אִשָּׁ֨ה זֹנָ֤ה וַחֲלָלָה֙ לֹ֣א יִקָּ֔חוּ וְאִשָּׁ֛ה גְּרוּשָׁ֥ה מֵאִישָׁ֖הּ לֹ֣א יִקָּ֑חוּ כִּֽי־קָדֹ֥שׁ ה֖וּא לֵאלֹהָֽיו׃
그들은 기생이나 부정한 여인을 취하지 말 것이며 이혼 당한 여인을 취하지 말지니 이는 그가 여호와께 거룩함이니라
Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot
“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say in the name of Rav that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified men against qualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified women but it is only disqualified women against qualified women10This paragraph is in very bad shape. It seems that it should be corrected as follows:.
“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]11Priestly women are not enjoined to stay in their priestly status. The Babli concurs, 84b, also in the name of Rav.? So is the Mishnah: If a desecrated [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother12Since the wife is disabled for the priesthood by her marriage to the desecrated man, she is forbidden to the brother.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state13Babli 84b, Sifra Emor Pereq 1(12). The verse Lev. 21:7, “A promiscuous and a desecrated woman they should not take and a woman divorced from her husband they should not take…” The two prohibitions are interpreted as one for the man, not to take a disabled wife, and one for the woman, not to seduce a man into a forbidden marriage.: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men14The clause “nor qualified women against disqualified men” is shown to be false..
“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]11Priestly women are not enjoined to stay in their priestly status. The Babli concurs, 84b, also in the name of Rav.? So is the Mishnah: If a desecrated [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother12Since the wife is disabled for the priesthood by her marriage to the desecrated man, she is forbidden to the brother.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state13Babli 84b, Sifra Emor Pereq 1(12). The verse Lev. 21:7, “A promiscuous and a desecrated woman they should not take and a woman divorced from her husband they should not take…” The two prohibitions are interpreted as one for the man, not to take a disabled wife, and one for the woman, not to seduce a man into a forbidden marriage.: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men14The clause “nor qualified women against disqualified men” is shown to be false..
Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin
243As noted in G, this paragraph is quoted in Yebamot 9:1, explained there in Notes 10–14; a slightly different text. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly wives. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified women against qualified men but not qualified women against disqualified men nor disqualified men against qualified women. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men.