Kiddushin, Daf Ayin Zayin, Part 4

 

Introduction

The Talmud now begins to deal with the second part of the baraita according to which the order in which the woman became these categories of prohibition makes a difference in how many liabilities the High Priest incurs.

 

(ויקרא כא, יד) אלמנה וגרושה וחללה זונה

האי תנא מאי קסבר אי קסבר איסור חל על איסור איפכא נמי ואי קסבר אין איסור חל על איסור אפילו כסדר הזה נמי לא

 

[If he has intercourse with] a widow, a divorcee, a profane woman, and a zonah.

What does this tanna hold? If he holds, one prohibition can fall on another, then the same is true in the reverse order. And if he holds, one prohibition cannot fall on another, then even in this order it is not so.

 

There is a concept called one prohibition can fall on another which refers to a case when something prohibited becomes prohibited in another way. For instance, a piece of non-kosher meat is cooked with milk. There is a debate whether something that is already prohibited can become prohibited in another way. So the question is what does the tanna of this baraita hold? If one prohibition can fall on another, then the order should not matter. The High Priest should always be obligated for four transgressions. But if one prohibition does not fall on another, then the order should not matter he should always be obligated only one time.

 

אמר רבא האי תנא איסור חל על איסור לית ליה איסור מוסיף אית ליה

אלמנה אסורה לכהן גדול ושריא לכהן הדיוט הויא לה גרושה מיגו דאיתוסף לה איסורא לגבי כהן הדיוט איתוסף לה איסורא לגבי כהן גדול ועדיין שריא למיכל בתרומה

הויא לה חללה מיגו דאיתוסף איסורא למיכל בתרומה איתוסף איסורא לגבי כהן גדול

 

Rava said: This Tanna does not hold that one prohibition can fall on another, but he does hold that when a prohibition becomes broader [it adds liability].

[Thus:] a widow is prohibited 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 eat terumah.

When she becomes a halalah, since a prohibition of eating terumah is added, a prohibition is added in respect of a High Priest.

 

The Tanna of our baraita holds by a concept known as a prohibition that becomes broader. What this means is that something that is prohibited can become more prohibited. The woman who is a widow is limited in her prohibition to a High Priest. When she becomes a divorcee, the prohibition is expanded to an ordinary priest, and therefore a priest who has intercourse with her would be liable for two sins. When she becomes a halalah (by having sex with a priest prohibited to her) she no longer can eat terumah. Therefore, the High Priest would now be liable for three sins for having intercourse with her.

 

אלא זונה מאי איסור מוסיף אית בה

אמר רב חנא בר רב קטינא הואיל ושם זנות פוסל בישראל

 

But with regard to a zonah, what added prohibition is there to her?

R. Hana son of R. Kattina said: Since the designation of zenut disqualifies in the case of an Israelite.

 

To recall, a zonah is a woman who had sex with a non-priest prohibited to her. Examples would be incest and adultery. But what added prohibition is there with regard to this woman?

The answer is that the name zonah can cause a woman to be prohibited to her Israelite husband. For instance, a woman who commits adultery may not stay married to her husband. Therefore, since this prohibition is in some sense broader, the High Priest has now transgressed four times.

 

תני תנא קמיה דרב ששת כל שהוא (ויקרא כא, יד) ביקח הרי הוא (ויקרא כא, יד) בלא יקח כל שאינו ביקח אינו בלא יקח פרט לכהן גדול שבא על אחותו אלמנה

 

A Tanna recited before R. Sheshet: Whoever is included in [A virgin from his own people] shall he take [as a wife] (Leviticus 21:14), is included in [a widow ] he shall not take (ibid); but whoever is not included in, he shall take, is not included in, he shall not take with the exception of a High Priest who marries his sister, a widow.

 

Leviticus 21:14 states with regard to the high priest, A widow, or one divorced, or a ḥalalah, or a zonah, these he shall not take; but a virgin of his own people he shall take as a wife. Any woman who is eligible to him because she is a virgin of his own people would be prohibited to him if she becomes one of the other categories, for instance if she was widowed and vice versa. The only exception would be his sister. She is forbidden to him as such and if she becomes a widow or divorcee he would not transgress the prohibition of a widow or divorcee he shall not take. Of course, he would still be punished for having sex with his sister.

 

אמר ליה דאמר לך מני ר’ שמעון היא דאמר אין איסור חל על איסור דתניא רבי שמעון אומר האוכל נבילה ביום הכפורים פטור דאי רבנן הא אמרי איסור חל על איסור

 

He said to him: Who told you this? It is R. Shimon who holds that one prohibition cannot fall on another. For it was taught: if one eats carcass on Yom Kippur, he is exempt.

For if according to the Rabbis, they hold that one prohibition does fall on another.

 

R. Sheshet responds to his tanna that the baraita he taught follows R. Shimon, for R. Shimon holds that one prohibition does not fall on another. If one eats carcass (meat not slaughtered properly) on Yom Kippur, he is obligated only for eating non-kosher meat. He is not liable for transgressing the laws of Yom Kippur. The rabbis who disagree with R. Shimon hold that one prohibition can fall on another and therefore he could be liable also for transgressing Yom Kippur. Correspondingly, they would hold that the High Priest is liable for both incest and the prohibition of a widow.

 

אפי’ תימא רבנן כי אמרי רבנן איסור חל על איסור ה"מ איסור חמור על איסור קל אבל איסור קל על איסור חמור לא חייל

 

[He replied:] You may even say [that it agrees with] the Rabbis: When do the Rabbis hold that one prohibition can fall upon another? Only a stringent prohibition upon a lighter one, but a light prohibition cannot fall upon a more stringent one.

 

The Tanna replies that the baraita could even follow the rabbis. The rabbis hold that one prohibition can fall on another when the second prohibition is more stringent. The prohibition of not eating on Yom Kippur is more stringent that the prohibition of not eating carcass, therefore he would be liable for two transgressions in that case. But with the priest, the prohibition of her being his sister is more stringent than the prohibition of her being a widow. Therefore, they would agree in that case that he is not liable for her being a widow.

 

איכא דאמרי הא מני רבנן היא דאמרי איסור חל על איסור וכי אמרי רבנן איסור חל על איסור הני מילי איסור חמור על איסור קל אבל איסור קל על איסור חמור לא חייל דאי ר"ש השתא איסור חמור על איסור קל לא חייל איסור קל על איסור חמור מיבעיא מהו דתימא איסור כהונה שאני קמ"ל

 

Others state: This agrees with the Rabbis, who hold: One prohibition can fall on another. And when the rabbis say that one prohibition falls on another it is only in a case where a more stringent prohibition [falls] on a lighter one; but a light one cannot fall on a more stringent one. For if it were R. Shimon: now that a stringent prohibition does not fall on a light one, a light prohibition falling on a more stringent need not be stated?

What might I have thought? That prohibitions related to the priesthood are different. Therefore it teaches us [that they are not.]

 

According to this presentation of the same material as above, R. Sheshet immediately concludes that the baraita follows the opinion of the rabbis, as we said above. For R. Shimon would not need to say this. It would be obvious if the stringent prohibition of Yom Kippur does not fall on already prohibited meat, obviously the light prohibition of marrying a widow does not fall on the stringent prohibition of sex with one s sister.

The Talmud then rejects this had we not attributed this baraita even to R. Shimon, we might have thought that priesthood prohibitions are different. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that R. Shimon maintains the same concept with regard to the priesthood.