eli9

Thank you yitayningwut

I need some clarification with the last paragraph.

“That is what we learn in the Mishna later on (69b), that if the son went and fornicated with the slave-woman it is not termed a cohabitation, for every living being does not come but from a drop that needs its original form to be stretched out before it can don another form, and it (the drop) is nothing but water that putrefies/stretches out; and the body of the mother is not fit to return the fetus to its original state.”

The way I understand this it is saying that the seed of the Jew loses some sort of status (of belonging to the Jewish father?) because it is nullified (before becoming a fetus). And the body of the non-Jewish mother can not return the (fetus) to the previous status (of belonging to Jewish father?) ? Or am I totally off?

If so, why can’t the same reasoning be applied to the seed of a Jewish father with also Jewish mother (i.e. regular circumstance)? Shouldn’t we say that his seed also become putrified/nullified, and so he shouldn’t be the father either?

Sure, http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20114&st=&pgnum=279&hilite=

I need perek 116, that’s pages 279 through 281.

Thanks!

No, but within a week or so would be nice 🙂