ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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".
(d) Nevertheless, his daughter's daughter is Kasher - because otherwise,
what would the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' be coming to teach us?
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.
(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
(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.
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.
(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
(c) Rav Yehudah therefore explains the Beraisa to mean - 'Kol she'Noldah min
(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
(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
(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
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.
(b) Abaye replied - 'Ein Chalalah Ela me'Isur Kehunah Bi'levad'.
2. ... that he does not - because 'Ein Chalalah Ela me'Isur Kehunah
(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).
(b) Rav Ashi therefore concludes that a Kohen who has relations with his
unmarried sister ...
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.
1. ... the first time - renders her a Zonah (but not a Chalalah).
2. ... the second time - renders her a Chalalah as well.