(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Kidushin 77

KIDUSHIN 77-80 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) The Tana of our Mishnah states 'bas Chalal Zachar Pesulah min ha'Kehunah Le'olam'. 'Le'olam' means - bas B'no, bas ben B'no, bas ben ben B'no' ad infinitum (in other words, the first daughter born after a line of males is always a Chalalah).

(b) The Tana deems it necessary to stress 'Le'olam' - because we might otherwise have compared this case to that of a Mitzri and Edomi, who are only forbidden for two generations.

(c) That daughter's child from ...

1. ... a Yisrael - will be Kasher.
2. ... a Kohen - will be a Chalalah.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah invalidates the daughter of a Ger, like the daughter of a Chalal. The daughter of a Giyores who married a Yisrael he says - is Kasher.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - validates both the daughter of a Ger and a Yisre'elis and that of a Giyores and a Yisrael. He does concede however - that the daughter of a Ger and a Giyores is Pasul.

(c) According to the above respective opinions, a Ger and an Eved Meshuchrar remain Pasul li'Kehunah - forever ('even up to ten generations').

(d) Rebbi Yossi is more lenient still - since he validates even the daughter of a Ger and a Giyores.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan quotes the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa "ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o be'Amav" and "Lo Yitama Ba'al be'Amav" - as a source for the Reisha of our Mishnah (which invalidates the daughter of a Chalal, but not of a Chalalah).

(b) He learns from there - that Chalalus, like Tum'as Kohanim, does not pertain to Kohanos.

(c) Nevertheless, the daughter of ...

1. ... a Kohen Gadol and an Almanah is Pasul - because the Torah writes (not "ve'Lo Yechalel B'no", but) "ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o".
2. ... their son is Pasul (in spite of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah') - because the Torah compares here the Kohen Gadol's son to him. Consequently, just as the *Kohen Gadol's* daughter is Pasul, so is his son's.
(d) Nevertheless, his daughter's daughter is Kasher - because otherwise, what would the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' be coming to teach us?
(a) In spite of having already taught 'bas Chalal Zachar Pasul', the Tana nevertheless repeats 'Chalal she'Nasa bas Yisrael, Bito Pesulah li'Kehunah' - in order to balance 'Yisrael she'Nasa Chalalah, Bito Kesherah li'Kehunah' (that precedes it).

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah does not hold like Rebbi Dustai ben Yehudah - who validates the daughter of a Chalal and a Yisre'elis, just like that of a Chalalah to a Yisrael.

(c) He extrapolates this from the fact - that the Torah writes "ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o *be'Amav*", in the singular (and not ''be'Amemav" in the plural), implying that the grandchildren will be Chalalim only if both their parents are of the same 'nation' (i.e. if they are both Chalalim).

(a) Despite the fact that the Torah only invalidates the daughter of a Kohen Gadol to an Almanah, the Tana of the Beraisa initially learns that the Almanah herself becomes a Chalalah too - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' (from the daughter, who did not perform a sin, yet she becomes a Chalalah, how much more so the Almanah who did, which in turn, we learn from the Pasuk "Lo Yikachu", in the plural).

(b) We cannot refute this 'Kal va'Chomer from the Kohen Gadol himself, who does not become a Chalal - because, a man never becomes Pasul through a Bi'ah that is forbidden to him (as we learned in a Mishnah in Bechoros), like a woman does (as we learned in Yevamos from the Pasuk "u'vas Kohen Ki Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar").

(c) The ramifications of the fact that ...

1. ... the Almanah does become a Chalalah are - that a. she is forbidden to eat Terumah, and b. that should the Kohen Gadol die, she remains forbidden to marry a Kohen (or even to perform Yibum with her deceased husband's brother).
2. ... the Kohen Gadol does not, are - that the moment he makes a vow to divorce the Almanah, he once again becomes eligible to perform the Avodah.
(d) We refute the current 'Kal va'Chomer' on the grounds that whereas the daughter was born through a sin, the Almanah was not, and we finally learn that the Almanah becomes a Chalalah too - from the Torah's use of the term "Lo Yechalel", which implies that someone who was previously Kasher becomes profaned (which is not the case with her daughter), who is born profaned.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "To'evah Hi" - that a divorcee who has been married to someone else - is considered an abomination to her first husband, but ('Hi To'evah', ve'Ein Banehah To'evin') her children are not.

(b) We extrapolate from there that, when the Tana of the Beraisa writes 'Eizuhi Chalalah, Kol she'Noldah min ha'Pesulim' - he does not mean that someone who is born from any forbidden Bi'ah (apart from a Mamzer), is a Chalalah.

(c) Rav Yehudah therefore explains the Beraisa to mean - 'Kol she'Noldah min P'sul Kehunah'.

(d) Bearing in mind that an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol and a Gerushah and a Zonah to a Kohen Hedyot are also Chalalim, Rabah explains the expression 'Kol she'Noldah min ha'Pesulim' to refer to 'Chalalah Muzkeres', meaning that the Tana is only concerned with the Chalalah that is written in the Torah explicitly ("ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o"), but not with the woman herself, who, as we explained earlier, is learned from an inference.

(a) The Beraisa states 'Almanah, Almanah, Almanah Eino Chayav Ela Achas', and the same applies to Gerushah, Gerushah, Gerushah'. The Tana says re. a case of "Almanah, u'Gerushah, va'Chalalah Zonah" (as they appear in the Pasuk in Emor) - that provided the four names took effect in that order, the Kohen Gadol will be Chayav Malkos for each one.

(b) The case will be when she was widowed from her first husband, married and became divorced, married a Kohen (making her a Chalalah) and had relations with any man (making her a Zonah) or, in the event that her husband died, with a man who is forbidden to her (because he was a close relative or because he was one of the Pesulei Kahal).

(c) 'Almanah, Almanah, Almanah' cannot mean that the Kohen Gadol had relations with the Almanos of three different men - because seeing as they are three different people, there is no reason for there not to be three transgressions (and three Malkos).

(d) So we suggest that it means that he had relations with one Almanah three times. But that too, is impossible. It cannot be referring to ...

1. ... three Bi'os but only one warning - because that would be obvious.
2. ... three Bi'os and three warnings - because then he ought to be Chayav three sets of Malkos, as we learned in the Mishnah in Nazir, with re. to a Nazir who drank wine all day, and who is Chayav each time he is warned.



(a) We finally establish the Beraisa 'Almanah, Almanah, Almanah Eino Chayav Ela Achas' - by a Kohen Gadol who married (one woman) the widow of three different men. And the Chidush is - that although she was a widow three times, the Kohen Gadol only transgresses one La'av, because she is one person (and in order to receive three Malkos, one would require either three people with the same name, or one person with three different names).

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa cannot hold 'Isur Chal al Isur, otherwise the four names (Almanah, u'Gerushah, va'Chalalah Zonah) would take effect irrespective of the order in which they occurred. Rava explains that the reason they take effect, even in the right order is - because the Tana holds 'Isur Mosif (when the second Isur adds an aspect of Isur that was not there before) Chal al Isur'.

(c) A ...

1. ... Gerushah is 'Mosif' on an Almanah - inasmuch as she now becomes forbidden to marry a Kohen Hedyot.
2. ... Chalalah is 'Mosif on a Gerushah - inasmuch as she now becomes forbidden to eat Terumah.
3. ... Zonah is 'Mosif' on a Chalalah, says Rav Chana bar Ketina, - inasmuch as the Isur of Zonah is applicable to a Yisrael too (i.e. when his wife commits adultery).
(a) The Beraisa expert quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav Sheishes. When he states there 'Kol she'Hu be'Yikach', Harei Hu be'Lo Yikach' - he is referring to a Kohen Gadol who has relations with his sister who is also an Almanah (who would have been forbidden to him even if she had not been an Almanah).

(b) Rebbi Shimon in another Beraisa exempts someone who eats Neveilah on Yom Kipur from a Chatas - the Rabbanan obligate him to bring one.

(c) We reconcile the Rabbanan in the latter Beraisa with the Beraisa quoted by the Beraisa expert - by restricting the former to where the second Isur is more stringent (like Yom Kipur compared to Neveilah), but not vice-versa (an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol compared to a sister).

(d) The second Lashon ...

1. ... attempts to establish the former Beraisa *specifically* like the Rabbanan and not like Rebbi Shimon - because since, according to him, even a stringent Isur does not take effect on a more lenient one, it is obvious that a lighter Isur *will not take effect* on a more stringent one (and we do not need a Beraisa to teach us this).
2. ... finally reconciles it even with Rebbi Shimon - because we would otherwise have thought that by Isur Kehunah (seeing as the Torah has given the Kohanim many extra Mitzvos) *perhaps it will*.
(a) Rav Papa asked Abaye whether if a Yisrael has relations with his sister, besides making her a Zonah, he also makes her a Chalalah. His reason for thinking ...
1. ... that he does is - because he learns a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Chayvei La'avin (Almanah, Gerushah ... ) which render her a Chalalah, how much more so Chayvei Ka'res.
2. ... that he does not - because 'Ein Chalalah Ela me'Isur Kehunah Bi'levad'.
(b) Abaye replied - 'Ein Chalalah Ela me'Isur Kehunah Bi'levad'.

(c) Rava derives this from a Beraisa. The Tana learns from the fact that the Torah repeats the Din of a Gerushah by a Kohen Gadol (even though we already know it from a Kohen Hedyot) - that if a Kohen Gadol marries a woman with all four names, he is Chayav for Almanah independently.

(d) It cannot be coming to teach us that one is Chayav on the *Gerushah* by a Kohen Gadol independently - because there is not the least S'vara to say that the La'av disappears when he becomes a Kohen Gadol.

(a) The Tana learns from the fact that the Torah repeats by Kohen Gadol ...
1. ... Chalalah - that 'Ein Chalalah Ela me'Isur Kehunah Bi'levad' (the reason that Rava cited this Beraisa).
2. ... Zonah (from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Zonah" "Zonah") - that the daughter born from a Kohen Hedyot and one of the Isurei Kehunah is a Chalalah, just like the daughter from a Kohen Gadol and an Almanah or one of the Isurei Kehunah.
(b) Rav Ashi therefore concludes that a Kohen who has relations with his unmarried sister ...
1. ... the first time - renders her a Zonah (but not a Chalalah).
2. ... the second time - renders her a Chalalah as well.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,