what [is the law]:1 Are we guided by the marriage2 or by the betrothal?3 — The other replied to him: You have learned it: IF THEY BECAME WIDOWS OR WERE DIVORCED AFTER MARRIAGE THEY REMAIN INELIGIBLE; IF AFTER BETROTHAL THEY BECOME ELIGIBLE.4 The first said to him: With reference to rendering her a halalah,5 I have no doubt that it is the forbidden cohabitation6 that causes her to be a halalah. My question is only: What is implied by, And he shall take a wife in her virginity:7 Is the 'taking' of betrothal required,8 or is it the 'taking' of marriage that is required?9 The other replied, You have learned this also: [A priest who] betrothed a widow, and was subsequently appointed to be a High Priest, may consummate the marriage!10 — There it is different because it is written, Shall he take to wife.11 Here also it is written wife!12 — Only one13 but not two. And what is the reason?14 — In the case of the one,15 her body has undergone a change;16 in that of the other her body underwent no change.
MISHNAH. A HIGH PRIEST SHALL NOT MARRY A WIDOW17 WHETHER SHE BECAME A WIDOW AFTER A BETROTHAL OR AFTER A MARRIAGE. HE SHALL NOT MARRY ONE WHO IS ADOLESCENT.18 R. ELEAZAR AND R. SIMEON PERMIT HIM TO MARRY ONE WHO IS ADOLESCENT,18 BUT HE MAY NOT MARRY ONE WHO IS WOUNDED.19
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: A widow … shall he not take,17 whether she became a widow after a betrothal or after a marriage. Is not this obvious?20 — It might have been assumed that [the meaning of] widow21 is to be inferred from widow22 in the case of Tamar; as there22 it was one after marriage, so here21 also it is one after marriage; hence we were taught [that any widow was meant]. But might it not be suggested that it is indeed so?23 — [It is compared] to a divorced woman:24 As 'divorced woman'24 [includes any divorcee] whether after betrothal or after marriage,25 so also 'widow'24 [includes any widow] whether after betrothal or after marriage.
HE SHALL NOT MARRY ONE WHO IS ADOLESCENT. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall take a wife in her virginity26 excludes one who is adolescent, whose virginity is ended; so R. Meir. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon permit the marriage of one who is adolescent. On what principle do they differ? — R. Meir is of the opinion that virgin27 implies even [one who retains] some of her virginity; her virginity28 implies only one who retains all her virginity;29 in her virginity30 implies only [when previous intercourse with her took place] in the natural manner,31 but not when in an unnatural manner.32 R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, however, are of the opinion that virgin would have implied a perfect virgin; her virginity implies even [one who retains] only part of her virginity;33 in her virginity implies only one whose entire virginity is intact,34 irrespective of whether [previous intercourse with her was] of a natural or unnatural character.35
Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: A woman who was subjected to unnatural intercourse is disqualified from marrying a priest.36 Raba raised an objection: And she shall be his wife,37 applies to a woman eligible to marry him. This excludes [the marriage of] a widow38 to a High Priest,39 of a divorced woman38 and a haluzah38 to a common priest. Now, how is one to understand [the outrage]?40 If it be suggested that it was one of natural intercourse, what [it may be asked] was the object of pointing to her widowhood41 when [her prohibition] could be inferred from the fact that she had
had carnal intercourse with a man?42 Must it not consequently [be assumed to be] a case of unnatural intercourse; and the only reason43 [why the woman is forbidden44 is] because she is a widow, and not because she had had carnal intercourse!45
— This1 represents the view of2 R. Meir,3 while Rab holds the same view as R. Eleazar.4 If [Rab holds the same view] as R. Eleazar, what was the object of pointing to her previous carnal intercourse5 when [her prohibition] could have been inferred from the fact that she was a harlot,6 R. Eleazar having stated that an unmarried man who cohabited with an unmarried woman with no matrimonial intention renders her thereby a harlot!7 — R. Joseph replied:8 When, for instance, the woman was subjected to intercourse with a beast, where the reason of 'previous carnal intercourse' may be applied but not that of harlot.9 Said Abaye to him: Whatever you prefer [your reply cannot be upheld], If she is a be'ulah10 she must also be a harlot; and if she is not a harlot11 she cannot be a be'ulah either! And were you to reply: This case is similar to that of a wounded woman,12 [it may be pointed out] that if [the disqualification should be extended to] unnatural intercourse also,13 you will find no woman eligible to marry a [High Priest [since there is not one] who has not been in some way
wounded14 by a splinter! No, said R. Zera,15 in respect of a minor who made a declaration of refusal.16
R. Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest.17 Likewise it was taught: A woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being,18 though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning,19 is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest.20
When R. Dimi came21 he related: It once happened at Haitalu22 that while a young woman was sweeping the floor23 a village dog24 covered her from the rear,25 and Rabbi permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest. But was there a High Priest in the days of Rabbi?26 — Rather, [Samuel meant]: Fit for a High Priest.
Raba of Parzakaia27 said to R. Ashi: Whence is derived the following statement which the Rabbis made: Harlotry is not applicable to bestial intercourse? — It is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog,28 and yet we learned that the hire of a dog29 and the price of a harlot30 are permitted31 because it is said, Even both these,28 two only but not four.
Our Rabbis taught: [A High Priest] shall not marry the woman he himself has outraged or seduced.32 If, however, he married her, the marriage is valid.33 He shall not marry a woman whom another man has outraged or seduced. If he did marry her, the child, said R. Eliezer b. Jacob, is profaned:34 but the Sages said: The child is legitimate.35
'If, however, he married her, the marriage is valid'. Said R. Huna in the name of Rab: But he must put her aside by a letter of divorce. What, then, [is the explanation] of the statement 'If, however, he married her, the marriage is valid'? — R. Aha b. Jacob replied: It was meant to imply
- To Next Folio -