Traité Kiddushin

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : renders her a zona, as he was forbidden to her, but he does not render her a ḥalala, since her status as a zona does not result from a prohibition specific to the priesthood, but due to the prohibition of a forbidden relative. If her brother, or any other priest, again engaged in intercourse with her, he thereby makes her a ḥalala, in accordance with the halakha pertaining to a priest who engages in intercourse with a zona.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § Rav Yehuda says: A High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow is flogged two sets of lashes, one set due to transgressing the prohibition of: “A widow, or one divorced, or a ḥalala, or a zona, these shall he not take” (Leviticus 21:14), and one set due to transgressing the prohibition of: “And he shall not profane” (Leviticus 21:15), since he profanes the woman with whom he engages in intercourse. The Gemara asks: And let him also be flogged with a third set of lashes due to the complete phrase: “He shall not profane his offspring,” because the offspring resulting from that act of intercourse is a ḥalal. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a situation where he did not complete his act of sexual intercourse. Since this act does not lead to pregnancy, he is not flogged for profaning his offspring.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava raises an objection against Rav Yehuda’s statement from a mishna (Makkot 13a): A High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow who was previously a divorcée is flogged due to two labels of prohibitions. What, is it not stating that he is flogged due to two labels and no more? This indicates that he receives only one flogging for each prohibition, and not two as Rav Yehuda taught.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara rejects this: No; it means due to two labels for this, i.e., he is flogged two sets of lashes for engaging in intercourse with a widow, one for transgressing: “Shall he not take,” and one for transgressing: “He shall not profane,” and two labels for that, i.e., engaging in intercourse with a divorcée.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of that same mishna: If a priest engages in sexual intercourse with a divorcée who was also a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza], he is liable to receive lashes due to only one transgression, since a ḥalutza is not forbidden to a priest by Torah law. This is contrary to the opinion of Rav Yehuda, that he should receive two sets of lashes for engaging in intercourse with a divorcée. The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: He is liable to receive lashes due to only one act, that of engaging in intercourse with a divorcée, but actually he is liable to receive two sets of lashes for his act of intercourse with a divorcée, since she is forbidden due to two labels. He does not receive an additional set of lashes on account of her being a ḥalutza, as this prohibition is by rabbinic law.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And is a ḥalutza forbidden to a priest only by rabbinic law? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: It states in the Torah that a priest may not marry a divorcée. I have derived only a divorcée; from where do I derive that a ḥalutza is also forbidden? The verse states: “And a woman divorced” (Leviticus 21:7), with the additional conjunction of “and” serving to include a ḥalutza, that she is also considered to be a type of divorced woman. The Gemara rejects this: Even so, this prohibition is only by rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support, but it is not the true source of the halakha.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Abaye says: A priest who betrothed a woman forbidden to him is flogged; if he engaged in sexual intercourse with her he is flogged additional lashes. The Gemara clarifies this: If he betrothed, he is flogged due to transgressing the prohibition of: “Shall he not take.” If he also engaged in intercourse, he is flogged due to transgressing the prohibition of: “He shall not profane.” Rava says: If he engaged in intercourse he is flogged; if he did not engage in intercourse, he is not flogged at all, because it is written: “Shall he not take…and he shall not profane,” which Rava understands to mean: For what reason is he commanded not to take? It is so that he not profane. Rava holds that he is not liable for taking, i.e., betrothing, the woman, but only for engaging in intercourse with her, as this leads to profanation.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara notes: And although Abaye holds that the act of betrothal itself is forbidden, he concedes in the case of an Israelite who remarries his divorcée after she had been married to someone else in the interim, that if he betrothed her without engaging in intercourse, he is not flogged. Why not? It is as the Merciful One states in the Torah with regard to this prohibition: “Take her again to be his wife” (Deuteronomy 24:4), which indicates that the act of betrothal is forbidden only if it leads to the intimacy of marriage, and there is no such intimacy here since he has not engaged in intercourse with her.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And conversely, Rava concedes in the case of a High Priest with a widow, that if he engaged in sexual intercourse without betrothing her, he is flogged for the act of intercourse, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And he shall not profane his offspring among his people” (Leviticus 21:15), and he has profaned her with his act of intercourse. And they both concede in the case of the prohibition with regard to one who remarries his divorcée that if he engaged in intercourse with her without betrothing her he is not flogged, because the Torah forbade them to reestablish their union only through the manner of taking, i.e., betrothal, but it did not prohibit the act of intercourse on its own.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male ḥalal, and is prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male ḥalal, and is prohibited from marrying into the priesthood. And logic dictates that this is so: Just as in the case of a ḥalal, who comes from a fit drop of semen, as both his parents are Jewish, his daughter is nevertheless unfit to marry into the priesthood, in the case of a convert, who comes from an unfit drop, as he was born a gentile, is it not logical that his daughter should be unfit to marry into the priesthood?

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara counters this derivation: What is notable about a ḥalal? He is notable in that he is formed through a transgression, whereas the gentile parents of a convert were permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with each other. Therefore, the halakha of the daughter of a ḥalal might be more stringent than the halakha of the daughter of a convert. The Gemara responds: The case of a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow shall prove that this aspect is not germane to the fitness of the offspring, since the formation of the High Priest was not through a transgression, and yet his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood, indicating that being formed through a transgression does not play a role in this matter.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara counters again: What is notable about a High Priest who engages in intercourse with a widow? He is notable in that his act of intercourse is a transgression. This aspect is what leads to the stringent halakha that his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara responds: The case of a ḥalal will prove that this aspect is not germane to the fitness of the offspring, as his daughter is unfit despite the fact that his act of intercourse does not involve a transgression.