Talmud su Levitico 21:15

¹¹Babli Qiddušin 77a, Sifra Emor Pereq 2(7–8). It is written¹²Lev. 21:15. This verse is written for the High Priest, but it is applied to all priests who marry women forbidden to them.: He shall not desecrate his issue in his people. Not only his issue will be desecrated; from where also she¹³In Lev. 21:7,14 the “desecrated woman” is mentioned in the list of women forbidden to the Cohen. The verse implies that the daughter of a Cohen from an illicit union is conceived desecrated. There is no verse which spells out the conditions under which a woman otherwise may become desecrated. There is a verse which specifies that the daughter of a Cohen married to anon-Cohen or mother of a non-Cohen child is disqualified from priestly revenues (Lev. 22:12–13), but not desecrated. Since the “desecrated woman” is always mentioned together with the prostitute, it is inferred that sexual offenses of a woman desecrate her.? Is this not a logical inference? Since the issue, which did not sin, is desecrated, should she, who committed a sin¹⁴On the face of it, the verses only imply that the male Cohen who marries an unsuitable woman commits a sin. Since both Lev. 21:7, addressed to the common priest, repeat the verb “do not marry”, this is read to mean that the first mention is the prohibition for the male to marry, the second the prohibition for the female to agree to be married (Yebamot 9:1 Note 13, Qiddušin 3:14 Note 243; Sifra Emor Pereq 1(12), Babli Yebamot 84b)., not logically be desecrated? He himself is a counter example, since he committed a sin but was not desecrated¹⁵Since the verse emphasizes that his children will be desecrated, it implies that the father himself is not desecrated (even if he consorts with a Gentile or a slave); Sifra Emor Pereq 2(8). The son of a Cohen from an illicit union is desecrated from conception; he does not become desecrated. This implies that no male Cohen may become desecrated; he may, however, become unfit for his office.. No. If you argue about a man who is not desecrated in any circumstance, what can you say about a woman who is desecrated in many circumstances¹⁶In order to avoid circular reasoning it is necessary to classify “disqualified” with “desecrated”. Then it follows that there exist classes of females desecrated for the priesthood without equivalent among males.? Since she is desecrated in many circumstances, it is logical that she should be desecrated. If you wish you can say “not to desecrate”, not to desecrate, about somebody who was qualified and became desecrated¹⁷The text of this sentence is in doubt. There is no biblical verb חוֹל “to profane” as required by the reading here and in the Babli. In Sifra, most texts read יחלל both times; but from Ravad’s commentary one sees that the first time he read יַחֵל (Num. 30:3), identical in meaning with יְחַלֵּל.
As explained in Note 16, actively “to desecrate” implies the existence of an object which is not yet desecrated. Since any child of the illicit union of a Cohen is intrinsically desecrated, it cannot be made desecrated. Since the male is not desecrated, the use of the active יְחַלֵּל therefore implies that the female is desecrated..

What is touching¹¹In the Babli, 55b, the statement of Samuel is formulated more graphically, that touching the female genital by the male must necessarily make a small indentation which is the act of acquisition. The opinion of R. Joḥanan is quoted in rather confusing three ways.? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That the finger should be seen between the lips. Rebbi Joḥanan said, until the gland enters. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When the gland has entered that is completion of intercourse. What are we dealing with¹²The two statements of R. Joḥanan must refer to two different categories of laws.? If about incest prohibitions, He made the one who touches equal to him who finishes¹³In the list of punishments for sexual offenses, “touching” is mentioned as the offense in Lev. 20:18–19.. If for a bound slave girl¹⁴Lev. 19:20–22. The quasi adultery of a man with a slave girl which was somehow betrothed before she was manumitted is punishable only if there was ejaculation. {Tosaphot, Babli 55b, s. v. אינו, interprets the Babli as making the intercourse punishable in the moment an ejaculation leading to a pregnancy was possible even if none actually occured. It is impossible to read this into the text of the Yerushalmi.}, until he ejaculates, since Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, said in the name of Rav: “Flow of semen”, until he ejaculates. But we must deal with a widow for the High Priest. When he touched her, he became guilty for desecrating her. When the gland entered, he became guilty for having intercourse. When he ejaculated, he became guilty because “he shall not desecrate his semen in his people.¹⁵Lev. 21:15. Since the three sins are committed at three different times, he can be indicted and punished for three different crimes without any question of competition of laws. In the Babli, Qiddushin 78a, it is noted that the language of Lev. 21:14 implies that he can be punished for the second offense only if he actually had married the widow.”

There²⁶Mishnah 4:4; a fuller text in Tosephta 5:4 and Babli 26a as the minority opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar; as an alternative explanation in Sifry Num. 19., we have stated: “A she-ram²⁷A woman lacking secondary female sex characteristics, cf. Yebamot, Chapter 1, Note 65., an old woman²⁸A post-menopausal woman., or a sterile one neither drinks nor collects her ketubah,” as it is said²⁹Num. 5:28.: “She will be declared innocent and bear seed,” [this refers to] one able to bear seed; it excludes one who is unable to bear seed. They objected, is there not the widow [married to] the High Priest, is she not able to bear seed³⁰Why is she excluded from drinking (Mishnah 2)?? There is a difference, since it is written³¹Lev. 21:15.: “He may not desecrate his seed among his people.³¹Lev. 21:15.” There³²Since any child of the widow will be desecrated, it is not counted as the High Priest’s child. Therefore, as far as he is concerned, his wife is unable to bear children., we have stated: “A bastard disables and enables to eat. How is this?” And here he says so? Rebbi Tanḥuma said, there, “she has no issue” of any kind, but here³³Mishnah Yebamot7:7. An Israel woman widowed from a Cohen may eat heave as long as any Jewish descendant of her husband’s is alive; a Cohen woman widowed from an Israel may not eat heave as long as any Jewish descendant of her husband’s is alive. one requires enabled seed, not disabled seed. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the water only serves to permit her to her house; but about this one one tells him to divorce once she went to a secluded place³⁴He rejects the earlier attempt to find a biblical source to the rejection of the widow and explains Lev. 21:15 as: “He is forbidden to desecrate his seed.” The rule excluding the High Priest’s widow is rabbinical. If the Temple court refuses to administer the water, the widow remains permanently forbidden to her husband, who therefore is forced to divorce her..