Kiddushin

Behold, they are separate persons and separate names! Again, if he has intercourse three times with the same widow, what are the circumstances? If he was not warned, it is obvious that he incurs only one penalty.1 But if he was warned for each, why does he incur only one penalty? Did we not learn: If a nazir2 drinks wine all day, he incurs only one penalty; if he is admonished, ‘Do not drink,’ ‘do not drink,’3 and he drinks, he is liable for each! — This arises only if he has intercourse with Reuben's widow, who was Simeon's widow who had been Levi's widow: I might think, Behold, they are separate names! We are therefore told that we require separate persons, 4 which is absent. [If he has intercourse with] a widow, a divorced and profane woman, and a harlot. What is this Tanna's opinion? If he holds, one prohibition can fall on another,5 then it is the reverse too.6 Whilst if he holds, one prohibition cannot fall on another, it is not so even in this order!7 — Said Raba: This Tanna does not hold that one prohibition can fall upon another, but he does accept [the validity of] a prohibition of wider scope.8 [Thus:] a widow is interdicted to a High Priest, but permitted to an ordinary priest; when she becomes divorced, since a prohibition is added in respect of an ordinary priest, it is added in respect of a High Priest; yet she is still permitted to partake of terumah. When she becomes profane, since a prohibition of eating terumah is added, a prohibition is added in respect of a High Priest. But what wider prohibition is there on account of zonah?9 — Said R. Hama son of R. Kattina: Because the designation of harlotry [zenuth] disqualifies in the case of an Israelite. 10 A Tanna recited before R. Shesheth: Whoever is included in [a virgin of his own people] shall he take [to wife],11 is included in ‘[a widow, etc.,] he shall not take’; but whoever is not included in, ‘shall he take,’ is not included in, ‘he shall not take’:12 this excludes a High Priest who marries his sister, a widow.13 Said he to him: He who told you this, on whose authority is it? R. Simeon's, who maintains that one prohibition cannot fall upon another. For it was taught if one eats nebelah14 on the Day of Atonement, he is exempt.15 For if according to the Rabbis, — surely they maintain that one prohibition falls upon another. [He replied:] You may even say [that it agrees with] the Rabbis: When do the Rabbis maintain that one prohibition can fall upon another? Only a stringent prohibition upon a lighter one,16 but a light prohibition cannot fall upon a more stringent one. 17 Others state: This agrees with the Rabbis, who maintain, One prohibition can fall upon another; but when do they rule thus? Only that a more stringent prohibition [can fall] upon a lighter one; but a light one cannot fall upon a more stringent one. For if it is R. Simeon: seeing that a stringent prohibition cannot fall upon a light one, need a light prohibition upon a more stringent be stated? — I might think that a prohibition in connection with priesthood is different;18 hence we are informed [that it is not so].19 R. Papa said to Abaye: When an Israelite has intercourse with his sister, he [certainly] renders her a zonah,’ [but] does he render her a halalah [too] or not?20 Do We says [it follows] a minori: if one becomes a halalah by those who are forbidden to her by [only] negative injunctions, how much more so by those who are forbidden on pain of kareth. Or perhaps, a halalah results from a priestly interdict only? — He answered: A halalah results from a priestly interdict only. Rab said: How do we know this ruling21 stated by the Rabbis [that] a halalah is only from a priestly interdict? Because it was taught: Let a divorced woman not be stated in reference to a High Priest, and it could be inferred a minori from an ordinary priest; for I would argue, If she is forbidden to an ordinary priest, can there be a question of22 a High Priest? Why then is it stated? [To teach,] Just as a divorced woman is distinct from zonah and halalah in respect of an ordinary priest,23 so is she distinct in reference to a High Priest. [But] that is obvious: is it [the sanctity of a High Priest] in any way diminished?24 But [it is rather to teach] just as a divorced woman is distinct from zonah and a halalah in respect of an ordinary priest,23 so is a widow distinct from a divorced woman, a halalah and a zonah in respect of a High Priest.25 Why is halalah stated?26 [To shew that] halalah results from a priestly interdict only.27 Why is zonah stated?26 — Zonah is stated here;28 and it is also stated there:29 just as here, his seed is profaned,30 so there too, his seed is profaned. Said R. Ashi: Therefore if a priest has intercourse with his sister, ‘Not warned’ means not warned for each intercourse separately. here, though she is forbidden as a divorced woman, the interdict of a harlot is also operative, if she becomes one after her divorce. the person to whom the first also applies. For a fuller discussion of the various types of prohibitions, v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) p. 127. n. 1. prohibition of a zonah adds nothing, an extra penalty is incurred because harlotry in general is a wider prohibition. virgin. injunction, and so the interdict of the Day of Atonement remains inoperative. ‘halalah’ after ‘divorced woman’ and ‘widow’ who are forbidden to priests only, but not after zonah, a type of prohibition forbidden also to an Israelite, v. supra p. 398, n. 2, which shews that halalah results from an interdict confined to priests.