Kiddushin 78a — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi said:

Since we have stated that there is no chalala except from the prohibitions of kehunah,

therefore, when a kohen has intercourse with his sister ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

he makes her a zona,

and from now on, every other kohen who has intercourse with her is flogged on account of “zona,” for she has had intercourse in a transgression.

But

chalala—

he does not make her one,

for there was no prohibition of kehunah in this intercourse, and a woman becomes a chalala only through intercourse forbidden to a kohen.

And if

he returned—

this kohen or another kohen—

and had intercourse with her

after she had become a zona,

he made her a chalala.

For in the second intercourse there is a transgression of the prohibition of kehunah, “A zona they shall not take.”

Rav Yehuda said: A High Priest who has intercourse with a widow,

if he betrothed her as a wife and had intercourse with her,

is flogged twice!

Once

one

he is flogged for taking her as a wife

on account of “

widow

he shall not take.”

And

once

one

for his intercourse,

on account of “

he shall not profane

his offspring.” And it has already been explained above that the intention of the verse is also that he profanes the woman and disqualifies her for kehunah.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And let him also be flogged on account of “

he shall not profane his offspring”!

For the plain meaning of the verse is that his offspring becomes profaned, and he should be flogged three times, also on account of the prohibition of profaning the offspring.

And we answer: Rav Yehuda said “he is flogged twice” only

when he did not complete

the

intercourse,

for in this case there is no profaning of the offspring, because no child is born from intercourse that was not completed. But the woman with whom he had intercourse becomes a chalala even through mere initial penetration [the beginning of intercourse]. But if he indeed completed his intercourse, and a child could be born from him, he is flogged three times, also on account of “and he shall not profane his offspring.”

Rava raised an objection

to Rav Yehuda, who said that he is flogged both on account of “he shall not take” and on account of “he shall not profane,” from what we learned in the Mishna [Makkot 13a]: A High Priest who marries a woman who is

a widow and

also

a divorcee,

he is

flogged on account of two designations,

on account of “a widow they shall not take,” and on account of “a divorcee they shall not take.”

And Rava infers:

Is it not

the meaning that he is flogged only two sets of lashes, on account of these

two designations

[widow and divorcee],

and no more!

And this is difficult for Rav Yehuda, who obligates him, for a widow alone or for a divorcee alone, also on account of “he shall not take” and also on account of “he shall not profane,” and according to his words he should be flogged four times!?

And we answer:

No.

The intention of the tanna in the Mishna there is not to say that he is flogged only twice, on account of these two designations, and no more; rather, he is flogged four times—

He is flogged twice on account of

two designations

[divorcee and widow]

for

the prohibition of

this

“he shall not take,”

and

he is flogged another two times on account of

two designations

[divorcee and widow]

for

the prohibition of

this,

“he shall not profane.”

But the Gemara asks:

If so, say the latter clause

of the Mishna there—

For it teaches in the latter clause: A kohen who has intercourse with a woman who is also

a divorcee and

also

a halutza

[who fell for yibbum, and the yavam performed halitza for her, for she too is forbidden to a kohen],

is liable only on account of one,

for the prohibition of a divorcee, because the prohibition of a halutza is only rabbinic, as will be explained nearby.

In any event, it teaches that he is not flogged for the divorcee except once, and not twice.

And we answer:

This is what it says: He is liable only for one—

that is, only on account of the divorcee, and not on account of the halutza—

but nevertheless

on account of the divorcee he is flogged twice, on account of

two

the

designations

that she has, “he shall not take” and “he shall not profane.”

And we ask:

And

is the prohibition of

a halutza

for a kohen only

rabbinic?!

But it was taught:

It is written concerning the prohibitions of kehunah [Leviticus 21:7], “And a

divorcee

from her husband they shall not take.”

I have only a divorcee; a halutza

who is forbidden to a kohen,

from where?

The verse says: “

And a woman

a divorcee they shall not take.” From the extra word “and a woman” [for the verse could have said, “and a divorcee they shall not take”], we include a halutza as well. Thus, it is evident that its prohibition is from the Torah!?

And we answer: In truth, its prohibition is only

rabbinic.

And the verse,

the exposition that we learned from the words of the verse, is a teaching in the category of

an asmachta

alone,

for the decree of the Sages.

Abaye said:

A kohen who

betrothed

one of the women forbidden to him

is flogged

for the act of betrothal even if he did not have intercourse with her, because he is liable for the betrothal itself.

And conversely, if he

had intercourse with

one of them,

he is flogged

for her, even though he did not betroth her as a wife.

And Abaye explains his statement:

If he

betrothed

her, he

is flogged on account of “

he shall not take”

that is stated concerning her.

And if he

had intercourse with

her, he

is flogged on account of “

he shall not profane”

that is stated concerning her.

And it follows according to Abaye’s words that if he betrothed her and afterward had intercourse with her, he is flogged twice.

Rava said:

He is not flogged for the betrothal by itself. Rather, only after he betrothed and

had intercourse,

he

is flogged

for her twice, one on account of “he shall not take,” and the second on account of “he shall not profane.”

But if he betrothed and

did not have intercourse, he is not flogged

for her at all.

And Rava explains his reasoning—

because it is written “

he shall not take, and he shall not profane.”

And this is what the verse says:

What is the reason that he shall not “

take”?—

Because

“

he shall not profane”!

And through taking alone, without profanation, the Torah did not prohibit.

And Abaye concedes concerning

the prohibition of

one who takes back his divorcee

after she married another,

that if he betrothed

only

and did not have intercourse, he is not flogged.

Because “he shall not return

to take her, to be his wife”

the Merciful One said.

And here,

without intercourse,

there is not

the marital relationship of intercourse, and I do not apply to her “to be his wife.”

And Rava concedes concerning

the prohibition of

a High Priest with a widow, that

even

if he had intercourse

only

and did not betroth,

he

is flogged.

For “

and he shall not profane his offspring among his people”

the Merciful One said, and behold,

even through intercourse without betrothal

he profaned

his offspring.

And the same law applies to the other prohibitions of kehunah: he is flogged for intercourse alone, on account of “and he shall not profane.”

And both of them concede concerning

the prohibition of

one who takes back his divorcee, that if he had intercourse

with her

and did not betroth, he is not flogged.

Because only

the manner of taking did the

woman

Torah

prohibit, as it is written, “to take her, to be his wife.” And both are required, both betrothal and intercourse.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male chalal.

It was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert—

is like the daughter of a male chalal.

And the judgment

of kal va-chomer

gives

that it should be so:

Just as a chalal, who comes from a fit drop

[for his father is fit], nevertheless

his daughter is disqualified

for kehunah—

A convert, who comes from a disqualified drop

[for his father is a gentile],

is it not certainly the case that

his

daughter should be disqualified

for kehunah?!

And if you challenge and say:

What is different about a chalal, for his formation

is performed

through a transgression,

for he was born from forbidden intercourse, and therefore his daughter is disqualified for kehunah, whereas a convert was not born through a transgression, and his daughter should not be disqualified—

A High Priest with a widow proves it,

for even though

his formation is not through a transgression, nevertheless

his

daughter,

who was born from the widow,

is disqualified,

and the same law applies to a convert.

And if you say:

What is different about a High Priest with a widow, for his intercourse is through a transgression,

and therefore his daughter, who was born from the transgressive intercourse, is disqualified; whereas in the case of a convert, the intercourse from which his daughter was born is not transgressive intercourse, and the daughter should be fit for kehunah—

A chalal proves it!

For although he does not beget his daughter through a transgression, she is disqualified.

And the judgment returns

to its place. For if we challenge from this one, we return and prove from that one. For

the aspect of

the stringency that is in

this is not like the aspect of

the stringency of

that.

And necessarily, it is not the special stringency present in each of them that causes him to disqualify his daughter.

Rather,

the common aspect among them—

in a chalal and in a High Priest with a widow—

is that they are not among “

the majority of the congregation,” for they differ from the entire congregation of Israel: this one because his formation was through a transgression, and that one because his intercourse was a transgression; this common aspect causes them to disqualify their daughter.

And if so,

I too will bring a convert,

for he too is included in this common aspect,

that

behold, he too

is not among “

the majority of the congregation,”

for he differs from the congregation in that he comes from a putrid drop.

And therefore, he too

his daughter is disqualified

for kehunah.

And still there is a reply:

What is different about the common aspect among them

[in a chalal and in a High Priest with a widow,

for they have in them an aspect of transgression,

whether formation through a transgression or transgressive intercourse.

Unlike a convert, in whom there is no aspect of transgression whatsoever.

And we conclude:

Do not say

in the beraita, “

A High Priest with a widow proves it”

that the convert’s daughter is disqualified,

but rather say

as follows:

An Egyptian of the first generation proves it,

for although his formation was not through a transgression, his daughter is disqualified, since until the third generation they are disqualified from entering the congregation.

And if you reply:

What is different about an Egyptian of the first generation, for he is not

fit to enter the congregation

of God, unlike a convert, who is fit to enter the congregation, and his daughter should be fit also for kehunah—

A chalal proves it,

for he too is fit for the congregation, yet his daughter is disqualified for kehunah.

And the judgment returns: the aspect of this is not like the aspect of that.

The common aspect among them is that they are not in the majority of the congregation.

The chalal because his formation was through a transgression, and the Egyptian because he is not fit to enter the congregation.

And on account of this common aspect,

his daughter is disqualified.

I too will bring

within this common aspect

the convert,

because

he too

is not in the majority of the congregation,

and on account of this,

also

his

daughter

will be

disqualified

for kehunah.

But still there is a reply:

What is different about the common aspect among them

[in a chalal and in an Egyptian],

for they disqualify

the woman for kehunah

through their intercourse,

say in the case of a convert, who does not disqualify a woman through having intercourse with her, for kehunah.

And we answer:

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who disqualifies a convert’s daughter for kehunah, maintains that

a convert too disqualifies

a woman for kehunah

through his intercourse.

And he derives it,

for he learns this disqualification as well

through a mah hatzad

[the common aspect] stated concerning a chalal and an Egyptian of the first generation,

from this judgment,

from a kal va-chomer: Just as a chalal, who comes from a fit drop, disqualifies a woman for kehunah, a convert, who comes from a putrid drop, is it not certainly the case that he should disqualify her, as above.

And now the Gemara comes to explain the views of the tannaim who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: A convert

who married an Israelite woman—his daughter is fit for kehunah.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: A female convert

who converted when she was still

less than three years and one day old,

she is

fit for kehunah.

Because

it is stated

in the war of Midian [Numbers 31:18]: “

And all the children among the women

who did not know the lying of a male [who are not fit for intercourse, namely those less than three years old]

you shall keep alive for yourselves.”

And it implies that all those who went out to war were permitted to take them as wives.

But

even

Pinhas

the kohen

was with them,

with those who went out to war, and these young girls were permitted to him as well. Thus, any who converted before they completed three years and one day are fit for kehunah.

And the Rabbis,

who prohibit them to a kohen, will say: There is no proof from there, because “

you shall keep alive for yourselves” does not mean for the purpose of marriage, but rather to take them

as male slaves and maidservants.

There are found four views concerning the disqualification of a female convert to a kohen:

a. According to Rabbi Yehuda: even the daughter of a convert is disqualified.

b. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: specifically if both her father and her mother are converts is she disqualified.

c. According to Rabbi Yosei: specifically if she herself converted after her birth is she disqualified.

d. According to Rabbi Shimon: specifically if she converted after she reached three years is she disqualified.

And all of them—

expounded one verse.

For it is written in Ezekiel [44:22]: “

A widow and a divorcee they shall not take for themselves

[the priests]

as wives, but only virgins of the seed of the House of Israel.”

Rabbi Yehuda holds:

No woman is fit for kehunah

until there is all the seed from Israel.

That is, all the essential element called “seed,” namely the seed of the father, must be from Israel, excluding one whose father is a gentile.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds: “

From the seed

of Israel” means

even part of the seed

from Israel. That is, even from the mother’s side alone, in order to permit her for kehunah.

Rabbi Yosei holds:

It is sufficient that her conception and birth were in the sanctity of Israel in order to permit her. For “from the seed of Israel” implies, from

those who were sown in Israel.

And if, at the time of her conception, her parents were already Jews, she is fit for kehunah.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai holds: “From the seed of Israel” implies

those whose virginity was sown in Israel,

and only after three years do the hymens finish growing in her. But before that, even if they were torn, they return and come.

Therefore, if she converted before three years, properly we read concerning her, “her virginity was sown in Israel,” and she is permitted for kehunah.

Rav Nahman said to Rava:

one whose virginity was sown in Israel.

The hymen finishes growing only after three years. Before then, even if it is ruptured, it subsequently returns and grows.

Therefore, if she converted before three years, we may properly apply to her the phrase “her virginity was sown in Israel,” and she is permitted to the priesthood.

Rav Naḥman said to Rava: