Kiddushin 77a — the Talmud in English

The Mishna before us deals with two matters involving disqualification from marrying into the priesthood because of lineage:

The first disqualification concerns a male priest who is a ḥalal, or the daughter of a priest who is a ḥalala. Their disqualification as ḥalalim results from their family lineage connecting them to ḥalalim.

The second disqualification concerns the lineage of children of converts in relation to their parents: when are they fit or unfit to marry into the priesthood because of their lineage from parents who converted? [For a female convert is unfit to marry into the priesthood.]

The disqualification of a ḥalal or ḥalala can arise in four ways:

a. When the ḥalal or ḥalala was conceived through a forbidden intercourse: the father, who was a priest, had intercourse with a woman unfit to marry into the priesthood [such as a divorced woman, a woman who engaged in illicit relations, or a ḥalala], thereby profaning the woman [if she was divorced or had engaged in illicit relations] and also profaning her offspring.

b. When the ḥalal or ḥalala is related by

family lineage to a ḥalal [or ḥalala].

c. When a woman fit to marry into the priesthood [even if she is an Israelite] has intercourse with a ḥalal.

d. When a woman who was unfit to marry into the priesthood [such as a divorced woman] has intercourse with a priest, she becomes a ḥalala.

In the last two cases, if the woman was the daughter of a priest, she becomes disqualified from eating teruma and from marrying a priest. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she is forbidden to marry a priest because of the status of a ḥalala.

The subject of our Mishna is only the disqualification of ḥalal status resulting from family lineage to a ḥalal, and not the disqualification of ḥalal status resulting from forbidden intercourse, or from a disqualification created through forbidden intercourse.

Mishna:

a.

The daughter

of a priest who is a

male ḥalal

is also

disqualified from the priesthood

like her father, because of her lineage from him; she is therefore a priest’s daughter who is a ḥalala [even though she was not born through intercourse forbidden to the priesthood, since women who are fit to marry into the priesthood were not warned against marrying a ḥalal].

She is forbidden to eat teruma and to marry a priest, because the disqualification of ḥalal status is transmitted to her from her father.

This disqualification of ḥalal status continues

forever.

That is, even the daughter of the son of a ḥalal is a ḥalala, as is the daughter of his grandson, and so on forever.

b.

An Israelite who married a ḥalala: his daughter

born to him from her

is fit to marry into the priesthood

for two reasons.

First, the disqualification of ḥalal status is not transmitted from the mother to the daughter, because the daughter is related by lineage to her father, and her father is a fit Israelite. Therefore, she too is a fit Israelite.

Second, a family-based disqualification of ḥalal status is possible only within a priestly family, not within an Israelite family, and the daughter belongs to an Israelite family.

c. But a priest who is a

male ḥalal and married an Israelite woman: his daughter is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

Since the daughter of a ḥalal is a ḥalala like her father, because she is related by lineage to him, she is the daughter of a priest who is a ḥalala, since she belongs to a priestly family [her mother also acquires ḥalala status because she had intercourse with a ḥalal, but the daughter’s disqualification results not from her mother, but from her lineage to her father].

This is the same law taught at the beginning of our Mishna. The Gemara will explain why the tanna, a sage of the Mishnaic era, repeated it here.

The Mishna now explains the second part, concerning the disqualification based on the lineage of converts with regard to marrying into the priesthood. It presents a dispute among three tannaim, sages of the Mishnaic era, concerning the lineage of children of converts from their parents and their fitness to marry into the priesthood:

The female convert herself is forbidden to marry into the priesthood because of the status of a woman who engaged in illicit relations, whereas a male convert is permitted to marry a priest’s daughter. The issue in the Mishna concerns daughters’ fitness to marry a priest: does their lineage from converts prevent them from marrying into the priesthood or not?

a.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter

of a

male convert,

even if he was married to an Israelite woman, is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood,

like

him,

the daughter

of a

male ḥalal.

His reason will be explained in the Gemara: he derived this disqualification from a verse, but this is not a true disqualification of ḥalal status.

Specifically, the daughter of a male convert is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. But the daughter of a female convert whose father is an Israelite is fit to marry into the priesthood, because she is related by lineage to her father, who is a fully qualified Israelite.

b.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: If an Israelite married a female convert, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood.

Regarding this law, he agrees with Rabbi Yehuda.

And

however, according to his view, even

if a male convert married an Israelite woman, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood.

In this respect he disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda, who disqualifies a daughter whose father is a convert.

But if a male convert married a female convert, his daughter is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

For in order to qualify a woman to marry into the priesthood, she must have some Israelite ancestry [either through her father or through her mother]. But if, on both sides, her lineage is exclusively from converts, she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. As stated, however, this is not a disqualification based on ḥalal status, but a novel legal ruling resulting from lineage to converts.

What is meant by “convert” in this matter?

Both a convert and an emancipated slave.

And

even up to ten generations,

if a convert who was the son of a convert, who was the son of a convert—even through the tenth generation or beyond—married a female convert, he is considered a convert; the same applies to emancipated slaves [and the daughter will be disqualified from marrying into the priesthood],

until her mother

or her father

is an Israelite.

That is, if a male convert married an Israelite woman, or if a female convert married an Israelite man, their daughter is permitted to marry into the priesthood.

c.

Rabbi Yose says: Even if a male convert married a female convert, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The daughter of a male ḥalal is disqualified from the priesthood forever.

The Gemara raises the question:

What is meant by

“forever”?

What does the Mishna intend to teach by stating that the disqualification is forever? Is it not obvious that the daughter of his son and the daughter of his grandson are also disqualified? For the son of a ḥalal is like a ḥalal in every respect, since he is related by lineage to his father, and his daughter is also the daughter of a ḥalal, since she is related by lineage to her father. Thus, they retain this family disqualification forever. What novelty is there in transmitting the disqualification of lineage from one generation to the next?!

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say—

perhaps the disqualification of ḥalal status should not continue to the grandson,

as is the case

with the law concerning

a

Egyptian or Edomite

who converted:

Just as

в

below, [in the case of an Egyptian or Edomite],

in the case of an Egyptian and an Edomite—

after three generations

of conversion, he becomes fit to enter the assembly,

so too here,

in the case of ḥalal status,

after three generations

the disqualification of ḥalal status should cease—

the tanna teaches us

in our Mishna that the disqualification of ḥalal status is transmitted from father to son forever, and that the daughter of the son and the daughter of the grandson are forever disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

We learned in the Mishna:

If an Israelite married a ḥalala,

his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood.

The Gemara raises the question:

From where are these matters derived?

From where did we learn that a daughter born to an Israelite who married a ḥalala is not disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, because she is not related by lineage to her mother, the ḥalala, but to her Israelite father, unlike the daughter of a ḥalal, who is related by lineage to her father and is therefore a ḥalala?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

We learned this through a conclusion based on an identical expression:

It is stated here,

concerning the ḥalal disqualification of a High Priest who had intercourse with a widow [Leviticus 21:15],

“And he shall not profane his offspring among his people,”

meaning that his offspring becomes profaned with regard to the priesthood.

And it is stated there,

concerning the impurity of priests through contact with the dead [ibid., 4],

“He shall not defile himself as a husband among his people”

to profane him.

Just as there,

with regard to impurity through contact with the dead, only male

priests

are included in the passage concerning impurity from the dead,

and not females,

for they were not warned by this prohibition—

so too here,

with regard to ḥalal disqualification, only male

priests

become profaned because of their lineage from their father who is a ḥalal,

and not females,

who are not disqualified because of their lineage [from their ḥalala mothers].

The Gemara challenges this:

If so,

since you said [based on the conclusion from the identical expression between ḥalal status and the impurity of priests] that females are not disqualified because the passage concerning ḥalal status deals with males and not females, just as the passage concerning the impurity of priests does—

then we should derive another lesson from this same conclusion, that even

the daughter of a High Priest

born to him from a widow

should be permitted [

permitted] to marry into the priesthood, since we learned from the identical expression that the passage concerning ḥalal status applies only to males and not females.

The Gemara answers:

Is it—

is it

written

that a High Priest who had intercourse with a widow “shall not profane

his son”?

After all,

“his offspring”

is written

concerning him!

For it is stated there: “And

he shall not profane his offspring among his people.”

The word “offspring” indicates that he also profanes his daughter.

However, the conclusion based on the identical expression teaches us that specifically the daughter of the High Priest who had intercourse with the widow becomes profaned, but not his granddaughter, since she is not his “offspring” but the “offspring of his offspring.” If his daughter married an Israelite, her daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood, even though the daughter herself is a ḥalala.

But the Gemara asks: If so, since you derived from the identical expression that his granddaughter is permitted because the verse says only “his offspring,” and not the offspring of his offspring, then even

his grandson’s daughter should be permitted [

permitted] to marry into the priesthood, just as we declared his granddaughter fit. We should say that the disqualification expressed by “his offspring” applies only to his son and daughter themselves, but not to their offspring.

The Gemara answers:

It is written:

“He shall not profane his offspring.”

“His offspring” means his own offspring. Thus, that one word includes both him and his offspring.

The verse compares

the

offspring

of the High Priest who had intercourse with a widow

to him,

the High Priest himself—

Just as he,

himself,

his daughter is disqualified

from marrying into the priesthood,

so too his son’s daughter is disqualified

from marrying into the priesthood.

The Gemara challenges again: If so, based on this comparison, even

his granddaughter

who is a ḥalala

should be forbidden

to marry into the priesthood, just as his own daughter is disqualified. For his law and the law of his offspring were compared to one another?!

The Gemara answers:

If so, what purpose does

эта

the conclusion based on an identical expression

that we derived from the impurity of priests, which applies only to males,

serve?

It must necessarily come to exclude his granddaughter. Therefore, the comparison adds a disqualification only for his grandson’s daughter.

We learned in the Mishna:

If a ḥalal married an Israelite woman, his daughter is disqualified.

The Gemara raises the question:

This

has already

been taught

in the

first clause

of our Mishna:

The daughter of a male ḥalal is disqualified from the priesthood forever.

Why did the tanna repeat this law in the latter clause as well?

The Gemara answers:

Since,

because

the tanna

in the

first clause

«

“An Israelite who married a ḥalala

—his daughter is fit,” he also

taught as well

in the

latter clause:

“A ḥalal who married an Israelite woman

—his daughter is disqualified.”

The Gemara now explains:

The Mishna,

our Mishna, which disqualifies the daughter of a ḥalal who married an Israelite woman, is

not in accordance with Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says: Just as the sons of Israel

are

a source of purification for ḥalal status—

for a ḥalala who married an Israelite has a daughter fit to marry into the priesthood—

so too the daughters of Israel

are

a source of purification for ḥalal status.

According to his view, the daughter of a ḥalal born to him from a fit Israelite woman returns to being fit to marry into the priesthood.

According to his view, only when a ḥalal marries a ḥalala is their daughter disqualified.

The Gemara raises the question:

What is the reason of Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda?

The Gemara answers: It is because

the verse says:

“He shall not profane his offspring among his people.”

Since it does not say “among his peoples,” but rather “among his people,” this indicates that specifically

if

he and his wife are from

one

people—

meaning that both are ḥalalim—

he profanes

his offspring.

However

if

they are from

two peoples

—he being a ḥalal and she being fit—

he does not disqualify

his offspring.

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning a High Priest who marries a widow: “

He shall not disqualify his offspring.”

I have only

to learn from here

that

the

offspring

born from her is disqualified.

This one,

who

[the widow]

herself

becomes a ḥalala through his intercourse with her, and from now on is also forbidden to an ordinary priest by the law of a ḥalala—

from where?

You have said a kal va-chomer: What is the case with his offspring

of the High Priest,

who did not transgress a prohibition

—yet it

becomes disqualified

; she

, his wife,

who transgressed a prohibition

in this marriage,

is it not logical that

she

becomes disqualified! [

For just as a High Priest is warned concerning a widow, so she is warned not to marry him. And likewise with all women disqualified from the priesthood. And we expound this from the fact that “they shall not take” is written in the plural, to warn the woman concerning the man.]

And perhaps you will say that the kal va-chomer can be refuted:

He

—the High Priest—

himself proves it; for

although

he transgressed a prohibition

through his intercourse with a widow,

and

nevertheless

he is not

he

disqualified

from his priesthood; and if so, she too should not become disqualified, even though she transgressed a prohibition.

Your answer is:

What is the case with him

[the High Priest]? It is the law that he does not become disqualified through prohibited intercourse,

since he is not

disqualified anywhere

—for we do not find anywhere that a priest becomes disqualified from his priesthood by Torah law.

You may say concerning her

[the widow], that she becomes disqualified through intercourse with a High Priest, because

we

find that a woman who has been possessed

becomes disqualified anywhere.

For if one of those disqualified from the community has intercourse with a woman, he disqualifies her from the priesthood through his intercourse with her, as it is written: “But the daughter of a priest, when she shall be [married] to a strange man, she shall not eat of the sacred food.” And we expound: once she has had intercourse with one disqualified for her, he disqualifies her from her priesthood.

And if you wish to say

that this kal va-chomer can be refuted [for the reason that will be explained below in the Gemara], it is still possible to prove this law [that even the widow becomes disqualified] from what

the verse says

“He shall not disqualify his offspring.”

And it implies:

He shall not cause to become disqualified one who was fit and became disqualified

. For the expression “disqualification” implies that the person was previously fit, and now became disqualified. And this law applies more to the woman than to the offspring, for the offspring was never fit, whereas the woman was fit and became disqualified. Therefore, the principal application of the verse must be established as referring to the disqualification of the woman.

And now the Gemara explains what is stated in the beraita:

What

“and if you wish to say”

? For what reason might it enter our minds not to learn the woman’s disqualification by a kal va-chomer from the offspring?

And we explain:

And should you say

, for perhaps you will say:

There is room to refute it: What is the case with the offspring? Its formation was through a transgression

, and therefore it becomes disqualified. That is not so with the woman, whose formation was not through a transgression, and she should not become disqualified merely through an act of intercourse performed with her.

Therefore

the verse says: “

He shall not disqualify”—

he shall not cause to become disqualified

one who was fit

[like the woman]

and became disqualified

now through the act of intercourse.

The Sages taught: Who is a ḥalala?—

Anyone who was born from disqualified women.

And we inquire concerning it:

What

—who are the

“disqualified”?

If you say,

if it is said that anyone born to a man from

disqualified women

[women forbidden]

to him

by a prohibition, even if he is an Israelite, this cannot be explained in this manner.

For

behold,

an Israelite who

takes back his divorced wife

after she married another man,

for

she is

forbidden to him

, and nevertheless

his sons

[daughters]

are fit

for the priesthood.

For

behold,

it is written

concerning one who takes back his divorced wife: “

She is an abomination.”

And we expound: only

she

[the divorced woman who married another] is

an abomination, but her sons are not abominations

[with regard to the priesthood].

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it says: Who is a ḥalala?—

Anyone who was born from a priesthood disqualification

. That is, she was born to her priest father from a woman forbidden to him by a priesthood prohibition, such as a divorced woman, a prostitute, or a ḥalala.

And we object: Is it specifically

“was born”—yes

—she becomes disqualified, but if she

was not born

in disqualification, she

does not

become disqualified?!

But

a widow

to a High Priest,

a divorced woman

and

a prostitute

to an ordinary priest—

for

even though she

was not born

in disqualification,

and

nevertheless, if the priest has intercourse with her in violation of the prohibition,

she thereby becomes a ḥalala!

That is, in addition to the prohibitions already stated concerning her, the prohibition of a ḥalala is now added to her through this intercourse, as brought above.

Rabba said: This is what it says: Who is the

one

ḥalala

that is

mentioned

[as the Gemara will explain below],

who never had any period of fitness at all

, and is a ḥalala from the time of her birth?—

Anyone who was born from a priesthood disqualification

. Unlike a widow to a High Priest, who is not a ḥalala from the beginning of her existence, but only from the time she has intercourse with him.

And we inquire concerning it:

What

—who is the “ḥalala that is

mentioned”?

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avin said: This is what it says: Who is the ḥalala whose essence is

[explicitly stated]

in the words of the Torah, and whose law does not need to be explained

and learned from

the words of the Sages?—

Anyone who was born from women disqualified from the priesthood

. That is, when the Torah says “ḥalala,” the plain meaning of the verse refers to her, as the verse says: “And he shall not disqualify his offspring.”

But the fact that a widow to a High Priest becomes disqualified through his intercourse with her is not from the plain meaning of the verse, but from the exposition stated above.

The Sages taught: A High Priest who transgresses three prohibitions of “

widow,

widow, widow” [as the Gemara will explain what this refers to],

is liable only for

lashes

one

.

And any priest, even an ordinary one, who transgresses three prohibitions of “

divorced woman, divorced woman, divorced woman,”

is liable only for

lashes

one

.

But if he transgressed all four prohibitions, “

widow, and divorced woman, and ḥalala, prostitute”—

when they

[the stated prohibitions] took effect upon her

in the order

—he is liable

for lashes

for each and every one

of the transgressions that he committed.

But if first she

committed adultery, and

afterward

became a ḥalala, and

afterward

became divorced, and

afterward

became widowed,

and he had intercourse with her,

he is liable only for

lashes

one.

The reason will be explained below.

The Master said: “Widow, widow, widow—he is liable only for one.”

And we inquire concerning it:

This

threefold “

widow,”

what are the circumstances

—how is it referring?

If you say, that he had intercourse

—the High Priest—with three separate widows:

with Reuben’s widow, with Simeon’s widow, and with Levi’s widow, why is he liable only for

lashes

one?