(12) Wherever there is betrothal and no sin, the child goes after the male. Which is this? This is a priestly woman, a Levitess, or an (ordinary) Jewess. who married a priest, a Levite or an (ordinary) Jew. Wherever there is betrothal and there is a sin, the child goes after the flawed one. Which is this? This is a widow to the High Priest, a divorcee or a woman who has undergone the shoe-removal ceremony to an ordinary priest, a mamzeret or a Nathinitess to an (ordinary) Jew, An (ordinary) Jewess to a mamzer or Nathinite. Any [woman] for whom there is no betrothal to him [specifically], but there is betrothal to others, the child is a mamzer. Which is this? This is one who cohabits with any one of the forbiden relations mentioned in the Torah. Any [woman] for whom there is no betrothal either to him or to others, the child is like her. Which is this? This is the child of a (non-Jewish) maidservant or a non-Jewish woman.
...how do we know that the issue [of a Gentile woman] takes her status?...because Scripture says, "neither shalt thou make marriages with them" (Deuteronomy 7:3) How do we know that her issue bears her status? — R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai, Because Scripture says, "For he will turn away thy son from following me" (ibid): thy son by an Israelite woman is called thy son, but thy son by a heathen is not called thy son. Rabina said: This proves that thy daughter's son by a heathen is called thy son. Shall we say that Rabina holds that if a heathen or a [non-Jewish] slave cohabits with a Jewess the issue is mamzer? — [No.] Granted that he is not [regarded as] fit, he is not mamzer either, but merely stigmatized as unfit. Now, that [verse] refers to the seven nations! whence do we know it of other nations? — Scripture saith, ‘For he will turn away [thy son],’ which includes all who may turn [him] away. That is well according to R. Simeon, who interprets the reason of Scripture. But on the view of the Rabbis, what is the reason? — Scripture saith, and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, [etc.], whence it follows that before that kiddushin with her is invalid. We have thus found that kiddushin with her is not recognised. How do we know that her child is as herself? — Scripture saith, If there be to a man [two wives] . . . and they bear to him [children]: where we read ‘if there be’, we also read: ‘and they bear to him’; but where we do not read: ‘If there be’, we do not read: ‘and they bear to him’. If so, is not a [heathen] bondmaid likewise? — Yes, it is even thus. Then what is the purpose of ‘the wife and her children shall be her master's’? —