שָׁמַעְתִּי כָּל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ – מַשִּׂיאִין לִכְהוּנָּה.

I heard that with regard to the widow of any family that has none of these uncertainties associated with it, one allows her to marry members of the priesthood. The only uncertainty where this ruling applies is in the case of uncertain ḥalal status.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר כִּדְבָרָיו: אֵיזוֹהִי אַלְמָנַת עִיסָּה – כָּל שֶׁנִּטְמַע בָּהּ סְפֵק חָלָל.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir, and likewise Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya would say in accordance with his statement: Who is the widow whose late husband was a member of a priestly family of questionable lineage? It is a widow who marries into any family in which a person with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not he is a ḥalal was assimilated among its members. Therefore, she is referred to as a widow of dough [ issa ]. Just as dough is the result of a mixture of several ingredients, this family too has a person with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether he is a ḥalal mixed within it.

מַכִּירִין יִשְׂרָאֵל מַמְזֵרִים שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם, וְאֵין מַכִּירִין חֲלָלִין שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם.

The reason for the distinction between uncertain ḥalal status and uncertain mamzer status is that Jews identify the mamzerim that are among them, and there is no concern lest they assimilate into families of unflawed lineage. But they do not identify the ḥalalin among them. Therefore, there is concern lest a ḥalal assimilate into the family.

אָמַר מָר: אֵיזוֹהִי אַלְמָנַת עִיסָּה – כָּל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ לֹא מִשּׁוּם מַמְזֵרוּת, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם נְתִינוּת, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם עַבְדֵי מְלָכִים. הָא חָלָל – כָּשֵׁר.

The Gemara analyzes the baraita . The Master said in the baraita : Who is the widow whose late husband was a member of a priestly family of questionable lineage? It is one who married into any family that does not have the status of being unfit, neither due to uncertain mamzer status, nor due to uncertain Gibeonite status, nor due to uncertain status as slaves of kings. The Gemara infers: However, if it is due to uncertain ḥalal status, her marriage to a priest is deemed fit.

מַאי שְׁנָא הָנָךְ – דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא, חָלָל נַמִי דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא! וְתוּ, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: שָׁמַעְתִּי כָּל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ מַשִּׂיאִין לִכְהוּנָּה, הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא!

The Gemara asks: What is different about these flaws in lineage, uncertain mamzer status and Gibeonite status, which render her unfit to marry a priest by Torah law? A ḥalal also renders her unfit by Torah law. And furthermore, the baraita continues: Rabbi Meir said: I heard that with regard to the widow of any family that has none of these uncertainties associated with it, one marries her to members of the priesthood. That is identical to the opinion of the first tanna . If there is uncertainty with regard to one in the late husband’s family that he is a mamzer or a Gibeonite, she is unfit to marry a priest; if the uncertainty is with regard to ḥalal status, she is fit to marry a priest. What novel element does Rabbi Meir introduce?

וְתוּ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר כִּדְבָרָיו: אֵיזוֹהִי אַלְמָנַת עִיסָּה – כָּל שֶׁנִּטְמַע בָּהּ סְפֵק חָלָל, מַכִּירִין יִשְׂרָאֵל מַמְזֵרִים שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֵן וְאֵין מַכִּירִין חֲלָלִין שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֵן, וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא חָלָל כָּשֵׁר!

The baraita continues: And furthermore, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir, and likewise, Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya would say in accordance with his statement: Who is the widow whose late husband was a member of a priestly family of questionable lineage? It is a widow who marries into any family in which a person with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not he is a ḥalal was assimilated. Because Jews identify the mamzerim that are among them there is no concern that they will assimilate into families of unflawed lineage, but Jews do not identify the ḥalalin among them. Due to the concern that a ḥalal assimilated into the family, the widow is unfit to marry a priest. The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say in the first clause of the baraita that if there is uncertainty whether or not a ḥalal was assimilated among its members, her marriage to a priest is deemed fit?

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״מַמְזֵר״ – צוֹוֵחַ, וְ״חָלָל״ – שׁוֹתֵק, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: כָּל פְּסוּל דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ וְשָׁתֵיק – פָּסוּל. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא: אֵיזוֹהִי אַלְמָנַת עִיסָּה – כָּל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ לֹא שִׁתּוּק מַמְזֵרוּת, וְלֹא שִׁתּוּק נְתִינוּת, וְלֹא שִׁתּוּק עַבְדֵי מְלָכִים, וְלֹא שִׁתּוּק חָלָל.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The case of one who when called mamzer screams and protests that he is being slandered, and when called ḥalal is silent, is the subject of the dispute between the tanna’im in the baraita . The first tanna holds: Anyone who when others call him unfit and he is silent, is unfit, as his silence confirms the allegation. And this is what the first tanna is saying: Who is the widow whose late husband was a member of a priestly family of questionable lineage, who is fit to marry a priest? It is one who married into any family that has neither unfitness due to silence in response to allegations of mamzer status, nor silence in response to allegations of Gibeonite status, nor silence in response to allegations that they are slaves of kings, nor silence in response to allegations of ḥalal status.

וְקָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר: הָנָךְ הוּא – דְּקָא פָּסֵיל לֵיהּ בַּקָּהָל, אֲבָל שִׁתּוּק חָלָל – כָּשֵׁר, וְהָא דְּשָׁתֵיק – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ.

And Rabbi Meir is saying to him: Specifically, each of those silent in response to allegations of mamzer or Gibeonite status or allegations that they are slaves of kings are rendered unfit because these allegations render him unfit to marry into the congregation of Israel. However, despite silence in response to allegations of ḥalal status, her marriage to a priest is deemed fit. And the fact that he is silent is due to his indifference, as even were he deemed a ḥalal the only restriction would be with regard to marriage to priests.

וְקָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר לְתַנָּא קַמָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִי שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ דְּמַכְשַׁר רַבִּי מֵאִיר בִּשְׁתִיקָה – לא דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ חָלָל וְשָׁתֵיק, אֶלָּא דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ מַמְזֵר וְשָׁתֵיק, וְהַאי דְּשָׁתֵיק – סָבַר: מַמְזֵר קָלָא אִית לֵיהּ. אֲבָל ״מַמְזֵר״ וְצוֹוֵחַ: ״חָלָל״ וְשׁוֹתֵק, פָּסוּל, וְהַאי דְּאִשְׁתִּיק – סָבַר: מִיסְתַּיֵיהּ דְּלָא מַפְּקֵי לֵיהּ מִקָּהָל.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is saying to the first tanna who quoted Rabbi Meir as saying: I heard, etc. If you heard that Rabbi Meir deems her marriage to a priest fit, in a case of silence in response to allegations, it is not in a case where they called him ḥalal and he is silent; rather, it is in a case where they call him mamzer and he is silent. In that case, the reason he is silent is that he holds: The fact that one is a mamzer generates publicity, and since he is not reputed to be a mamzer , he is indifferent to the allegation. However, in a case where he is called mamzer and he screams in protest, or where he is called ḥalal and he is silent, he is unfit. And the fact that he is silent and does not protest is because he holds: It is sufficient for him that they do not expel him from the congregation of Israel.

תָּנֵי חֲדָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר שִׁתּוּק מַמְזֵר – כָּשֵׁר, שִׁתּוּק חָלָל – פָּסוּל. וְתַנְיָא אִידָךְ: שִׁתּוּק חָלָל – כָּשֵׁר, שִׁתּוּק מַמְזֵר – פָּסוּל!

The Gemara notes: It is taught in one baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Despite the fact that with silence in response to allegations of mamzer one is fit; silence in response to allegations of ḥalal renders one unfit. It is taught in another baraita : Despite the fact that with silence in response to allegations of ḥalal one is fit; silence in response to allegations of mamzer renders one unfit.

לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא – תַּנָּא קַמָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא – דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

The Gemara explains: The contradiction between the baraitot is not difficult. This second baraita is the opinion of the first tanna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that silence in response to allegations of ḥalal does not render one unfit. And this first baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that silence in response to allegations of mamzer is motivated by indifference and does not render him unfit; however, silence in response to allegations of ḥalal is an indication that the allegations are true and he is unfit.

מתני׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּתִינוֹקֶת שֶׁיָרְדָה לְמַלְּאוֹת מַיִם מִן הָעַיִן וְנֶאֶנְסָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: אִם רוֹב אַנְשֵי הָעִיר מַשִּׂיאִין לִכְהוּנָה – הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּינָשֵׂא לִכְהוּנָה.

Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving a young girl who descended to fill her jug with water from the spring, and she was raped, and the identity of the rapist was unknown. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: If the majority of the people of the city marry their daughters to members of the priesthood, this young girl may be married to a member of the priesthood.

גמ׳ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי דַאֲמַר כְּמַאן? אִי כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אֲפִילוּ בְּרוֹב פְּסוּלִין נַמִי מַכְשַר! אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻעַ, אֲפִילוּ בְּרוֹב כְּשֵׁרִים נַמִי פָּסֵיל! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אֲמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אֲמַר רַב:

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: In accordance with whose opinion is it that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri stated his opinion? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, even in a case where the majority of the people are of flawed lineage as well, he deems her fit to marry into the priesthood. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, even in a case where the majority of the people are of unflawed lineage, he deems her unfit to marry into the priesthood. Rav Naḥman said to Rava that this is what Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: