Study Kiddushin folio 78A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 had sex with her, he thereby
§ Rav Yehuda says: A High Priest who has sex 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
Rava raises an objection against Rav Yehuda’s statement from a Mishnah (Makkot 13a): A High Priest who has sex 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 re
The Talmud rejects this: No; it means due to two labels for this, i.e., he is flogged two sets of lashes for having sex 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., having sex with a divorcée.
The Talmud asks: If so, say the latter clause of that same Mishnah: If a priest has sex 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