Talmud su Levitico 21:7

MISHNAH: The following are flogged¹As a matter of principle, all transgressions of biblical prohibitions are punishable by flogging unless specifically exempted. The rules are spelled out by Maimonides in his Commentary to this Mishnah. It is under stood that a sentence of flogging can be passed only after a trial based on the testimony of two witnesses both to the fact of the crime and the necessary warning given to the perpetrator.
A crime punishable by the death penalty can never lead to a sentence of flogging, even if the death penalty cannot be imposed because of a material or technical obstacle. Crimes punishable by extirpation or Death by the Hand of Heaven are subject to flogging, since in this case the earthly punishment guarantees the sinner his part in the World to Come (Mishnah 17).
A crime punishable by a fine cannot lead to punishment by flogging. Crimes done by speech without accompanying action are not punishable by flogging, except swearing falsely, substituting sacrifices (Lev. 27:10), and cursing using the Name which is a potential capital crime.
A crime connected to a positive commandment cannot lead to punishment by flogging as long as the positive commandment still can be executed (Mishnah 4).
The infraction of a positive commandment cannot be punished. For example, the High Priest is commanded to marry a virgin. He is prohibited of marrying a widow, divorcee, or desecrated woman (Lev. 21:13–14). If he marries a woman who is not forbidden but not a virgin, he cannot be punished.
A prohibition understood by inference, not written explicitly, cannot be punished.: He who copulates with his sister²Lev. 20:17. The list starts with sexual transgressions punishable by Heaven., or his father’s sister, or his mother’s sister³Lev. 20:19., or his wife’s sister⁴Lev. 18:18. This is a simple prohibition., or his brother’s wife⁵Lev. 20:21., or his father’s brother’s wife⁶Lev. 20:20., or a menstruating woman⁷Lev. 20:18.. A widow for the High Priest⁸Lev. 21:14, a simple prohibition., or a divorcee⁹Lev. 21:7. The clause about halîṣah, the freeing of the widow of a childless man from levirate marriage, is in dispute; the majority holds that the prohibition of the widow after halîsah is rabbinic. or one having received ḥalîṣah for a common priest. For a widow and divorcee one is liable because of two categories¹⁰If the High Priest marries a widow who had been a divorcee.. For a divorcee having received ḥalîṣah one is only liable for one category¹¹Since halîṣah is forbidden only as a kind of divorce..

MISHNAH: A preliminarily married woman¹Cf. Demai 4, Note 19. or one who waits for her brother-in-law²Her husband died childless; she waits to be married by her brother-in-law. In the meantime, the brother-in-law declared his jealousy and brought witnesses that she had an illicit rendezvous. While a woman waiting for her brother-in-law is unable to marry outside the family without ḥalîṣah, her infidelity in her widowhood is not criminal adultery (cf. Yebamot, Chapter 2, Note 6). Nevertheless, if a brother-in-law “bespoke” her, she is as if preliminarily married to him and if she violates his demand that she not be with a suspected paramour, he cannot marry her unless she is cleared by the Soṭah ritual. Since this is impossible and she has brought the situation on herself by her action, she has to receive ḥalîṣah, be divorced, and cannot claim her ketubah money. neither drinks nor collects her ketubah, since it is said³Num. 5:29. “Under her husband” is only a wife living with her husband. In Sifry Num. 20 (differently in Babli 24a, attributed to the same authors) there is a discussion on which woman is considered living with her husband.: “.. who will deviate from under her husband,” which excludes a preliminarily married woman and one who waits for her brother-in-law.
A widow [married to] a High Priest⁴Lev. 21:14., a divorcee⁵Lev. 21:7. or one who received ḥalîṣah⁶She is a divorcee by rabbinic standards; cf. Mishnah Yebamot 2:4. to a common priest, a female bastard⁷Cf. Yebamot Chapter 1, Note 176. or a Gibeoness⁸Cf. Yebamot Chapter 2, Note 72. to an Israel, or an Israel woman married to a bastard or a Gibeonite, neither drinks nor collects her ketubah⁹The Halakhah leaves open the possibility that this latter rule may be a rabbinic decree..

²²Cf. the discussion in pp. 17–20 of Introduction to Talmudic Literature in the first volume, Berakhot, of this edition of the Yerushalmi. Did those daughters of Barzilai’s²³There seems to be no indication in the Bible that Barzilai was not Jewish. But in 2S. 17:27 Barzilai the Gileadite is associated with Šobi ben Naḥaš from Rabbat Ammon in providing for David’s army in his flight from Absalom. Since Šobi is characterized as a Gentile, the implication here is that Barzilai also was a Gentile and this is used to explain why some 500 years later Barzilai’s descendants could not serve as priests. convert in the name of Heaven²⁴I. e., were honest converts to be counted as Jews. or not²⁵A conversion for the only purpose of being able to be married to a Jewish partner is considered to be invalid; the person so converted then remains Gentile. The Babli disagrees; a conversion is valid and irrevocable if it satisfies the minimal legal conditions imposed on the act: Yebamot 24b; Seder Eliahu Rabba Chap. 29. in the name of Heaven? If you say that they converted in the name of Heaven should not [their descendants] eat most holy sacrifices? But if you say that they converted not in the name of Heaven, then [their descendants] should not eat even outside sancta. Even if you say that they converted in the name of Heaven, is a female proselyte not like a prostitute for the priesthood²⁶Lev. 21:7 forbids only a whore, a desecrated woman, and a divorcee as marriage partners to the Cohen. Now the divorcee and the desecrated are Jewish born; they cannot be proselytes. The legal definition of a “whore” is a person who had sexual relations with a man whom she could not possibly marry. Since a Gentile is excluded from preliminary marriage, a Gentile woman who is presumed to have had sexual experience when very young, automatically qualifies as whore under this definition.? Explain it that they were not daughters but daughters of daughters²⁷The daughters of Barzilai married not priests but courtiers of David’s court (1K. 2:7). Then their children were regular Israelites according to Mishnah 3:14 and could marry priests.. But if they were daughters of daughters, they are like Israel!²⁸Their descendants then would have been genuine priests able to serve in the Temple. But following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, a proselyte who converted at less that three years and one day of age²⁹This sentence is obviously incomplete; one must add “may marry into the priesthood”, cf. Bikkurim Halakhah 1:5; Babli Yebamot 60b, Qiddušin 76b,78a.. She had no intent to immerse herself but [her mother] immersed her, if then later she immerses herself for the holiness of Israel, each of them then becomes a proselyte and a proselyte is like a prostitute for the priesthood³⁰This explains the attitude of the rabbis who oppose R. Simeon. They agree that by biblical standards, the proselyte toddler could be married to a priest as explained by R. Simeon in Bikkurim Halakhah 1:5. But they require a conscious act for a rabbinically valid conversion and this is impossible for a toddler. If later the adolescent girl immerses herself for the impurity of menstruation, this is a conscious act and counts fully as valid conversion (cf. Halakhah 3:14, Note 278.) But at that time, the girl is much older than three years and R. Simeon’s argument does not apply. It follows that the daughters of Barzilai, even if converted as toddlers, were rabbinically prohibited to priests. The priests who married them, presumably for their money and standing at court, therefore created a class of rabbinically desecrated priests who could be barred from Temple sancta (in the formulation of G) but not from outside sancta..