Kiddushin 77
מַתְנִי׳ בַּת חָלָל זָכָר – פְּסוּלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה לְעוֹלָם. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֲלָלָה – בִּתּוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה לַכְּהוּנָּה. חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל – בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה לַכְּהוּנָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּת גֵּר זָכָר כְּבַת חָלָל זָכָר.
MISHNA: The daughter of a male ḥalal is unfit to marry into the priesthood forever. In other words, all daughters of male descendants of a ḥalal are prohibited from marrying priests, as they have the status of ḥalalot. If there was an Israelite who married a ḥalala, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood, whereas if there was a ḥalal 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 ḥalal, and she is also prohibited from marrying into the priesthood.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיּוֹרֶת – בִּתּוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה לַכְּהוּנָּה, וְגֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל – בִּתּוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה לַכְּהוּנָּה, אֲבָל גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיּוֹרֶת – בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה לַכְּהוּנָּה. אֶחָד גֵּר וְאֶחָד עֲבָדִים מְשׁוּחְרָרִים אֲפִילּוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה דּוֹרוֹת, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיּוֹרֶת בִּתּוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה לַכְּהוּנָּה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי לְעוֹלָם? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִידֵּי דַּהֲוָה אַמִּצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי, מָה לְהַלָּן לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת, אַף כָּאן נָמֵי לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
GEMARA: What is the meaning of the statement that the daughter of a ḥalal 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 ḥalal should also be allowed to marry into the priesthood after three generations. The mishna therefore teaches us that this prohibition is permanent.
יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֲלָלָה. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן: ״וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: ״לֹא יִטַּמָּא בַּעַל בְּעַמָּיו״. מָה לְהַלָּן זְכָרִים וְלֹא נְקֵבוֹת, אַף כָּאן זְכָרִים וְלֹא נְקֵבוֹת.
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.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל תִּישְׁתְּרֵי! מִי כְּתִיב בְּנוֹ? ״זַרְעוֹ״ כְּתִיב, ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״.
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.
בַּת בְּנוֹ תִּישְׁתְּרֵי! כְּתִיב ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״, מַקִּישׁ זַרְעוֹ לוֹ, מָה הוּא – בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה, אַף בְּנוֹ – בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה. בַּת בִּתּוֹ תִּיתְּסַר! אִם כֵּן, גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?
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.
חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל – בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא: ״בַּת חָלָל זָכָר פְּסוּלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה לְעוֹלָם״! אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֲלָלָה, תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל.
§ 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.
מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בֶּן יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִקְוֵה טׇהֳרָה לַחֲלָלוֹת, כָּךְ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִקְוֵה טׇהֳרָה לַחֲלָלִים. מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״ – בְּעִם אֶחָד הוּא דְּמֵיחֵל, בִּשְׁנֵי עֲמָמִים אֵינוֹ מֵיחֵל.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זַרְעוֹ, הִיא עַצְמָהּ, מִנַּיִן? אָמַרְתָּ: קַל וָחוֹמֶר, מָה זַרְעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר עֲבֵירָה – מִתְחַלֵּל, הִיא שֶׁעָבְרָה עֲבֵירָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמִּתְחַלֶּלֶת?
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?
הוּא, עַצְמוֹ יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵירָה וְאֵין מִתְחַלֵּל! מָה לְהוּא, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין מִתְחַלֵּל בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, תֹּאמַר בְּהִיא, שֶׁמִּתְחַלֶּלֶת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם.
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.
וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר: אָמַר קְרָא ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״ – לֹא יְחוּלַּל, זֶה שֶׁהָיָה כָּשֵׁר וְנִתְחַלֵּל.
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.
מַאי ״אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְזַרְעוֹ – שֶׁכֵּן יְצִירָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל״, לֹא יְחוֹלֵל – זֶה שֶׁהָיָה כָּשֵׁר וְנִתְחַלֵּל.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזוֹ הִיא חֲלָלָה – כֹּל שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה מִן הַפְּסוּלִים. מַאי ״פְּסוּלִים״? אִילֵימָא פְּסוּלִים לוֹ, הֲרֵי מַחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ דִּפְסוּלָה לוֹ וּבָנֶיהָ כְּשֵׁרִים, דִּכְתִיב ״תּוֹעֵבָה הִיא״ – הִיא תּוֹעֵבָה, וְאֵין בָּנֶיהָ תּוֹעֲבִים!
§ 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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵיזוֹ הִיא חֲלָלָה – כֹּל שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה מִן פְּסוּל כְּהוּנָּה. נוֹלְדָה – אִין, לֹא נוֹלְדָה – לָא? הֲרֵי אַלְמָנָה, וּגְרוּשָׁה, זוֹנָה, דְּלֹא נוֹלְדָה, וְקָא הָוְיָא חֲלָלָה!
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.
אָמַר רַבָּה: הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵיזוֹ חֲלָלָה מוּזְכֶּרֶת שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר כְּלָל? כֹּל שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה מִן פְּסוּל כְּהוּנָּה. מַאי ״מוּזְכֶּרֶת״? אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אָבִין: הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵיזוֹ הִיא חֲלָלָה שֶׁעִיקָּרָהּ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וְאֵין צְרִיכִין לְפָרֵשׁ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים – כֹּל שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה מִן פְּסוּלֵי כְּהוּנָּה.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַלְמָנָה אַלְמָנָה אַלְמָנָה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. גְּרוּשָׁה גְּרוּשָׁה גְּרוּשָׁה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.
§ 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 divorcée, a divorcée, a divorcée, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes.
אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה זוֹנָה, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם כַּסֵּדֶר – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. זִינְּתָה וְנִתְחַלְּלָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה וְנִתְאַרְמְלָה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.
If a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who was a widow, and then was a divorcée, and then was a ḥalala, 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 ḥalala, 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 ḥalala 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.
אָמַר מָר: אַלְמָנָה אַלְמָנָה אַלְמָנָה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. הַאי אַלְמָנָה הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא שֶׁבָּא עַל אַלְמְנַת רְאוּבֵן וְעַל אַלְמְנַת שִׁמְעוֹן וְעַל אַלְמְנַת לֵוִי, אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת?
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?
הֲרֵי גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִים, הֲרֵי שֵׁמוֹת מוּחְלָקִים!
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.
אֶלָּא שֶׁבָּא עַל אַלְמָנָה אַחַת שָׁלֹשׁ בִּיאוֹת. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ – פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.
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.
אֶלָּא דְּאַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ אַכֹּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא – אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת? וְהָתְנַן: נָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה״ ״אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה״ וְהוּא שׁוֹתֶה – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת!
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.
לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁבָּא עַל אַלְמְנַת רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיְתָה אַלְמְנַת שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה אַלְמְנַת לֵוִי. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא הֲרֵי שֵׁמוֹת מוּחְלָקִים – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן גּוּפִים מוּחְלָקִים בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא.
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.
״אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה זֹנָה״. הַאי תַּנָּא מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר – אִיפְּכָא נָמֵי! וְאִי קָסָבַר אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר – אֲפִילּוּ כַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה נָמֵי לָא!
The baraita teaches that if a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who was a widow, and then was a divorcée, and then was a ḥalala, 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 ḥalala, 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.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי תַּנָּא אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר לֵית לֵיהּ, אִיסּוּר מוֹסִיף אִית לֵיהּ.
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.
אַלְמָנָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְשַׁרְיָא לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. הָוְיָא לַהּ גְּרוּשָׁה, מִיגּוֹ דְּאִיתּוֹסַף לַהּ אִיסּוּרָא לְגַבֵּי כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט – אִיתּוֹסַף לַהּ אִיסּוּרָא לְגַבֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וַעֲדַיִין שַׁרְיָא לְמֵיכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. הָוְיָא לַהּ חֲלָלָה, מִיגּוֹ דְּאִיתּוֹסַף אִיסּוּרָא לְמֵיכַל בִּתְרוּמָה – אִיתּוֹסַף אִיסּוּרָא לְגַבֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל.
In this case, a widow is forbidden to a High Priest but is permitted to a common priest. Once she becomes a divorcée, since a prohibition has been added to her with regard to a common priest, as a common priest is prohibited from marrying a divorcée, 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 ḥalala 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 ḥalala 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 divorcée. 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.
אֶלָּא זוֹנָה – מַאי אִיסּוּר מוֹסִיף אִית בַּהּ? אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא: הוֹאִיל וְשֵׁם זְנוּת פּוֹסֵל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
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 ḥalala. 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 ḥalala, 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 ḥalala.
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא בְּ״יִקָּח״, הֲרֵי הוּא בְּ״לֹא יִקָּח״. כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּ״יִקָּח״ אֵינוֹ בְּ״לֹא יִקָּח״ – פְּרָט לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ אַלְמָנָה.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דַּאֲמַר לָךְ, מַנִּי – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹכֵל נְבֵילָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – פָּטוּר. דְּאִי רַבָּנַן, הָא אָמְרִי: אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר.
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?
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כִּי אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר – הָנֵי מִילֵּי אִיסּוּר חָמוּר עַל אִיסּוּר קַל, אֲבָל אִיסּוּר קַל עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר – לָא חָיֵיל.
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.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הָא מַנִּי – רַבָּנַן הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, וְכִי אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, הָנֵי מִילֵּי אִיסּוּר חָמוּר עַל אִיסּוּר קַל, אֲבָל אִיסּוּר קַל עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר – לָא חָיֵיל. דְּאִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַשְׁתָּא אִיסּוּר חָמוּר עַל אִיסּוּר קַל לָא חָיֵיל, אִיסּוּר קַל עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר מִיבַּעְיָא?
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.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִיסּוּר כְּהוּנָּה שָׁאנֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ – זוֹנָה מְשַׁוֵּי לַהּ. חֲלָלָה, מְשַׁוֵּי לַהּ אוֹ לָא מְשַׁוֵּי לַהּ?
§ 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 ḥalala so that a priest who engages in intercourse with her is also liable for violating the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a ḥalala, or perhaps he does not make her a ḥalala?
מִי אָמְרִינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר: מֵחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין הָוְיָא חֲלָלָה, מֵחַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אוֹ דִילְמָא אֵין חֲלָלָה אֶלָּא מֵאִיסּוּר כְּהוּנָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין (אִיסּוּר) חֲלָלָה אֶלָּא מֵאִיסּוּר כְּהוּנָּה בִּלְבַד.
The two sides of the question are as follows: Do we say that this is an a fortiori inference: If she becomes a ḥalala 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 ḥalala by engaging in intercourse for which she is liable to be punished by karet? Or perhaps the status of ḥalala results only from a prohibition addressed specifically to the priesthood? Abaye said to him: A prohibition with regard to a ḥalala results only from a prohibition addressed specifically to the priesthood and from that alone.
אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא הָא מִילְּתָא דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן ״אֵין חֲלָלָה אֶלָּא מֵאִיסּוּר כְּהוּנָּה״? דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יֵאָמֵר גְּרוּשָׁה בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְתֵיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִכֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: הַשְׁתָּא לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט אֲסוּרָה, לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל מִיבַּעְיָא? לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחֲלוּקָה גְּרוּשָׁה מִזּוֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה בְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, כָּךְ חֲלוּקָה בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל.
Rava says: From where is this matter that the Sages state, that a ḥalala 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 divorcée 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 divorcée 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 divorcée to a High Priest stated? It is in order to teach the following: Just as the prohibition with regard to a divorcée is distinct from that of a zona and a ḥalala in the case of a common priest, as a divorcée is forbidden by a separate prohibition for which he is liable to be flogged, so too, the prohibition with regard to a divorcée 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 ḥalala as well.
פְּשִׁיטָא, מִיגְרָע גָּרְעָה? אֶלָּא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחֲלוּקָה גְּרוּשָׁה מִזּוֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה בְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט – כָּךְ אַלְמָנָה חֲלוּקָה מִגְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה זוֹנָה בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל.
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 divorcée is distinct from that of a zona and a ḥalala 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 divorcée, and a ḥalala, 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).
חֲלָלָה לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה? אֵין חֲלָלָה אֶלָּא מֵאִיסּוּר כְּהוּנָּה. זוֹנָה לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״זוֹנָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״זוֹנָה״, מָה כָּאן זַרְעוֹ חוּלִּין, אַף לְהַלָּן זַרְעוֹ חוּלִּין.
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.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הִילְכָּךְ, כֹּהֵן הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ
Rav Ashi says: Consequently, a priest who engages in intercourse with his sister
