Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Vav, Part 4

 

Introduction

Today s section contains prooftexts as to how we know that if a priest is discovered to be the son of a divorcee, all the sacrifices he offered before that point are retroactively considered still valid.

 

ובן גרושה ובן חלוצה דעבודתו כשירה מנלן?

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר קרא (במדבר כה, יג) והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו בין זרע כשר ובין זרע פסול

 

And how do we know that the service of the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah is [retroactively] fit?

R. Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: For the verse says, And it shall be to him, and to his seed after him, [the covenant of an everlasting priesthood] (Numbers 25:13): this applies to both fit and unfit seed.

 

The baraita had stated that if it is discovered that the mother of a priest is a divorced woman (meaning she was divorced before she married the priest s father) or a halutzah, the priest s service is not retroactively disqualified. How do we know this? Why is the different from the case of a priest who is discovered to have a blemish?

R. Yehudah derives this from the verse that says that the seed of a priest is valid forever, even if he was discovered to be disqualified. However, the priest will not be able to continue serving at the Temple. Henceforth, he is disqualified.

 

אבוה דשמואל אמר מהכא (דברים לג, יא) ברך ה’ חילו ופועל ידיו תרצה אפילו חולין שבו תרצה

 

The father of Shmuel said: [It is deduced] from the following: Bless, Lord, his substance [ḥeilo], and accept the work of his hands (Deuteronomy 33:11): accept even the non-sacred [hullin] in his midst.

 

The father of Shmuel cites the blessing given to Levi by Moses and makes a pun on the word heilo. Even the work of non-sacred descendants of Levi, i.e. those who were made into halalim priests whose line has been desacralized, can be accepted, at least ex post facto.

 

רבי ינאי אמר מהכא (דברים כו, ג) ובאת אל הכהן אשר יהיה בימים ההם וכי תעלה על דעתך שאדם הולך אצל כהן שלא היה בימיו אלא זה כשר ונתחלל

R. Yannai said, [It is deduced] from this: And you shall come to the priest that shall be in those days (Deuteronomy 26:3): now, would you really think that a person would go to a priest who was not in his days? Rather this [must refer to one who] was [originally assumed to be] fit, and then became non-sacred.

 

R. Yannai cites another verse. Clearly one cannot go to a priest who is not there in those days. Therefore, it must refer to a priest who is no longer a priest because his line has been discovered to be non-sacred his mother was discovered to be a divorcee. All the sacrifices he offered before this discovery are still considered valid.