משנה: וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מִכָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה אוֹ פְסוּלוֹת אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַמְזֵר וּלְנָתִין פָּסַל וְלֹא חָלַק בֵּין בִּיאָה לְבִיאָה. MISHNAH: Similarly, anybody who comes upon any of the incest-prohibited women specified in the Torah, or of the disqualified ones, [i. e.,] a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥalîṣah for a private36Greek ἰδιώτης. Cohen, a bastard37Cf. Chapter 1, Note 29. or Gibeonite38Cf. Chapter 2, Note 72. female for an Israel, or an Israel woman for a male bastard or Gibeonite, disqualified her39She is disqualified from marrying a Cohen, or, if she is the daughter of a Cohen, from eating sanctified food. and there is no difference between intercourse and intercourse40Any intercourse in the list of Mishnah 1 which would acquire the sister-in-law in levirate will disqualify any woman from marrying into the priesthood. {There are slight legal differences between the cases enumerated in Lev. 21:7. Any infraction of the “holiness prohibitions” (Mishnah 2:4) desecrates the woman; the others formally make her a prostitute.}.
הלכה: וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מִכָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת כול׳. אַלְמָנָה לֹא יִקָּח. יָכוֹל אֲפִילוּ אוֹנֶס. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו. יָכוֹל אֲפִילוּ הֶעֱרָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יָחִיל וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל. אֲפִילוּ בְאוֹנְסִין. לֹא יָחִיל וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל. אֲפִילוּ בְהֶעֱרָייָה. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן לְקִיחָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן לְקִיחָה בִּשְׁאָר כָּל־הַעֲרָיוֹת. מַה לְקִיחָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה בִשְׁאָר כָּל־הַעֲרָיוֹת עָשָׂה בָהֶן אֶת הַמְּעָרֶה כְגוֹמֵר. אַף לְקִיחָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה כָאן נַעֲשֶׂה בָהּ אֶת הַמְּעָרֶה כְגוֹמֵר. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בָּעֵי. אִי מַה לְקִיחָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה בִשְׁאָר כָּל־הַעֲרָיוֹת עָשָׂה בָהֶן אֶת הַמְּעָרֶה כְגוֹמֵר וְהַװְלָד מַמְזֵר. אַף לְקִיחָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה כָאן נַעֲשֶׂה בָהּ אֶת הַמְּעָרֶה כְגוֹמֵר וְהַװְלָד יְהֵא מַמְזֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסָה. לֵיידֶא מִילָּא אִיתְמַר חָלָל. לֹא דְמַמְזֵר רוֹב מִן הֶחָלָל. אָתָא רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר בִּיסְנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן לְקִיחָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן לְקִיחָה בְּשׁוֹמרֶת יָבָם. מַה לְקִיחָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה בְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם עָשָׂה בָהֶן אֶת הַמְּעָרֶה כְגוֹמֵר וְהַװְלָד כָּשֵּׁר. אַף לְקִיחָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה כָאן נַעֲשֶׂה בָהּ אֶת הַמְּעָרֶה כְגוֹמֵר וְהַװְלָד כָּשֵּׁר. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. הֶעֱרָה בָהּ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם חֲלָלָה. נִכְנְסָה הָעֲטָרָה חַייָב מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה. גָּמַר אֶת הַבִּיאָה חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מְחַלֵּל. HALAKHAH: “Similarly, anybody who comes upon any of the incest-prohibited women,” etc. “He should not take a widow43A fragment of Lev. 21:14..” Even if under duress? The verse says, “he shall not desecrate his seed in his people.” Even if he touched? The verse does not say לא יחול but לא יחלל, even under duress; לא יחול but לא יחלל, even by touching. So far following Rebbi Aqiba44Rebbi Aqiba considers every pillel or polel verb an extension of an original ayin waw or ayin yod form. {The reading of ms. A is preferable since a חיל form of חלל is used in Lev. 21:4.} On the one hand, “to take” means “to marry”. On the other hand, the use of the pillel in v. 15 means an extension of the framework. This is taken as authorization of the judicial establishment to extend the range of the acts prohibited.. Following Rebbi Ismael45The basis of the argument is the 3rd exegetical rule of R. Ismael [Introduction to Sifra (2)]: The technical meaning of a word does not change from topic to topic.? Rebbi Ismael stated: It says here46The marriage restrictions imposed on the High Priest, Lev. 21:14, are formulated as prohibitions to “take” certain women. “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to incest prohibitions47Lev. 18:17–18.. Since regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed6The exact meaning of this term is discussed in the Halakhah. Cf. also Chapter 4, Note 59., so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is a bastard, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as a bastard48This would be the correct application of R. Ismael’s rule, leading to a result contradicting practice. A similar argument in the Babli, 54a, is explicitly based on comparison with the menstruating woman whose children are not bastards, circumventing R. Ḥaggai’s objection.. Rebbi Yosa said, for which purpose was “desecrated” written? Is not bastard worse than desecrated49Since the child of a disapproved union of the High Priest is defined as “desecrated” it cannot be a bastard since everything forbidden to a desecrated person is forbidden to a bastard but not vice-versa. Therefore, the rule of R. Ismael cannot be applied in this form.? Rebbi Abun bar Bisna came in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal. It says here “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to the woman waiting for the levir. Since regarding “taking” referring to the one waiting for the levir He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is acceptable, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as acceptable50At least for non-priestly unions., since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said: When he touched, he became guilty because of the desecrated one. When the gland entered, he became guilty for having intercourse. When he ejaculated, he became guilty because of desecrating15Lev. 21:15. Since the three sins are committed at three different times, he can be indicted and punished for three different crimes without any question of competition of laws. In the Babli, Qiddushin 78a, it is noted that the language of Lev. 21:14 implies that he can be punished for the second offense only if he actually had married the widow..