Kiddushin

he renders her zonah, not halalah. But if he again has intercourse with her, he renders her halalah. 1 Rab Judah said: If a High Priest [has intercourse] with a widow, he is flagellated twice, once on account of, he shall not take,2 and again on account of, he shall not profane.3 Then let him be flagellated on account of, ‘he shall not profane his seed’? — This means, if he does not consummate the intercourse.4 Raba raised an objection: [If a High Priest has intercourse with] a widow and divorced woman,5 he is flagellated on account of two injunctions.6 Surely that means, two injunctions and no more? — No: two injunctions for the one, and two for the other.7 If so, consider the second clause: [For] a divorced woman and haluzah8 he is liable only on account of one? — This is its meaning: he is liable only on account of one [designation], yet after all, for two injunctions. Now, is a haluzah [forbidden only] by Rabbinical law?9 Surely it was taught: [They shall not take a woman that is a harlot. . . and a woman] that is divorced.10 I know it only of a divorced woman: how do I know it of a haluzah? Because it is said: ‘and a woman’.11 — It is Rabbinical, and the verse is a mere support.12 Abaye said: When he13 betroths,14 he is flagellated; [and] when he cohabits, he is flagellated. When he betroths he is flagellated on account of, ‘he shall not take’;15 when he cohabits he is flagellated on account of, ‘he shall not profane’.16 Raba said: if he cohabits, he is flagellated;17 if he does not cohabit, he is not flagellated [at all], because it is written, he shall not take . . . and he shall not profane: why must he not take? In order that he shall not profane.18 And Abaye admits in the case of one who remarries his divorced wife,19 that if he betroths but does not cohabit, he is not flagellated: the Divine Law saith, [he may not] take her again to be his wife,20 which is absent here. And Raba admits in respect to a High Priest with a widow, that if he cohabits without betrothing, he is flagellated: the Divine Law saith, ‘and he shall not profane his seed among his people’, whereas he has profaned [it]. And both admit in the case of one who takes back his divorced wife, that if he cohabits without betrothal, he is not flagellated: The Torah forbade it by way of marriage. 21 R. JUDAH SAID: THE DAUGHTER OF A MALE PROSELYTE IS LIKE THE DAUGHTER OF A HALAL. It was taught: R. Judah said: The daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male halal. And logic proves22 it. If a halal, who [though he] comes from a fit origin,23 [yet] his daughter is unfit;24 then a proselyte, who comes from an unfit origin, his daughter is surely unfit! As for a halal, [it may be argued,] that is because his own formation is in sin!25 Then let [the union of] a High Priest with a widow prove it, for his formation was not in sin, yet his daughter is unfit.26 As for a High Priest and a widow, that is because his cohabitation was in sin! Then let a halal prove it.27 And so the argument revolves: the distinguishing feature of one is not that of the other; the feature common to both is that they are not as the majority of the community; so also do I adduce the proselyte, who is not as the majority of the community, and his daughter is unfit! [No:] what is the feature common to both? That they have an element28 of sin!29 — Do not say, let [the union of] a High Priest with a widow prove it, but say: let a [converted] Egyptian of the first generation prove it.30 As for a [converted] Egyptian of the first generation, that is because he is ineligible to enter into the assembly [at all]! Then let a halal prove it. And so the argument revolves, the distinguishing feature of one not being that of the other. The feature common to both is that they are not as the majority of the congregation and their daughter is unfit. So do I also adduce a proselyte, who is not as the majority of the community, and his daughter is unfit! [No:] As for the feature common to both, it is that they disqualify31 by their intercourse. And R. Judah?32 — A proselyte too disqualifies by his intercourse, and he deduces it by analogy from this very argument.33 R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAID: A PROSELYTE [etc.]. It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: A female proselyte less than three years and a day is eligible to the priesthood, as it is said: But all the women children . . . keep alive for yourselves;34 now, was not Phinehas among them?35 But the Rabbis [interpret]: ‘keep them alive for yourselves’ as bondmen and bondwomen. Now, all deduce from the same verse: Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away [i.e., divorced] but they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israel.36 R. Judah holds: all the seed must be from Israel.37 R. Eliezer b. Jacob holds: ‘of the seed’ [implies] even part of the seed.38 R. Jose holds: whoever was conceived39 in Israel.40 R. Simeon b. Yohai holds: [It means] one whose virginity matured41 in Israel.42 R. Nahman said to Raba: only to priests.] violation of the negative injunction. is punished for each. Scriptural. becomes his wife. and has no intercourse, he is not flagellated, for the Torah has prohibited it by way of, ‘building up of a house’, referring to Deut. XXV, 9.] daughter is unfit. proselyte. who is of an unfit origin be unfit? does not return.