Rashi's opinion on the child of a gentile father

Question

According to this French website, Rashi in kiddushin 68b writes that the son of a gentile father and Jewish mother is a gentile. What is his argument?

Answer 1

I don't speak French, but I can help you clarify Rashi's opinion.

The status of a child born from a gentile father and Jewish mother is a disagreement among the tanaim and amoraim in gemara (Yevamos 45). Some opinions hold the child is a mamzer, others hold the child is kasher. Within the position of kasher, there is a further discussion whether the child is pagum.

While most Rishonim assume that kasher implies the child is a regular Jew [albeit with the potential pgam], there is a group of Rishonim who explain kasher as opposed to mamzer, but in reality the child is a gentile. According to these Rishonim, kasher refers to the status post conversion.

The most explicit mention of this view is Tosfos Kiddushin 75b, who writes the following (see in context for more clarity):

ושמא יש לומר אם הולד כשר א"כ הוא הולך אחר העובד כוכבים כדאמר בס"פ דלעיל (דף סז:) וליכא למיחש לכך אם תנשא לעובד כוכבים אבל השתא דקסבר הולד ממזר א"כ הולך אחר אמו ואיכא למיחש טפי שלא תנשא לעובד כוכבים

Piskei Tosfos (Kiddushin 142) rules so simply:

אם עובד כוכבים הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר, הוי עובד כוכבים

If the offspring of a gentile and Jewess is kasher, he is a gentile

Rashi to Kiddushin (68b) seems to imply [at least according to one position in the gemara] that the opinion who holds kasher believes the child is a gentile. The gemara states:

נימא קסבר רבינא עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר

Rashi expounds:

דאתא לאשמועינן דלא שדינן ליה בתר עובד כוכבים דנימא עובד כוכבים הוא ואם נתגייר יהא מותר לבא בקהל אלא בתר ישראלית שדינן ליה

Rashi describes the opinion that the child is a mamzer as coming against the other option, which is to give the child the status of his gentile father, and explains kasher as referring to post conversion. [See glosses of R Akiva Eiger who refers this Rashi to Tosfos Kiddushin mentioned above]

This is also the implication of Rashi al haTorah (end of Emor), in the story of the Son of the Egyptian who blasphemed, who the verse describes as: 'בֶּן אִשָּׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית וְהוּא בֶּן אִישׁ מִצְרִי'. The verse explicitly describes him as the son of gentile father and Jewish mother, yet Rashi explains 'בתוך בני ישראל' as refering to post conversion. [See Shaar Hamelech who proves Rashi's position from here; the Rishonim all disagree with Rashi].

The rationale behind this could be one of two reasons [both sourced in the commentaries]. Either because 'באומות הולך אחר אביו' - the law with gentiles is that the child's yichus is defined by the father (Kiddushin 67b); or because 'הולד הולך אחר פגום' - when faced with a 'blemished' status, the 'blemish' is transmitted from either parent.

However, there are many indications in the gemara that the child of a gentile father and Jewish mother is a full fledged Jew [beyond the scope of this answer], besides for numerous contradictions in Rashi's position (see Kiddushin 77a and 70b). These issues are raised by numerous commentaries [foremost the Maharsha Kiddushin 75b]. Many of the suggestions to resolve the contradictions explain that Rashi doesn't actually mean the child is a gentile (R Naftali Trop, Kesuvos 11), especially if he is raised as Jewish (Maharshal Yevamos 17a; Maharit Algazi Bechoros; see explanation in Beis Yitzchok EH 29:8).

It's important to note that while some later authorities give halachic credence to this opinion [Nesivos Hamishpat in responsa (cited by Chemdas Shlomo EH 2) required conversion before marrying a Jew; R' Akiva Eiger (YD 266) prohibited circumcision of such a child on Shabbos], the generally accepted consensus is to consider such offspring as fully fledged Jews.