provides a long list of marriages which are null and void as no kiddushin is possible. This new view may have reflected an internal Jewish development, or it may have been influenced by Roman law (Boaz Cohen , Jewish and Roman Law , vol. 1, pp. 339).
The Biblical laws against intermarriage were reinterpreted sometimes more strictly, and on other occasions leniently. The Schools of Hillel and Shammai expanded the list of nations excluded from intermarriage beyond the seven peoples of Canaan , to include all pagans. Simeon ben Yochai agreed with this interpretation(Avoda Zara 36b).
A very strict view was taken by Rava, who felt that the prohibition against the seven nations continued after their conversion. This was one of the many attempts to maintain absolute family purity. It meant that intercourse or marriage with pagans was seen as prohibited from a biological or racial point of view: it was zenut, and would be punished through whipping(Yev. 76a; Yad, Isurei Bi-ah 12.1).
Part of the strong feeling against mixed marriages was reflected in a general emphasis on family purity. It existed from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah to the destruction of the Temple. The loss of records at that time and in the later revolt of Bar Kochba made such genealogical practices difficult. The long genealogical lists in Chronicles reflected the mood, as did the Mishnaic concern with mamzerim and netinim. Degrees of family purity were established for various Israelites (Kid. 71b, 75aff). Such laws of purity were especially enforced for the priesthood(Kid. 66a, 76a, 77a).
The Tannaitic interpretation of the prohibition against marrying Ammonites and Moabites was limited to males, and did not
219