Yevamot 45: Status of Mamzerim; Intention and Immersion as Conversion

The rabbis disagree about who is a mamzer.  They agree that a mamzer is defined as a person resulting of the union between two people whose sexual relations are punishable by karet.  But if a Jewish woman has intercourse with a slave or a Gentile (or if a Jewish man has intercourse with a maidservant or a Gentile), is their child a mamzer and thus forbidden into the priesthood/forbidden to marry a priest?  If that offspring is a mamzer, is s/he permitted to marry within the congregation of Israel?

Among other arguments, the rabbis note that betrothal is not permitted between two people of this status, and thus they are forbidden to be married at all.  They argue about whether or not it should be permitted - or even encouraged - to leave one's home and/or hide one's parentage if the community would erroneously consider that person a mamzer.  

Although Rav believes that such offspring are permitted, he once refused to marry his daughter to someone in this predicament.  He stated that his reasons were based on other considerations.  At the end of prolonged begging for his daughter, it is written that Rav stared at this man in the eyes for some time, causing that man to die.  A note teaches us that this type of power is mentioned several times in the Talmud.  One explanation is offered with few details: when staring at people, a Sage can draw out the holy sparks in any individual.  If nothing further is left, the person dies.   An interesting 'aside'!

The rabbis also consider the case of a Jewish person having intercourse with someone whose status is half-freeperson, half-slave.  They also debate the status of a child born of one Jewish parent and a convert to Judaism.  A number of cases are presented specifically regarding immersion in the mikvah.   If a woman immerses for the sake of ritual purity following menstruation, can that serve as part of her conversion process?  If a man immerses following seminal emission, can his immersion serve as part of the conversion process?  If the rabbis agree that these are valid conversions, what should be done if and when the community questions the immersions?  Notes by Steinsaltz remind us that conversion included the intention to convert and to keep the mitzvot.  Thus many rabbis considered such immersions to be valid, even without the presence of a three-person court.

One of the more intriguing points in today's daf is the importance put upon whether or not an offspring who is female is permitted to marry into the priesthood.  Even if the Temple were rebuilt, how would we know who are truly Kohanim - without 'tainted lineage'?  How would today's rabbis know which daughters were truly fit to marry into the priesthood?  Our lineage is so far removed from its relative 'purity' (or inbred exclusivity) of two thousand years ago that it would be impossible to use these guidelines.  However, the arguments exist, and perhaps we could use the style and substance of those arguments to help us find some direction...

Our daf ends with the introduction to a slightly different topic.  When a slave is about to be immersed, which affirms his state as a slave (and obligate him to some of the mitzvot), he might preempt the process and immerse with the intent to fully convert to Judaism.  This would render him a freeman.  However, a note tells us that he would then have to reimburse his 'owner' for his cost as a slave.  Likely this would be a difficult task for someone who did not have enough money previously to free himself.