lineage.

Rather, if this was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said: All agree with regard to one who engages in intercourse with a forbidden relation for which one is liable to receive karet that the offspring has flawed lineage. The Gemara clarifies: Who is included by saying: All agree? It is Rabbi Yehoshua, as although Rabbi Yehoshua said in the mishna (49b) that the offspring born from a union for which one is liable to receive karet is not a mamzer, nevertheless, granted that Rabbi Yehoshua holds that he is not a mamzer; he would agree, however, that he is of flawed lineage.

This is derived through an a fortiori inference from the halakha of a widow, as follows: Just as in the case of a widow who is married to High Priest, where the prohibition that pertains to her is not equally applicable to all, 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, where the prohibition that pertains to her is equally applicable to all Jews, isn’t it logical that her child from that union should have flawed lineage?

And if you would say that the logic of this a fortiori inference could be refuted in a manner similar to the suggestion above that what is true with regard to a widow, who is herself disqualified from marrying a priest, is not true with regard to a woman who is forbidden by a prohibition for which one is liable to karet, that is not correct because here, too, once he has engaged in intercourse with her he renders her a zona, and as such she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

§ The Gemara considers the status of other children born from forbidden unions: Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All agree with regard to a slave or a gentile who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman that the offspring born from such a union is a mamzer.

The Gemara clarifies: Who is included by saying: All agree? It is Shimon HaTimni, as although Shimon HaTimni said that the offspring of relations for which one is liable for violating a prohibition is not a mamzer, this applies only