תּלמוד אויף ויקרא 21:15

MISHNAH: When they came to a woman who was eating heave¹The daughter of an Israel or a Levite married to a Cohen who may eat heave only as long as she is married to a Cohen or, if she becomes a widow, has descendants who may eat heave. and told her your husband died, or he divorced you²Since a woman is legally divorced only if the divorce document is delivered to her or her agent, the Halakhah has to find a case in which the divorced woman may have eaten heave in error.; similarly a slave³A Gentile slave owned by a Cohen who became Jewish by circumcision and immersion in a ritual bath and has to observe all rules of the Jewish religion. As long as he is owned by a Cohen, he eats heave. If he is manumitted, he becomes a full Jew but not a Cohen. who was eating heave when they came and told him your master died⁴In case the master has no heirs who may eat heave; for example, if the master had only daughters and they are married to Israel husbands., or he sold you to an Israel or gave you as a gift, or made you a free person; similarly a Cohen who was eating heave when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee⁵The son of a Cohen and a divorcee is desecrated (Lev. 21:15) and cannot eat heave. or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah⁶The widow of a childless man who is not married by her brother-in-law but freed from him by the ceremony of drawing off her brother-in-law’s shoe. While this act is not a divorce, it is considered close enough to a divorce to forbid the widow to any Cohen by rabbinic law., Rebbi Eliezer obliges them to pay principal and fifth⁷Like everybody eating heave in error., but Rebbi Joshua frees them. If⁸This part of the Mishnah will be explained in Halakhah 2. he was standing on top of the altar and sacrificing when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer says that all sacrifices he performed on the altar are invalid but Rebbi Joshua declares them valid. If it became known that he has a bodily defect, his work is invalid.
All of these⁴³Those mentioned in Mishnah 1 who have to stop eating heave immediately., if heave was in their mouths, Rebbi Eliezer says, they should swallow it⁴⁴And add the value of the food swallowed to the amount to be paid as principal and fifth, according to R. Eliezer., Rebbi Joshua says, they should spit it out⁴⁵Since R. Joshua does not require payment, he cannot tolerate enjoyment of the heave for a single moment after it became forbidden.. If they said to him, you and the heave have become impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, he should spit it out⁴⁶This case is parallel to the previous one. “He” in this case is a Cohen of unquestioned pedigree who started to fulfill his duty eating heave, thinking he and the heave were pure.. You or the heave were impure, or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed,⁴⁷In all these cases, eating the food was sinful to begin with. An impure person may not eat heave and impure heave may not be eaten (Num. 18:13). First Tithe remains ṭevel as long as the heave of the tithe was not lifted from it. Unredeemed Second Tithe can be eaten only in Jerusalem, and eating unredeemed dedicated food is larceny of Temple property. or that he tasted the taste of a bed bug in his mouth⁴⁸Swallowing such food would be a health hazard; it is forbidden knowingly to contribute to a deterioration of one’s health (Deut. 4:15)., he has to spit it out⁴⁹R. Eliezer agrees that food cannot be swallowed if there never was a time when swallowing it was permitted..

¹¹Babli Qiddušin 77a, Sifra Emor Pereq 2(7–8). It is written¹²Lev. 21:15. This verse is written for the High Priest, but it is applied to all priests who marry women forbidden to them.: He shall not desecrate his issue in his people. Not only his issue will be desecrated; from where also she¹³In Lev. 21:7,14 the “desecrated woman” is mentioned in the list of women forbidden to the Cohen. The verse implies that the daughter of a Cohen from an illicit union is conceived desecrated. There is no verse which spells out the conditions under which a woman otherwise may become desecrated. There is a verse which specifies that the daughter of a Cohen married to anon-Cohen or mother of a non-Cohen child is disqualified from priestly revenues (Lev. 22:12–13), but not desecrated. Since the “desecrated woman” is always mentioned together with the prostitute, it is inferred that sexual offenses of a woman desecrate her.? Is this not a logical inference? Since the issue, which did not sin, is desecrated, should she, who committed a sin¹⁴On the face of it, the verses only imply that the male Cohen who marries an unsuitable woman commits a sin. Since both Lev. 21:7, addressed to the common priest, repeat the verb “do not marry”, this is read to mean that the first mention is the prohibition for the male to marry, the second the prohibition for the female to agree to be married (Yebamot 9:1 Note 13, Qiddušin 3:14 Note 243; Sifra Emor Pereq 1(12), Babli Yebamot 84b)., not logically be desecrated? He himself is a counter example, since he committed a sin but was not desecrated¹⁵Since the verse emphasizes that his children will be desecrated, it implies that the father himself is not desecrated (even if he consorts with a Gentile or a slave); Sifra Emor Pereq 2(8). The son of a Cohen from an illicit union is desecrated from conception; he does not become desecrated. This implies that no male Cohen may become desecrated; he may, however, become unfit for his office.. No. If you argue about a man who is not desecrated in any circumstance, what can you say about a woman who is desecrated in many circumstances¹⁶In order to avoid circular reasoning it is necessary to classify “disqualified” with “desecrated”. Then it follows that there exist classes of females desecrated for the priesthood without equivalent among males.? Since she is desecrated in many circumstances, it is logical that she should be desecrated. If you wish you can say “not to desecrate”, not to desecrate, about somebody who was qualified and became desecrated¹⁷The text of this sentence is in doubt. There is no biblical verb חוֹל “to profane” as required by the reading here and in the Babli. In Sifra, most texts read יחלל both times; but from Ravad’s commentary one sees that the first time he read יַחֵל (Num. 30:3), identical in meaning with יְחַלֵּל.
As explained in Note 16, actively “to desecrate” implies the existence of an object which is not yet desecrated. Since any child of the illicit union of a Cohen is intrinsically desecrated, it cannot be made desecrated. Since the male is not desecrated, the use of the active יְחַלֵּל therefore implies that the female is desecrated..

What is touching¹¹In the Babli, 55b, the statement of Samuel is formulated more graphically, that touching the female genital by the male must necessarily make a small indentation which is the act of acquisition. The opinion of R. Joḥanan is quoted in rather confusing three ways.? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That the finger should be seen between the lips. Rebbi Joḥanan said, until the gland enters. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When the gland has entered that is completion of intercourse. What are we dealing with¹²The two statements of R. Joḥanan must refer to two different categories of laws.? If about incest prohibitions, He made the one who touches equal to him who finishes¹³In the list of punishments for sexual offenses, “touching” is mentioned as the offense in Lev. 20:18–19.. If for a bound slave girl¹⁴Lev. 19:20–22. The quasi adultery of a man with a slave girl which was somehow betrothed before she was manumitted is punishable only if there was ejaculation. {Tosaphot, Babli 55b, s. v. אינו, interprets the Babli as making the intercourse punishable in the moment an ejaculation leading to a pregnancy was possible even if none actually occured. It is impossible to read this into the text of the Yerushalmi.}, until he ejaculates, since Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, said in the name of Rav: “Flow of semen”, until he ejaculates. But we must deal with a widow for the High Priest. When he touched her, he became guilty for desecrating her. When the gland entered, he became guilty for having intercourse. When he ejaculated, he became guilty because “he shall not desecrate his semen in his people.¹⁵Lev. 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.”