Kiddushin 78a (עח.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi said:

Since we have learned that a ḥalala is only one born of a union forbidden by the prohibitions applicable to a

priest,

he renders her a zonah.

Consequently, any other priest who subsequently has relations with her is liable for lashes on account of “zonah,” since she has had intercourse in violation of a prohibition.

But

a ḥalala—

he does not render her one,

because this intercourse did not involve a prohibition applicable to a priest, and a woman becomes a ḥalala only through intercourse that is forbidden to a priest.

And if

he subsequently returned—

whether this priest or another priest—

and had relations with her

after she had become a zonah,

he rendered her a ḥalala.

For the second act of intercourse involves violation of a prohibition applicable to a priest, namely: “They shall not take a woman who is a zonah.”

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

if he betrothed her to himself and then had relations with her,

receives two sets of lashes!

One

set

he receives for taking her as a wife,

because of “

a widow

he shall not take.”

And

one

set

for having relations with her,

because of “

He shall not profane

his offspring.” As was already explained above, the intent of the verse includes also that he profanes the woman and renders her unfit for the priesthood.

The Gemara raised an objection:

And let him also receive lashes because of “

He shall not profane his offspring”!

For the plain meaning of the verse is that his offspring becomes profaned, so that he should receive three sets of lashes, also on account of the prohibition against profaning the offspring.

And we answer: Rav Yehuda said “he receives two sets of lashes” only

when he did not complete

the

act of intercourse,

for in that case there is no profanation of the offspring, since no child can be born from intercourse that was not completed. But the woman with whom he had intercourse becomes a ḥalala even through mere initial penetration. However, if he did complete the act of intercourse, and a child could be born from it, he receives three sets of lashes, also because of “and he shall not profane his offspring.”

Rava raised an objection

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

a widow and

also

a divorcee,

he

receives lashes for two names,

because of “They shall not take a widow,” and because of “They shall not take a divorcee.”

And Rava infers:

Is it not

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

two names

[widow and divorcee],

and no more!

This is difficult for Rav Yehuda, who holds that for a widow alone or a divorcee alone he receives lashes both because of “he shall not take” and because of “he shall not profane”; according to him, he should receive four sets of lashes!?

And we answer:

No.

The tanna of that Mishna did not intend to say that he receives only two sets, on account of those two names and no more. Rather, he receives four sets of lashes—

He receives two sets because of

the two names

[divorcee and widow]

for

the prohibition of

this

“he shall not take,”

and he receives two additional sets because of

the two names

[divorcee and widow]

for

the prohibition of

this,

“he shall not profane.”

But the Gemara asks:

If so, say the latter clause

of that Mishna—

As it teaches in the latter clause: A priest who has relations with a woman who is also

a divorcee and

also

a ḥaluẓa

[a woman who fell before a brother-in-law for levirate marriage, and from whom the brother-in-law performed ḥaliẓa, who is likewise forbidden to a priest],

is liable only on account of one

prohibition, that of a divorcee, because the prohibition of a ḥaluẓa is only rabbinic, as will be explained shortly.

In any event, it teaches that he receives lashes for the divorcee only once, and not twice.

And we answer:

This is what it means: He is liable only for one

—that is, only because she is a divorcee, and not because she is a ḥaluẓa—

but nevertheless

he receives two sets of lashes for the divorcee, because of the

two

the

names

that apply to her: “he shall not take” and “he shall not profane.”

And we ask:

And is the prohibition of a

is the prohibition of

ḥaluẓa

indeed only rabbinic?!

But it was taught:

It is written concerning the prohibitions applicable to priests [Leviticus 21:7]: “A

divorcee

from her husband they shall not take.”

I have only a divorcee;

a ḥaluẓa,

from where

do I derive

“and a woman

who is a divorcee they shall not take”? From the superfluous word “and a woman” [as the verse could have said, “and a divorcee they shall not take”], we include a ḥaluẓa as well. Evidently, her prohibition is from the Torah!?

And we answer: Her prohibition is indeed only

rabbinic.

And the verse,

the exposition derived from the words of the verse, is merely an

asmachta,

in general,

a scriptural support for the decree of the Sages.

Abaye said:

A priest who

betrothed

one of the women forbidden to him,

receives lashes

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

Conversely, if he

had relations

with one of them,

he receives lashes

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

And Abaye explains his statement:

If he

betrothed

her, he

receives lashes because of “

he shall not take”

that is stated concerning her.

And if he

had relations

with her, he

receives lashes because of “

he shall not profane”

that is stated concerning her.

It follows, according to Abaye, that if he betrothed her and afterward had relations with her, he receives two sets of lashes.

Rava said:

He does not receive lashes for the betrothal itself. Rather, only after he betrothed her and

had relations

with her, he

receives lashes

for her twice: once because of “he shall not take,” and once because of “he shall not profane.”

But if he betrothed her and

did not have relations, he does not receive lashes

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 is saying:

For what reason shall he not

take her?

Because

she

shall not be profaned!

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

And Abaye concedes concerning

the prohibition of

returning to one’s divorcee

after she had married another,

that if he betrothed

her alone

and did not have relations, he does not receive lashes.

Because “He shall not return

to take her to be his wife”

the Merciful One said.

And here,

without intercourse,

there is no

marital union through intercourse, and I cannot apply to her the phrase “to be his wife.”

And Rava concedes concerning

the prohibition of

a High Priest with a widow, that

even

if he had relations

alone

and did not betroth her, he

receives lashes.

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.

The same applies to the other prohibitions applicable to priests: he receives lashes for intercourse alone, because of “and he shall not profane.”

And both agree concerning

the prohibition of

returning to one’s divorcee, that if he had relations

with her

but did not betroth her, he does not receive lashes.

Because only

the manner of taking her is prohibited

by

the Torah,

as it is written, “to take her, to be his wife.” Both are required: betrothal and intercourse.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

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

is like the daughter of a male ḥalal.

And the reasoning

of the kal va-chomer

dictates

that this should be so:

Just as a ḥalal, who comes from valid semen

[as his father is fit], nevertheless

his daughter is unfit

for the priesthood—

A convert, who comes from invalid semen

[as his father was a gentile],

is it not logically inferred that

his

daughter should be unfit

for the priesthood?!

And if you challenge this and say:

What is special about the ḥalal? His formation

was

through a transgression,

as he was born from intercourse involving a prohibition, and therefore his daughter is unfit for the priesthood; whereas a convert was not born through a transgression, so his daughter should not be disqualified.

A High Priest with a widow proves it:

even though

his formation was not through a transgression,

nevertheless

his daughter,

who was born from the widow,

is unfit,

and the same applies to a convert.

And if you say:

What is special about a High Priest with a widow? His intercourse is through a transgression,

and therefore his daughter, who was born from that forbidden intercourse, is unfit. But in the case of a convert, the intercourse from which his daughter was born was not intercourse involving a transgression, and the daughter should be fit for the priesthood.

A ḥalal proves it!

Although he does not beget his daughter through a transgression, she is nevertheless unfit.

And the argument returns

to its starting point. If this one is challenged on the basis of the distinctive feature of that one, we return and prove the matter from the other. For

the aspect of

[the distinctive] severity found in

this one is not like the aspect of

the severity of

that one.

It is necessarily not the unique severity found in each one that causes his daughter to be disqualified.

Rather,

the common denominator between them

—between a ḥalal and a High Priest with a widow—

is that they are not among “

the majority of the congregation,”

as they differ from the rest of the Jewish people: this one because his formation was through a transgression, and that one because his intercourse was a transgression. This common denominator causes them to disqualify their daughter.

And if so,

I too will bring a convert

as included in this common denominator,

for

he too

is not among “

the majority of the congregation,”

as he differs from the congregation in that he comes from impure semen.

And

therefore, he too—

his daughter is unfit

for the priesthood.

The challenge may still be raised:

What is special about the common denominator between them

[between a ḥalal and a High Priest with a widow]?

They have an aspect of transgression,

either formation through a transgression or intercourse involving a transgression.

That is not so in the case of a convert, who has no aspect of transgression.

And we conclude:

Do not say that the beraita says, “

that the convert’s daughter is disqualified,

A High Priest with a widow proves it”

to establish that a convert’s daughter is unfit.

Rather, say

the following:

An Egyptian of the first generation proves it,

for although his formation was not through a transgression, his daughter is unfit, since Egyptians are unfit to enter the congregation until the third generation.

And if you respond:

What is special about an Egyptian of the first generation? He is not

fit to enter the congregation

of God; unlike a convert, who is fit to enter the congregation, and therefore his daughter should also be fit for the priesthood.

A ḥalal proves it,

as he too is fit to enter the congregation, yet his daughter is unfit for the priesthood.

And the argument returns: The aspect of this one is not like the aspect of that one.

The common denominator between them is that they are not among the majority of the congregation.

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

And because of this common denominator,

his daughter is unfit.

I too will bring

as part of this common denominator

the convert,

because

he

too

is not among the majority of the congregation,

and for this reason

his daughter

will also be

unfit

for the priesthood.

But the challenge may still be raised:

What is special about the common denominator between them

[between a ḥalal and an Egyptian]?

They disqualify

a woman from the priesthood

through their intercourse.

Can you say the same concerning a convert, who does not disqualify a woman from the priesthood through intercourse with her?

And we answer:

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who disqualifies the daughter of a convert from the priesthood, holds that

a convert also disqualifies

a woman from the priesthood

through his intercourse.

And he derives it,

he derives this disqualification as well,

through a bamah ẓad

[the common denominator] stated with regard to a ḥalal and an Egyptian of the first generation,

from this reasoning,

through a kal va-chomer: If a ḥalal, who comes from valid semen, disqualifies a woman from the priesthood, then is it not logically inferred that a convert, who comes from impure semen, should disqualify her, as above.

The Gemara now 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 a daughter of Israel has a daughter who is fit for the priesthood.

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

who converted while she was still

less than three years and one day old

is

fit for the priesthood.

Because

it is stated

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

And all the female children

who have not known a man by lying with him [who are not fit for intercourse, meaning those less than three years old]

you shall keep alive for yourselves.”

This indicates that all those taken captive in the war were permitted to marry them as wives.

But

even

Phinehas,

the

priest, was with them,

with those who went out to war, and these young girls were permitted to him as well. Evidently, any girl who converted before reaching three years and one day is fit for the priesthood.

And the Rabbis,

who prohibit such women to a priest, 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 and female slaves.

There are therefore four opinions concerning the disqualification of a female convert from marrying a priest:

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

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

c. According to Rabbi Yosei: she is unfit specifically when she herself converted after her birth.

d. According to Rabbi Shimon: she is unfit specifically when she converted after reaching the age of three.

And all of them

expounded one verse.

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

They shall not take a widow or a divorcee

[the priests]

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

Rabbi Yehuda holds:

A woman is not fit for the priesthood

until all her seed is from Israel.

That is, all of what is called “seed,” namely the father’s seed, must be from Israel, excluding one whose father was a gentile.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds: “

Of the seed

of Israel” means

even some of the seed

is from Israel. That is, even if she has Israelite ancestry only on her mother’s side, this is sufficient to permit her to the priesthood.

Rabbi Yosei holds:

It is sufficient that her conception and birth took place in the sanctity of Israel to permit her. For “of the seed of Israel” means,

from one whose seed was sown in Israel.

If her parents were already Jewish at the time of her conception, she is fit for the priesthood.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai holds: “Of the seed of Israel” means

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: