Kiddushin 77 - October 29, 14 Cheshvan

This week’s learning is sponsored by the Greenstone family in honor of the birthday of their dear niece and cousin, Lana Kerzner. "Her Torah learning is entrenched in a love of tradition, connection to her mother and family, and her intellectual aspirations. החוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק."

This week's learning is sponsored by Esther and Eliakim Katz in loving memory of Sarah bat Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leiv ben Harav Yehoshua Zlig and Esther and for the safe homecoming of acheinu kol Beit Yisrael.

The Mishna rules that the daughter of a chalal cannot marry a kohen. However, her children are not chalalim. The male children of a chalal and are considered chalalim and pass it down to all male children for all future generations. However, Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda disagrees and holds that if either a clalal or a chalala marries someone of unflawed lineage (not a chalal), their children are not chalalim. There is a debate about whether a child of two converts or a child of a convert with a non-convert can marry a kohen. From where are the differences between male and female chalalim mentioned in the Mishna derived from the Torah? From where do we derive that the child of a forbidden kohen marriage is a chalal and the woman who married the kohen becomes a chalala? Why does the kohen himself not become a chalal? In which situations could a kohen or kohen gadol receive multiple sets of lashes for a marriage/having relations with one woman? If a woman is a widow and then divorced and then became a chalala and then became a zona in that order, and then the kohen gadol had relations with her, he would be liable four sets of lashes. Even though we hold that one is not liable for a prohibition that is added to an already existing prohibition, if the prohibition adds something new, then it would be added. In this case, each subsequent situation adds something to the previous one - i.e. a divorce is forbidden to all kohanim whereas the widow is only forbidden to the kohen gadol. A student brought a braita before Rav Sheshet that if a kohen gadol has relations with his widowed sister, he will receive lashes for relations with his sister but not on account of the prohibition for a kohen gadol. Rav Sheshet explained that this ruling is according to Rabbi Shimon who holds that a prohibition doesn't get added to another already existing prohibition but it cannot be explained according to the rabbis who disagree with him. However, the Gemara suggests that perhaps it can be explained according to the rabbis as well. A somewhat opposite version of the sugya is brought as well. From where do we derive that one becomes a chalala only from improper relations with a kohen and not from improper relations with a non-kohen?