Kiddushin 154

הרי גופין מוחלקים הרי שמות מוחלקים

Behold, they are separate persons and separate names! Again, if he has intercourse three times with the same widow, what are the circumstances? If he was not warned, it is obvious that he incurs only one penalty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A penalty was not imposed unless the transgression was preceded by a warning as to implications of the offence. 'Not warned' means not warned for each intercourse separately.');">¹</span>

אלא שבא על אלמנה אחת שלש ביאות היכי דמי אי דלא אתרו ביה פשיטא דאינו חייב אלא אחת

But if he was warned for each, why does he incur only one penalty? Did we not learn: If a nazir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²</span>

אלא דאתרו ביה אכל חדא וחדא אמאי אינו חייב אלא אחת והתנן נזיר שהיה שותה יין כל היום כולו אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה והוא שותה חייב על כל אחת ואחת

drinks wine all day, he incurs only one penalty; if he is admonished, 'Do not drink,' 'do not drink,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before each time he drinks.');">³</span> and he drinks, he is liable for each! - This arises only if he has intercourse with Reuben's widow, who was Simeon's widow who had been Levi's widow: I might think, Behold, they are separate names! We are therefore told that we require separate persons,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For separate punishments.');">⁴</span>

לא צריכא שבא על אלמנת ראובן שהיתה אלמנת שמעון שהיתה אלמנת לוי מהו דתימא הרי שמות מוחלקים קמ"ל גופים מוחלקים בעינן וליכא

which is absent. [If he has intercourse with] a widow, a divorced and profane woman, and a harlot.

(ויקרא כא, יד) אלמנה וגרושה וחללה זונה האי תנא מאי קסבר אי קסבר איסור חל על איסור איפכא נמי ואי קסבר אין איסור חל על איסור אפילו כסדר הזה נמי לא

What is this Tanna's opinion? If he holds, one prohibition can fall on another,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A thing, being forbidden on one score, can also be forbidden on another, so that two prohibitions are violated. Thus here, though she is forbidden as a divorced woman, the interdict of a harlot is also operative, if she becomes one after her divorce.');">⁵</span>

אמר רבא האי תנא איסור חל על איסור לית ליה איסור מוסיף אית ליה

then it is the reverse too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if this order is not followed; v. 396 n. 9.');">⁶</span> Whilst if he holds, one prohibition cannot fall on another, it is not so even in this order!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No separate penalty is incurred for each. ;hxun ruxht');">⁷</span>

אלמנה אסורה לכהן גדול ושריא לכהן הדיוט הויא לה גרושה מיגו דאיתוסף לה איסורא לגבי כהן הדיוט איתוסף לה איסורא לגבי כהן גדול ועדיין שריא למיכל בתרומה הויא לה חללה מיגו דאיתוסף איסורא למיכל בתרומה איתוסף איסורא לגבי כהן גדול

- Said Raba: This Tanna does not hold that one prohibition can fall upon another, but he does accept [the validity of] a prohibition of wider scope.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' . I.e., which applies to more people. Then it can fall upon another prohibition even in respect of the person to whom the first also applies. For a fuller discussion of the various types of prohibitions, v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) p. 127. n. 1.');">⁸</span> [Thus:] a widow is interdicted to a High Priest, but permitted to an ordinary priest; when she becomes divorced, since a prohibition is added in respect of an ordinary priest, it is added in respect of a High Priest yet she is still permitted to partake of terumah.

אלא זונה מאי איסור מוסיף אית בה אמר רב חנא בר רב קטינא הואיל ושם זנות פוסל בישראל

When she becomes profane, since a prohibition of eating terumah is added, a prohibition is added in respect of a High Priest. But what wider prohibition is there on account of zonah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is now prohibited which was not before?');">⁹</span>

תני תנא קמיה דרב ששת כל שהוא (ויקרא כא, יד) ביקח הרי הוא (ויקרא כא, יד) בלא יקח כל שאינו ביקח אינו בלא יקח פרט לכהן גדול שבא על אחותו אלמנה

- Said R'Hama son of R'Kattina: Because the designation of harlotry [zenuth] disqualifies in the case of an Israelite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the wife of an Israelite commits adultery, he may not live with her. Thus, though in the case under discussion the prohibition of a zonah adds nothing, an extra penalty is incurred because harlotry in general is a wider prohibition.');">¹⁰</span> A Tanna recited before R'Shesheth: Whoever is included in [a virgin of his own people] shall he take [to wife],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 14.');">¹¹</span>

אמר ליה דאמר לך מני ר' שמעון היא דאמר אין איסור חל על איסור דתניא רבי שמעון אומר האוכל נבילה ביום הכפורים פטור דאי רבנן הא אמרי איסור חל על איסור

is included in '[a widow, etc. ,] he shall not take'; but whoever is not included in, 'shall he take,' i not included in, 'he shall not take':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the High Priest transgresses the latter only on account of a woman who would be permitted to him if she were a virgin.');">¹²</span> this excludes a High Priest who marries his sister, a widow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is not liable because she is a widow, but because she is a sister.');">¹³</span>

אפי' תימא רבנן כי אמרי רבנן איסור חל על איסור ה"מ איסור חמור על איסור קל אבל איסור קל על איסור חמור לא חייל

Said he to him: He who told you this, on whose authority is it? R'Simeon's, who maintains that one prohibition cannot fall upon another.

איכא דאמרי הא מני רבנן היא דאמרי איסור חל על איסור וכי אמרי רבנן איסור חל על איסור הני מילי איסור חמור על איסור קל אבל איסור קל על איסור חמור לא חייל דאי ר"ש השתא איסור חמור על איסור קל לא חייל איסור קל על איסור חמור מיבעיא

For it was taught if one eats nebelah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁴</span> on the Day of Atonement, he is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From kareth, the penalty for eating on the Day of Atonement. For nebelah is already forbidden by a negative injunction, and so the interdict of the Day of Atonement remains inoperative.');">¹⁵</span>

מהו דתימא איסור כהונה שאני קמ"ל

For if according to the Rabbis, - surely they maintain that one prohibition falls upon another. [He replied:] You may even say [that it agrees with] the Rabbis: When do the Rabbis maintain that one prohibition can fall upon another?

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי ישראל הבא על אחותו זונה משוי לה חללה משוי לה או לא משוי לה

Only a stringent prohibition upon a lighter one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the prohibition of eating on the Day of Atonement is more stringent than that of eating nebelah.');">¹⁶</span> but a light prohibition cannot fall upon a more stringent one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The interdict against one's sister is graver than that of widow to a High Priest.');">¹⁷</span>

מי אמרינן קל וחומר מחייבי לאוין הויא חללה מחייבי כריתות לא כל שכן או דילמא אין חללה אלא מאיסור כהונה אמר ליה אין (איסור) חללה אלא מאיסור כהונה בלבד

Others state: This agrees with the Rabbis, who maintain, One prohibition can fall upon another; but when do they rule thus? Only that a more stringent prohibition [can fall] upon a lighter one; but a light one cannot fall upon a more stringent one.

אמר רבא מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן אין חללה אלא מאיסור כהונה דתניא לא יאמר גרושה בכהן גדול ותיתי בקל וחומר מכהן הדיוט ואנא אמינא השתא לכהן הדיוט אסורה לכהן גדול מיבעיא למה נאמרה כשם שחלוקה גרושה מזונה וחללה בכהן הדיוט כך חלוקה בכהן גדול

For if it is R'Simeon: seeing that a stringent prohibition cannot fall upon a light one, need a light prohibition upon a more stringent be stated? - I might think that a prohibition in connection with priesthood is different;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because Scripture imposed many additional injunctions upon priests from which others are free.');">¹⁸</span> hence we are informed [that it is not so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently the author may be R. Simeon, after all.');">¹⁹</span>

פשיטא מיגרע גרעה אלא כשם שחלוקה גרושה מזונה וחללה בכהן הדיוט כך אלמנה חלוקה מגרושה וחללה זונה בכהן גדול

R'Papa said to Abaye: When an Israelite has intercourse with his sister, he [certainly] renders her a zonah,' [but] does he render her a halalah [too] or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the priest who has intercourse with her is flagellated separately on each score.');">²⁰</span> Do We says [it follows] a minori: if one becomes a halalah by those who are forbidden to her by [only] negative injunctions, how much more so by those who are forbidden on pain of kareth.

חללה למה נאמרה אין חללה אלא מאיסור כהונה זונה למה נאמרה נאמר כאן זונה ונאמר להלן זונה מה כאן זרעו חולין אף להלן זרעו חולין

Or perhaps, a halalah results from a priestly interdict only? - He answered: A halalah results from a priestly interdict only. Rab said: How do we know this ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thing'.');">²¹</span>

אמר רב אשי הילכך כהן הבא על אחותו

stated by the Rabbis [that] a halalah is only from a priestly interdict? Because it was taught: Let a divorced woman not be stated in reference to a High Priest, and it could be inferred a minori from an ordinary priest; for I would argue, If she is forbidden to an ordinary priest, can there be a question of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is it necessary for?'');">²²</span> a High Priest? Why then is it stated? [To teach,] Just as a divorced woman is distinct from zonah and halalah in respect of an ordinary priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a divorced woman is also a zonah, the priest is doubly punished.');">²³</span> so is she distinct in reference to a High Priest. [But] that is obvious: is it [the sanctity of a High Priest] in any way diminished?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely it is not less than that of an ordinary priest!');">²⁴</span> But [it is rather t teach] just as a divorced woman is distinct from zonah and a halalah in respect of an ordinary priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a divorced woman is also a zonah, the priest is doubly punished.');">²³</span> so is a widow distinct from a divorced woman, a halalah and a zonah in respect of a High Priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a widow is also one or all of these, he is punished on each score.');">²⁵</span> Why is halalah stated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reference to a High Priest, seeing that she is prohibited to the ordinary priest.');">²⁶</span> [To shew that] halalah results from a priestly interdict only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because 'halalah' is superfluous. Rashi observes: this may be deduced from the Scriptural order, which places 'halalah' after 'divorced woman' and 'widow' who are forbidden to priests only, but not after zonah, a type of prohibition forbidden also to an Israelite, v. supra p. 398, n. 2, which shews that halalah results from an interdict confined to priests.');">²⁷</span> Why is zonah stated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reference to a High Priest, seeing that she is prohibited to the ordinary priest.');">²⁶</span> - Zonah is stated here;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., in respect of a High Priest.');">²⁸</span> and it is also stated there:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of an ordinary priest.');">²⁹</span> just as here, his seed is profaned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is written, he shall not profane his seed.');">³⁰</span> so there too, his seed is profaned. Said R'Ashi: Therefore if a priest has intercourse with his sister,