Talmud su Levitico 21:13

MISHNAH: If they sinned before being appointed; when afterwards they were appointed, they remain commoners^1,Since at the moment of the sin they became obligated for the sacrifices, a later change of status has no influence. The difference between ecclesiastical and political offices will become clear in Mishnah 2.⁷For the purposes of this sacrifice.. Rebbi Simeon says, if it became known to them before they were appointed, they are obligated; if after they were appointed they are not liable. Who is the Prince? This is the king, as it is said⁸Lev. 4:22., if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God; a Prince who has none above him but the Eternal, his God. And who is the Anointed? This is one anointed with the anointing oil, not one clothed in multiple garb⁹Making the anointing oil was commanded personally to Moses (Ex.30:25). All High Priests up to the time of king Josiah were anointed with it. Since that time, the oil was no longer available; it cannot be reconstituted. The later High Priests were inducted into their office by investiture with the High Priest’s garments..
The only difference between the priest anointed with the anointing oil and the one clothed in multiple garb is the bull brought for all commandments¹⁰The rules about the High Priest’s purification sacrifice explained in Chapter 2 became obsolete with the destruction of the First Temple and could be restored to validity only if a dig on the Temple Mount would recover the flask containing the original oil. The High Priests of the Second Temple had the status of commoners in this respect.. And the only difference between an officiating High Priest and a deposed one is the bull of the Day of Atonement¹¹Which has to be acquired by the High Priest with his own money together with a goat (Lev. 16:3). and the tenth of an ephah¹²The personal daily offering of the High Priest, Lev. 6:12–16, of about 3.84 l of fine flour..
Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement¹³If the acting High Priest becomes impure or otherwise incapacitated, a former High Priest can replace him without special dedication. No common priest can perform any of the prescribed acts of the Day of Atonement., commanded about the virgin¹⁴Lev. 21:13. This applies only if the High Priest marries while High Priest. If he married a widow while a common priest, he still may be elevated to High Priest., and prohibited for a widow¹⁵Lev. 21:14., and do not defile themselves for close relatives¹⁶Lev. 21:11., and may not let their hair grow¹⁷Lev. 21:10. or rend their garments¹⁸Lev. 21:10. These are forbidden as mourning rites., and let the homicide return¹⁹Num. 35:25 (where anointing is mentioned), 32 (where anointing is not mentioned)..

¹⁶⁴Parallel text in Bikkurim 1:6, explained there in Notes 101–106, and Qiddushin4:7. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in Rhodes was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Rebbi Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeїra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeїra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity,” which is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. Similarly, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from among his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is under a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for an Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for an Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ammi asked¹⁶³The text is impossible as it stands. It must have been either “R. Jeremiah (fourth generation) said that R. Immi (second generation) asked” or “R. Yasa and R. Immi asked”. The sequel would support both versions.: What is the difference between her¹⁶⁴The woman whose hymen was impaired by a mechanical accident, who is declared eligible to marry a High Priest. and one who had sex with a finger¹⁶⁵Either she or another person perforated her hymen with his finger in sexual activity without penetration by a penis.? Is the one who had sex with a finger not disabled for priesthood¹⁶⁶The high priesthood. Only the High Priest is required to marry a virgin.? Rebbi Haggai said, explain it that there was no penetration¹⁶⁷If the girl had sexual experience without any penetration, she will qualify for a virgin’s ketubah.. Rebbi Haggai wanted to change his mind; Rebbi Abba said to him, do not change your mind. Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? Because of the verse¹⁶⁸Lev. 21:13, speaking of the high priest. The complicated expression אִשָּׁהבִבְתוּלֶיהָ “a woman in her virginities” instead of simpy בְּתוּלָה “a virgin” calls for an explanation.: “But he shall marry a wife in her virginities,” only if she is a virgin in both respects¹⁶⁹She must be a virgin without any sexual experience; cf. Babli Yebamot 59a.. Similarly, “a virgin and no man had known her.¹⁷⁰Gen. 24:16; here again the double expression calls for an explanation. In Gen.rabba 60(5), the explanation is ascribed to R. Simeon ben Laqish.” A virgin, with respect to penetration. No man had known her, without penetration. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, [no man] ever had wanted to touch her hand, for it was said¹⁷¹Ps. 125:3. In Gen.rabba 60(5), this explanation is ascribed to R. Joḥanan.: “The staff of evil shall not rest on the just’s lot.” Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? He could explain it by “touching”. Why does (Rav Yosef) [Rebbi Yasa]¹⁷²Since the author here cannot be the fourth generation Babylonian Rav Joseph (bar Ḥiyya), most likely he is Rebbi Yasa (cf. Note 163). not explain it by “touching”? Rebbi Mana said, because it presented a problem for him: Rebbi Yasa asked: What is the legal status of “touching”¹⁷³The touching of the genitals of two persons, whether there was penetration or emission or not. “Touching” is the legal definition of the sex act both for marriage (cf. Yebamot4:2, Note 59; Mishnah 6:1) and for criminal law (Mishnah Keritut 2:4; cf. Soṭah 1:2, Notes 97,98). The same question is asked in Qiddušin 1:1 (59c 1. 14). with a male? “Touching” with an animal? When Rebbi Jeremiah heard that of Rebbi Haggai, he said, that was not Rebbi Ammi’s problem¹⁷⁴That solution is too obvious not to have occured to R. Ammi, and it does not address his question which asks for the difference between a hymen split by mechanical means or by the girl’s own finger. In both cases, no male was involved..