## Kiddushin Daf 77a

###### Kiddushin 77a:1
[Kiddushin 77a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** בַּת חָלָל זָכָר – פְּסוּלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה לְעוֹלָם. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֲלָלָה – בִּתּוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה לַכְּהוּנָּה. חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל – בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה לַכְּהוּנָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּת גֵּר זָכָר כְּבַת חָלָל זָכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The daughter of a male *ḥalal* is unfit to** marry into **the priesthood forever.** In other words, all daughters of male descendants of a *ḥalal* are prohibited from marrying priests, as they have the status of *ḥalalot*. If there was **an Israelite who married a *ḥalala*, his daughter is fit to** marry into **the priesthood,** whereas if there was **a *ḥalal* who married a Jewish woman, his daughter is unfit to** marry into **the priesthood. Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male *ḥalal*,** and she is also prohibited from marrying into the priesthood.


###### Kiddushin 77a:2
[Kiddushin 77a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:2)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיּוֹרֶת – בִּתּוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה לַכְּהוּנָּה, וְגֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל – בִּתּוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה לַכְּהוּנָּה, אֲבָל גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיּוֹרֶת – בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה לַכְּהוּנָּה. אֶחָד גֵּר וְאֶחָד עֲבָדִים מְשׁוּחְרָרִים אֲפִילּוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה דּוֹרוֹת, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיּוֹרֶת בִּתּוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה לַכְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov** disagrees and **says:** If there was **an Israelite who married a** female **convert, his daughter is fit to** marry into **the priesthood, and** similarly if there was **a convert who married a Jewish woman, his daughter is fit to** marry into **the priesthood. But** if there was a male **convert who married** a female **convert, his daughter is unfit to** marry into **the priesthood.** With regard to **both converts and emancipated** Canaanite **slaves,** their daughters are unfit to marry into the priesthood **even up to ten generations.** This *halakha* applies to the offspring **until his mother is** born **Jewish. Rabbi Yosei says: Even** if there was a male **convert who married** a female **convert, his daughter is fit to** marry into **the priesthood.**


###### Kiddushin 77a:3
[Kiddushin 77a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי לְעוֹלָם? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִידֵּי דַּהֲוָה אַמִּצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי, מָה לְהַלָּן לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת, אַף כָּאן נָמֵי לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **What** is the meaning of the statement that the daughter of a *ḥalal* is unfit **forever?** The Gemara explains: It is necessary **lest you say** that the *halakha* should be **just as it is in** the case of **an Egyptian** convert **and an Edomite** convert, and that **just as there,** with regard to an Egyptian and an Edomite, their descendants are permitted to enter into the congregation **after three generations, so too here,** the daughter of a descendant of a *ḥalal* should **also** be allowed to marry into the priesthood **after three generations.** The mishna therefore **teaches us** that this prohibition is permanent.


###### Kiddushin 77a:4
[Kiddushin 77a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:4)

יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֲלָלָה. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן: ״וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: ״לֹא יִטַּמָּא בַּעַל בְּעַמָּיו״. מָה לְהַלָּן זְכָרִים וְלֹא נְקֵבוֹת, אַף כָּאן זְכָרִים וְלֹא נְקֵבוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that in the case of **an Israelite who married a *ḥalala*,** his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon** that **it is stated here: “And he shall not profane his offspring among his people”** (Leviticus 21:15), **and it is stated there: “He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people”** (Leviticus 21:4): **Just as there** the prohibition against a priest contracting ritual impurity from a corpse applies to **males but not females; so too here,** with regard to the profanation of his offspring, where the term “among his people” is also employed, it is **males** who are rendered unfit and who render their daughters unfit to marry into the priesthood when they are *ḥalalim*, **but not females.**


###### Kiddushin 77a:5
[Kiddushin 77a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:5)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל תִּישְׁתְּרֵי! מִי כְּתִיב בְּנוֹ? ״זַרְעוֹ״ כְּתִיב, ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that profanation applies only to males, **the daughter of a High Priest** and a widow **should be permitted** to marry into the priesthood, and there should be no status of a *ḥalala*. The Gemara rejects this: **Is it written** that **his son** is profaned? **It is written: “His offspring,”** which includes his daughter, as the verse reads: **“He shall not profane his offspring among his people.”** Nevertheless, the daughter of his *ḥalala* daughter, who is already the third generation, is permitted as a result of the verbal analogy.


###### Kiddushin 77a:6
[Kiddushin 77a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:6)

בַּת בְּנוֹ תִּישְׁתְּרֵי! כְּתִיב ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״, מַקִּישׁ זַרְעוֹ לוֹ, מָה הוּא – בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה, אַף בְּנוֹ – בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה. בַּת בִּתּוֹ תִּיתְּסַר! אִם כֵּן, גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, that the granddaughter is permitted as a result of the verbal analogy, **the daughter of his son should** also **be permitted.** The Gemara answers: **It is written: “He shall not profane his offspring,”** by which the Torah **links his offspring to him: Just as** for **him, his daughter is unfit; so too** for **his son,** the son of a High Priest, **his daughter is unfit.** The Gemara asks: In that case, **the daughter of his daughter** from an Israelite **should be prohibited,** just as his own daughter is unfit. The Gemara answers: **If so,** that his daughter’s daughter is also unfit, **of what use is the verbal analogy** of: “He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people”? It must teach that his daughter’s daughter is fit.


###### Kiddushin 77a:7
[Kiddushin 77a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:7)

חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל – בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא: ״בַּת חָלָל זָכָר פְּסוּלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה לְעוֹלָם״! אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֲלָלָה, תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if there was **a *ḥalal* who married a Jewish woman, his daughter is unfit** to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara questions this ruling: **Wasn’t this** already **taught in the first clause: The daughter of a male *ḥalal* is unfit to** marry into **the priesthood forever?** The Gemara answers: **Since it taught** in **the first clause** about **an Israelite who married a *ḥalala*, it also taught** in **the latter clause** about **a *ḥalal* who married a Jewish woman,** to present the complete ruling.


###### Kiddushin 77a:8
[Kiddushin 77a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:8)

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בֶּן יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִקְוֵה טׇהֳרָה לַחֲלָלוֹת, כָּךְ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִקְוֵה טׇהֳרָה לַחֲלָלִים. מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״ – בְּעִם אֶחָד הוּא דְּמֵיחֵל, בִּשְׁנֵי עֲמָמִים אֵינוֹ מֵיחֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says: Just as the sons of Israel** are **a ritual bath of purity for *ḥalalot*,** i.e., the daughter of a *ḥalala* who marries an Israelite does not transmit her status of a *ḥalala*, and their daughters may marry priests, **so the daughters of Israel are a ritual bath of purity for *ḥalalim*,** and their daughters may marry priests. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason of Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yehuda?** The Gemara explains that **the verse states: “He shall not profane his offspring among his people”** (Leviticus 21:15), which teaches: **It is among one people that he profanes,** i.e., the offspring is a *ḥalal* only when he and his wife are both profaned, i.e., *ḥalalim*, but **among two peoples he does not profane.** If the mother is of a different people, i.e., not a *ḥalala*, the offspring is of unflawed lineage.


###### Kiddushin 77a:9
[Kiddushin 77a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:9)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זַרְעוֹ, הִיא עַצְמָהּ, מִנַּיִן? אָמַרְתָּ: קַל וָחוֹמֶר, מָה זַרְעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר עֲבֵירָה – מִתְחַלֵּל, הִיא שֶׁעָבְרָה עֲבֵירָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמִּתְחַלֶּלֶת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** The verse states that a priest may not engage in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him, so that **“he shall not profane his offspring.” I have** derived **only** that **his offspring** resulting from a union with a woman forbidden to him is profaned, i.e., has the status of a *ḥalal*; **from where** do I derive that **she herself, i.e.,** the woman who engaged in forbidden intercourse with the priest, is also disqualified from marrying into the priesthood? **You** can **say** it is an ***a fortiori*** inference: **If his offspring, who did not commit a transgression, is profaned, is it not logical that she, who did commit a transgression, is** similarly **profaned?**


###### Kiddushin 77a:10
[Kiddushin 77a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:10)

הוּא, עַצְמוֹ יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵירָה וְאֵין מִתְחַלֵּל! מָה לְהוּא, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין מִתְחַלֵּל בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, תֹּאמַר בְּהִיא, שֶׁמִּתְחַלֶּלֶת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **He,** the priest **himself, shall prove** otherwise, **as he committed a transgression but** he is **not profaned.** Although he may not serve in the Temple while he remains married to her, he regains his status of a fit priest once he divorces her. The Gemara rejects this: **What** is notable **about** the priest? He is notable **in that** he is a male, **and in no case is** a male priest **profaned** by engaging in forbidden intercourse. Will **you say** the same **with regard to her,** a woman, **who is disqualified** from marrying a priest **in all cases?** For example, if she engages in intercourse with a man of flawed lineage, she assumes the status of a *zona* and is permanently disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.


###### Kiddushin 77a:11
[Kiddushin 77a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:11)

וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר: אָמַר קְרָא ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״ – לֹא יְחוּלַּל, זֶה שֶׁהָיָה כָּשֵׁר וְנִתְחַלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it is your wish to say** that this reasoning is faulty, there is a different proof: **The verse states: “He shall not profane his offspring,”** which means that the priest may not engage in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him so that someone **shall not become profaned.** The verse is referring to **this** woman **who was** at one time **fit and** then **became profaned.** In other words, the term profanation does not apply to his offspring, as they were never fit to begin with. Rather, it is referring to the woman with whom he engaged in intercourse, as, since she was initially fit to marry into the priesthood, she can be described as becoming profaned.


###### Kiddushin 77a:12
[Kiddushin 77a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:12)

מַאי ״אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְזַרְעוֹ – שֶׁכֵּן יְצִירָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל״, לֹא יְחוֹלֵל – זֶה שֶׁהָיָה כָּשֵׁר וְנִתְחַלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of: **If it is your wish to say** that this reasoning is faulty, in what way is it faulty? The Gemara explains the counterargument: **And if you would say** that the *a fortiori* argument **can be refuted** as follows: **What** is notable **about his offspring?** He is notable **in that he is formed through a transgression.** Since the woman was not formed through a transgression, one cannot derive the *halakha* pertaining to her from that of the offspring. The Gemara therefore continues that even if one were to state that counterargument, **the verse** nevertheless **states: “He shall not profane his offspring,”** which means that the priest may not engage in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him so that someone **shall not become profaned.** The verse is referring to **this** woman **who was** at one time **fit and** then **became profaned.**


###### Kiddushin 77a:13
[Kiddushin 77a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:13)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזוֹ הִיא חֲלָלָה – כֹּל שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה מִן הַפְּסוּלִים. מַאי ״פְּסוּלִים״? אִילֵימָא פְּסוּלִים לוֹ, הֲרֵי מַחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ דִּפְסוּלָה לוֹ וּבָנֶיהָ כְּשֵׁרִים, דִּכְתִיב ״תּוֹעֵבָה הִיא״ – הִיא תּוֹעֵבָה, וְאֵין בָּנֶיהָ תּוֹעֲבִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught: Who is a *ḥalala*?** The term is referring to **any** woman **born from** people of **flawed** lineage. The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of people of **flawed** lineage? **If we say** it means she was born from someone **unfit for him,** i.e., a woman forbidden to this particular man due to a family relationship or for some other reason, **isn’t there** the case of one who **remarries his divorcée** after she had been married to someone else in the interim; she is **unfit for him, and** yet **her children are fit. As it is written** with regard to this case: **“That is an abomination”** (Deuteronomy 24:4), and this is interpreted to mean: **That** marriage **is an abomination, but the children of** that marriage **are not an abomination** and are entirely fit.


###### Kiddushin 77a:14
[Kiddushin 77a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:14)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵיזוֹ הִיא חֲלָלָה – כֹּל שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה מִן פְּסוּל כְּהוּנָּה. נוֹלְדָה – אִין, לֹא נוֹלְדָה – לָא? הֲרֵי אַלְמָנָה, וּגְרוּשָׁה, זוֹנָה, דְּלֹא נוֹלְדָה, וְקָא הָוְיָא חֲלָלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says: This is** what the Sages are **saying: Who is a *ḥalala*?** The term is referring to **any** woman **born from one unfit for the priesthood.** The Gemara questions this: This implies that one who was **born, yes,** she is a *ḥalala*, but one who was **not born** from one unfit for the priesthood is **not** a *ḥalala*. **Aren’t there** the cases of **a widow, or a divorced woman,** or **a *zona*** who engaged in intercourse with a priest? They were **not born** from one who was unfit for the priesthood, **and** yet such a woman **is a *ḥalala*.**


###### Kiddushin 77a:15
[Kiddushin 77a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:15)

אָמַר רַבָּה: הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵיזוֹ חֲלָלָה מוּזְכֶּרֶת שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר כְּלָל? כֹּל שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה מִן פְּסוּל כְּהוּנָּה. מַאי ״מוּזְכֶּרֶת״? אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אָבִין: הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵיזוֹ הִיא חֲלָלָה שֶׁעִיקָּרָהּ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וְאֵין צְרִיכִין לְפָרֵשׁ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים – כֹּל שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה מִן פְּסוּלֵי כְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: This is** what the Sages are **saying: Who is the *ḥalala* mentioned that did not have a moment of fitness at all,** but was unfit from birth? She is **any** woman **born from one unfit for the priesthood.** The Gemara asks: **What is** the meaning of the term: **Mentioned?** Where was she mentioned? **Rav Yitzḥak bar Avin said: This is** what the Sages are **saying: Who is the *ḥalala* whose** prohibition **is rooted in the words of** a verse in **the Torah, and it is not necessary to clarify** her prohibition further **by the words of the Sages?** She is **any** woman **born from one unfit for the priesthood.** With regard to such a woman the verse explicitly states: “He shall not profane his offspring.” By contrast, the *halakha* that a woman who engages in forbidden intercourse with a priest becomes a *ḥalala* is not explicit in the Torah, but is learned through an exposition of the Sages.


###### Kiddushin 77a:16
[Kiddushin 77a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:16)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַלְמָנָה אַלְמָנָה אַלְמָנָה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. גְּרוּשָׁה גְּרוּשָׁה גְּרוּשָׁה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** If a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with **a widow, a widow, a widow, he is liable** to receive **only one** set of lashes. Similarly, if a priest engages in intercourse with **a divorcée, a divorcée, a divorcée, he is liable** to receive **only one** set of lashes.


###### Kiddushin 77a:17
[Kiddushin 77a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:17)

אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה זוֹנָה, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם כַּסֵּדֶר – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. זִינְּתָה וְנִתְחַלְּלָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה וְנִתְאַרְמְלָה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who was **a widow, and** then was **a divorcée, and** then was **a *ḥalala*,** and then was **a *zona*, when** the changes to her status occurred **in** that **order,** that she was first widowed, then remarried and was divorced, and subsequently engaged in intercourse with a priest, thereby becoming a *ḥalala*, and then she engaged in intercourse with a gentile or a forbidden relative, thereby becoming a *zona*, the High Priest **is liable** to receive lashes **for each and every one** of these transgressions each time he engages in intercourse with her. By contrast, if she first **became a *zona*** by engaging in intercourse with a gentile or a forbidden relative, **and** then **became a *ḥalala*** by engaging in intercourse with a priest, **and** subsequently **she divorced,** remarried, **and was widowed,** a High Priest who now engages in intercourse with her **is liable** to receive **only one** set of lashes.


###### Kiddushin 77a:18
[Kiddushin 77a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/77a:18)

אָמַר מָר: אַלְמָנָה אַלְמָנָה אַלְמָנָה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. הַאי אַלְמָנָה הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא שֶׁבָּא עַל אַלְמְנַת רְאוּבֵן וְעַל אַלְמְנַת שִׁמְעוֹן וְעַל אַלְמְנַת לֵוִי, אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to clarify this *baraita*. **The Master said** in the *baraita*: If a High Priest engages in intercourse with **a widow, a widow, a widow, he is liable** to receive **only one** set of lashes. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances of this widow? If we say that he engaged in sexual intercourse** with three widows: **With Reuven’s widow, and with Shimon’s widow, and with Levi’s widow, why is he liable** to receive **only one** set of lashes?