Responsa for Kiddushin 155:22
אמר ליה רב נחמן לרבא
As for a [converted] Egyptian of the first generation, that is because he is ineligible enter into the assembly [at all]! Then let a halal prove it. And so the argument revolves, the distinguishing feature of one not being that of the other. The feature common to both is that they are not as the majority of the congregation and their daughter is unfit. So do I also adduce a proselyte, who is not as the majority of the community, and his daughter is unfit! [No:] As for the feature common to both, it is that they disqualify<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Jewess from the priesthood; supra 74b.');"><sup>31</sup></span> by their intercourse. And R'Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he answer this?');"><sup>32</sup></span> - A proselyte too disqualifies by his intercourse, and he deduces it by analogy from this very argument.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the daughter of a halal who comes from a fit origin is unfit, how much more should the daughter of a proselyte who is of an unfit origin be unfit?');"><sup>33</sup></span> R'ELIEZER B. JACOB SAID: A PROSELYTE [etc.]. It was taught: R'Simeon B'Yohai said: A female proselyte less than three years and a day is eligible to the priesthood, as it is said: But all the women children. keep alive for yourselves;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 18; it refers to the war captives.');"><sup>34</sup></span> now, was not Phinehas among them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And though he was a priest, these children were permitted in marriage.');"><sup>35</sup></span> But the Rabbis [interpret]: 'keep them alive for yourselves' as bondmen and bondwomen. Now, all deduce from the same verse: Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away [i.e., divorced] but they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLIV, 22. The reference is to priests.');"><sup>36</sup></span> R'Judah holds: all the seed must be from Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which excludes the daughter of a proselyte.');"><sup>37</sup></span> R'Eliezer B'Jacob holds: 'of the seed' [implies] even part of the seed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if one side only is of Jewish birth, the daughter is fit.');"><sup>38</sup></span> R'Jose holds: whoever was conceived<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sown'.');"><sup>39</sup></span> in Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore even if both father and mother are converts, the daughter is fit, since she was conceived in Israel.');"><sup>40</sup></span> R'Simeon B'Yohai holds: [It means] one whose virginity matured<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., was sown'.');"><sup>41</sup></span> in Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., who becomes converted before three years and a day. At that day her virginity is mature, in that if destroyed it does not return.');"><sup>42</sup></span> R'Nahman said to Raba:
Teshuvot Maharam
A. Since the child died before he was thirty days old, his viability has not been established. Therefore, his existence was of no consequence. Thus, I am greatly surprised that you considered the existence of the child a determining factor in the case. Moreover, Rashi and R. Tam hold conflicting opinions regarding the question whether a widower is entitled to collect the dowry his father-in-law had promised him (Tosaphot Ket. 47a, s. v. כתב). I am greatly surprised, therefore, that you dare decide between the two conflicting opinions; for whenever there exists a difference of opinion between authorities, we do not enforce the collection of money by either party. Your contention that since A's daughter was a sickly person B had a stronger claim on her dowry, is also baseless, for the law draws no distinction between a healthy and a sickly wife. Indeed, the takkanah of R. Tam to the effect that when a wife dies within the first year of her marriage the husband must return her dowry to the original donors, is only valid in those communities where this takkanah was accepted. My decision in this case, however, is not based on this takkanah, but on Rabbinic law which is valid everywhere.
SOURCES: Cr. 159.