תּלמוד אויף ויקרא 21:4

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest and the nazir,” etc. It is written: “He shall not go close to a dead body.³Lev. 21:11, speaking of the High Priest. A parallel argument in the Babli, 47b.” Where do we hold? If to forbid non-relatives, is he not also under the rules of a simple priest⁴A common priest is forbidden to defile himself for any dead person other than close relatives, Lev. 21:1–3.? If it cannot refer to non-relatives, refer it to relatives. It is written: “Not to go close to a dead body,” and you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, from here repeated prohibitions in the Torah⁵In his opinion, the High Priest who defiles himself for a corpse violates two identical prohibitions.. But it is to permit the corpse of obligation⁶This follows the rule that “an exclusion on top of an exclusion means an inclusion.” Since in general a Cohen is forbidden to defile himself for the dead, the repetition of the prohibition for the High Priest indicates an obligation to defile himself in some cases. Since father and mother, for whom defilement is commanded to the common priest, are forbidden to the High Priest, the corpse for whom the High Priest (and by implication, any priest) has to defile himself is a non-relative, the corpse of obligation.. Some understand it from the following: “⁷Lev. 21:4. The man shall not defile himself, in the midst of his people” he may not defile himself⁸If other Jews are present who may bury the dead, he may not defile himself. By implication, if he is alone, he must defile himself.. But he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “⁷Lev. 21:4. To profane himself.” He may not defile himself to profane himself; he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation.

“Neither of them may defile himself for her.” That is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A man defiles himself for his acceptable wife but he does not defile himself for his disqualified wife.³⁵If either one of the two husbands is a Cohen, he may not defile himself to bury her. The statement ascribed to R. Ḥiyya is anonymous in the Babli (94b), where the rule is derived from Lev. 21:4: “A husband may not defile himself if this desecrates him.””

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, anybody who comes upon any of the incest-prohibited women,” etc. “He should not take a widow⁴³A fragment of Lev. 21:14..” Even if under duress? The verse says, “he shall not desecrate his seed in his people.” Even if he touched? The verse does not say לא יחול but לא יחלל, even under duress; לא יחול but לא יחלל, even by touching. So far following Rebbi Aqiba⁴⁴Rebbi Aqiba considers every pillel or polel verb an extension of an original ayin waw or ayin yod form. {The reading of ms. A is preferable since a חיל form of חלל is used in Lev. 21:4.} On the one hand, “to take” means “to marry”. On the other hand, the use of the pillel in v. 15 means an extension of the framework. This is taken as authorization of the judicial establishment to extend the range of the acts prohibited.. Following Rebbi Ismael⁴⁵The basis of the argument is the 3rd exegetical rule of R. Ismael [Introduction to Sifra (2)]: The technical meaning of a word does not change from topic to topic.? Rebbi Ismael stated: It says here⁴⁶The marriage restrictions imposed on the High Priest, Lev. 21:14, are formulated as prohibitions to “take” certain women. “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to incest prohibitions⁴⁷Lev. 18:17–18.. Since regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed⁶The exact meaning of this term is discussed in the Halakhah. Cf. also Chapter 4, Note 59., so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is a bastard, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as a bastard⁴⁸This would be the correct application of R. Ismael’s rule, leading to a result contradicting practice. A similar argument in the Babli, 54a, is explicitly based on comparison with the menstruating woman whose children are not bastards, circumventing R. Ḥaggai’s objection.. Rebbi Yosa said, for which purpose was “desecrated” written? Is not bastard worse than desecrated⁴⁹Since the child of a disapproved union of the High Priest is defined as “desecrated” it cannot be a bastard since everything forbidden to a desecrated person is forbidden to a bastard but not vice-versa. Therefore, the rule of R. Ismael cannot be applied in this form.? Rebbi Abun bar Bisna came in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal. It says here “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to the woman waiting for the levir. Since regarding “taking” referring to the one waiting for the levir He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is acceptable, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as acceptable⁵⁰At least for non-priestly unions., since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said: When he touched, he became guilty because of the desecrated one. When the gland entered, he became guilty for having intercourse. When he ejaculated, he became guilty because of desecrating¹⁵Lev. 21:15. Since the three sins are committed at three different times, he can be indicted and punished for three different crimes without any question of competition of laws. In the Babli, Qiddushin 78a, it is noted that the language of Lev. 21:14 implies that he can be punished for the second offense only if he actually had married the widow..