Вайикра 21:2 Связанные отрывки

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.

“And he shall inherit from her¹²²Num. 26:11: “If his father had no brothers, transfer his estate to his relative who is closest to him of his family; he shall inherit (from) her.” In the verse, the feminine her refers to the estate. The identification of her with the wife is R. Aqiba’s (Sifry Num.134). In Lev. 18, the masculine word שְׁאֵר “relative” is used exclusively for female relatives..” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him¹²³Babli 111b.. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him¹²⁴He explains the emphasis, “he shall inherit her” when the same could have been expressed by the shorter, וְיָֽרְשָׁהּ. The additional word used for her implies not him.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her¹²⁵They reject R. Aqiba’s derivation. Her in the verse refers to the estate; by biblical law her clan should be her heirs. The inheritance of the husband is purely rabbinical.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife¹²⁶There really is no basis for this question since it is generally accepted that preliminary marriage be only relevant for criminal law whereas definitive marriage activates all financial aspects of a marriage (cf. Introduction to Tractate Qiddušin.) The question is rather whether there be a biblical basis for the common law practice that the husband’s claim on the wife’s property only starts with definitive marriage, when the couple starts living together.? As you say there, “the one close to him,¹²⁷Probably one should read הַקָּרוֹב both times for הַקְּרוֹבָה. In Lev. 21:2 the expression שְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו “the relative close to him” is explained as “his wife who is close to him,” i. e., his definitively wedded wife, since all other closely related relatives are enumerated in vv. 2–3. The mention of closeness excludes the preliminarily wedded one since intimacy with her is forbidden to him [Sifra Emor (4)].” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property¹²⁸If the heiress wife dies before her father, his estate will go to her childen. Since in general common law gives her inheritance to her husband, why not in this case also?? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand¹²⁹This is a statement of fact: Moneys due to the wife after her death go to her children, rather than her surviving husband. Babli 125b.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand^79,Tosephta 7:7, Bekhorot 6:18.¹³⁰There is biblical precedent to exclude future income from present distribution..