Komentarz do Kapłańska 22:13

אלמנה וגרושה [BUT IF A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER BE] A WIDOW OR DIVORCED WIFE of the layman mentioned in the preceding verse,

ובת כהן כי תהיה אלמנה, "And if a priest's daughter will become widowed, etc." In this verse the Torah speaks of the person who had achieved the most spiritually advanced level that of being נשמה לנשמה. We have explained that as a result of such an ascent this kind of person is separated from sin almost absolutely, his whole lifestyle being one of avoiding even the proximity of sin. The Torah hints at this by describing such a בת כהן as "married," i.e. closely attached to her holy roots. This is the kind of soul of which Solomon had spoken in Proverbs 12,21 when he described it as not becoming the victim of any mishap, i.e. sin. When such an elevated soul somehow commits a sin, the result is that it will lose its status of being "married" to her holy roots and will become "widowed or divorced," as the case may be, in either case forfeiting the source of its sustenance, the most holy domain, the עולם האצילות. The example גרושה refers to the nature of its misdemeanour having been more serious than the one in which it is described as אלמנה, widowed. When the Torah adds וזרע אין לה, that she (the soul of souls) did not have any seed, this is a simile for such a soul (person) not having performed the kind of good deeds in this world that are known as פרות, "fruit." Nonetheless, the punishment is "only" that "she will return to her father's house," to eat of the food dished out at the table of her father such as she did before her soul had begun to ascend to spiritual heights. The fact that she has to eat once more the kind of food she used to eat when she had been only on the level of נפש or רוח, is a very painful experience for such a soul. It is equivalent to a person who had sinned and who had never ascended beyond the נפש level of existence, having to die as a punishment for his sin. If the person who had attained the spiritual level of being a נשמה לנשמה had also performed the kind of good deeds on earth known as פרות, its punishment for having committed a trespass would be "only" that she is considered as eating at her own table.

From him. I.e., even if she has children from another person who is a kohein, even stillso she may not eat [terumah] if she has children from him. [See Re’m]

כי תהיה אלמנה או גרושה, “the daughter of a priest who after having married a non priest had become widowed or divorced; the Torah speaks of a woman divorced or widowed from an Israelite or a Levite;

וזרע אין לה AND SHE HATH NO DESCENDANTS — from him (from the layman) (Sifra; Yevamot 87a),

She is forbidden. Even though this is obvious, Rashi needs to mention this here since the Torah’s [actual] intent is only to tell us the prohibition, and not to tell us the a leniency as one would [normally] [implied by the simple] understanding of the verse. It is as if the verse said, “If a kohein’s daughter is either widowed, etc., and she has children from him, she may not eat terumah.” [See Re’m]

וכל זר לא יאכל קדש, "any non-priest must not eat sacred things." Here the Torah provides a rationale why G'd does not display His mercy to such a soul, permitting her to eat sacred things if not as a matter of right then at least as a matter of G'd's grace. When a soul which had once ascended to lofty spiritual heights had allowed herself to backslide and make common cause with spiritually negative forces known as זר, as alien, she can no longer qualify for partaking from קדש, "G'd's table," as it were.

אלמנה וגרושה, why does the Torah not only write: גרושה without adding: אלמנה widow;? I would then have reasoned that if even a divorcee would be permitted to revert to the status of being single in her father’s house, a widowed woman surely would be able to do no less; this is why it says: אלמנה וזרע אין לה, “a widow who has no child.” By the same token, if the Torah had only written: אלמנה, “widow,” and had not mentioned a divorced woman, I would have reasoned that a widow who did not have a child could return to her father’s house and her former status as belonging to a priest would be reinstated, but a divorced woman would be reinstated even if she did have children from her ex husband who is not a priest. This is why the Torah had to write: גרושה וזרע אין לה “divorced but childless.” In the case of the widow the addition of “without child,” was a restriction for the widow, whereas the same words were an easing of the rules for the widow.

ושבה THEN SHE MAY RETURN [UNTO HER FATHER'S HOUSE AS IN HER YOUTH AND MAY EAT OF HER FATHER’S BREAD] — if, however, she has descendants from him she is forbidden to eat as long as the descendants (cf. Yevamot 87a) are alive.

The children live. But after his death she returns [to her father’s home]. Even though with regard to yibum, if her husband died and afterward her child died, the child is considered as living and she is no longer [considered] attached for yibum. Nonetheless, with regard to terumah, if her son child died [after she was widowed or divorced], she returns [to her father’s home] and the child is not considered as living, for it is written, “she has no children” as explained in Yevamos chapter 7.

ושבה אל בית אביה, “when she returns to live in the house of her father.” This excludes the case where because she had no children she is awaiting a levirate marriage to the brother or one of them, of her late husband. This is not called: “returning to the house of her father.”

וכל זר לא יאכל בו BUT THERE SHALL NO LAYMAN EAT THEREOF — The repetition of the prohibition already mentioned in v. 10 intends nothing else than to exclude from it the אונן — i. e. that he (the אונן) is permitted to eat תרומה. [Scripture, as it were, says here:] The status of being a non-priest, I tell you, debars one from eating תרומה but not that of being an אונן (Yevamot 68b).

כנעוריה, as when she was less than 12 years and 6 months old, i.e. when she was not yet pregnant. (Sifra)