Talmud sur La Genèse 1:1

If [after betrothal the woman] was raped, she is permitted to him,⁵Cf. Deut. 22, 23-27. but should she have been a willing party she is forbidden to him. If she is the wife of a kohen, she is forbidden to him whether [it happened] under force or with her consent. [For it is stated, And she be not seized⁶Num. 5, 13, E.V. neither she be taken in the act. The phrase is interpreted by the Rabbis in the sense that she did not act under compulsion but willingly, referring to a married woman who was defiled secretly without witnesses to testify against her.—[only then] is she forbidden; if, however, she was seized⁷i.e. violated by force. she is permitted. There is another class of woman who is forbidden [to her husband] even though she had been seized; and who is that? The wife of a kohen.⁸Cf. Yeb. 56b (Sonc. ed., p. 378), Keth. 51b (Sonc. ed., p. 298). R. Ishmael⁹According to R. Ishmael there is no distinction between the wife of a kohen and a lay-Israelite in the case of rape. said: And she be not seized she is forbidden; consequently if she had been seized she is permitted. There is another class of woman who is permitted [to her husband] even if she had not been seized; and who is that? A woman whose betrothal was mistaken.¹⁰If, e.g., a condition were attached to the betrothal that remained unfulfilled. In such a case the woman may leave her husband without a geṭ, and in any subsequent intercourse, whether forced or willing, her status is that of an unmarried woman who had never been previously married. The passage within brackets is added by GRA and is necessary, otherwise R. Ishmael would be contradicting himself. Cf. Yeb. 100b (Sonc. ed., p. 692), Keth. loc. cit.]
If a divorcee who became betrothed was seduced, whether under force or of her free will, she is forbidden to return to her former husband.¹¹If her second husband subsequently died or divorced her. She is, however, permitted to remarry her former husband after betrothal alone, where no marriage with the second man took place and he died. This is the opinion of R. Jose b. Ḳippar in the name of R. Eleazar b. Shammua‘. This is the reasoning by which R. Jose b. Ḳippar expounded his view:¹²This is the reading of GRA as against V and H, who name R. Ishmael as the authority. [It is written,] Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled.¹³Deut. 24, 4. In what circumstances did she become defiled?¹⁴If she was legally married to the second husband the term defiled is inapplicable. It can only be explained by what the Sages have said: If a woman [after betrothal] was forcibly seduced, she is permitted to [her husband]; if she was a willing party she is forbidden to him; but in this case,¹⁵Of the divorcee who became betrothed and was then seduced. This is the reading of GRA. V and H have ‘the wife of a kohen’. whether under compulsion or of her free will she is forbidden to return to her former husband.¹⁶So GRA. V and H ‘to him’.

They [all] introduced [the same] thirteen alterations:¹⁶For a comparison of these variants with the Heb. text, cf. on Sof. I, 8. ‘God created in the beginning’; ‘I shall make a man in image and likeness’; ‘And He finished on the sixth [day] and rested on the seventh [day]’; ‘Male and female He created him’; ‘Come let Me go down’; ‘And Sarah laughed among her relatives, saying’; ‘For in their anger they slew oxen and in their self-will they digged up a stall’; ‘And Moses took his wife and his children and set them upon a carrier of men’; ‘Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt was four hundred and thirty years’; ‘I have not taken one desirable thing from them’; ‘And the [beast] with small legs’; ‘Which the Lord thy God hath allotted unto all the peoples to give light under the whole heaven’; ‘And they offer sacrifices to the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven which I commanded should not be served’.

It also happened that King Ptolemy assembled seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms without telling them the reason for which he had assembled them. He then went to each one of them and said to him,¹⁷lit. ‘to them’. ‘Write for me [a translation of] the Torah of Moses your master’. The Omnipresent inspired them¹⁸lit. ‘put counsel in the heart of each one of them’. and the mind of all of them was identical, so that each on his own¹⁹So GRA. wrote the [same translation of the] Torah, introducing [the same] thirteen alterations²⁰Deviations from the traditional text. In the extant Versions of the Septuagint only some of these are found. as follows: ‘God created in the beginning’.²¹Instead of In the beginning God created (Gen. 1, 1) the Heb. of which might be misinterpreted to mean that a power named ‘Bereshith’ (in the beginning) created God. ‘And God said I shall make a man in image and likeness.’²²The Heb. text reads: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Gen. 1, 26). The plural us and our might erroneously suggest a plurality of deities. ‘And He finished on the sixth [day] and rested on the seventh [day].’²³For the Heb.: And He finished on the seventh day (Gen. 2, 2) which could be understood to imply that God did some work on the seventh day. ‘Male and female He created him.’²⁴Instead of created them (ibid. V, 2) from which it might be inferred that man and woman were, from the first, two separate beings, contrary to ibid. II, 21. ‘Come let Me go down and there confound their language.’²⁵Instead of let us go down (ibid. XI, 7). ‘And Sarah laughed among her relatives,²⁶i.e. she laughed in the presence of people and therefore incurred censure (ibid. XVIII, 12). The Heb. means ‘within herself’ as Abraham had done when he laughed … in his heart (ibid. XVII, 17) and had not been rebuked. saying.’ ‘For in their anger they slew oxen²⁷So GRA, H and M. V incorrectly ‘a man’. and in their self-will they digged up a stall.’²⁸Changing men (ibid. XLIX, 6) to ‘oxen’ and oxen to ‘stall’ in order to remove the stigma of murder from Jacob’s sons. ‘And Moses took his wife and his children and set them upon a carrier²⁹So M. V and H read ‘carriers of men’. of men.’³⁰i.e. an animal conformable with the dignity of Moses, instead of ass (Ex. 4, 20). ‘Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan and in other lands³¹So M. V omits ‘and in other lands’. [The reading of the Septuagint is ‘in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt’.] was four hundred and thirty years.’³²Instead of the Heb. which omits ‘in the land of Canaan and in other lands’ (Ex. 12, 40), and implies that all the 430 years were spent in Egypt when, in fact, they could not have dwelt there more than 210 years (cf. Rashi to Meg. 9a). ‘And he sent the elect of the children of Israel.’³³So GRA and Meg. 9a but omitted in V. ‘Elect’ is substituted for young men (ibid. XXIV, 5), the former being regarded as more suitable persons for the service. ‘And upon the elect of the children of Israel He laid not His hand.’³⁴Here also ‘elect’ was substituted for the Heb. for nobles (ibid. 11). The alteration was not essential, but ‘elect’ which was mentioned earlier was preferred. It should be noted that in the total of thirteen alterations, this and the preceding are counted as one. ‘I have not taken one desirable thing³⁵A ‘desirable thing’ [which occurs in the Septuagint] for the Heb. ass (Num. 16, 15) to avoid the suggestion that Moses did not take an ass but more precious objects. from them.’ ‘The [beast] with small legs.’³⁶Instead of the Heb. for the hare (Lev. 11, 6) which is arnebeth, so as not to give offence to Ptolemy the name of whose queen was Arnebeth. ‘Which the Lord thy God hath allotted to give light unto all the peoples under the whole heaven.’³⁷The insertion ‘to give light’ (Deut. 4, 19) removes the possible misunderstanding that the heavenly bodies enumerated in the verse were intended by God to be objects of worship. ‘Which I commanded should not be served.’³⁸Deut. 17, 3 reads which I have commanded not. This might be taken to mean that God did not desire their existence and their creation was consequently due to a power beyond His control. It should be noted that the last two alterations are regarded as one in the enumeration because both deal with heavenly bodies as objects of worship.