Halakhah su Levitico 21:2

An opposing view is adopted by Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Hayyim 526:20. Rebutting the argument formulated by Hagahot Maimuniyot, Magen Avraham asserts that placing a nefel in a "pit" as described by the Tosefta was, in fact, a form of burial. His principal argument in support of his own position is based upon a comment of Sifra, Leviticus 21:2, adducing an exegetical basis for prohibiting a kohen from defiling himself in conjunction with the burial of a child who is a nefel. The implication, argues Magen Avraham, is that a nefel requires burial. Moreover, argues Magen Avraham, it may be inferred from the comments of the Gemara, Niddah 57a, that it is forbidden to leave a nefel unburied overnight.¹⁴The grounds for this inference are far from unequivocal; see Teshuvot Noda bi-Yehudah, Mahadura Kamma, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no.16. Cf., however, Maḥaẓit ha-Shekel in his comments on Magen Avraham, ad locum, and Binah le-‘Ittim, Hilkhot Yom Tov 1:23.

(In the case of) one whose betrothed (woman) died - if the betrothed man is a Cohen, he may not defile himself because of her, as it is written: “except for his relatives” (Leviticus 21:2), and this means near kin. And a betrothed is not his near kin, even if he has betrothed her by (an act of) intercourse, since she is (supposedly) prohibited to him (for further intercourse) until the marriage.
If he (the one who betrothes) dies, she is not obligated to defile herself because of him, even though it is a commandment to defile oneself for all near kin. Nevertheless, (defiling herself) for her betrothed man is no “mitsvah” (good deed) but doing it constitutes no prohibition, even if she is a female Cohen, for the daughters of Aaron were not commanded regarding the defiling, as it is written” “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron” (Leviticus 21:1); (it says) “the sons of Aaron” and not “the daughters of Aaron” (i.e. the prohibition against defiling oneself applies to men only).