MISHNAH: There exist women permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs, permitted to their levirs but forbidden to their husbands, permitted to both of them, or forbidden to both. The following are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs: If a simple priest was betrothed to a widow and has a brother who is High Priest, or a qualified man married a qualified woman and has a disqualified brother[priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother. , or an Israel married an Israelite woman and has a bastard brother, or a bastard married a bastard woman and has an Israel brother, [the women] are permitted to their husbands and forbidden for their levirs.
HALAKHAH: “There exist women permitted to their husbands,” etc. Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava asked before Rebbi Jonah: Why “married”? Even “betrothed”! Why a widow? even a virgin is a version modified according to the discussion here. The questions refer to the Cohen who has a brother who is High Priest. A widow is forbidden to the High Priest even if she is not a sister-in-law. The same questions are asked in the Babli, 84a . ! Are these all? She and her co-wife ed. Ḥ. Albeck, p. 89, Note עה. . I also have others: The co-wife of one suspected of adultery is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir5:11–31 ( Sifry Num. 8). If the husband dies before he can bring his suspected wife to the Temple, she cannot be married in levirate and neither can her co-wife but the suspicion of adultery of one wife has no bearing on the status of the co-wife in the marriage. . If his brother had slept with the sister of one who had performed ḥalîṣah with him, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir with brother B. If A dies childless, his widow is forbidden to B. However, this prohibition is purely rabbinical and its place should be in the discussion of Mishnah 5 . . If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir. This supports Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi Jonah said, the groupings of Rebbi are not exhaustive.
“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say in the name of Rav that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified men against qualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified women but it is only disqualified women against qualified women. “If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a desecrated [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state 1(12 ). The verse Lev . 21:7 , “A promiscuous and a desecrated woman they should not take and a woman divorced from her husband they should not take …” The two prohibitions are interpreted as one for the man, not to take a disabled wife, and one for the woman, not to seduce a man into a forbidden marriage. : “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men .
MISHNAH: These are permitted to their levirs and forbidden to their husbands: If a High Priest was betrothed to a widow and has a brother who is a simple priest, or qualified [priest] married a disqualified woman and has a disqualified brother, or an Israel married a bastard woman and has a bastard brother, or a bastard who married an Israel woman and has an Israel brother; [the women] are permitted to their levirs and forbidden to their husbands.
HALAKHAH: “The following are permitted to their husbands,” etc. He only said “betrothed”, but if he copulated with her, the copulation disqualifies her. That is what we stated: “Forbidden to both of them.”
Are these all? There are others: If somebody takes back a woman he divorced after she had been married [to another man], she is forbidden to the husband 24:4 . but permitted to the levir. If he slept with the sister of a woman with whom he had performed ḥalîṣah , she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir. If a man with injured testicles married a qualified woman, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir. This supports Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi Jonah said, the groupings of Rebbi are not exhaustive.
MISHNAH: Forbidden to both of them: If a High Priest married a widow and has a brother who is a High Priest or a simple priest, or a qualified [priest] married a disqualified woman and has a qualified brother, or an Israel married a bastard woman and has an Israel brother, or a bastard married an Israel woman and has a bastard brother; these [women] are forbidden to both of them and all other women are permitted to their husbands and their levirs.
HALAKHAH: Are these all? There are others: A woman suspected of adultery5:11–31 ( Sifry Num. 8). If the husband dies before he can bring his suspected wife to the Temple, she cannot be married in levirate and neither can her co-wife but the suspicion of adultery of one wife has no bearing on the status of the co-wife in the marriage. is forbidden to both of them. The widow after ḥalîṣah she is forbidden to all levirs. If nevertheless one of the levirs marries her, she remains forbidden to all of them. is forbidden to both of them. If a man with injured testicles married a qualified woman and has a brother with injured testicles, she is forbidden to both of them. This supports Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi Jonah said, the groupings of Rebbi are not exhaustive.
MISHNAH: Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim. If she is secondarily prohibited to the husband but not to the levir, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir. Secondarily prohibited to the levir but not to the husband, she is forbidden to the levir but permitted to the husband. Secondarily prohibited to both of them, she is forbidden to both of them. She may claim neither Ketubah nor usufruct nor upkeep nor wear but the child is qualified and one forces him to divorce her. A widow married to the High Priest, a divorcee of one that performed ḥalîṣah married to a simple priest, a female bastard or a Gibeoness married to an Israel, and Israel woman married to a Gibeonite or a bastard have a claim of Ketubah .
HALAKHAH: “Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim,” etc. “If she is secondarily, rabbinically, prohibited to the husband but not to the levir, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir.” Does she have Ketubah from the levir? Since she is permitted to him, she has Ketubah , or because the Ketubah is a lien on the estate of her first husband and she was forbidden to him, does she have no Ketubah ; in this case, the court will actively prohibit a claim of Ketubah . ?
“If she is secondarily prohibited to the levir but not to the husband, she is forbidden to the levir but permitted to the husband.” Does she have Ketubah from the levir? Since she is forbidden to him, she does not have Ketubah , or because the Ketubah is a lien on the estate of her first husband and she was permitted to him, does she have Ketubah is not enforceable in court. ?
11:7 . “No usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, that he has from her only the usufruct. Rebbi Yose the Sidonian stated before Rebbi Jeremiah, in disgreement with Rebbi Jeremiah: “He has the right to what she finds and earns, and to dissolve her vows.” What means “no usufruct”? That she cannot reclaim from him the usufruct he had [from her property].
Rebbi Yose said: All the time Rebbi Hila told me, state in your baraita that he inherits from her and defiles himself for her. We have also stated so: A man defiles himself for his qualified wife but does not become defiled for his disqualified wife. 21:1–3 ). The secondarily prohibited is a qualified wife by biblical standards; he must bury her. A divorcee for a Cohen is disqualified; he may not become impure for her. .
Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Mana: May the slaves of a secondarily forbidden [wife] eat heave? He said to him, be quiet, it is better for you. She eats but her slaves do not eat 6:20, commentary of Radbaz.) .
There, we have stated 9:8 . : “A forced bill of divorce is valid in Israel; it is invalid from Gentiles.” Samuel said, it is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood. And Samuel said, publicize in your towns: It is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood. Samuel said, one does not force, only disqualify. Samuel said, one does not force except for example a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one freed by ḥalîṣah for a simple priest. But did we not state: “Secondarily forbidden”? Did he not say “for example”? But did we not state: “A person who by a vow forbids his wife to have any usufruct from him, up to 30 days he shall appoint a caretaker; after 30 days he shall divorce her and pay Ketubah ”! We heard that he shall divorce; did we hear that one forces him?
What is the difference between these and those at the time of divorce and the secondarily prohibited who do not. ? Since these are words of the Torah and the words of the Torah do not need support, therefore they have Ketubah . Those, because they are words of the Sopherim and the words of the Sopherim need support, therefore they do not have Ketubah . Some want to say since these are punished together with the child, they did not fine them, therefore they have Ketubah . Those, since they are not punished together with the child, they fined them, therefore they do not have Ketubah What is the difference between them? He who remarried his divorced wife after she had remarried. For him who says since these are words of the Torah, and this case is a word of the Torah, therefore she has Ketubah . For those who want to say since these are punished together with the child, this one, since neither she nor the child is punished, therefore, she has no Ketubah .
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila say that they differ about upkeep. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may demand upkeep. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, one says to [him] as לו. , divorce her! And you say so? They wanted to say so, they differ about the conditions attached to a Ketubah Chapter 4). . Everybody agrees that she cannot claim support since they even punished her heirs, so much more herself. But for him who says that they differ about upkeep it follows that they do not differ about the conditions attached to a Ketubah . They fined her but not her heirs.
MISHNAH: An Israel woman betrothed to a Cohen, or pregnant from a Cohen, or waiting for her Cohen levir, and also a Cohen woman betrothed to an Israel may not eat heave. An Israel woman betrothed to a Levite, or pregnant from a Levite, or waiting for her Levite levir, and also a Levite woman betrothed to an Israel may not eat tithe. A Levite woman betrothed to a Cohen, or pregnant from a Cohen, or waiting for her Cohen levir, and also a Levite woman betrothed to a Cohen may not eat either heave or tithe.
HALAKHAH: “An Israel woman betrothed to a Cohen.” “Any pure person in your house may eat it,. 18:11 , speaking of heave. While she was acquired by her husband (cf. Chapter 1, Note 63 ), she is not in his house before the actual marriage. She has a claim if the husband drags his feet for the marriage, cf. Mishnah Ketubot 5:2–3. ” but she is not in his house. “From a Cohen”, for the one born in his house; this one is not born in his house. 22:11 : “Any born in his house, they should eat from his food.” The unborn does not eat. . “The one waiting for her Cohen levir,” “any pure person in your house may eat it,” but she is not in his house. “And also a Cohen woman betrothed to an Israel,” “a daughter of a Cohen when she will belong to an outside man. 22:12 : “she may not eat from the holy heaves.” .” One pregnant from an Israel or waiting for an Israel levir: “When she returns to her father’s house. 22:12 : “she may eat from her father’s food.” The same argument in the Babli, 87a . A longer discussion in Sifra Emor Pereq 6(1 ) ,” that excludes the one waiting for her levir, “as in her youth,” that excludes the pregnant one.
“An Israel woman betrothed to a Levite,” “you and your house. 18:31 . ” but she is not in his house. “Pregnant from a Levite,” “born in the house,” this one is not born in his house. 22:11 : “Any born in his house, they should eat from his food.” The unborn does not eat. . Rebbi Yose said, is not “born in the house” written only for a Cohen? As you say there, whoever is born lets eat, whoever is not born does not let eat; here also whoever is born lets eat, whoever is not born does not let eat. “Waiting for her Levite levir,” “you and your house,” but he is not in her house. “And also a Levite woman”: “And a daughter of a Cohen when she will belong to an outside man. 22:12 : “she may not eat from the holy heaves.” .” Is there not written “daughter of a Cohen”? Rebbi Yose said “daughter”, whether she is a Cohen’s or a Levi’s a daughter” and not simply “a daughter”, following R. Aqiba one has to add another category of daughters who do not eat their part of agricultural produce. . The daughter of a Cohen who was married to an Israel may return and eat, the daughter of an Israel who was married to a Cohen may return and not eat. One pregnant from an Israel or waiting for an Israel levir: “When she returns to her father’s house,” that excludes the one waiting for her levir, “as in her youth,” that excludes the pregnant one.
“A Levitic woman betrothed to a Cohen.” “Any pure person in your house may eat it,. 18:11 , speaking of heave. While she was acquired by her husband (cf. Chapter 1, Note 63 ), she is not in his house before the actual marriage. She has a claim if the husband drags his feet for the marriage, cf. Mishnah Ketubot 5:2–3. ” but he is not in her house. “From a Cohen”, for the one born in his house; this one is not born in his house. 22:11 : “Any born in his house, they should eat from his food.” The unborn does not eat. . “The one waiting for her Cohen levir,” “any pure person in your house may eat it,” but she is not in his house. 5:9, Notes 176–177. “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [betrothed] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.
MISHNAH: An Israel woman married to a Cohen shall eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she shall eat heave. If [then] she married a Levite, she shall eat tithe. If he died but she had a son from him, she shall eat tithe. If [then] she marries an Israel, she may eat neither heave nor tithe.
MISHNAH: If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat neither heave nor tithe. If her son from the Israel died, she may eat tithe. From the Levite, she may eat heave. If her son from the Cohen died, she may eat neither heave nor tithe.
MISHNAH: A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel may not eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may not eat heave. If [then] she married a Levite, she may eat tithe. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat tithe. If [then] she married a Cohen, she may eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat heave. If her son from the Cohen died, she may eat tithe; from the Levite, she may not eat tithe. If her son from the Israel died, she returns to her father’s house and for this case it was said: “She returns to her father’s house as in her youth. 22:13 . “If the daughter of a Cohen becomes a widow or divorcee without issue, she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s food, but no outsider may eat of it.” .”
HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter. 22:13 . ”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,. 137:8 , speaking of Edom. ” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph. 22:12 , a daughter who does not eat, Lev . 22:13 one who does eat. . One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “ of food,. 22:13 . “If the daughter of a Cohen becomes a widow or divorcee without issue, she returns to her father’s house as in her youth; she shall eat of her father’s food.” As usual, the prefix מ is used as partitive. The same argument (anonymous) in Sifra Emor Pereq 6(1 ), Babli 87a . ” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir .