Kiddushin, Daf Ayin Het, Part 3

 

Introduction

Today s section discusses R. Yehudah s ruling in the mishnah, that the daughter of a male convert may not marry a priest.

 

רבי יהודה אומר בת גר זכר כבת חלל

תניא רבי יהודה אומר בת גר זכר כבת חלל זכר והדין נותן מה חלל שבא מטפה כשרה בתו פסולה גר שבא מטפה פסולה אינו דין שבתו פסולה

מה לחלל שכן יצירתו בעבירה

 

R. Yehudah said: the daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a halal.

It was taught: R. Yehudah said: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male halal. And logic proves this. If a halal, who comes from a fit origin (literally, drop), [yet] his daughter is unfit; then a convert, 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!

 

R. Yehudah argues that if a halal s daughter is unfit to marry a priest, then so too is the daughter of a convert. The convert is worse than the halal because the halal comes from a fit origin (a priest). The convert comes from non-Jews who are not fit genealogically speaking.

The counterargument is that a halal s daughter is profaned because the halal himself was created by a transgression when his father had a child with a woman forbidden to him. But this is not true of a convert there was no transgression in his creation.

 

כהן גדול באלמנה יוכיח שאין יצירתו בעבירה בתו פסולה

מה לכהן גדול באלמנה שכן ביאתו בעבירה

 

Then let a High Priest with a widow prove it, for his formation was not in sin, yet his daughter is unfit.

As for a High Priest and a widow, that is because his intercourse was in sin!

 

The Talmud now tries to use the case of the High Priest and a widow. The High Priest, unlike the halal, was not formed in sin, and yet his child with a widow is a halal. The same should thus be true of the convert.

But this argument is also faulty the daughter of a high priest and widow is a halalah because their intercourse was a sin. But this is not true of the union of a convert and an Israelite woman. So why should their child be unfit to marry a priest.

 

חלל יוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שאינן ברוב הקהל אף אני אביא את הגר שאינו ברוב הקהל ובתו פסולה

 

Then let a halal prove it.

And so the argument goes around: This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one. The feature common to both is that they are not like the majority of the community; so also I would include the convert, who is not like the majority of the community, and his daughter is unfit!

 

The argument goes back to the halal, but that too is a bad analogy, as we saw above. So now the Talmud learns from the common denominator between the halal and the High Priest. Both are different genealogically from the majority of the community. And so too is the convert. Thus just as the former create a daughter not fit for the priesthood, so too does a convert.

 

מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהם צד עבירה לא תימא כהן גדול באלמנה יוכיח אלא אימא מצרי ראשון יוכיח מה למצרי ראשון שכן אינו ראוי לבא בקהל חלל יוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שאינן ברוב קהל ובתו פסולה אף אני אביא את הגר שאינו ברוב קהל ובתו פסולה

 

[No:] what is the feature common to both? That they have an element of sin!

Do not say, let a High Priest with a widow prove it, but say: let a [converted] Egyptian of the first generation prove it.

As for a [converted] Egyptian of the first generation, that is because he is ineligible to enter into the assembly!

Then let a halal prove it. And so the argument goes around. This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one. The feature common to both is that they are not like the majority of the congregation and their daughter is unfit. So too I include a convert, who is not like the majority of the community, and his daughter is unfit!

 

The Talmud first points out that the common denominator argument was faulty there is an element of sin in both the halal (formed in sin) and the High Priest with a widow (whose child is born of a sin). But this is not true of a convert and an Israelite woman.

So the Talmud changes the case of the High Priest with a widow to the case of a converted Egyptian of the first generation who marries another first generation Egyptian convert. Although their intercourse is not in sin, nevertheless, their offspring is not fit for the priesthood.

But again, this argument fails an Egyptian convert is ineligible to enter the congregation of Israel. And it is obvious that their child cannot marry a priest the child cannot even marry an Israelite.

The rest of this section is the same as above, except now the two cases used to prove the case of the convert are the Egyptian convert and the halal.

מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן פוסלים בביאתם ורבי יהודה גר נמי פוסל בביאתו

ומייתי לה במה הצד מהאי דינא

 

[No:] As for the feature common to both, it is that they disqualify by their intercourse.

And R. Yehudah? A convert too disqualifies by his intercourse, and he deduces it by analogy from this very argument.

 

The Talmud refutes the argument by saying that both the Egyptian convert and the halal disqualify a woman from the priesthood by having intercourse with her. But this is not true of a convert.

R. Yehudah defends himself by saying that a convert does disqualify a woman by having intercourse with her. And he argues it by analogy with the halal and High Priest/Egyptian convert, as we argued above.