Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

October 29, 2023 | י״ד במרחשוון תשפ״ד

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Kiddushin 77

This week’s learning is sponsored by the Greenstone family in honor of the birthday of their dear niece and cousin, Lana Kerzner. “Her Torah learning is entrenched in a love of tradition, connection to her mother and family, and her intellectual aspirations. החוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק.”

This week’s learning is sponsored by Esther and Eliakim Katz in loving memory of Sarah bat Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leiv ben Harav Yehoshua Zelig and Esther and for the safe homecoming of acheinu kol Beit Yisrael.

The Mishna rules that the daughter of a chalal cannot marry a kohen. However, her children are not chalalim. The male children of a chalal and are considered chalalim and pass it down to all male children for all future generations. However, Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda disagrees and holds that if either a clalal or a chalala marries someone of unflawed lineage (not a chalal), their children are not chalalim. There is a debate about whether a child of two converts or a child of a convert with a non-convert can marry a kohen. From where are the differences between male and female chalalim mentioned in the Mishna derived from the Torah? From where do we derive that the child of a forbidden kohen marriage is a chalal and the woman who married the kohen becomes a chalala? Why does the kohen himself not become a chalal? In which situations could a kohen or kohen gadol receive multiple sets of lashes for a marriage/having relations with one woman? If a woman is a widow and then divorced and then became a chalala and then became a zona in that order, and then the kohen gadol had relations with her, he would be liable four sets of lashes. Even though we hold that one is not liable for a prohibition that is added to an already existing prohibition, if the prohibition adds something new, then it would be added. In this case, each subsequent situation adds something to the previous one – i.e. a divorce is forbidden to all kohanim whereas the widow is only forbidden to the kohen gadol. A student brought a braita before Rav Sheshet that if a kohen gadol has relations with his widowed sister, he will receive lashes for relations with his sister but not on account of the prohibition for a kohen gadol. Rav Sheshet explained that this ruling is according to Rabbi Shimon who holds that a prohibition doesn’t get added to another already existing prohibition but it cannot be explained according to the rabbis who disagree with him. However, the Gemara suggests that perhaps it can be explained according to the rabbis as well. A somewhat opposite version of the sugya is brought as well. From where do we derive that one becomes a chalala only from improper relations with a kohen and not from improper relations with a non-kohen?

מתני׳ בת חלל זכר פסולה מן הכהונה לעולם ישראל שנשא חללה בתו כשירה לכהונה חלל שנשא בת ישראל בתו פסולה לכהונה רבי יהודה אומר בת גר זכר כבת חלל זכר


MISHNA: The daughter of a male Ḽalal is unfit to marry into the priesthood forever. In other words, all daughters of male descendants of a Ḽalal are prohibited from marrying priests, as they have the status of Ḽalalot. If there was an Israelite who married a Ḽalala, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood, whereas if there was a Ḽalal who married a Jewish woman, his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood. Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male Ḽalal, and she is also prohibited from marrying into the priesthood.


רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר ישראל שנשא גיורת בתו כשירה לכהונה וגר שנשא בת ישראל בתו כשירה לכהונה אבל גר שנשא גיורת בתו פסולה לכהונה אחד גר ואחד עבדים משוחררים אפילו עד עשרה דורות עד שתהא אמו מישראל רבי יוסי אומר אף גר שנשא גיורת בתו כשירה לכהונה


Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov disagrees and says: If there was an Israelite who married a female convert, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood, and similarly if there was a convert who married a Jewish woman, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood. But if there was a male convert who married a female convert, his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood. With regard to both converts and emancipated Canaanite slaves, their daughters are unfit to marry into the priesthood even up to ten generations. This halakha applies to the offspring until his mother is born Jewish. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if there was a male convert who married a female convert, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood.


גמ׳ מאי לעולם מהו דתימא מידי דהוה אמצרי ואדומי מה להלן לאחר שלשה דורות אף כאן נמי לאחר שלשה דורות קא משמע לן


GEMARA: What is the meaning of the statement that the daughter of a Ḽalal is unfit forever? The Gemara explains: It is necessary lest you say that the halakha should be just as it is in the case of an Egyptian convert and an Edomite convert, and that just as there, with regard to an Egyptian and an Edomite, their descendants are permitted to enter into the congregation after three generations, so too here, the daughter of a descendant of a Ḽalal should also be allowed to marry into the priesthood after three generations. The mishna therefore teaches us that this prohibition is permanent.


ישראל שנשא חללה מנא הני מילי אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון נאמר כאן ולא יחלל זרעו בעמיו ונאמר להלן לא יטמא בעל בעמיו מה להלן זכרים ולא נקבות אף כאן זכרים ולא נקבות


The mishna teaches that in the case of an Israelite who married a ḥalala, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon that it is stated here: “And he shall not profane his offspring among his people” (Leviticus 21:15), and it is stated there: “He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people” (Leviticus 21:4): Just as there the prohibition against a priest contracting ritual impurity from a corpse applies to males but not females; so too here, with regard to the profanation of his offspring, where the term “among his people” is also employed, it is males who are rendered unfit and who render their daughters unfit to marry into the priesthood when they are ḥalalim, but not females.


אלא מעתה בתו של כהן גדול תישתרי מי כתיב בנו זרעו כתיב לא יחלל זרעו בעמיו


The Gemara asks: If that is so, that profanation applies only to males, the daughter of a High Priest and a widow should be permitted to marry into the priesthood, and there should be no status of a ḥalala. The Gemara rejects this: Is it written that his son is profaned? It is written: “His offspring,” which includes his daughter, as the verse reads: “He shall not profane his offspring among his people.” Nevertheless, the daughter of his ḥalala daughter, who is already the third generation, is permitted as a result of the verbal analogy.


בת בנו תישתרי כתיב לא יחלל זרעו מקיש זרעו לו מה הוא בתו פסולה אף בנו בתו פסולה בת בתו תיתסר אם כן גזירה שוה מאי אהני ליה


The Gemara asks: If so, that the granddaughter is permitted as a result of the verbal analogy, the daughter of his son should also be permitted. The Gemara answers: It is written: “He shall not profane his offspring,” by which the Torah links his offspring to him: Just as for him, his daughter is unfit; so too for his son, the son of a High Priest, his daughter is unfit. The Gemara asks: In that case, the daughter of his daughter from an Israelite should be prohibited, just as his own daughter is unfit. The Gemara answers: If so, that his daughter’s daughter is also unfit, of what use is the verbal analogy of: “He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people”? It must teach that his daughter’s daughter is fit.


חלל שנשא בת ישראל בתו פסולה הא תנא ליה רישא בת חלל זכר פסולה מן הכהונה לעולם איידי דתנא רישא ישראל שנשא חללה תנא נמי סיפא חלל שנשא בת ישראל


§ The mishna teaches that if there was a ḥalal who married a Jewish woman, his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara questions this ruling: Wasn’t this already taught in the first clause: The daughter of a male ḥalal is unfit to marry into the priesthood forever? The Gemara answers: Since it taught in the first clause about an Israelite who married a ḥalala, it also taught in the latter clause about a ḥalal who married a Jewish woman, to present the complete ruling.


מתניתין דלא כרבי דוסתאי בן יהודה דתניא רבי דוסתאי בן יהודה אומר כשם שבני ישראל מקוה טהרה לחללות כך בנות ישראל מקוה טהרה לחללים מאי טעמיה דרבי דוסתאי ברבי יהודה אמר קרא לא יחלל זרעו בעמיו בעם אחד הוא דמיחל בשני עממים אינו מיחל


The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says: Just as the sons of Israel are a ritual bath of purity for ḥalalot, i.e., the daughter of a ḥalala who marries an Israelite does not transmit her status of a ḥalala, and their daughters may marry priests, so the daughters of Israel are a ritual bath of purity for ḥalalim, and their daughters may marry priests. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains that the verse states: “He shall not profane his offspring among his people” (Leviticus 21:15), which teaches: It is among one people that he profanes, i.e., the offspring is a ḥalal only when he and his wife are both profaned, i.e., ḥalalim, but among two peoples he does not profane. If the mother is of a different people, i.e., not a ḥalala, the offspring is of unflawed lineage.


תנו רבנן לא יחלל זרעו אין לי אלא זרעו היא עצמה מנין אמרת קל וחומר מה זרעו שלא עבר עבירה מתחלל היא שעברה עבירה אינו דין שמתחללת


The Sages taught: The verse states that a priest may not engage in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him, so that “he shall not profane his offspring.” I have derived only that his offspring resulting from a union with a woman forbidden to him is profaned, i.e., has the status of a ḥalal; from where do I derive that she herself, i.e., the woman who engaged in forbidden intercourse with the priest, is also disqualified from marrying into the priesthood? You can say it is an a fortiori inference: If his offspring, who did not commit a transgression, is profaned, is it not logical that she, who did commit a transgression, is similarly profaned?


הוא עצמו יוכיח שעבר עבירה ואין מתחלל מה להוא שכן אין מתחלל בכל מקום תאמר בהיא שמתחללת בכל מקום


The Gemara responds: He, the priest himself, shall prove otherwise, as he committed a transgression but he is not profaned. Although he may not serve in the Temple while he remains married to her, he regains his status of a fit priest once he divorces her. The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about the priest? He is notable in that he is a male, and in no case is a male priest profaned by engaging in forbidden intercourse. Will you say the same with regard to her, a woman, who is disqualified from marrying a priest in all cases? For example, if she engages in intercourse with a man of flawed lineage, she assumes the status of a zona and is permanently disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.


ואם נפשך לומר אמר קרא לא יחלל זרעו לא יחולל זה שהיה כשר ונתחלל


And if it is your wish to say that this reasoning is faulty, there is a different proof: The verse states: “He shall not profane his offspring,” which means that the priest may not engage in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him so that someone shall not become profaned. The verse is referring to this woman who was at one time fit and then became profaned. In other words, the term profanation does not apply to his offspring, as they were never fit to begin with. Rather, it is referring to the woman with whom he engaged in intercourse, as, since she was initially fit to marry into the priesthood, she can be described as becoming profaned.


מאי אם נפשך לומר וכי תימא איכא למיפרך מה לזרעו שכן יצירתו בעבירה אמר קרא לא יחלל לא יחולל זה שהיה כשר ונתחלל


The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: If it is your wish to say that this reasoning is faulty, in what way is it faulty? The Gemara explains the counterargument: And if you would say that the a fortiori argument can be refuted as follows: What is notable about his offspring? He is notable in that he is formed through a transgression. Since the woman was not formed through a transgression, one cannot derive the halakha pertaining to her from that of the offspring. The Gemara therefore continues that even if one were to state that counterargument, the verse nevertheless states: “He shall not profane his offspring,” which means that the priest may not engage in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him so that someone shall not become profaned. The verse is referring to this woman who was at one time fit and then became profaned.


תנו רבנן איזו היא חללה כל שנולדה מן הפסולים מאי פסולים אילימא פסולים לו הרי מחזיר גרושתו דפסולה לו ובניה כשרים דכתיב תועבה היא היא תועבה ואין בניה תועבים


§ The Sages taught: Who is a ḥalala? The term is referring to any woman born from people of flawed lineage. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of people of flawed lineage? If we say it means she was born from someone unfit for him, i.e., a woman forbidden to this particular man due to a family relationship or for some other reason, isn’t there the case of one who remarries his divorcée after she had been married to someone else in the interim; she is unfit for him, and yet her children are fit. As it is written with regard to this case: “That is an abomination” (Deuteronomy 24:4), and this is interpreted to mean: That marriage is an abomination, but the children of that marriage are not an abomination and are entirely fit.


אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר איזו היא חללה כל שנולדה מן פסול כהונה נולדה אין לא נולדה לא הרי אלמנה וגרושה זונה דלא נולדה וקא הויא חללה


Rav Yehuda says: This is what the Sages are saying: Who is a ḥalala? The term is referring to any woman born from one unfit for the priesthood. The Gemara questions this: This implies that one who was born, yes, she is a ḥalala, but one who was not born from one unfit for the priesthood is not a ḥalala. Aren’t there the cases of a widow, or a divorced woman, or a zona who engaged in intercourse with a priest? They were not born from one who was unfit for the priesthood, and yet such a woman is a ḥalala.


אמר רבה הכי קאמר איזו חללה מוזכרת שלא היה לה שעת הכושר כלל כל שנולדה מן פסול כהונה מאי מוזכרת אמר רב יצחק בר אבין הכי קאמר איזו היא חללה שעיקרה מדברי תורה ואין צריכין לפרש מדברי סופרים כל שנולדה מן פסולי כהונה


Rabba said: This is what the Sages are saying: Who is the ḥalala mentioned that did not have a moment of fitness at all, but was unfit from birth? She is any woman born from one unfit for the priesthood. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: Mentioned? Where was she mentioned? Rav Yitzḥak bar Avin said: This is what the Sages are saying: Who is the ḥalala whose prohibition is rooted in the words of a verse in the Torah, and it is not necessary to clarify her prohibition further by the words of the Sages? She is any woman born from one unfit for the priesthood. With regard to such a woman the verse explicitly states: “He shall not profane his offspring.” By contrast, the halakha that a woman who engages in forbidden intercourse with a priest becomes a ḥalala is not explicit in the Torah, but is learned through an exposition of the Sages.


תנו רבנן אלמנה אלמנה אלמנה אינו חייב אלא אחת גרושה גרושה גרושה אינו חייב אלא אחת


§ The Sages taught: If a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with a widow, a widow, a widow, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. Similarly, if a priest engages in intercourse with a divorcÊe, a divorcÊe, a divorcÊe, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes.


אלמנה וגרושה וחללה זונה בזמן שהם כסדר חייב על כל אחת ואחת זינתה ונתחללה ונתגרשה ונתארמלה אינו חייב אלא אחת


If a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who was a widow, and then was a divorcÊe, and then was a Ḽalala, and then was a zona, when the changes to her status occurred in that order, that she was first widowed, then remarried and was divorced, and subsequently engaged in intercourse with a priest, thereby becoming a Ḽalala, and then she engaged in intercourse with a gentile or a forbidden relative, thereby becoming a zona, the High Priest is liable to receive lashes for each and every one of these transgressions each time he engages in intercourse with her. By contrast, if she first became a zona by engaging in intercourse with a gentile or a forbidden relative, and then became a Ḽalala by engaging in intercourse with a priest, and subsequently she divorced, remarried, and was widowed, a High Priest who now engages in intercourse with her is liable to receive only one set of lashes.


אמר מר אלמנה אלמנה אלמנה אינו חייב אלא אחת האי אלמנה היכי דמי אילימא שבא על אלמנת ראובן ועל אלמנת שמעון ועל אלמנת לוי אמאי אינו חייב אלא אחת


The Gemara proceeds to clarify this baraita. The Master said in the baraita: If a High Priest engages in intercourse with a widow, a widow, a widow, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this widow? If we say that he engaged in sexual intercourse with three widows: With Reuven’s widow, and with Shimon’s widow, and with Levi’s widow, why is he liable to receive only one set of lashes?


הרי גופין מוחלקים הרי שמות מוחלקים


Aren’t they separate bodies, i.e., three different people? Aren’t they labels [shemot] of separate [muḥlakim] prohibitions, since each one is forbidden in her own right? It is therefore clear that he should receive lashes for each act.


אלא שבא על אלמנה אחת שלש ביאות היכי דמי אי דלא אתרו ביה פשיטא דאינו חייב אלא אחת


Rather, perhaps it means that he engaged in three acts of intercourse with one widow. The Gemara analyzes this possibility: What are the circumstances? If they did not forewarn him between each act, it is obvious that he is liable to receive only one set of lashes, for one must be forewarned in order to be liable to receive lashes, and here he was forewarned only once for the three acts. There would be no need to state this halakha.


אלא דאתרו ביה אכל חדא וחדא אמאי אינו חייב אלא אחת והתנן נזיר שהיה שותה יין כל היום כולו אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה והוא שותה חייב על כל אחת ואחת


Rather, perhaps the case is that they forewarned him for each and every one of his acts of intercourse. But if that were the case, why is he liable to receive only one set of lashes? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nazir 42a): A nazirite who was drinking wine in violation of his naziriteship the entire day is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not drink, do not drink, i.e., he was forewarned several times, and he nevertheless drinks, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every time he was forewarned and proceeded to drink.


לא צריכא שבא על אלמנת ראובן שהיתה אלמנת שמעון שהיתה אלמנת לוי מהו דתימא הרי שמות מוחלקים קא משמע לן גופים מוחלקים בעינן וליכא


The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for a case where he engaged in sexual intercourse one time with Reuven’s widow, who was previously Shimon’s widow, who was previously Levi’s widow. Lest you say they are separate labels of prohibitions and he should be liable to receive three sets of lashes, since she was widowed from three different people, the baraita therefore teaches us that we require separate bodies for him to receive separate punishments, and as that is not the case here, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes.


אלמנה וגרושה וחללה זנה האי תנא מאי קסבר אי קסבר איסור חל על איסור איפכא נמי ואי קסבר אין איסור חל על איסור אפילו כסדר הזה נמי לא


The baraita teaches that if a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who was a widow, and then was a divorcÊe, and then was a Ḽalala, and then was a zona, if the changes to her status occurred in that order he is liable to receive lashes for each of them. The Gemara asks: What does this tanna hold? If he holds that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, i.e., if an item or a person is rendered forbidden by a prohibition then another prohibition can take effect in addition to the first one, the reverse should also be the case, i.e., if she was initially a zona and subsequently became a Ḽalala, the same two prohibitions should apply to her. And if he holds that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, he should likewise not be liable to receive more than one set of lashes even if they occurred in this order.


אמר רבא האי תנא איסור חל על איסור לית ליה איסור מוסיף אית ליה


Rava said: In general, this tanna does not accept the principle that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, but he holds that it does take effect in the case of an expanded prohibition. If the second prohibition adds people to the category of those to whom the item is forbidden, then it takes effect in addition to the previous prohibition, which had a more limited range.


אלמנה אסורה לכהן גדול ושריא לכהן הדיוט הויא לה גרושה מיגו דאיתוסף לה איסורא לגבי כהן הדיוט איתוסף לה איסורא לגבי כהן גדול ועדיין שריא למיכל בתרומה הויא לה חללה מיגו דאיתוסף איסורא למיכל בתרומה איתוסף איסורא לגבי כהן גדול


In this case, a widow is forbidden to a High Priest but is permitted to a common priest. Once she becomes a divorcÊe, since a prohibition has been added to her with regard to a common priest, as a common priest is prohibited from marrying a divorcÊe, the prohibition is also added to her with regard to a High Priest. And at this stage, she is still permitted to partake of teruma if she is the daughter of a priest. When she becomes a Ḽalala by engaging in sexual intercourse with a priest, since a prohibition for her to eat teruma has been added, the prohibition with regard to a Ḽalala is also added with regard to a High Priest who engages in intercourse with her, in addition to the prohibitions of a widow and a divorcÊe. It is only if they occurred in this order that each prohibition adds to the previous one, but not if they happened in the reverse order.


אלא זונה מאי איסור מוסיף אית בה אמר רב חנא בר רב קטינא הואיל ושם זנות פוסל בישראל


Yet, one could ask: But in the case of a zona, what expanded prohibition is there with regard to her? There is no additional prohibition with a zona beyond what is prohibited with regard to a Ḽalala. Rav Ḥana bar Rav Ketina said: Since the label of zenut disqualifies her in Israel, it is viewed as an expanded prohibition. Although a zona as precisely defined in this context, i.e., a woman who engages in sexual intercourse with one who is unfit for her, is prohibited only to priests and does not add any prohibition beyond that of a Ḽalala, the label of a zona in its broader sense, such as a married woman who commits adultery, does disqualify her to an Israelite, namely her husband. Therefore, there is a prohibition with regard to a zona that has a greater scope than the prohibition with regard to a Ḽalala.


תני תנא קמיה דרב ששת כל שהוא ביקח הרי הוא בלא יקח כל שאינו ביקח אינו בלא יקח פרט לכהן גדול שבא על אחותו אלמנה


A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Sheshet: The command addressed to the High Priest states: “A widow, or one divorced, or a ḥalala, or a zona, these shall he not take; but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife” (Leviticus 21:14). Any woman who is included in the mitzva: “Shall he take” is included in the prohibition: “Shall he not take” if she becomes a widow or a divorcée. And any woman who is not included in the mitzva: “Shall he take” is not included in the prohibition: “Shall he not take.” This excludes the case of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with his widowed sister. As his sister, she is forbidden to him even when she is a virgin, so the mitzva: “Shall he take” does not refer to her. Therefore, he does not transgress the prohibition: “Shall he not take” if he engages in intercourse with her after she had been widowed or divorced.


אמר ליה דאמר לך מני רבי שמעון היא דאמר אין איסור חל על איסור דתניא רבי שמעון אומר האוכל נבילה ביום הכפורים פטור דאי רבנן הא אמרי איסור חל על איסור


Rav Sheshet said to him: He who said this to you, in accordance with whose opinion did he teach it? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says as a principle: A prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists. Therefore, his sister, who was already forbidden to him by virtue of being his sister, is not forbidden due to the additional prohibition: “Shall he not take.” As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats an unslaughtered animal carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt from karet for eating on the fast day, since the prohibition against eating an animal carcass applied to it beforehand. As, if you say this baraita follows the opinion of the Rabbis, don’t they say: A prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists?


אפילו תימא רבנן כי אמרי רבנן איסור חל על איסור הני מילי איסור חמור על איסור קל אבל איסור קל על איסור חמור לא חייל


The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as when the Rabbis say that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, that statement applies only when the second prohibition is a more severe prohibition, e.g., eating on Yom Kippur, which takes effect in addition to a light prohibition, in this case, eating an unslaughtered animal carcass. But a light prohibition does not take effect in addition to a severe prohibition. In this case, the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one’s sister, which is punishable by karet, is more severe than that of: “A widow or one divorced, or a ḥalala, or a zona, these shall he not take,” which is punishable by flogging.


איכא דאמרי הא מני רבנן היא דאמרי איסור חל על איסור וכי אמרי רבנן איסור חל על איסור הני מילי איסור חמור על איסור קל אבל איסור קל על איסור חמור לא חייל דאי רבי שמעון השתא איסור חמור על איסור קל לא חייל איסור קל על איסור חמור מיבעיא


There are those who say that Rav Sheshet said to the tanna as follows: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists. And when the Rabbis say that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, that statement applies when the second prohibition is a more severe prohibition, which takes effect in addition to a light prohibition, but a light prohibition does not take effect in addition to a severe prohibition. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, now that he holds that even a severe prohibition does not take effect in addition to a light prohibition, is it necessary to say that a light prohibition does not take effect in addition to a severe prohibition? There would be no novelty in this ruling of the baraita.


מהו דתימא איסור כהונה שאני קא משמע לן


The Gemara rejects this: It is necessary, lest you say that a prohibition involving the priesthood is different. You might say that since there are many stringencies that apply only to priests, then with regard to prohibitions of the priesthood, a second prohibition should take effect in addition to a first one. He therefore teaches us that Rabbi Shimon holds that the second prohibition does not take effect even when it is one addressed to members of the priesthood.


אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי ישראל הבא על אחותו זונה משוי לה חללה משוי לה או לא משוי לה


§ Rav Pappa said to Abaye: In the case of an Israelite who engages in intercourse with his sister, this makes her a zona and she is forbidden to a priest. But does he also make her a Ḽalala so that a priest who engages in intercourse with her is also liable for violating the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a Ḽalala, or perhaps he does not make her a Ḽalala?


מי אמרינן קל וחומר מחייבי לאוין הויא חללה מחייבי כריתות לא כל שכן או דילמא אין חללה אלא מאיסור כהונה אמר ליה אין (איסור) חללה אלא מאיסור כהונה בלבד


The two sides of the question are as follows: Do we say that this is an a fortiori inference: If she becomes a Ḽalala by engaging in sexual intercourse for which she is liable for violating only an ordinary prohibition, should she not all the more so be considered a Ḽalala by engaging in intercourse for which she is liable to be punished by karet? Or perhaps the status of Ḽalala results only from a prohibition addressed specifically to the priesthood? Abaye said to him: A prohibition with regard to a Ḽalala results only from a prohibition addressed specifically to the priesthood and from that alone.


אמר רבא מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן אין חללה אלא מאיסור כהונה דתניא לא יאמר גרושה בכהן גדול ותיתי בקל וחומר מכהן הדיוט ואנא אמינא השתא לכהן הדיוט אסורה לכהן גדול מיבעיא למה נאמרה כשם שחלוקה גרושה מזונה וחללה בכהן הדיוט כך חלוקה בכהן גדול


Rava says: From where is this matter that the Sages state, that a Ḽalala results only from a prohibition addressed specifically to the priesthood, derived? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse need not explicitly state that a divorcÊe is forbidden to a High Priest, and one could derive it by means of an a fortiori inference from the halakha of a common priest. As I can state the following argument: Now that a divorcÊe is forbidden to a common priest, is it necessary to state that she is forbidden to a High Priest? But if it is not necessary to mention it, why is the prohibition with regard to a divorcÊe to a High Priest stated? It is in order to teach the following: Just as the prohibition with regard to a divorcÊe is distinct from that of a zona and a Ḽalala in the case of a common priest, as a divorcÊe is forbidden by a separate prohibition for which he is liable to be flogged, so too, the prohibition with regard to a divorcÊe is distinct in the case of a High Priest, and he will be liable to receive lashes for a separate prohibition if she was a Ḽalala as well.


פשיטא מיגרע גרעה אלא כשם שחלוקה גרושה מזונה וחללה בכהן הדיוט כך אלמנה חלוקה מגרושה וחללה זונה בכהן גדול


The Gemara questions this statement: This is obvious; is the status of a High Priest any lower than that of a common priest? Since this halakha applied to him when he was a common priest, it certainly applies to him when he becomes a High Priest. His restrictions as a priest are not lessened when he becomes a High Priest. Rather, teach as follows: Just as the prohibition with regard to a divorcÊe is distinct from that of a zona and a Ḽalala in the case of a common priest, since he is liable to receive lashes for each of the prohibitions, so too, a widow is distinct from a divorcÊe, and a Ḽalala, and a zona in the case of a High Priest, and he is liable to receive lashes for each prohibition, despite the fact that they are stated in the same verse (see Leviticus 21:14).


חללה למה נאמרה אין חללה אלא מאיסור כהונה זונה למה נאמרה נאמר כאן זונה ונאמר להלן זונה מה כאן זרעו חולין אף להלן זרעו חולין


The baraita further asks: Why is the prohibition with regard to a ḥalala stated with regard to a High Priest, as she is forbidden to him even when he is a common priest? This repetition serves to teach that a ḥalala results only from a prohibition addressed specifically to the priesthood. Why is the prohibition with regard to a zona stated with regard to a High Priest, as she is forbidden to him even when he is a common priest? It is stated here: “Zona” (Leviticus 21:14), with regard to a High Priest, and it is stated there: “Zona” (Leviticus 21:7), with regard to a common priest. Just as here, in the case of a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a zona, his offspring are profaned, in accordance with the verse: “And he shall not profane his offspring” (Leviticus 21:15), so too there, in the case of a common priest who engages in intercourse with a zona, his offspring are profaned.


אמר רב אשי הילכך כהן הבא על אחותו


Rav Ashi says: Consequently, a priest who engages in intercourse with his sister


  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddushin: 74 – 82 + Siyum – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

In this final lesson, we will continue to discuss who is able to marry a Cohen. We will also learn...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 77: Widow, Widow, Widow

A new mishnah about challals, challalot, and their progeny, and whom they can marry. Likewise, converts. Following the lineage quality...

Kiddushin 77

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 77

מתני׳ בת חלל זכר פסולה מן הכהונה לעולם ישראל שנשא חללה בתו כשירה לכהונה חלל שנשא בת ישראל בתו פסולה לכהונה רבי יהודה אומר בת גר זכר כבת חלל זכר


MISHNA: The daughter of a male Ḽalal is unfit to marry into the priesthood forever. In other words, all daughters of male descendants of a Ḽalal are prohibited from marrying priests, as they have the status of Ḽalalot. If there was an Israelite who married a Ḽalala, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood, whereas if there was a Ḽalal who married a Jewish woman, his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood. Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male Ḽalal, and she is also prohibited from marrying into the priesthood.


רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר ישראל שנשא גיורת בתו כשירה לכהונה וגר שנשא בת ישראל בתו כשירה לכהונה אבל גר שנשא גיורת בתו פסולה לכהונה אחד גר ואחד עבדים משוחררים אפילו עד עשרה דורות עד שתהא אמו מישראל רבי יוסי אומר אף גר שנשא גיורת בתו כשירה לכהונה


Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov disagrees and says: If there was an Israelite who married a female convert, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood, and similarly if there was a convert who married a Jewish woman, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood. But if there was a male convert who married a female convert, his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood. With regard to both converts and emancipated Canaanite slaves, their daughters are unfit to marry into the priesthood even up to ten generations. This halakha applies to the offspring until his mother is born Jewish. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if there was a male convert who married a female convert, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood.


גמ׳ מאי לעולם מהו דתימא מידי דהוה אמצרי ואדומי מה להלן לאחר שלשה דורות אף כאן נמי לאחר שלשה דורות קא משמע לן


GEMARA: What is the meaning of the statement that the daughter of a Ḽalal is unfit forever? The Gemara explains: It is necessary lest you say that the halakha should be just as it is in the case of an Egyptian convert and an Edomite convert, and that just as there, with regard to an Egyptian and an Edomite, their descendants are permitted to enter into the congregation after three generations, so too here, the daughter of a descendant of a Ḽalal should also be allowed to marry into the priesthood after three generations. The mishna therefore teaches us that this prohibition is permanent.


ישראל שנשא חללה מנא הני מילי אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון נאמר כאן ולא יחלל זרעו בעמיו ונאמר להלן לא יטמא בעל בעמיו מה להלן זכרים ולא נקבות אף כאן זכרים ולא נקבות


The mishna teaches that in the case of an Israelite who married a ḥalala, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon that it is stated here: “And he shall not profane his offspring among his people” (Leviticus 21:15), and it is stated there: “He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people” (Leviticus 21:4): Just as there the prohibition against a priest contracting ritual impurity from a corpse applies to males but not females; so too here, with regard to the profanation of his offspring, where the term “among his people” is also employed, it is males who are rendered unfit and who render their daughters unfit to marry into the priesthood when they are ḥalalim, but not females.


אלא מעתה בתו של כהן גדול תישתרי מי כתיב בנו זרעו כתיב לא יחלל זרעו בעמיו


The Gemara asks: If that is so, that profanation applies only to males, the daughter of a High Priest and a widow should be permitted to marry into the priesthood, and there should be no status of a ḥalala. The Gemara rejects this: Is it written that his son is profaned? It is written: “His offspring,” which includes his daughter, as the verse reads: “He shall not profane his offspring among his people.” Nevertheless, the daughter of his ḥalala daughter, who is already the third generation, is permitted as a result of the verbal analogy.


בת בנו תישתרי כתיב לא יחלל זרעו מקיש זרעו לו מה הוא בתו פסולה אף בנו בתו פסולה בת בתו תיתסר אם כן גזירה שוה מאי אהני ליה


The Gemara asks: If so, that the granddaughter is permitted as a result of the verbal analogy, the daughter of his son should also be permitted. The Gemara answers: It is written: “He shall not profane his offspring,” by which the Torah links his offspring to him: Just as for him, his daughter is unfit; so too for his son, the son of a High Priest, his daughter is unfit. The Gemara asks: In that case, the daughter of his daughter from an Israelite should be prohibited, just as his own daughter is unfit. The Gemara answers: If so, that his daughter’s daughter is also unfit, of what use is the verbal analogy of: “He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people”? It must teach that his daughter’s daughter is fit.


חלל שנשא בת ישראל בתו פסולה הא תנא ליה רישא בת חלל זכר פסולה מן הכהונה לעולם איידי דתנא רישא ישראל שנשא חללה תנא נמי סיפא חלל שנשא בת ישראל


§ The mishna teaches that if there was a ḥalal who married a Jewish woman, his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara questions this ruling: Wasn’t this already taught in the first clause: The daughter of a male ḥalal is unfit to marry into the priesthood forever? The Gemara answers: Since it taught in the first clause about an Israelite who married a ḥalala, it also taught in the latter clause about a ḥalal who married a Jewish woman, to present the complete ruling.


מתניתין דלא כרבי דוסתאי בן יהודה דתניא רבי דוסתאי בן יהודה אומר כשם שבני ישראל מקוה טהרה לחללות כך בנות ישראל מקוה טהרה לחללים מאי טעמיה דרבי דוסתאי ברבי יהודה אמר קרא לא יחלל זרעו בעמיו בעם אחד הוא דמיחל בשני עממים אינו מיחל


The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says: Just as the sons of Israel are a ritual bath of purity for ḥalalot, i.e., the daughter of a ḥalala who marries an Israelite does not transmit her status of a ḥalala, and their daughters may marry priests, so the daughters of Israel are a ritual bath of purity for ḥalalim, and their daughters may marry priests. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains that the verse states: “He shall not profane his offspring among his people” (Leviticus 21:15), which teaches: It is among one people that he profanes, i.e., the offspring is a ḥalal only when he and his wife are both profaned, i.e., ḥalalim, but among two peoples he does not profane. If the mother is of a different people, i.e., not a ḥalala, the offspring is of unflawed lineage.


תנו רבנן לא יחלל זרעו אין לי אלא זרעו היא עצמה מנין אמרת קל וחומר מה זרעו שלא עבר עבירה מתחלל היא שעברה עבירה אינו דין שמתחללת


The Sages taught: The verse states that a priest may not engage in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him, so that “he shall not profane his offspring.” I have derived only that his offspring resulting from a union with a woman forbidden to him is profaned, i.e., has the status of a ḥalal; from where do I derive that she herself, i.e., the woman who engaged in forbidden intercourse with the priest, is also disqualified from marrying into the priesthood? You can say it is an a fortiori inference: If his offspring, who did not commit a transgression, is profaned, is it not logical that she, who did commit a transgression, is similarly profaned?


הוא עצמו יוכיח שעבר עבירה ואין מתחלל מה להוא שכן אין מתחלל בכל מקום תאמר בהיא שמתחללת בכל מקום


The Gemara responds: He, the priest himself, shall prove otherwise, as he committed a transgression but he is not profaned. Although he may not serve in the Temple while he remains married to her, he regains his status of a fit priest once he divorces her. The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about the priest? He is notable in that he is a male, and in no case is a male priest profaned by engaging in forbidden intercourse. Will you say the same with regard to her, a woman, who is disqualified from marrying a priest in all cases? For example, if she engages in intercourse with a man of flawed lineage, she assumes the status of a zona and is permanently disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.


ואם נפשך לומר אמר קרא לא יחלל זרעו לא יחולל זה שהיה כשר ונתחלל


And if it is your wish to say that this reasoning is faulty, there is a different proof: The verse states: “He shall not profane his offspring,” which means that the priest may not engage in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him so that someone shall not become profaned. The verse is referring to this woman who was at one time fit and then became profaned. In other words, the term profanation does not apply to his offspring, as they were never fit to begin with. Rather, it is referring to the woman with whom he engaged in intercourse, as, since she was initially fit to marry into the priesthood, she can be described as becoming profaned.


מאי אם נפשך לומר וכי תימא איכא למיפרך מה לזרעו שכן יצירתו בעבירה אמר קרא לא יחלל לא יחולל זה שהיה כשר ונתחלל


The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: If it is your wish to say that this reasoning is faulty, in what way is it faulty? The Gemara explains the counterargument: And if you would say that the a fortiori argument can be refuted as follows: What is notable about his offspring? He is notable in that he is formed through a transgression. Since the woman was not formed through a transgression, one cannot derive the halakha pertaining to her from that of the offspring. The Gemara therefore continues that even if one were to state that counterargument, the verse nevertheless states: “He shall not profane his offspring,” which means that the priest may not engage in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him so that someone shall not become profaned. The verse is referring to this woman who was at one time fit and then became profaned.


תנו רבנן איזו היא חללה כל שנולדה מן הפסולים מאי פסולים אילימא פסולים לו הרי מחזיר גרושתו דפסולה לו ובניה כשרים דכתיב תועבה היא היא תועבה ואין בניה תועבים


§ The Sages taught: Who is a ḥalala? The term is referring to any woman born from people of flawed lineage. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of people of flawed lineage? If we say it means she was born from someone unfit for him, i.e., a woman forbidden to this particular man due to a family relationship or for some other reason, isn’t there the case of one who remarries his divorcée after she had been married to someone else in the interim; she is unfit for him, and yet her children are fit. As it is written with regard to this case: “That is an abomination” (Deuteronomy 24:4), and this is interpreted to mean: That marriage is an abomination, but the children of that marriage are not an abomination and are entirely fit.


אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר איזו היא חללה כל שנולדה מן פסול כהונה נולדה אין לא נולדה לא הרי אלמנה וגרושה זונה דלא נולדה וקא הויא חללה


Rav Yehuda says: This is what the Sages are saying: Who is a ḥalala? The term is referring to any woman born from one unfit for the priesthood. The Gemara questions this: This implies that one who was born, yes, she is a ḥalala, but one who was not born from one unfit for the priesthood is not a ḥalala. Aren’t there the cases of a widow, or a divorced woman, or a zona who engaged in intercourse with a priest? They were not born from one who was unfit for the priesthood, and yet such a woman is a ḥalala.


אמר רבה הכי קאמר איזו חללה מוזכרת שלא היה לה שעת הכושר כלל כל שנולדה מן פסול כהונה מאי מוזכרת אמר רב יצחק בר אבין הכי קאמר איזו היא חללה שעיקרה מדברי תורה ואין צריכין לפרש מדברי סופרים כל שנולדה מן פסולי כהונה


Rabba said: This is what the Sages are saying: Who is the ḥalala mentioned that did not have a moment of fitness at all, but was unfit from birth? She is any woman born from one unfit for the priesthood. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: Mentioned? Where was she mentioned? Rav Yitzḥak bar Avin said: This is what the Sages are saying: Who is the ḥalala whose prohibition is rooted in the words of a verse in the Torah, and it is not necessary to clarify her prohibition further by the words of the Sages? She is any woman born from one unfit for the priesthood. With regard to such a woman the verse explicitly states: “He shall not profane his offspring.” By contrast, the halakha that a woman who engages in forbidden intercourse with a priest becomes a ḥalala is not explicit in the Torah, but is learned through an exposition of the Sages.


תנו רבנן אלמנה אלמנה אלמנה אינו חייב אלא אחת גרושה גרושה גרושה אינו חייב אלא אחת


§ The Sages taught: If a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with a widow, a widow, a widow, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. Similarly, if a priest engages in intercourse with a divorcÊe, a divorcÊe, a divorcÊe, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes.


אלמנה וגרושה וחללה זונה בזמן שהם כסדר חייב על כל אחת ואחת זינתה ונתחללה ונתגרשה ונתארמלה אינו חייב אלא אחת


If a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who was a widow, and then was a divorcÊe, and then was a Ḽalala, and then was a zona, when the changes to her status occurred in that order, that she was first widowed, then remarried and was divorced, and subsequently engaged in intercourse with a priest, thereby becoming a Ḽalala, and then she engaged in intercourse with a gentile or a forbidden relative, thereby becoming a zona, the High Priest is liable to receive lashes for each and every one of these transgressions each time he engages in intercourse with her. By contrast, if she first became a zona by engaging in intercourse with a gentile or a forbidden relative, and then became a Ḽalala by engaging in intercourse with a priest, and subsequently she divorced, remarried, and was widowed, a High Priest who now engages in intercourse with her is liable to receive only one set of lashes.


אמר מר אלמנה אלמנה אלמנה אינו חייב אלא אחת האי אלמנה היכי דמי אילימא שבא על אלמנת ראובן ועל אלמנת שמעון ועל אלמנת לוי אמאי אינו חייב אלא אחת


The Gemara proceeds to clarify this baraita. The Master said in the baraita: If a High Priest engages in intercourse with a widow, a widow, a widow, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this widow? If we say that he engaged in sexual intercourse with three widows: With Reuven’s widow, and with Shimon’s widow, and with Levi’s widow, why is he liable to receive only one set of lashes?


הרי גופין מוחלקים הרי שמות מוחלקים


Aren’t they separate bodies, i.e., three different people? Aren’t they labels [shemot] of separate [muḥlakim] prohibitions, since each one is forbidden in her own right? It is therefore clear that he should receive lashes for each act.


אלא שבא על אלמנה אחת שלש ביאות היכי דמי אי דלא אתרו ביה פשיטא דאינו חייב אלא אחת


Rather, perhaps it means that he engaged in three acts of intercourse with one widow. The Gemara analyzes this possibility: What are the circumstances? If they did not forewarn him between each act, it is obvious that he is liable to receive only one set of lashes, for one must be forewarned in order to be liable to receive lashes, and here he was forewarned only once for the three acts. There would be no need to state this halakha.


אלא דאתרו ביה אכל חדא וחדא אמאי אינו חייב אלא אחת והתנן נזיר שהיה שותה יין כל היום כולו אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה והוא שותה חייב על כל אחת ואחת


Rather, perhaps the case is that they forewarned him for each and every one of his acts of intercourse. But if that were the case, why is he liable to receive only one set of lashes? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nazir 42a): A nazirite who was drinking wine in violation of his naziriteship the entire day is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not drink, do not drink, i.e., he was forewarned several times, and he nevertheless drinks, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every time he was forewarned and proceeded to drink.


לא צריכא שבא על אלמנת ראובן שהיתה אלמנת שמעון שהיתה אלמנת לוי מהו דתימא הרי שמות מוחלקים קא משמע לן גופים מוחלקים בעינן וליכא


The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for a case where he engaged in sexual intercourse one time with Reuven’s widow, who was previously Shimon’s widow, who was previously Levi’s widow. Lest you say they are separate labels of prohibitions and he should be liable to receive three sets of lashes, since she was widowed from three different people, the baraita therefore teaches us that we require separate bodies for him to receive separate punishments, and as that is not the case here, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes.


אלמנה וגרושה וחללה זנה האי תנא מאי קסבר אי קסבר איסור חל על איסור איפכא נמי ואי קסבר אין איסור חל על איסור אפילו כסדר הזה נמי לא


The baraita teaches that if a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who was a widow, and then was a divorcÊe, and then was a Ḽalala, and then was a zona, if the changes to her status occurred in that order he is liable to receive lashes for each of them. The Gemara asks: What does this tanna hold? If he holds that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, i.e., if an item or a person is rendered forbidden by a prohibition then another prohibition can take effect in addition to the first one, the reverse should also be the case, i.e., if she was initially a zona and subsequently became a Ḽalala, the same two prohibitions should apply to her. And if he holds that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, he should likewise not be liable to receive more than one set of lashes even if they occurred in this order.


אמר רבא האי תנא איסור חל על איסור לית ליה איסור מוסיף אית ליה


Rava said: In general, this tanna does not accept the principle that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, but he holds that it does take effect in the case of an expanded prohibition. If the second prohibition adds people to the category of those to whom the item is forbidden, then it takes effect in addition to the previous prohibition, which had a more limited range.


אלמנה אסורה לכהן גדול ושריא לכהן הדיוט הויא לה גרושה מיגו דאיתוסף לה איסורא לגבי כהן הדיוט איתוסף לה איסורא לגבי כהן גדול ועדיין שריא למיכל בתרומה הויא לה חללה מיגו דאיתוסף איסורא למיכל בתרומה איתוסף איסורא לגבי כהן גדול


In this case, a widow is forbidden to a High Priest but is permitted to a common priest. Once she becomes a divorcÊe, since a prohibition has been added to her with regard to a common priest, as a common priest is prohibited from marrying a divorcÊe, the prohibition is also added to her with regard to a High Priest. And at this stage, she is still permitted to partake of teruma if she is the daughter of a priest. When she becomes a Ḽalala by engaging in sexual intercourse with a priest, since a prohibition for her to eat teruma has been added, the prohibition with regard to a Ḽalala is also added with regard to a High Priest who engages in intercourse with her, in addition to the prohibitions of a widow and a divorcÊe. It is only if they occurred in this order that each prohibition adds to the previous one, but not if they happened in the reverse order.


אלא זונה מאי איסור מוסיף אית בה אמר רב חנא בר רב קטינא הואיל ושם זנות פוסל בישראל


Yet, one could ask: But in the case of a zona, what expanded prohibition is there with regard to her? There is no additional prohibition with a zona beyond what is prohibited with regard to a Ḽalala. Rav Ḥana bar Rav Ketina said: Since the label of zenut disqualifies her in Israel, it is viewed as an expanded prohibition. Although a zona as precisely defined in this context, i.e., a woman who engages in sexual intercourse with one who is unfit for her, is prohibited only to priests and does not add any prohibition beyond that of a Ḽalala, the label of a zona in its broader sense, such as a married woman who commits adultery, does disqualify her to an Israelite, namely her husband. Therefore, there is a prohibition with regard to a zona that has a greater scope than the prohibition with regard to a Ḽalala.


תני תנא קמיה דרב ששת כל שהוא ביקח הרי הוא בלא יקח כל שאינו ביקח אינו בלא יקח פרט לכהן גדול שבא על אחותו אלמנה


A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Sheshet: The command addressed to the High Priest states: “A widow, or one divorced, or a ḥalala, or a zona, these shall he not take; but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife” (Leviticus 21:14). Any woman who is included in the mitzva: “Shall he take” is included in the prohibition: “Shall he not take” if she becomes a widow or a divorcée. And any woman who is not included in the mitzva: “Shall he take” is not included in the prohibition: “Shall he not take.” This excludes the case of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with his widowed sister. As his sister, she is forbidden to him even when she is a virgin, so the mitzva: “Shall he take” does not refer to her. Therefore, he does not transgress the prohibition: “Shall he not take” if he engages in intercourse with her after she had been widowed or divorced.


אמר ליה דאמר לך מני רבי שמעון היא דאמר אין איסור חל על איסור דתניא רבי שמעון אומר האוכל נבילה ביום הכפורים פטור דאי רבנן הא אמרי איסור חל על איסור


Rav Sheshet said to him: He who said this to you, in accordance with whose opinion did he teach it? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says as a principle: A prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists. Therefore, his sister, who was already forbidden to him by virtue of being his sister, is not forbidden due to the additional prohibition: “Shall he not take.” As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats an unslaughtered animal carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt from karet for eating on the fast day, since the prohibition against eating an animal carcass applied to it beforehand. As, if you say this baraita follows the opinion of the Rabbis, don’t they say: A prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists?


אפילו תימא רבנן כי אמרי רבנן איסור חל על איסור הני מילי איסור חמור על איסור קל אבל איסור קל על איסור חמור לא חייל


The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as when the Rabbis say that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, that statement applies only when the second prohibition is a more severe prohibition, e.g., eating on Yom Kippur, which takes effect in addition to a light prohibition, in this case, eating an unslaughtered animal carcass. But a light prohibition does not take effect in addition to a severe prohibition. In this case, the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one’s sister, which is punishable by karet, is more severe than that of: “A widow or one divorced, or a ḥalala, or a zona, these shall he not take,” which is punishable by flogging.


איכא דאמרי הא מני רבנן היא דאמרי איסור חל על איסור וכי אמרי רבנן איסור חל על איסור הני מילי איסור חמור על איסור קל אבל איסור קל על איסור חמור לא חייל דאי רבי שמעון השתא איסור חמור על איסור קל לא חייל איסור קל על איסור חמור מיבעיא


There are those who say that Rav Sheshet said to the tanna as follows: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists. And when the Rabbis say that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, that statement applies when the second prohibition is a more severe prohibition, which takes effect in addition to a light prohibition, but a light prohibition does not take effect in addition to a severe prohibition. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, now that he holds that even a severe prohibition does not take effect in addition to a light prohibition, is it necessary to say that a light prohibition does not take effect in addition to a severe prohibition? There would be no novelty in this ruling of the baraita.


מהו דתימא איסור כהונה שאני קא משמע לן


The Gemara rejects this: It is necessary, lest you say that a prohibition involving the priesthood is different. You might say that since there are many stringencies that apply only to priests, then with regard to prohibitions of the priesthood, a second prohibition should take effect in addition to a first one. He therefore teaches us that Rabbi Shimon holds that the second prohibition does not take effect even when it is one addressed to members of the priesthood.


אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי ישראל הבא על אחותו זונה משוי לה חללה משוי לה או לא משוי לה


§ Rav Pappa said to Abaye: In the case of an Israelite who engages in intercourse with his sister, this makes her a zona and she is forbidden to a priest. But does he also make her a Ḽalala so that a priest who engages in intercourse with her is also liable for violating the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a Ḽalala, or perhaps he does not make her a Ḽalala?


מי אמרינן קל וחומר מחייבי לאוין הויא חללה מחייבי כריתות לא כל שכן או דילמא אין חללה אלא מאיסור כהונה אמר ליה אין (איסור) חללה אלא מאיסור כהונה בלבד


The two sides of the question are as follows: Do we say that this is an a fortiori inference: If she becomes a Ḽalala by engaging in sexual intercourse for which she is liable for violating only an ordinary prohibition, should she not all the more so be considered a Ḽalala by engaging in intercourse for which she is liable to be punished by karet? Or perhaps the status of Ḽalala results only from a prohibition addressed specifically to the priesthood? Abaye said to him: A prohibition with regard to a Ḽalala results only from a prohibition addressed specifically to the priesthood and from that alone.


אמר רבא מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן אין חללה אלא מאיסור כהונה דתניא לא יאמר גרושה בכהן גדול ותיתי בקל וחומר מכהן הדיוט ואנא אמינא השתא לכהן הדיוט אסורה לכהן גדול מיבעיא למה נאמרה כשם שחלוקה גרושה מזונה וחללה בכהן הדיוט כך חלוקה בכהן גדול


Rava says: From where is this matter that the Sages state, that a Ḽalala results only from a prohibition addressed specifically to the priesthood, derived? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse need not explicitly state that a divorcÊe is forbidden to a High Priest, and one could derive it by means of an a fortiori inference from the halakha of a common priest. As I can state the following argument: Now that a divorcÊe is forbidden to a common priest, is it necessary to state that she is forbidden to a High Priest? But if it is not necessary to mention it, why is the prohibition with regard to a divorcÊe to a High Priest stated? It is in order to teach the following: Just as the prohibition with regard to a divorcÊe is distinct from that of a zona and a Ḽalala in the case of a common priest, as a divorcÊe is forbidden by a separate prohibition for which he is liable to be flogged, so too, the prohibition with regard to a divorcÊe is distinct in the case of a High Priest, and he will be liable to receive lashes for a separate prohibition if she was a Ḽalala as well.


פשיטא מיגרע גרעה אלא כשם שחלוקה גרושה מזונה וחללה בכהן הדיוט כך אלמנה חלוקה מגרושה וחללה זונה בכהן גדול


The Gemara questions this statement: This is obvious; is the status of a High Priest any lower than that of a common priest? Since this halakha applied to him when he was a common priest, it certainly applies to him when he becomes a High Priest. His restrictions as a priest are not lessened when he becomes a High Priest. Rather, teach as follows: Just as the prohibition with regard to a divorcÊe is distinct from that of a zona and a Ḽalala in the case of a common priest, since he is liable to receive lashes for each of the prohibitions, so too, a widow is distinct from a divorcÊe, and a Ḽalala, and a zona in the case of a High Priest, and he is liable to receive lashes for each prohibition, despite the fact that they are stated in the same verse (see Leviticus 21:14).


חללה למה נאמרה אין חללה אלא מאיסור כהונה זונה למה נאמרה נאמר כאן זונה ונאמר להלן זונה מה כאן זרעו חולין אף להלן זרעו חולין


The baraita further asks: Why is the prohibition with regard to a ḥalala stated with regard to a High Priest, as she is forbidden to him even when he is a common priest? This repetition serves to teach that a ḥalala results only from a prohibition addressed specifically to the priesthood. Why is the prohibition with regard to a zona stated with regard to a High Priest, as she is forbidden to him even when he is a common priest? It is stated here: “Zona” (Leviticus 21:14), with regard to a High Priest, and it is stated there: “Zona” (Leviticus 21:7), with regard to a common priest. Just as here, in the case of a High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a zona, his offspring are profaned, in accordance with the verse: “And he shall not profane his offspring” (Leviticus 21:15), so too there, in the case of a common priest who engages in intercourse with a zona, his offspring are profaned.


אמר רב אשי הילכך כהן הבא על אחותו


Rav Ashi says: Consequently, a priest who engages in intercourse with his sister


Scroll To Top