Kiddushin 77a (עז.) — the Talmud in English

Our Mishna discusses two matters involving disqualification from the priesthood on account of lineage:

The first disqualification concerns a male chalal or the daughter of a kohen who is a female chalala, whose disqualification as chalalim derives from their lineage to chalalim.

The second disqualification concerns the lineage of the children of converts to their parents: when are they fit or disqualified to marry into the priesthood on account of their lineage to parents who converted? This is because a female convert is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

The disqualification of a chalal or chalala can arise in four ways:

a. When the chalal or chalala was conceived through a forbidden union: the father, who was a kohen, had relations with a woman disqualified from marrying into the priesthood—such as a divorcee, a zona, or a chalala—thereby making the woman a chalala if she had been a divorcee or zona, and also making his offspring chalalim.

b. When the chalal or chalala is considered to have

family lineage to a chalal or chalala.

c. When a woman fit to marry into the priesthood—even a Jewish woman—is intimate with a chalal.

d. When a woman who was disqualified from marrying into the priesthood—such as a divorcee—has relations with a kohen, she becomes a chalala.

In the latter two cases, if the woman was the daughter of a kohen, she becomes disqualified from teruma and from marrying a kohen. If she was the daughter of an ordinary Israelite, she is forbidden to marry a kohen by virtue of the law of a chalala.

The discussion in our Mishna concerns only disqualification as a chalal resulting from family lineage to a chalal, and not disqualification as a chalal resulting from a forbidden union or from a disqualification created through a forbidden act of intercourse.

Mishna:

.

A daughter

of a kohen who is a

male chalal,

she too is

disqualified from the priesthood,

like her father, on account of her lineage to him; she is therefore a female chalala, even though she was not born from a union forbidden to the priesthood, since fit women were not warned against marrying a chalal.

She is forbidden to eat teruma and to marry a kohen, because the disqualification of chalalut extends to her from her father.

This disqualification of ḥalal status continues

And this disqualification of chalalut continues

. That is, even the daughter of the chalal’s son is also a chalala, and likewise the daughter of his grandson, and so on forever.

.

If an Israelite married a chalala, his daughter

born to him from her is

fit for the priesthood

for two reasons.

The first is that the disqualification of chalalut does not extend from the mother to the daughter, because the daughter is affiliated with her father, and her father is a fit Israelite; therefore, she too is a fit Israelite.

The second is that disqualification through “chalalut lineage” can exist only within a priestly family, and not within an Israelite family; the daughter belongs to an Israelite family.

But a kohen who is a

chalal and married a Jewish woman—his daughter is disqualified from the priesthood.

This is because the daughter of the chalal is a chalala like her father, since she is affiliated with her father; she is the daughter of a chalal who is a kohen, because she belongs to a priestly family. Her mother also becomes a chalala, since she had relations with a chalal, but the daughter’s disqualification is not on account of her mother; it is on account of her lineage to her father.

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

The Mishna now explains the second part, concerning disqualification from the priesthood due to the lineage of converts, and reports that three tannaim disputed the law governing the lineage of the children of converts to their parents, with regard to their fitness for the priesthood:

A female convert herself is forbidden to marry into the priesthood by the law of a zona, whereas a male convert is permitted to marry a daughter of a kohen. The issue in the Mishna concerns the fitness of the daughters to marry a kohen: does their lineage to converts prevent them from marrying into the priesthood or not?

.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter

of a

male convert,

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

just like a

him,

daughter

of a

male chalal.

His reason will be explained in the Gemara: he derives this disqualification from a verse, but it is not an actual disqualification of chalalut.

Specifically, the daughter of a male convert is disqualified from the priesthood. But the daughter of a female convert whose father is an Israelite is fit for the priesthood, because she is affiliated with her father, who is a full-fledged Israelite.

.

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

With regard to this law, he agrees with Rabbi Yehuda.

And

However, in his opinion, even a

convert who married a Jewish woman—his daughter is fit for the priesthood.

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

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

For a woman to be fit for the priesthood, she must have some Israelite ancestry, whether through her father or through her mother. But if on both sides she is traced exclusively to converts, she is disqualified from the priesthood. As stated, however, this is not a disqualification under the law of chalalut, but a novel halakhic ruling resulting from lineage to a convert.

What is meant by “convert” in this context?

Both a convert and a freed slave.

And

even through ten generations,

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

until her mother

or her father is

an Israelite.

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

.

Rabbi Yose says: Even if a convert married a female convert, his daughter is fit for the priesthood.

The Rambam holds [Isurei Biah ch.15 sec.9] that if a ger married a daughter of Israel, or an Israelite married a giyoret, he is Israelite for all purposes and is forbidden regarding mamzerut. But the Ran here argues that if the father was a ger and the mother Israelite, the law returns that wherever there are kiddushin and no transgression, the child follows the male; and since the father, the ger, is permitted regarding mamzerut, why should not the child be permitted regarding mamzerut? And even though if a non-Jew or a slave had relations with a daughter of Israel, the child is entirely fit and forbidden regarding mamzerut, nevertheless the child of a ger should be forbidden regarding mamzerut, because when a non-Jew or a slave came upon a daughter of Israel the child does not relate at all to his father, for "to their families, to their ancestral houses" is said only with respect to family lineage to Israel, and not for lineage to a foreigner or a slave. And since the child does not relate to the father's family, he relates only to his mother, and he is forbidden regarding mamzerut like his mother. But a ger who fathered a son, the son relates to him; and since the father is permitted with respect to mamzerut, it should follow that the son too is permitted regarding mamzerut. The Gra"ch explains that the Rambam holds that where the mother is Israelite, the child acquires also fitness to come into the "Kahal Hashem" [which the father the ger does not have, since the assembly of gerim is not called "Kahal Hashem"]. And because the child acquires the qualification of the Kahal by virtue of the mother, he is forbidden regarding mamzerut; therefore the child's law differs from his father's, who lacks the qualification of the Kahal. And what the Ran objected, why here does not the law of "to their families, to their ancestral houses" apply, by which the child's law would be like his father's — and since the father lacks the fitness of the Kahal and is permitted regarding mamzerut, so the child should be permitted — the Gra"ch answers that the law of the Kahal's essence is not a law of family; rather it is the imposition of law upon the person by virtue of the sanctity of Israel, and whatever imposes law upon the body without being a "family" law, is effective also from the mother, and it is not said that the law that the mother's family is not called a family is applicable here, for it does not depend on family at all. Therefore it is proper that the child is "kahal" by the mother, and since he is "kahal" by his mother he is forbidden regarding mamzerut.

Gemara:

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

We raise a question concerning this:

What is meant by

“forever”?

What does the Mishna come to teach us by stating that the disqualification is forever? Is it not obvious that even the daughter of his son and the daughter of his grandson are disqualified? After all, the son of a chalal is like a chalal in every respect, since he is affiliated with his father; likewise, his daughter is the daughter of a chalal, since she is affiliated with her father. Thus, they remain subject to this family disqualification forever. What novelty is there in transmitting disqualification of lineage from one generation to the next?

We answer:

Lest you say

that the disqualification of chalalut might not extend to his grandson,

as is the case

as the law is with regard to

a

an Egyptian and an Edomite

who converted:

Just as

below—

in the case of an Egyptian and an Edomite—

after three generations

of conversion, he returns to being fit for the assembly,

so too here,

in the case of chalalut,

after three generations

the disqualification of chalalut might cease.

—

the tanna of our Mishna therefore teaches us that the disqualification of chalalut extends from father to son forever, and that the daughter of the son and the grandson’s daughter are likewise disqualified from the priesthood forever.

We learned in the Mishna:

If an Israelite married a chalala,

his daughter is fit for the priesthood.

We raise a question concerning this:

From where are these matters derived?

From where do we learn that a daughter born to an Israelite who married a chalala is not disqualified from the priesthood, because she is not affiliated with her chalala mother but with her Israelite father, unlike the daughter of a chalal, who is affiliated with her father and is a chalala?

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

We learn this through a gezeira shava:

,Here,

in the context of the chalalut of a High Priest who had relations with a widow,

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

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

,And there,

in the context of the impurity of kohanim through contact with the dead,

“He shall not defile himself among his people”

“to profane himself.”

,Just as there,

with regard to impurity through contact with the dead, only

male kohanim

are included in the passage concerning impurity through contact with the dead,

and not females,

who were not warned by this prohibition—

,so too here,

with regard to disqualification as a chalal, only

male kohanim

become chalalim by virtue of their lineage to their chalal father,

and not females

who become disqualified by virtue of their lineage to their chalala mothers.

We object:

But from now on,

since you said, on the basis of the gezeira shava between chalalut and the impurity of kohanim, that females are not disqualified because the passage concerning chalalut, like the passage concerning the impurity of kohanim, addresses males and not females,

then let us derive another teaching from this gezeira shava: even the

daughter of a High Priest,

who was born to him from the widow,

should be permitted to marry into the priesthood, since we learned through the gezeira shava that the passage concerning chalalut speaks only of males and not females.

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.

We answer:

Does

the verse

say

in the case of a High Priest who had relations with a widow, “He shall not profane

his son”?

After all,

“his offspring”

is written

there!

For it is stated there: “And

For it is stated there: “He shall not profane his offspring among his people.”

The expression “his offspring” indicates that he profanes even his daughter.

Nevertheless, the teaching of the gezeira shava was useful to teach us that specifically the daughter of the High Priest who had relations with the widow becomes a chalala, but not his granddaughter, who is not “his offspring” but “the offspring of his offspring.” If his daughter married an Israelite, her daughter is fit for the priesthood, even though the High Priest’s daughter herself is a chalala.

The Gemara is perplexed: If so, since you learned through the gezeira shava to permit his granddaughter because only “his offspring” is stated, and not “the offspring of his offspring,” then even

his grandson’s daughter should be permitted

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

We answer:

It is written

“He shall not profane his offspring.”

“His offspring” means his own offspring. Thus, that single expression includes both him and his offspring.

The verse juxtaposes

the

offspring

of the High Priest who had relations with a widow

to him,

to the High Priest himself—

Just as he,

himself,

has a daughter who is disqualified

from the priesthood,

so too his son has a daughter who is disqualified

from the priesthood.

We object again: If so, based on this juxtaposition, even

his granddaughter,

the chalala,

should be forbidden

from marrying into the priesthood, just as his own daughter is disqualified. After all, his law and the law of his offspring were juxtaposed to one another.

We answer:

If so,

the gezeira shava

that we learned from the impurity of kohanim, which applies only to males,

what purpose would it serve?

What did it teach? Necessarily, it came to exclude his granddaughter. Therefore, through the juxtaposition we expand the disqualification only to his grandson’s daughter.

We learned in the Mishna:

A chalal who married a Jewish woman—his daughter is disqualified.

We raise a question concerning this:

This

already

was taught

in the

at the beginning

of our Mishna:

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

Why, then, did the tanna repeat this law at the end of the Mishna as well?

We answer:

Since,

because

he taught

in the

at the beginning

“An Israelite

who married a chalala

his daughter is fit,” he also

taught

in the

at the end

“A chalal who married a Jewish woman,

his daughter is disqualified.”

The Gemara now explains:

,

The Mishna, which disqualifies the daughter of a chalal 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 ritual immersion of purification for chalalut—

for a chalala who married an Israelite has a daughter who is fit for the priesthood—

so too the daughters of Israel

are

a ritual immersion of purification for chalalut.

In his view, the daughter of a chalal born to him from a fit Israelite woman returns to being fit for the priesthood.

According to his view, only when a chalal marries a chalala is his daughter disqualified.

We raise a question concerning this:

What is the reason of Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda?

The Gemara answers: It is because

We answer: It is because the verse says,

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

Since it is not written “among his peoples,” but rather “among his people,” this indicates that only

when

he and his wife are from

“one

people”—

that is, both are chalalim—

does he profane

his offspring.

But

if

they are from

two peoples—

he is a chalal and she is fit—

he does not disqualify

his offspring.

The Sages taught:

It is written with regard to a High Priest who marries a widow: “

He shall not disqualify his offspring.”

I have derived only

from here

that

the

offspring

born to her is disqualified.

But

she [the

widow]

herself

becomes disqualified through his intercourse with her and from that point onward is also forbidden to an ordinary koen by virtue of being a disqualified woman—

from where?

You can derive it by a kal va-homer: What of his offspring

of the High Priest,

who did not commit a transgression,

yet it

becomes disqualified.

She,

his wife,

who committed a transgression

through this marriage,

is it not logical that

she

becomes disqualified? [The reason is that just as a High Priest is prohibited from marrying a widow, so too she is prohibited from marrying him. And likewise with all women disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. We derive this from the fact that the verse says, “They shall not take” in the plural, thereby warning the woman with regard to the man.]

And perhaps you might say that this kal va-homer can be refuted:

And perhaps you might say that the a-fortiori inference can be refuted:

He,

the High Priest,

himself proves that—

even though

he committed a transgression

through intercourse with a widow,

and

nevertheless

he is not

disqualified

from his priesthood; therefore, she too should not become disqualified, despite having committed a transgression.

Your answer is:

Your answer is:

What is there about him [the High Priest] that makes it so that he is not disqualified through intercourse involving a transgression?

It is

that he is not

disqualified in any circumstance.

For we do not find anywhere that a koen is disqualified from his priesthood by Torah law.

But say this with regard to her [the

widow], who becomes disqualified through intercourse with a High Priest, because

we find that

a woman who has been penetrated

becomes disqualified in any circumstance.

For if one of those disqualified from entering the community has intercourse with a woman, he disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood through that intercourse, as it is written: “And if a daughter of a koen becomes the wife of a non-koen, she shall not eat of the sacred food.” And we derive: Once she has been penetrated by one who is disqualified for her, he disqualifies her from her priesthood.

And if you wish to say

that this kal va-homer can be refuted [for the reason that will be explained below in the Gemara], the matter can still be proven [that even the widow becomes disqualified] from what

the verse says: “

He shall not disqualify his offspring.”

And this implies:

He shall not cause one who was fit to become disqualified.

For the expression “disqualification” implies that the person had previously been fit and has now become disqualified. This principle applies more aptly to the woman than to the offspring, since the offspring was never fit, whereas the woman was fit and became disqualified. Therefore, the primary application of the verse should be understood as referring to the disqualification of the woman.

The Gemara now explains the statement cited in the beraita:

What does “

and if you wish to say” mean?

For what reason might it have occurred to us not to derive the woman’s disqualification by a kal va-homer from the offspring?

And we explain:

And if you would say,

that is, perhaps you might say:

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

and therefore it becomes disqualified. This is not so with regard to the woman, whose formation did not involve 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 one who was fit

to become disqualified

[as is the case with the woman]

and become disqualified

now through the act of intercourse.

The Sages taught: Who is a disqualified woman?—

Anyone born from those disqualified.

And we raise a question:

What

are the

disqualified?

If you say,

if it is said that this refers to any woman born to a man from

women disqualified

[women forbidden to him]

to him

by a prohibition of the Torah, even if he is an Israelite, this cannot be the meaning.

For

behold, an Israelite who

takes back his

divorced wife

after she had married another man,

as

she is

forbidden to him,

nevertheless

his sons

[his daughters]

are fit

to marry into the priesthood.

For

behold,

it is written

with regard to one who takes back his divorced wife: “

It is an abomination.”

And we derive: Only

she

[the divorced woman who married another] is

an abomination, but her children are not abominations

[with regard to the priesthood].

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it means: Who is a disqualified woman?—

Anyone born from a woman disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

That is, one born to a priestly father from a woman forbidden to him by a prohibition concerning the priesthood, such as a divorcee, a zona, or a disqualified woman.

And we object: Is it specifically

“born”—yes,

that is, she becomes disqualified; but if she

was not born

in a state of disqualification,

she does not

become disqualified?

But

a widow

to a High Priest,

a divorcee and

and

a zona

to an ordinary koen—

for although

she

was not born

in a state of disqualification,

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

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

she becomes a disqualified woman!

That is, in addition to the prohibitions that already apply to her, she now also incurs the prohibition of a disqualified woman through this intercourse, as stated above.

Rabba said: This is what it means: Which

woman is a

disqualified woman who is

“

mentioned”

[as the Gemara will explain below],

who never had a period of fitness at all,

but has been a disqualified woman from birth?—

Anyone born from a woman disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

This is unlike a widow married to a High Priest, who is not a disqualified woman from the outset, but only from the moment that he has intercourse with her.

And we raise a question:

What is the meaning of “a disqualified woman who is

mentioned”?

mentioned?

Rav Yitzhak bar Avin said: This is what it means: Which is the disqualified woman whose essence

[is explicitly stated]

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

and derived from

the words of the Sages?

Anyone born from women disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

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

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

The Sages taught:

A High Priest who violates three prohibitions of

“widow, widow, widow”

[as the Gemara will explain what this refers to]

is liable only for

lashes

once.

And any koen, even an ordinary one, who violates three prohibitions of

“divorcee, divorcee, divorcee”

is liable only for

lashes

once.

But if he violated all four prohibitions of

“widow, divorcee, disqualified woman, zona”—

when they

[the aforementioned prohibitions] applied to her

in the order

specified—

he is liable

to lashes

for each and every one

of the transgressions he committed.

But if first she

committed adultery, and

afterward

became disqualified, and

afterward

was divorced, and

afterward

was widowed,

and he had intercourse with her,

he is liable only for

lashes

once.

The reason will be explained below.

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

And we raise a question:

This

threefold

“widow”,

what are the circumstances,

that is, what case is being discussed?

If you say that he had intercourse

with three separate widows—

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

lashes

once?