## Kiddushin Daf 78a

###### Kiddushin 78a:1
[Kiddushin 78a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:1)

– זוֹנָה מְשַׁוֵּי לַהּ, חֲלָלָה לָא מְשַׁוֵּי לַהּ. חָזַר וּבָא עָלֶיהָ – עֲשָׂאָהּ חֲלָלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**renders her a *zona*,** as he was forbidden to her, but **he does not render her a *ḥalala*,** since her status as a *zona* does not result from a prohibition specific to the priesthood, but due to the prohibition of a forbidden relative. If her brother, or any other priest, **again engaged in intercourse with her, he** thereby **makes her a *ḥalala*,** in accordance with the *halakha* pertaining to a priest who engages in intercourse with a *zona*.


###### Kiddushin 78a:2
[Kiddushin 78a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:2)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם, אַחַת מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יִקָּח״, וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל״. וְלִילְקֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״! בְּשֶׁלֹּא גָּמַר בִּיאָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda says: A High Priest** who engages in sexual intercourse **with a widow is flogged two** sets of lashes, **one** set **due to** transgressing the prohibition of: “A widow, or one divorced, or a *ḥalala*, or a *zona*, these **shall he not take”** (Leviticus 21:14), **and one** set **due to** transgressing the prohibition of: “And **he shall not profane”** (Leviticus 21:15), since he profanes the woman with whom he engages in intercourse. The Gemara asks: **And let him also be flogged** with a third set of lashes **due to** the complete phrase: **“He shall not profane his offspring,”** because the offspring resulting from that act of intercourse is a *ḥalal*. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a situation **where he did not complete his** act of sexual **intercourse.** Since this act does not lead to pregnancy, he is not flogged for profaning his offspring.


###### Kiddushin 78a:3
[Kiddushin 78a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:3)

מֵתִיב רָבָא: אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת, מַאי לָאו שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת וְתוּ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises an objection** against Rav Yehuda’s statement from a mishna (*Makkot* 13a): A High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with **a widow** who was previously **a divorcée is flogged due to two labels** of prohibitions. **What, is it not** stating that he is flogged due to **two labels and no more?** This indicates that he receives only one flogging for each prohibition, and not two as Rav Yehuda taught.


###### Kiddushin 78a:4
[Kiddushin 78a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:4)

לָא, שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת עַל זֶה וּשְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת עַל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No;** it means due to **two labels for this,** i.e., he is flogged two sets of lashes for engaging in intercourse with a widow, one for transgressing: “Shall he not take,” and one for transgressing: “He shall not profane,” **and two labels for that,** i.e., engaging in intercourse with a divorcée.


###### Kiddushin 78a:5
[Kiddushin 78a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:5)

אִי הָכִי אֵימָא סֵיפָא: גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל אַחַת! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל אַחַת, וּלְעוֹלָם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, say the latter clause** of that same mishna: If a priest engages in sexual intercourse with **a divorcée** who was **also a *yevama* who performed *ḥalitza* [*ḥalutza*], he is liable** to receive lashes **due to only one** transgression, since a *ḥalutza* is not forbidden to a priest by Torah law. This is contrary to the opinion of Rav Yehuda, that he should receive two sets of lashes for engaging in intercourse with a divorcée. The Gemara answers: **This is** what the mishna **is saying: He is liable** to receive lashes **due to only one** act, that of engaging in intercourse with a divorcée, **but actually** he is liable to receive two sets of lashes for his act of intercourse with a divorcée, since she is forbidden due to **two labels.** He does not receive an additional set of lashes on account of her being a *ḥalutza*, as this prohibition is by rabbinic law.


###### Kiddushin 78a:6
[Kiddushin 78a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:6)

וַחֲלוּצָה דְּרַבָּנַן? וְהָתַנְיָא: גְּרוּשָׁה – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא גְּרוּשָׁה, חֲלוּצָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִשָּׁה״! מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is **a *ḥalutza*** forbidden to a priest only **by rabbinic law? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: It states in the Torah that a priest may not marry **a divorcée. I have** derived **only a divorcée; from where** do I derive that **a *ḥalutza*** is also forbidden? **The verse states: “And a woman** divorced” (Leviticus 21:7), with the additional conjunction of “and” serving to include a *ḥalutza*, that she is also considered to be a type of divorced woman. The Gemara rejects this: Even so, this prohibition is only **by rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support,** but it is not the true source of the *halakha*.


###### Kiddushin 78a:7
[Kiddushin 78a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:7)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: קִידֵּשׁ – לוֹקֶה, בָּעַל – לוֹקֶה. קִידֵּשׁ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יִקָּח״. בָּעַל לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל״. רָבָא אָמַר: בָּעַל – לוֹקֶה, לֹא בָּעַל – אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יִקַּח... וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל״ מָה טַעַם ״לֹא יִקַּח״? מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says:** A priest who **betrothed** a woman forbidden to him **is flogged;** if he **engaged in sexual intercourse** with her he **is flogged** additional lashes. The Gemara clarifies this: If he **betrothed,** he **is flogged due to** transgressing the prohibition of: **“Shall he not take.”** If he also **engaged in intercourse,** he **is flogged due to** transgressing the prohibition of: **“He shall not profane.” Rava says:** If he **engaged in intercourse** he **is flogged;** if he **did not engage in intercourse, he is not flogged** at all, **because it is written: “Shall he not take…and he shall not profane,”** which Rava understands to mean: **For what reason** is he commanded **not to take?** It is **so that he not profane.** Rava holds that he is not liable for taking, i.e., betrothing, the woman, but only for engaging in intercourse with her, as this leads to profanation.


###### Kiddushin 78a:8
[Kiddushin 78a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:8)

וּמוֹדֶה אַבָּיֵי בְּמַחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ, שֶׁאִם קִידֵּשׁ וְלֹא בָּעַל – שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. ״לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא לֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** although **Abaye** holds that the act of betrothal itself is forbidden, he **concedes in** the case of an Israelite who **remarries his divorcée** after she had been married to someone else in the interim, **that if he betrothed** her **without engaging in intercourse, he is not flogged.** Why not? It is as **the Merciful One states** in the Torah with regard to this prohibition: **“Take her again to be his wife”** (Deuteronomy 24:4), which indicates that the act of betrothal is forbidden only if it leads to the intimacy of marriage, **and** there is **no** such intimacy here since he has not engaged in intercourse with her.


###### Kiddushin 78a:9
[Kiddushin 78a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:9)

וּמוֹדֶה רָבָא בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה, שֶׁאִם בָּעַל וְלֹא קִידֵּשׁ – שֶׁלּוֹקֶה. ״וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וַהֲרֵי הוּא חִילֵּל. וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים בְּמַחְזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ, שֶׁאִם בָּעַל וְלֹא קִידֵּשׁ – שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, דֶּרֶךְ לִיקּוּחִין אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **Rava concedes in** the case of **a High Priest with a widow, that if he engaged in sexual intercourse without betrothing** her, **he is flogged** for the act of intercourse, as **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“And he shall not profane his offspring among his people”** (Leviticus 21:15), **and he has profaned** her with his act of intercourse. **And they both concede in** the case of the prohibition with regard to **one who remarries his divorcée that if he engaged in intercourse** with her **without betrothing** her **he is not flogged,** because **the Torah forbade** them to reestablish their union only **through the manner of taking,** i.e., betrothal, but it did not prohibit the act of intercourse on its own.


###### Kiddushin 78a:10
[Kiddushin 78a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:10)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּת גֵּר זָכָר כְּבַת חָלָל. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּת גֵּר זָכָר כְּבַת חָלָל זָכָר. וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן: מָה חָלָל, שֶׁבָּא מִטִּפָּה כְּשֵׁרָה – בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה, גֵּר, שֶׁבָּא מִטִּפָּה פְּסוּלָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁבִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of** a male ***ḥalal*,** and is prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. **It is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male *ḥalal*,** and is prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. **And logic dictates** that this is so: **Just as** in the case of **a *ḥalal*, who comes from a fit drop** of semen, as both his parents are Jewish, **his daughter is** nevertheless **unfit** to marry into the priesthood, in the case of **a convert, who comes from an unfit drop,** as he was born a gentile, **is it not logical that his daughter should be unfit** to marry into the priesthood?


###### Kiddushin 78a:11
[Kiddushin 78a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:11)

מָה לְחָלָל, שֶׁכֵּן יְצִירָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵין יְצִירָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה, בִּתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters this derivation: **What** is notable **about a *ḥalal*?** He is notable **in that he is formed through a transgression,** whereas the gentile parents of a convert were permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with each other. Therefore, the *halakha* of the daughter of a *ḥalal* might be more stringent than the *halakha* of the daughter of a convert. The Gemara responds: The case of **a High Priest** who engages in intercourse **with a widow shall prove** that this aspect is not germane to the fitness of the offspring, **since the formation of** the High Priest **was not through a transgression, and** yet **his daughter is unfit** to marry into the priesthood, indicating that being formed through a transgression does not play a role in this matter.


###### Kiddushin 78a:12
[Kiddushin 78a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:12)

מָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה, שֶׁכֵּן בִּיאָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה! חָלָל יוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters again: **What** is notable **about a High Priest** who engages in intercourse **with a widow?** He is notable **in that his** act of **intercourse is a transgression.** This aspect is what leads to the stringent *halakha* that his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara responds: The case of **a *ḥalal* will prove** that this aspect is not germane to the fitness of the offspring, as his daughter is unfit despite the fact that his act of intercourse does not involve a transgression.


###### Kiddushin 78a:13
[Kiddushin 78a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:13)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁאֵינָן בְּרוֹב הַקָּהָל, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּרוֹב הַקָּהָל וּבִתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the derivation has reverted** to its starting point. **The aspect of this** person, a *ḥalal*, **is not like the aspect of that** person, a High Priest, as with regard to each of them there is a unique reason for the *halakha* to be stringent. Despite this, **their common denominator is that they are unlike most of the congregation,** in that they both differ from Jews of unflawed lineage, either because their formation or their act of sexual intercourse involved a transgression, and their daughters are therefore unfit to marry into the priesthood. **I will also bring** the case of **the convert, who is unlike most of the congregation, and** therefore **his daughter is** also **unfit to marry** into the priesthood.


###### Kiddushin 78a:14
[Kiddushin 78a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:14)

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶם צַד עֲבֵירָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is rejected: **What** is notable **about their common denominator is that** the reason they are not like most of the congregation **includes an aspect of a transgression,** either with regard to their formation or to their act of intercourse. Therefore, the *halakha* of the daughter of a convert cannot be derived from them.


###### Kiddushin 78a:15
[Kiddushin 78a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:15)

לָא תֵּימָא כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה יוֹכִיחַ, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: מִצְרִי רִאשׁוֹן יוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara modifies the proof: **Do not say** that **a High Priest** who engages in sexual intercourse **with a widow will prove** it; **rather, say** that **a first**-generation male **Egyptian** convert who married a first-generation female Egyptian convert **will prove** it. Although their intercourse does not involve a transgression, their offspring are nevertheless unfit to marry into the priesthood, as Egyptians may enter into the congregation only after three generations.


###### Kiddushin 78a:16
[Kiddushin 78a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:16)

מָה לְמִצְרִי רִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל. חָלָל יוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This proof is also rejected: **What** is notable **about a first**-generation **Egyptian?** He is notable **in that he is not fit to enter into the congregation** at all, and that is why his offspring may not marry into the priesthood. The Gemara responds that **a *ḥalal* will prove** that this aspect is not germane to the fitness of the offspring, since his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood although his offspring may enter into the congregation.


###### Kiddushin 78a:17
[Kiddushin 78a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:17)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין. לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁאֵינָן בְּרוֹב קָהָל, וּבִתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה. אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּרוֹב קָהָל וּבִתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the derivation has reverted** to its starting point, as the *halakha* of the daughter of a convert cannot be derived from the case of the Egyptian alone or from the case of the *ḥalal* alone. **The aspect of this** person, an Egyptian convert, **is not like the aspect of that** person, a *ḥalal*, as with regard to each of them there is a unique reason for the *halakha* to be stringent. Despite this, **their common denominator is that they are unlike most of the congregation,** in that they both differ from Jews of unflawed lineage and their **daughters are** consequently **unfit** to marry into the priesthood. **I will also bring** the case of **the convert, who is unlike most of the congregation, and** therefore **his daughter is** also **unfit to marry** into the priesthood.


###### Kiddushin 78a:18
[Kiddushin 78a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:18)

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן פּוֹסְלִים בְּבִיאָתָם. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: גֵּר נָמֵי פּוֹסֵל בְּבִיאָתוֹ, וּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ בַּמָּה הַצַּד מֵהַאי דִּינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **What** is notable **about their common denominator is that they disqualify** the daughter of a priest from marrying a priest **through their** act of **intercourse,** which is not the case with a convert. The Gemara explains: **And Rabbi Yehuda** holds that **a convert also disqualifies** the daughter of a priest from marrying a priest **through his** act of **intercourse, and he derives** the *halakha* that the daughter of a convert is unfit to marry into the priesthood **by** means of an analogy derived from **the common factor** of two sources, i.e., **from this *halakha*** of a *ḥalal* and of an Egyptian.


###### Kiddushin 78a:19
[Kiddushin 78a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:19)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר גֵּר. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: גִּיּוֹרֶת פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד – כְּשֵׁרָה לַכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכֹל הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים... הַחֲיוּ לָכֶם״, וַהֲלֹא פִּינְחָס הָיָה עִמָּהֶם! וְרַבָּנַן? ״הַחֲיוּ לָכֶם״ – לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says** that the daughter of **a convert** and a Jewish woman is fit to marry into the priesthood. **It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: A female** who **converts** at **less than three years and one day** old **is fit to** marry into **the priesthood, as it is stated** after the war with Midian: **“But all the female children** who have not known a man by lying with him, **keep alive for yourselves”** (Numbers 31:18), i.e., you may marry them. **But wasn’t Pinehas** the priest **with them,** and yet the Torah permitted these women to all of them, which indicates that girls who are not of age when they convert are permitted even to priests. **And** how do **the Rabbis,** who hold that even a girl who converts at less than three years and one day old is unfit to marry into the priesthood, interpret this verse? In their opinion, **“keep alive for yourselves”** means **as slaves and as maidservants,** but not for marriage.


###### Kiddushin 78a:20
[Kiddushin 78a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:20)

וְכוּלָּן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה לֹא יִקְחוּ לָהֶם לְנָשִׁים כִּי אִם בְּתוּלֹת מִזֶּרַע בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל״, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: עַד דְּאִית כׇּל זֶרַע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: ״מִזֶּרַע״, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת זֶרַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And all of** the *tanna’im* who have a dispute with regard to the fitness of the daughter of a convert for marrying into the priesthood **expounded a single verse.** It states with regard to priests: **“Neither shall they take as their wives a widow, nor her that divorced; but they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israel”** (Ezekiel 44:22). **Rabbi Yehuda holds:** A priest may marry a woman **only if the entire seed is from** those born to **the Jewish people,** but not if one of the parents is a convert. **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds: “Of the seed** of the house of Israel” indicates that not all of the seed must come from the house of Israel, **and even** if **part of the seed** is from the house of Israel, that is sufficient to allow her to marry a priest.


###### Kiddushin 78a:21
[Kiddushin 78a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:21)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: מִי שֶׁנִּזְרְעוּ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי סָבַר: מִי שֶׁנִּזְרְעוּ בְּתוּלֶיהָ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei,** who holds that even the daughter of two converts is permitted to marry into the priesthood, **holds** that “of the seed of the house of Israel” means **one who was seeded,** i.e., conceived, **in Israel,** and the children of converts were conceived by Jewish parents. And **Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai,** who permits a female who converted at less than three years and one day old to marry into the priesthood, **holds** that the phrase “virgins of the seed of the house of Israel” is referring to **one whose hymen was formed as a Jew,** i.e., a woman who was already Jewish when her hymen completed its formation, which occurs at the age of three.


###### Kiddushin 78a:22
[Kiddushin 78a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/78a:22)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרָבָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said to Rava:**