The DBS Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Kiddushin, has been graciously sponsored by our good friend Mr. Chaim Dana, shemorehu v'chayehu, in honor of his wife, Bina bat Rivka, wishing her many years of shalom bayit, Masechet Kiddushin, and hatzlacha, parnassa, and all good things, health, happiness, nachat from the children, and all the berachot, amen. Today's daf, Daf Chet, is being said l'iluy nishmat Mordechai ben Slava, Hammat bat Zecharia, Itpa bat Sara, l'iluy nishmat Avraham ben Esther, may the Ruach Hashem rest upon them in Gan Eden, amen. Today's daf is also being said for the complete recovery l'refua sheleima of Moshe ben Dina, Sara bat Rachel, Elna Refael ben Hem, for healing of the soul Refuat Hanefesh and healing of the body u'refuat haguf, speedily, amen.
We begin today's daf on Ayin Chet Amud Rishon, starting two lines from the top. Amar Rabbi Yehuda: a Kohen Gadol who marries an almana receives two malkuyot. Why? One is because the Torah states he must marry a betulah. Since she is not a betulah, it is stated lo yikach, he cannot take an almana. The second reason is lo yechalel. This is unrelated to betulah. There are two prohibitions. The Torah states lo yikach and lo yechalel. By marrying her, he makes her a chalalah because she is already an almana. Therefore, there are two prohibitions: lo yikach and lo yechalel. You cannot create a chalalah. Correct, two prohibitions. Refer to Rashi, fourth line. The same applies to a Kohen Hedyot with a gerusha. There are two prohibitions: lo yikach and lo yechalel. Right? And if she is with a gerusha and a chalalah. If we learn from one, we learn from the other: if here the offspring is cholim, then there too the offspring is cholim. Thus, with a Kohen Hedyot, there is also lo yechalel.
The Gemara continues, stating that a Kohen Gadol marrying an almana incurs two prohibitions: lo yikach and lo yechalel. And if she is both an almana and a gerusha, he incurs two prohibitions due to two names. Why does he not incur four prohibitions? Shouldn't he incur two for each? The Gemara explains that there are two prohibitions for each name, thus lo yikach and lo yechalel are counted separately. The Gemara clarifies that he is only liable for one set of lashes due to the prohibition of marrying an almana and one for the gerusha.
Next, the Gemara discusses the case of a Kohen Gadol who marries a psula. If he marries a psula, he receives lashes for that. If he has relations after the kiddushin, he receives additional lashes. Thus, if he made kiddushin and had a biya, he incurs two sets of lashes. However, if he only made kiddushin and then divorced her, he does not incur any lashes. The Gemara states that if he made kiddushin and had relations, he incurs lashes for both lo yikach and lo yechalel. If he only made kiddushin, he does not incur lashes.
As the discussion progresses, the Gemara introduces a new point. Rabbi Abaye states that if a person marries a psula and does not have relations, he does not incur lashes. This is because the Torah states lo yikach and lo yechalel, which are connected. The Gemara establishes that a Kohen Gadol marrying an almana incurs a prohibition simply by engaging in kiddushin.
As the Gemara continues, it presents a case where a Kohen Gadol marries a gerusha and incurs lashes for both prohibitions. Rabbi Yehuda questions why the Kohen Gadol is not punished for marrying both an almana and a gerusha. The Gemara explains that the Kohen Gadol is liable for each prohibition separately, and thus incurs lashes for each. The Gemara emphasizes that the Kohen Gadol marrying either a gerusha or an almana results in two prohibitions, thus he is punished accordingly.
The Gemara then addresses the case of a Kohen Gadol who marries a gerusha. It states that if he has relations after the kiddushin, he incurs lashes. Rabbi Abaye clarifies that if he married and did not have relations, he does not incur lashes, as it is a prohibition of kiddushin alone. The Gemara concludes that both Rabbi Abaye and Rabbi Rava agree on the necessity of a biya to incur lashes.
In the following analysis, the Gemara introduces Rabbi Yehuda's opinion. He states that a daughter of a ger is considered like a daughter of a chalal. The Gemara discusses how the status of the daughter is derived from the father, and if the father is a ger, the daughter inherits that status. Rabbi Yehuda asserts that a daughter of a ger is treated with the same prohibitions as a chalal and therefore is not permitted to marry a Kohen.
The Gemara continues to explore the implications of this ruling, emphasizing that the chalal and the ger share similar prohibitions. The discussion leads to a deeper understanding of the lineage and the impact of a ger marrying a Yisraelit. The Gemara ultimately concludes that the offspring of a ger is subject to the same restrictions as those of a chalal, reinforcing the importance of lineage in determining eligibility for the kehunah.
As the Gemara wraps up the discussion, it emphasizes the need for clarity regarding the status of children born to a ger. The Gemara concludes that the offspring of a ger is not automatically disqualified from the kehunah, but rather requires careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding their birth and the status of their parents. The conclusion highlights the significance of lineage and the nuances of halachic rulings in determining the eligibility of descendants for the kehunah.