Deuteronômio 22:23 Referências do Talmudee: Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot, Jerusalem Talmud Sotah, Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot & Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim

Rebbi Idi said before Rebbi Yose, a slave is permitted his sister¹⁰⁰As the Babli explains (Sanhedrin 58b), he is no longer a Gentile but not yet a responsible Jew. He cannot be punished in either law and he cannot legally marry.. He said to him, did you hear this even if she is from the same mother? He said, yes. He said to him, but did we not state: “The same applies to a slave girl who was freed together with her sons.” For ḥalîṣah and levirate¹⁰¹But not for criminal matters. The convert changed from one set of laws to another; the libertine enters a set of laws that previously were not applicable to her.. Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yasa: A slave who slept with his mother is obligated for a purification sacrifice. “You shall command them¹⁰²Lev. 1:2. After the introduction: “Speak to the Children of Israel”, the addition “you shall command them” seems superfluous unless it includes people whose inclusion among the Children of Israel is doubtful.,” including slaves¹⁰³Since in theory anything a slaves owns belongs to his master, any obligation of sacrifice would have to be deferred until after the slave’s manumission.. Or should we say, this was said about fat¹⁰⁴While a slave is obligated to obey all prohibitions in the Torah, it may be that in matters of sexual relations his status is different. (Since slaves cannot marry, as a matter of principle promiscuity is permitted to them; cf. Terumot Chapter 8, Note 247.)? Do we find in his relation to his mother that her converted aspect accompanies the unconverted aspect just as with a slave girl her converted aspect accompanies the unconverted aspect¹⁰⁵A betrothed girl is a wife for criminal law; adultery with her is a capital crime (Deut. 22:23–24). By contrast, adultery with a half-freed slave girl engaged to be married to a free man (in expectation of her full emancipation; she did belong to two masters one of whom manumitted his share) can be expiated by a reparation offering (Lev. 19:20–22; Sifra Qedošim Pereq 5). This shows that her semi-free status interferes with the operation of criminal law for free persons. In analogy, we could conjecture that the status of a slave as incompletely converted (since he is not obligated to observe most positive commandments) interferes with the operation of the laws of obligatory sacrifices.
The problem is not resolved, probably because it is not realistic.?

HALAKHAH: “A widow to the High Priest,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “Being” is mentioned here⁵⁴Lev. 21:7: “[The Cohen] shall be holy for you.” and “being” is mentioned there, “if a girl will be betrothed to a man⁵⁵Deut. 22:23, a shortened quote..” Just as “being” there means betrothal, so “being” here means betrothal⁵⁶The status of sanctity of a woman entering a Cohen’s house is determined by her betrothal. The argument follows R. Ismael’s rule, Note 45.. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon? “Being” is mentioned here⁵⁴Lev. 21:7: “[The Cohen] shall be holy for you.” and “being” is mentioned there, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s⁵⁷Lev. 22:12.”. Just as “being” there means marriage, so “being” here means marriage. Rebbi Yosa said, from where do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon know that the daughter of a Cohen betrothed to an Israel may not eat heave⁵⁸In Mishnah 7:4 it is stated without opposition that betrothal of a Cohen’s daughter to an Israel disables her from eating have (but does not enable a daughter of an Israel engaged to a Cohen to eat heave).? Not from that verse, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s”? Here they make it betrothal, there they make it marriage!⁵⁹The question remains unanswered, the arguments presented up to here are inconsistent. What is the reason of the rabbis? “A man’s”, the man who enables to eat⁶⁰Sifra Emor Parashah5(7): “ ‘If the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s’, this includes not only a bastard, from where even to a Levi or an Israel? The verse says, ‘an outside man’s’. From where a widow to the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥalîṣah to a private Cohen? The verse says ‘a man’s’, a man’s who enables to eat.”
The rather cryptic argument here and in Sifra makes reference to the rule (Mishnah 7:3) that only a man can enable a (non-priestly) woman to eat heave, not a fetus. An Israel woman married to a Cohen eats heave as long as her husband is alive or after his death if she has children, but not if she is the pregnant widow of an otherwise childless man. She will only regain her status as member of the priestly clan after she has given birth. This explains the emphasis of the verse which is formulated לאיש זר and not simply לזר.
For the rabbis, the entire verse refers to betrothal.. Is it not an argument de minore ad majus⁶¹Sifra Emor Parashah 5(8). The Babli, 56b, tries an equally invalid argument.? Since an Israel, whose intercourse does not disable her⁶²A (widowed) daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel may return to her priestly status if she becomes a childless widow. from the priesthood, by intercourse will disable her from eating heave⁶³Once she is married to an Israel by intercourse, she is barred from eating heave., the High Priest, whose intercourse does disable her from the priesthood⁶⁴He desecrates any widow by his intercourse., it should be logical that his intercourse will disable her from eating heave. No. If you argue about an Israel who cannot enable others to eat, what can you say about the High Priest who can enable others to eat? Since he can enable others to eat, his intercourse should not disable her from eating heave. The argument de minore ad majus is broken, and one has to return to the verse. Therefore, it must say “a man’s”; viz., the man who enables her to eat. ⁵³Text from ms. A.
Ms. L and editio princeps: מַה טַעֲמָא לֹא אָֽמְרוּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִישּׂוּאִין פּוֹסְלִין אוֹתָהּ מִלּוֹכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לוֹכַל אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹכַל. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא אִם לֹא יְדָעָהּ מִשּׁוּם מַה נַעֲשֶׂה פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה הֲרֵי יֹאכֵלוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. הָדָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל וְהָכָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַאֲכִיל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין פְּסוּלוֹת. לֹא נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין .מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין כְּשֵׁירוֹת.
What is the reason that Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon did not say that marriage disables them from eating heave? What do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon in this case? Because he may eat or because he is not fit to eat? Let us hear from the following: “If he did not know her why his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon. You have to say, here it is because he enables to eat, there because he enables to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only from marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled.
The text is seen to be corrupt. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon⁶⁵Interpreting the same verse as do the majority rabbis., because he may eat or because he may enable to eat? Let us hear from the following⁶⁶Mishnah 8:1. Since men with injured testicles or torn-off penis cannot marry (Deut. 23:2), if they are Cohanim their intercourse desecrates. They themselves are also barred from eating sanctified food. If they were healthy when they married, their wives retain their priestly status even if the priest who brought them into the priesthood loses his.: “If he did not know her after his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon⁶⁷The Amora R. Eleazar holds that the rabbis, who exclude the betrothed in a forbidden union from eating heave even though betrothal is an acquisition, must also exclude the wife of a man whose intercourse will disable her. The statement is quoted in the Babli, 75a, and contrasted (as in the Yerushalmi, Halakhah 8:1) with the opinion of R. Joḥanan that the rabbis can agree because she started to eat with permission; that permission cannot disappear without anything happening involving her person. According to R. Joḥanan, nothing is proven here.. You have to say, here it is because he⁶⁸The Cohen before his accident. enables to eat, there⁶⁹The High Priest who never could enable a widow. because he cannot enable to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not really from betrothal or marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled⁷⁰In the Babli, 57b, this is the opinion of Samuel, interpreting the position of the rabbis (against the authoritative opinion of Rav)..

A sister injured by a piece of wood, Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon say, he shall not defile himself for her, but the Sages say, he must defile himself for her⁸²This refers to the rules Lev. 21:1–4, that a Cohen may not defile himself by the impurity of the dead except for his close relative. His sister is included in the list as long as she belongs to his clan, i. e., as long as she is not married. The language of v. 3 is involved: “And for his virgin sister who is close to him, who never had been a man’s, for her he must defile himself”, inviting a close analysis of the meaning of the conditions attached.
In the Babli, 60a, this is only R. Simeon’s opinion.. Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon follow well what they have stated, but the argument of Sages seems inverted. There⁸³It is not clear what the reference is. It could be Deut. 22:23, “If there was a virgin girl …” The statement of the rabbis referred to is not otherwise recorded., they say “a girl”, not an adult, “a virgin”, not one injured by a piece of wood; and here, they say so? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. There⁸⁴Lev. 21:3. The argument is quoted in the Babli, 60a., “and for his virgin sister”, that excludes the raped and the seduced one. Or maybe I should exclude the one injured by a piece of wood? The verse says, “who had not been a man’s.” Who became [deflowered] through the action of a man, not one who became it through something else. “The close one”, to include the betrothed one⁸⁵In the Babli, 60a/b, the divorced sister is included.. “To him”, to include the adult. The argument of Sages seems inverted. There⁸⁶In the interpretation of Lev. 21:3 in Sifra Emor 0(4); the Cohen may not defile himself by the impurity of the dead, “except for his flesh close to him, for his mother and his father, his son and his daughter, and his brother.”, they say “the close one”, to exclude the betrothed one⁸⁷“His flesh close to him” is his wife after the marriage, not his betrothed., “to him”, to exclude the divorcee⁸⁸The Cohen is not permitted to defile himself for a wife forbidden to him.. And here, they say so⁸⁹His betrothed sister is included, his own betrothed is excluded. (Instead of ארוסתו, ms. A has the synonym כלתו.)? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. “His sister” is always inside [the family] until she leaves; his betrothed is always outside until she enters.