MISHNA: The daughter of a male ḥalal is unfit to marry into the priesthood forever. In other words, all daughters of male descendants of a ḥalal are prohibited from marrying priests, as they have the status of ḥalalot. If there was an Israelite who married a ḥalala, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood, whereas if there was a ḥalal who married a Jewish woman, his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood. Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male ḥalal, and she is also prohibited from marrying into the priesthood.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov disagrees and says: If there was an Israelite who married a female convert, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood, and similarly if there was a convert who married a Jewish woman, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood. But if there was a male convert who married a female convert, his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood. With regard to both converts and emancipated Canaanite slaves, their daughters are unfit to marry into the priesthood even up to ten generations. This halakha applies to the offspring until his mother is born Jewish. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if there was a male convert who married a female convert, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood.

GEMARA: What is the meaning of the statement that the daughter of a ḥalal is unfit forever? The Gemara explains: It is necessary lest you say that the halakha should be just as it is in the case of an Egyptian convert and an Edomite convert, and that just as there, with regard to an Egyptian and an Edomite, their descendants are permitted to enter into the congregation after three generations, so too here, the daughter of a descendant of a ḥalal should also be allowed to marry into the priesthood after three generations. The mishna therefore teaches us that this prohibition is permanent.

The mishna teaches that in the case of an Israelite who married a ḥalala, his daughter is fit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon that it is stated here: “And he shall not profane his offspring among his people” (Leviticus 21:15), and it is stated there: “He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people” (Leviticus 21:4): Just as there the prohibition against a priest contracting ritual impurity from a corpse applies to males but not females; so too here, with regard to the profanation of his offspring, where the term “among his people” is also employed, it is males who are rendered unfit and who render their daughters unfit to marry into the priesthood when they are ḥalalim, but not females.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that profanation applies only to males, the daughter of a High Priest and a widow should be permitted to marry into the priesthood, and there should be no status of a ḥalala. The Gemara rejects this: Is it written that his son is profaned? It is written: “His offspring,” which includes his daughter, as the verse reads: “He shall not profane his offspring among his people.” Nevertheless, the daughter of his ḥalala daughter, who is already the third generation, is permitted as a result of the verbal analogy.

The Gemara asks: If so, that the granddaughter is permitted as a result of the verbal analogy, the daughter of his son should also be permitted. The Gemara answers: It is written: “He shall not profane his offspring,” by which the Torah links his offspring to him: Just as for him, his daughter is unfit; so too for his son, the son of a High Priest, his daughter is unfit. The Gemara asks: In that case, the daughter of his daughter from an Israelite should be prohibited, just as his own daughter is unfit. The Gemara answers: If so, that his daughter’s daughter is also unfit, of what use is the verbal analogy of: “He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people”? It must teach that his daughter’s daughter is fit.

§ The mishna teaches that if there was a ḥalal who married a Jewish woman, his daughter is unfit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara questions this ruling: Wasn’t this already taught in the first clause: The daughter of a male ḥalal is unfit to marry into the priesthood forever? The Gemara answers: Since it taught in the first clause about an Israelite who married a ḥalala, it also taught in the latter clause about a ḥalal who married a Jewish woman, to present the complete ruling.

The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says: Just as the sons of Israel are a ritual bath of purity for ḥalalot, i.e., the daughter of a ḥalala who marries an Israelite does not transmit her status of a ḥalala, and their daughters may marry priests, so the daughters of Israel are a ritual bath of purity for ḥalalim, and their daughters may marry priests. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains that the verse states: “He shall not profane his offspring among his people” (Leviticus 21:15), which teaches: It is among one people that he profanes, i.e., the offspring is a ḥalal only when he and his wife are both profaned, i.e., ḥalalim, but among two peoples he does not profane. If the mother is of a different people, i.e., not a ḥalala, the offspring is of unflawed lineage.

The Sages taught: The verse states that a priest may not engage in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him, so that “he shall not profane his offspring.” I have derived only that his offspring resulting from a union with a woman forbidden to him is profaned, i.e., has the status of a ḥalal; from where do I derive that she herself, i.e., the woman who engaged in forbidden intercourse with the priest, is also disqualified from marrying into the priesthood? You can say it is an a fortiori inference: If his offspring, who did not commit a transgression, is profaned, is it not logical that she, who did commit a transgression, is similarly profaned?

The Gemara responds: He, the priest himself, shall prove otherwise, as he committed a transgression but he is not profaned. Although he may not serve in the Temple while he remains married to her, he regains his status of a fit priest once he divorces her. The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about the priest? He is notable in that he is a male, and in no case is a male priest profaned by engaging in forbidden intercourse. Will you say the same with regard to her, a woman, who is disqualified from marrying a priest in all cases? For example, if she engages in intercourse with a man of flawed lineage, she assumes the status of a zona and is permanently disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

And if it is your wish to say that this reasoning is faulty, there is a different proof: The verse states: “He shall not profane his offspring,” which means that the priest may not engage in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him so that someone shall not become profaned. The verse is referring to this woman who was at one time fit and then became profaned. In other words, the term profanation does not apply to his offspring, as they were never fit to begin with. Rather, it is referring to the woman with whom he engaged in intercourse, as, since she was initially fit to marry into the priesthood, she can be described as becoming profaned.

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: If it is your wish to say that this reasoning is faulty, in what way is it faulty? The Gemara explains the counterargument: And if you would say that the a fortiori argument can be refuted as follows: What is notable about his offspring? He is notable in that he is formed through a transgression. Since the woman was not formed through a transgression, one cannot derive the halakha pertaining to her from that of the offspring. The Gemara therefore continues that even if one were to state that counterargument, the verse nevertheless states: “He shall not profane his offspring,” which means that the priest may not engage in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him so that someone shall not become profaned. The verse is referring to this woman who was at one time fit and then became profaned.

§ The Sages taught: Who is a ḥalala? The term is referring to any woman born from people of flawed lineage. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of people of flawed lineage? If we say it means she was born from someone unfit for him, i.e., a woman forbidden to this particular man due to a family relationship or for some other reason, isn’t there the case of one who remarries his divorcée after she had been married to someone else in the interim; she is unfit for him, and yet her children are fit. As it is written with regard to this case: “That is an abomination” (Deuteronomy 24:4), and this is interpreted to mean: That marriage is an abomination, but the children of that marriage are not an abomination and are entirely fit.

Rav Yehuda says: This is what the Sages are saying: Who is a ḥalala? The term is referring to any woman born from one unfit for the priesthood. The Gemara questions this: This implies that one who was born, yes, she is a ḥalala, but one who was not born from one unfit for the priesthood is not a ḥalala. Aren’t there the cases of a widow, or a divorced woman, or a zona who engaged in intercourse with a priest? They were not born from one who was unfit for the priesthood, and yet such a woman is a ḥalala.

Rabba said: This is what the Sages are saying: Who is the ḥalala mentioned that did not have a moment of fitness at all, but was unfit from birth? She is any woman born from one unfit for the priesthood. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: Mentioned? Where was she mentioned? Rav Yitzḥak bar Avin said: This is what the Sages are saying: Who is the ḥalala whose prohibition is rooted in the words of a verse in the Torah, and it is not necessary to clarify her prohibition further by the words of the Sages? She is any woman born from one unfit for the priesthood. With regard to such a woman the verse explicitly states: “He shall not profane his offspring.” By contrast, the halakha that a woman who engages in forbidden intercourse with a priest becomes a ḥalala is not explicit in the Torah, but is learned through an exposition of the Sages.

§ The Sages taught: If a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with a widow, a widow, a widow, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. Similarly, if a priest engages in intercourse with a divorcée, a divorcée, a divorcée, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes.

If a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who was a widow, and then was a divorcée, and then was a ḥalala, and then was a zona, when the changes to her status occurred in that order, that she was first widowed, then remarried and was divorced, and subsequently engaged in intercourse with a priest, thereby becoming a ḥalala, and then she engaged in intercourse with a gentile or a forbidden relative, thereby becoming a zona, the High Priest is liable to receive lashes for each and every one of these transgressions each time he engages in intercourse with her. By contrast, if she first became a zona by engaging in intercourse with a gentile or a forbidden relative, and then became a ḥalala by engaging in intercourse with a priest, and subsequently she divorced, remarried, and was widowed, a High Priest who now engages in intercourse with her is liable to receive only one set of lashes.

The Gemara proceeds to clarify this baraita. The Master said in the baraita: If a High Priest engages in intercourse with a widow, a widow, a widow, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this widow? If we say that he engaged in sexual intercourse with three widows: With Reuven’s widow, and with Shimon’s widow, and with Levi’s widow, why is he liable to receive only one set of lashes?