משנה: אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט מִן הָאֵירוּסִין לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁירִין. נִתְאַלְמְנוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּֽרְשׁוּ מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין פְּסוּלוֹת מִן הָאֵירוּסִין כְּשֵׁירוֹת. MISHNAH: A widow51The women here are daughters of priests who may eat heave in their fathers’ houses. The majority hold that once they are acquired by a man whose sex act will irrevocably disqualify them from the priesthood, they have lost all their privileges. The dissenting rabbis hold that they retain their status until they are actually desecrated. betrothed to the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥalîṣah to a private Cohen are not permitted to eat heave; Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon declare them able. When they were widowed or divorced, after marriage they are disabled, after betrothal they are enabled52Even the majority will follow here the reasoning of the dissenters..
הלכה: אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל כול׳. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן הֲוָייָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן הֲוָייָה כִּי יִהְיֶה נַעֲרָה מְאוֹרָסָה לְאִישׁ. מַה הֲוָייָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לְהַלָּן אֵירוּסִין אַף כָּאן אֵירוּסִין. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן הֲוָייָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר. מַה הֲוָייָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לְהַלָּן נִישּׂוּאִין אַף כָּאן נִישּׂוּאִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסָה. מְנָא לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וּלְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּתְאָֽרְסָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה. לֹא מִן הָדֵין קִרְייָא וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר. הָכָא אִינּוּן עָֽבְדִין לֵיהּ אֵירוּסִין וְהָכָא אִינּוּן עָֽבְדִין לֵיהּ נִישּׂוּאִין. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן. לְאִישׁ. לְאִישׁ הַמַּאֲכִיל. וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא. מַה אִם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵין בִּיאָתוֹ פוֹסְלָתָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה בִּיאָתוֹ פוֹסְלָתָהּ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּיאָתוֹ פוֹסְלָתָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּהֵא בִּיאָתוֹ פוֹסְלָתָהּ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְיִשׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל אֶת אֲחֵירוֹת. תֹּאמַר בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהוּא מַאֲכִיל אֶת אֲחֵירוֹת. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא מַאֲכִיל אֶת אֲחֵירוֹת לֹא תְהֵא בִּיאָתוֹ פוֹסְלָתָהּ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. נִשְׁבַּר קַל וָחוֹמֶר וְחָזַרְתָּ לָךְ לְמִקְרָא. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרִיךְ מֵימַר לְאִישׁ. לְאִישׁ הַמַּאֲכִיל. [מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִשּׁוּם רָאוּי הוּא לֶאֱכוֹל אוֹ מִשּׁוּם רָאוּי לְהַאֲכִיל. נִשְׁמְעִנָהּ מִן הָדָה אִם לֹא יְדָעָהּ מִשֶּׁנַּעֲשֶׂה פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ יַאֲכִילוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר הָכָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַאֲכִיל וְהָכָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהַאֲכִיל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר מִן הָאֵרוּסִין וְלֹא סוֹף דָּבָר מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין פּוֹסְלוֹת. לֹא נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין כְּשֵּׁירוֹת.] HALAKHAH: “A widow to the High Priest,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “Being” is mentioned here54Lev. 21:7: “[The Cohen] shall be holy for you.” and “being” is mentioned there, “if a girl will be betrothed to a man55Deut. 22:23, a shortened quote..” Just as “being” there means betrothal, so “being” here means betrothal56The status of sanctity of a woman entering a Cohen’s house is determined by her betrothal. The argument follows R. Ismael’s rule, Note 45.. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon? “Being” is mentioned here54Lev. 21:7: “[The Cohen] shall be holy for you.” and “being” is mentioned there, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s57Lev. 22:12.”. Just as “being” there means marriage, so “being” here means marriage. Rebbi Yosa said, from where do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon know that the daughter of a Cohen betrothed to an Israel may not eat heave58In Mishnah 7:4 it is stated without opposition that betrothal of a Cohen’s daughter to an Israel disables her from eating have (but does not enable a daughter of an Israel engaged to a Cohen to eat heave).? Not from that verse, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s”? Here they make it betrothal, there they make it marriage!59The question remains unanswered, the arguments presented up to here are inconsistent. What is the reason of the rabbis? “A man’s”, the man who enables to eat60Sifra Emor Parashah5(7): “ ‘If the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s’, this includes not only a bastard, from where even to a Levi or an Israel? The verse says, ‘an outside man’s’. From where a widow to the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥalîṣah to a private Cohen? The verse says ‘a man’s’, a man’s who enables to eat.”
The rather cryptic argument here and in Sifra makes reference to the rule (Mishnah 7:3) that only a man can enable a (non-priestly) woman to eat heave, not a fetus. An Israel woman married to a Cohen eats heave as long as her husband is alive or after his death if she has children, but not if she is the pregnant widow of an otherwise childless man. She will only regain her status as member of the priestly clan after she has given birth. This explains the emphasis of the verse which is formulated לאיש זר and not simply לזר.
For the rabbis, the entire verse refers to betrothal.. Is it not an argument de minore ad majus61Sifra Emor Parashah 5(8). The Babli, 56b, tries an equally invalid argument.? Since an Israel, whose intercourse does not disable her62A (widowed) daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel may return to her priestly status if she becomes a childless widow. from the priesthood, by intercourse will disable her from eating heave63Once she is married to an Israel by intercourse, she is barred from eating heave., the High Priest, whose intercourse does disable her from the priesthood64He desecrates any widow by his intercourse., it should be logical that his intercourse will disable her from eating heave. No. If you argue about an Israel who cannot enable others to eat, what can you say about the High Priest who can enable others to eat? Since he can enable others to eat, his intercourse should not disable her from eating heave. The argument de minore ad majus is broken, and one has to return to the verse. Therefore, it must say “a man’s”; viz., the man who enables her to eat. 53Text from ms. A.
Ms. L and editio princeps: מַה טַעֲמָא לֹא אָֽמְרוּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִישּׂוּאִין פּוֹסְלִין אוֹתָהּ מִלּוֹכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לוֹכַל אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹכַל. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא אִם לֹא יְדָעָהּ מִשּׁוּם מַה נַעֲשֶׂה פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה הֲרֵי יֹאכֵלוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. הָדָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל וְהָכָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַאֲכִיל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין פְּסוּלוֹת. לֹא נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין .מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין כְּשֵׁירוֹת.
What is the reason that Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon did not say that marriage disables them from eating heave? What do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon in this case? Because he may eat or because he is not fit to eat? Let us hear from the following: “If he did not know her why his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon. You have to say, here it is because he enables to eat, there because he enables to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only from marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled.
The text is seen to be corrupt. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon65Interpreting the same verse as do the majority rabbis., because he may eat or because he may enable to eat? Let us hear from the following66Mishnah 8:1. Since men with injured testicles or torn-off penis cannot marry (Deut. 23:2), if they are Cohanim their intercourse desecrates. They themselves are also barred from eating sanctified food. If they were healthy when they married, their wives retain their priestly status even if the priest who brought them into the priesthood loses his.: “If he did not know her after his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon67The Amora R. Eleazar holds that the rabbis, who exclude the betrothed in a forbidden union from eating heave even though betrothal is an acquisition, must also exclude the wife of a man whose intercourse will disable her. The statement is quoted in the Babli, 75a, and contrasted (as in the Yerushalmi, Halakhah 8:1) with the opinion of R. Joḥanan that the rabbis can agree because she started to eat with permission; that permission cannot disappear without anything happening involving her person. According to R. Joḥanan, nothing is proven here.. You have to say, here it is because he68The Cohen before his accident. enables to eat, there69The High Priest who never could enable a widow. because he cannot enable to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not really from betrothal or marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled70In the Babli, 57b, this is the opinion of Samuel, interpreting the position of the rabbis (against the authoritative opinion of Rav)..