Rujukan Talmud untuk Ulangan 23:2: Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot, Jerusalem Talmud Terumot, Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat & Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is the child a bastard following Rebbi Jehudah? He said to him, “No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry⁶²Deut. 23:2. The prohibition of the father’s wife is verse 1, the rule of bastardy is verse 3; cf. Chaper 4, Note 211.” interrupts the argument. It interrupted the argument in the matter of the father’s wife. He retorted, the father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions⁶³This is an application of Rule 9 of R. Ismael (Introduction to Sifra): “Anything in a set which was selected from that set to teach, was not selected to teach only for itself but for the entire set.”
The prohibition of the stepmother is contained in the set of all incest prohibitions (Lev., Chapters 18,20). Therefore, if the result of incest with a stepmother is a bastard, the result of any other incestuous relation must be a bastard (cf. Mishnaiot 4:14,15).. (Let the father’s wife be selected to teach about bastardy for all incests prohibitions.) Similarly, let the rape victim be selected to teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims⁶⁴R. Ḥaggai wants to argue that since according to R. Jehudah, the prohibition of a person who had unmarried sex with his father is written in one verse with the prohibition of the father’s wife, all relationships that would be incestuous in the case of marriage should be prohibited.. He said to him, the father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Can you say that the rape victim was in a set of all rape victims, that it could teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims⁶⁵There does not exist a set of women prohibited as incestuous by extramarital sex; the set to which Rule 9 might be applied contains only the woman who had slept with his father. The parallel reasoning implied by R. Ḥaggai does not work.? Why cannot the father’s wife be selected to teach about the rape victims in her case? He said to him, is she is the father’s wife, she is not his rape victim; is she is the father’s rape victim, she is not his wife.

MISHNAH: Who is injured in his lower parts¹¹⁴The Halakhah will investigate why דכא means the testicles. The Babli, 75b, and most moderns hold that the word means “crushed”, the object crushed being understood without being mentioned. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, the root of the word is דך “downtrodden”, the lowest organ of the body.? Everyone whose testicles are injured, even one of them. The one whose urethra¹¹⁵Really “discharge pipe”; this meaning is used in the Halakhah. is cut off, anyone whose penis is cut, but he is qualified if there is a thread’s¹¹⁶In the Babli: A hair’s breadth. [breath] left of the corona. The ones injured in their testicles or with cut-off urethra are permitted [to marry] a convert or a manumitted woman; they are only forbidden to marry into the congregation¹¹⁷The definition of “congregation” is discussed in the Halakhah., as it was said¹¹⁸Deut. 23:2.: “No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry into the Eternal’s congregation.”

MISHNAH: The daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel⁷⁴She used to eat heave when unmarried. Once she is married outside the tribe, heave is forbidden to her (Lev. 22:12). However, if the marriage is dissolved without issue, she returns to eat heave (v. 13). This implies that even in her marriage she is not a stranger in the sense of v. 13; the obligation of payment of a fifth (v. 14) cannot apply to her. It is clear that one has returned to the case of eating heave in error, not intentionally. who afterwards ate heave pays the principal but does not pay the fifth; her death is by burning⁷⁵If she commits adultery, Lev. 21:9.. If she married one of the ineligible⁷⁶A castrate, bastard, Ammonite or Moabite (Deut. 23:2–4), or a Cohen after she had been divorced (Lev. 21:7). In these cases, even if her marriage is dissolved, she may never return to eating heave since she is desecrated. R. Meïr holds that she is now a stranger to her former tribe., she pays principal and fifth and her death is by strangulation⁷⁷The normal penalty for adultery, which applies to the adulterer in all cases., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say⁷⁸Since in Lev. 21:9 she is characterized as “daughter of a Cohen man,” and this she remains [Sifra Emor Parašah 5(7), Babli Sanhedrin 51a]. The involved formulation is taken to include also illegitimate offspring of a Cohen [Sifra Emor Pereq 1(16)]. In Babli Keritut 6a, the opinion of the Sages is traced to R. Jehudah., both pay principal but not the fifth and their deaths are by burning.
He who feeds his minor children or his slaves, adult or minor, he who eats heave from outside the Land, and he who eats less than the volume of an olive of heave pays the principal but not the fifth⁸⁸Lev. 22:14: “If a man ate in error from the holy [food], then he has to add a fifth and hand over the holy [food] to the Cohen.” In the first cases of the Mishnah, he himself does not eat; therefore, he is not covered by the verse. But minors and slaves are not responsible; they cannot be asked to pay. Heave from outside the Land is of questionable holiness. Less than the volume of an olive may be nibbling; it is not eating.. The payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive it, he may forgive.
This is the principle: In every case one pays the principal and the fifth, the payment is heave and although the Cohen may want to forgive, he may not forgive. In every case one pays the principal but not the fifth, the payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive, he may do so.