Kiddushin 155

זונה משוי לה חללה לא משוי לה חזר ובא עליה עשאה חללה

he renders her zonah, not halalah. But if he again has intercourse with her, he renders her halalah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since as a result of the first intercourse she becomes forbidden to him also as zonah of the type which is interdicted only to priests.]');">¹</span>

אמר רב יהודה כהן גדול באלמנה לוקה שתים אחת משום (ויקרא כא, ז) לא יקח ואחת משום (ויקרא כא, ו) לא יחלל ולילקי נמי משום (ויקרא כא, טו) לא יחלל זרעו בשלא גמר ביאתו

Rab Judah said: If a High Priest [has intercourse] with a widow, he is flagellated twice, once on account of he shall not take,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 14.');">²</span> and again on account of, he shall not profane.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained on p. 395, n. 7, this refers primarily to the interdicted woman; hence he is punished for profaning her in violation of the negative injunction.');">³</span>

מתיב רבא אלמנה וגרושה לוקה משום שני שמות מאי לאו שני שמות ותו לא

Then let him be flagellated on account of, 'he shall not profane his seed'? - This means, if he does not consummate the intercourse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there is no issue.');">⁴</span> Raba raised an objection: [If a High Priest has intercourse with] a widow and divorced woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same woman being both.');">⁵</span>

לא שני שמות על זה ושני שמות על זה

he is flagellated on account of two injunctions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'designations' (of negative precepts) . Although one woman, she is forbidden by two separate injunctions, and he is punished for each.');">⁶</span> Surely that means, two injunctions and no more? - No: two injunctions for the one, and two for the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is punished twice, as stated above, on account of her widowhood, and twice because she is divorced.');">⁷</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא גרושה וחלוצה אינו חייב אלא על אחת ה"ק אינו חייב אלא על אחת ולעולם שני שמות

If so, consider the second clause: [For] a divorced woman and haluzah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is the same person.');">⁸</span> he is liable only on account of one? - This is its meaning: he is liable only on account of one [designation], yet after all, for two injunctions.

וחלוצה דרבנן והתניא גרושה אין לי אלא גרושה חלוצה מנין תלמוד לומר ואשה מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא

Now, is a haluzah [forbidden only] by Rabbinical law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since you say that he is flagellated only on account of one, viz., a divorced woman.');">⁹</span> Surely it was taught: [They shall not take a woman that is a harlot.

אמר אביי קידש לוקה בעל לוקה קידש לוקה משום לא יקח בעל לוקה משום לא יחלל רבא אמר בעל לוקה לא בעל אינו לוקה משום דכתיב לא יקח ולא יחלל מה טעם לא יקח משום לא יחלל

and a woman] that is divorced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 7.');">¹⁰</span> I know it only of a divorced woman: how do I know it of a haluzah?

ומודה אביי במחזיר גרושתו שאם קידש ולא בעל שאינו לוקה (דברים כד, ד) לקחתה להיות לו לאשה אמר רחמנא והא ליכא

Because it is said: 'and a woman'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And a woman' is superfluous, and its purpose is to include a haluzah. This shews that the interdict of her is Scriptural.');">¹¹</span> - It is Rabbinical, and the verse is a mere support.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not the actual source of the law.');">¹²</span>

ומודה רבא בכהן גדול באלמנה שאם בעל ולא קידש שלוקה ולא יחלל זרעו בעמיו אמר רחמנא והרי הוא חילל ושניהם מודים במחזיר גרושתו שאם בעל ולא קידש שאינו לוקה דרך ליקוחין אסרה תורה

Abaye said: When he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A High Priest or an ordinary priest.');">¹³</span> betroths,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An interdicted woman.');">¹⁴</span>

רבי יהודה אומר בת גר זכר כבת חלל תניא רבי יהודה אומר בת גר זכר כבת חלל זכר והדין נותן מה חלל שבא מטפה כשרה בתו פסולה גר שבא מטפה פסולה אינו דין שבתו פסולה

he is flagellated; [and] when he cohabits, he is flagellated. When he betroths he is flagellated on account of, 'he shall not take';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'To take' implies formal betrothal.');">¹⁵</span>

מה לחלל שכן יצירתו בעבירה כהן גדול באלמנה יוכיח שאין יצירתו בעבירה בתו פסולה

when he cohabits he is flagellated on account of, 'he shall not profane'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 400, n. 5.');">¹⁶</span> Raba said: if he cohabits, he is flagellated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Twice, as Abaye.');">¹⁷</span>

מה לכהן גדול באלמנה שכן ביאתו בעבירה חלל יוכיח

if he does not cohabit, he is not flagellated [at all], because it is written, he shall not take. and he shall not profane: why must he not t In order that he shall not profane.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the first is dependent upon the second.');">¹⁸</span>

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שאינן ברוב הקהל אף אני אביא את הגר שאינו ברוב הקהל ובתו פסולה

And Abaye admits in the case of one who remarries his divorced wife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After she married another. This does not refer particularly to a priest.');">¹⁹</span> that if he betroths but does not cohabit, he is not flagellated: the Divine Law saith, [he may not] take her again to be his wife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 4; i.e., 'not take' (sc. betrothal) is transgressed only when the marriage is consummated and she becomes his wife.');">²⁰</span>

מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהם צד עבירה

which is absent here. And Raba admits in respect to a High Priest with a widow, that if he cohabits without betrothing, he is flagellated: the Divine Law saith, 'and he shall not profane his seed among his people', whereas he has profaned [it].

לא תימא כהן גדול באלמנה יוכיח אלא אימא מצרי ראשון יוכיח

And both admit in the case of one who takes back his divorced wife, that if he cohabits without betrothal, he is not flagellated: The Torah forbade it by way of marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'taking'. [MS.M. adds: And both agree in the case of him who takes his haluzah (v. Glos.) that if he betroths and has no intercourse, he is not flagellated, for the Torah has prohibited it by way of, 'building up of a house', referring to Deut. XXV, 9.]');">²¹</span> R'JUDAH SAID: THE DAUGHTER OF A MALE PROSELYTE IS LIKE THE DAUGHTER OF A HALAL.

מה למצרי ראשון שכן אינו ראוי לבא בקהל חלל יוכיח

It was taught: R'Judah said: The daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male halal. And logic proves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'gives'.');">²²</span>

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שאינן ברוב קהל ובתו פסולה אף אני אביא את הגר שאינו ברוב קהל ובתו פסולה

it. If a halal, who [though he] comes from a fit origin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his father is a Jew.');">²³</span>

מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן פוסלים בביאתם ורבי יהודה גר נמי פוסל בביאתו ומייתי לה במה הצד מהאי דינא

[yet] his daughter is unfit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the priesthood.');">²⁴</span> then a proselyte, who comes from an unfit origin, his daughter is surely unfit! As for a halal, [it may be argued,] that is because his own formation is in sin!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being the issue of a forbidden union.');">²⁵</span>

ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר גר תניא רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר גיורת פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד כשרה לכהונה שנאמר (במדבר לא, יח) וכל הטף בנשים החיו לכם והלא פינחס היה עמהם ורבנן החיו לכם לעבדים ולשפחות

Then let [the union of] a High Priest with a widow prove it, for his formation was not in sin, yet his daughter is unfit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As supra, 77a.');">²⁶</span> As for a High Priest and a widow, that is because his cohabitation was in sin! Then let a halal prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he marries and cohabits with the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite, there is no sin, and yet the halal's daughter is unfit.');">²⁷</span>

וכולן מקרא אחד דרשו (יחזקאל מד, כב) אלמנה וגרושה לא יקחו להם לנשים כי אם בתולות מזרע בית ישראל רבי יהודה סבר עד דאית כל זרע מישראל רבי אליעזר בן יעקב סבר מזרע ואפילו מקצת זרע

And so the argument revolves: the distinguishing feature of one is not that of the other; the feature common to both is that they are not as the majority of the community; so also do I adduce the proselyte, who is not as the majority of the community, and his daughter is unfit! [No:] what is the feature common to both? That they have an element<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'side'.');">²⁸</span>

רבי יוסי סבר מי שנזרעו בישראל רבי שמעון בן יוחי סבר מי שנזרעו בתוליה בישראל

of sin!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The union of a High Priest and a widow, and the birth of a halal, are all attended by sin. But that is not true of a proselyte.');">²⁹</span> - Do not say, let [the union of] a High Priest with a widow prove it, but say: let a [converted] Egyptian of the first generation prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no element of sin, yet his daughter is unfit, for only the third generation may marry with Jews.');">³⁰</span>

אמר ליה רב נחמן לרבא

As for a [converted] Egyptian of the first generation, that is because he is ineligible enter into the assembly [at all]! Then let a halal prove it. And so the argument revolves, the distinguishing feature of one not being that of the other. The feature common to both is that they are not as the majority of the congregation and their daughter is unfit. So do I also adduce a proselyte, who is not as the majority of the community, and his daughter is unfit! [No:] As for the feature common to both, it is that they disqualify<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Jewess from the priesthood; supra 74b.');">³¹</span> by their intercourse. And R'Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he answer this?');">³²</span> - A proselyte too disqualifies by his intercourse, and he deduces it by analogy from this very argument.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the daughter of a halal who comes from a fit origin is unfit, how much more should the daughter of a proselyte who is of an unfit origin be unfit?');">³³</span> R'ELIEZER B. JACOB SAID: A PROSELYTE [etc.]. It was taught: R'Simeon B'Yohai said: A female proselyte less than three years and a day is eligible to the priesthood, as it is said: But all the women children. keep alive for yourselves;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 18; it refers to the war captives.');">³⁴</span> now, was not Phinehas among them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And though he was a priest, these children were permitted in marriage.');">³⁵</span> But the Rabbis [interpret]: 'keep them alive for yourselves' as bondmen and bondwomen. Now, all deduce from the same verse: Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away [i.e., divorced] but they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLIV, 22. The reference is to priests.');">³⁶</span> R'Judah holds: all the seed must be from Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which excludes the daughter of a proselyte.');">³⁷</span> R'Eliezer B'Jacob holds: 'of the seed' [implies] even part of the seed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if one side only is of Jewish birth, the daughter is fit.');">³⁸</span> R'Jose holds: whoever was conceived<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sown'.');">³⁹</span> in Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore even if both father and mother are converts, the daughter is fit, since she was conceived in Israel.');">⁴⁰</span> R'Simeon B'Yohai holds: [It means] one whose virginity matured<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., was sown'.');">⁴¹</span> in Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., who becomes converted before three years and a day. At that day her virginity is mature, in that if destroyed it does not return.');">⁴²</span> R'Nahman said to Raba: