Reference for Kiddushin 132:1
מנא אמינא לה דתנן אמר ר' שמעון מעשה במגורה של דסקים ביבנה שהיתה עומדת בחזקת שלימה ומדדו ונמצאת חסירה
Whence do I know it?Because we learnt: R. Simeon said: It once happened that the water reservoir of Discus in Jabneh, which stood in the presumption of being full, was measured and found wanting.Everything which had been rendered clean thereby. R. Tarfon declared clean and R. Akiba unclean.Said R. Tarfon: This mikwehstands in the presumption of being full,and you come to declare it wanting because of a doubt: you must not declare it wanting on the strength of doubt. Said R. Akiba, This manstands in the presumption of unclean, and you wish to declare him clean on the strength of doubt:do not purify him on the strength of doubt.R. Tarfon said: This may be compared to one [a priest] who stood and sacrificed on the altar, when he was discovered to be the son of a divorced woman or a haluzah, in which case his service [hitherto] is fit.Said R. Akiba: This may be compared to one who stood and sacrificed on the altar, when it was learned that he was [physically] blemished, in which case his service is [retrospectively] unfit. Said R. Tarfon: You have compared it to a man with a blemish, while I have compared it to the son of a divorced woman or a haluzah. Let us then consider, to whom is it similar: if it is similar to the son of a divorced woman or a haluzah, we shall judge it like [the law] of a son of a divorced woman or a haluzah; if it is similar to a man with a blemish, we shall judge it like [the law] of one who has a blemish. [Thereupon] R. Akiba began to argue: the unfitness of a mikweh is by one, and the unfitness of a man with a blemish is by one; hence let not the son of a divorced woman or a haluzah prove it, since his unfitness [must be attested] by two. Again, the unfitness of a mikweh is in itself, and that of a man with a blemish is in himself: let not the son of a divorced woman or a haluzah prove it, seeing that his unfitness is through others. Said R. Tarfon to him, 'Akiba! whoever separates himself from you is as though he separated himself from life!' Now, this case of a man with a blemish - whose unfitness is by one, how is it meant? If he contradicts him, is he [the witness] believed! Hence it must mean that he is silent, and by analogy, in the case of a son of a divorced woman or of a haluzah, he is also silent; and it is taught: 'The unfitness of a mikweh is by one, and the unfitness of a man with a blemish is by one; but let not the son of a divorced woman or of a haluzah prove it, since his unfitness [must be attested] by two!' But Abaye maintains, After all, it means that he contradicts him; yet as to your argument. Why is he believed? [the answer is] because he can say to him, 'Strip, and I will shew you [the blemish].' And that is meant when it is taught: 'The unfitness of a mikweh is in itself and the unfitness of a man with a blemish is in himself, but let not the son of a divorced woman or a haluzah prove it - whose unfitness is through others.'<br> <br> And how do we know that the service of the son of a divorced woman or a haluzah is [retrospectively] fit? - Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name, Because Scripture saith, and it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, [the covenant of an everlasting priesthood]: this applies to both fit and unfit seed. Samuel's father said, [It is deduced] from the following: Bless, Lord, his substance [helo], and accept the work of his hands: accept even the profaned [hullin] in his midst. R. Jannai said, [It is deduced] from this: And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days: now, could you then imagine that a man should go to a priest who was not of his days? But this [must refer to one who] was [originally assumed to be] fit, and then became profane. <br> <br> How do we know that the service of a man with a blemish is [retrospectively] invalid? - Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: Because Scripture saith, Wherefore say. Behold, I give unto him my covenant of perfection: when he is perfect, but not when he is wanting. But shalom [peace] is written! - Said R. Nahman: The waw of shalom is broken off [in the middle]. <br> <br> MISHNAH. WHEREVER THERE IS KIDDUSHIN AND THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION, THE ISSUE FOLLOWS THE STATUS OF THE MALE: SUCH IS THE CASE WHEN THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST, A LEVITE OR AN ISRAELITE IS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, A LEVITE OR AN ISRAELITE. BUT WHEREVER THERE IS KIDDUSHIN AND THERE IS TRANSGRESSION, THE ISSUE FOLLOWS THE STATUS OF THE INFERIOR; THIS IS THE CASE WHEN A WIDOW IS MARRIED TO A HIGH PRIEST, OR A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A HALUZAH TO AN ORDINARY PRIEST, OR A MAMZERETH OR A NETHINAH TO AN ISRAELITE, AND THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE TO A MAMZER OR A NATHIN. AND WHATEVER [WOMAN] WHO CANNOT CONTRACT KIDDUSHIN WITH THAT PARTICULAR PERSON BUT CAN CONTRACT KIDDUSHIN WITH ANOTHER PERSON, THE ISSUE IS MAMZER. THIS IS THE CASE WHEN ONE HAS INTERCOURSE WITH ANY RELATION PROHIBITED IN THE TORAH. AND WHATEVER [WOMAN] WHO CAN NOT CONTRACT KIDDUSHIN WITH THAT PARTICULAR PERSON OR WITH OTHERS, THE ISSUE FOLLOWS HER STATUS.; THIS IS THE CASE WITH THE ISSUE OF A BONDMAID OR A GENTILE WOMAN.<br> <br> GEMARA. WHEREVER THERE IS KIDDUSHIN. R. Simeon said to R. Johanan: Is it then a general principle that wherever there is kiddushin and there is no transgression the issue follows the status of the male? But what of<br>