Parallel
יבמות 56:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
who enlightened us on the subject from our Mishnah. 'An Israelite's wife who was outraged, though she is permitted to her husband, is disqualified from the priesthood; and so it was taught by our Tanna: SIMILARLY, IF A MAN HAD INTERCOURSE WITH ANY OF THE FORBIDDEN RELATIVES ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH, OR WITH ANY OF THOSE WHO ARE INELIGIBLE TO MARRY HIM; now, what is the purport of SIMILARLY? Does it not mean, WHETHER IN ERROR OR IN PRESUMPTION, WHETHER UNDER COMPULSION OR OF HIS OWN FREE WILL? And yet it was stated, HE HAS THEREBY RENDERED HER INELIGIBLE'. — No; SIMILARLY might refer to the FIRST STAGE. 'To the first stage' with whom? If it be suggested, 'With one of the forbidden relatives', does this then imply [it might be retorted] that the case of the forbidden relatives is derived from that of the sister-in-law? On the contrary, the case of the sister-in-law was derived from the forbidden relatives, since the original prohibition of the first stage was written in connection with the forbidden relatives! — Rather, SIMILARLY refers to Unnatural intercourse with forbidden relatives. On the contrary; the original prohibition of the various forms of intercourse with a woman was written in connection with the forbidden relatives! — Rather, SIMILARLY refers to unnatural intercourse with those [cohabitation with whom is] subject to the penalty of negative precepts. Rabbah stated: If the wife of a priest had been outraged, her husband suffers the penalty of flogging on her account for [cohabiting with] a harlot. Only for [cohabiting with] a harlot, but not for 'defilement'? — Read, 'Also for [cohabitation with] a harlot'. R. Zera raised an objection: And she be not seized, she is forbidden; if, however, she was seized she is permitted. But there is another woman who is forbidden even though she was seized. And who is that? The wife of a priest. Now, a negative precept that is derived from a positive one has only the force of a positive precept! — Rabbah replied: All were included in the category of harlot. When, therefore, Scripture specified in the case of the wife of an Israelite that only if she be not seized she is forbidden but if she was seized she is permitted, it may be inferred that the wife of a priest retains her forbidden status. Others say: Rabbah stated, If the wife of a priest had been outraged, her husband suffers for her the penalty of flogging on account of 'defilement'. Only on account of 'defilement' but not for [connubial relationship with] a harlot. Thus it is obvious that [when the woman acted] under compulsion she is not to be regarded as a harlot. R. Zera raised an objection: 'And she be not seized, she is forbidden; if, however, she was seized she is permitted. But there is another woman who is forbidden even though she was seized. And who is that? The wife of a priest'. Now, a negative precept that is derived from a positive one has only the force of a positive precept! — Rabbah replied: All were included in [the prohibition to live with her] after that she is defiled. When, therefore, Scripture specified in the case of the wife of an Israelite that only when she be not seized she is forbidden, but if she was seized she is permitted, it may be inferred that the wife of a priest retains her forbidden status. MISHNAH. THE BETROTHAL OF A WIDOW TO A HIGH PRIEST AND OF A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A HALIZAH TO A COMMON PRIEST DOES NOT CONFER UPON THEM THE RIGHT TO EAT TERUMAH. R. ELEAZAR AND R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, DECLARE THEM ELIGIBLE. IF THEY BECAME WIDOWS OR WERE DIVORCED AFTER MARRIAGE THEY REMAIN INELIGIBLE; IF AFTER BETROTHAL THEY BECOME ELIGIBLE. GEMARA. It was taught: R. Meir said, [this may be arrived at by an inference] a minori ad majus: If permissible betrothal does not confer the right of eating terumah, how much less forbidden betrothal. They, however, replied: No; if you have said it in respect of permissible betrothal where the man may never confer the right of eating, would you also say it in respect of sinful betrothal where the [priest], in other circumstances, is entitled to confer the right of eating? R. Eleazar stated in the name of R. Oshaia: In the case where a priest who was wounded in the stones betrothed a daughter of an Israelite, we have a difference of opinion between R. Meir and R. Eleazar and R. Simeon. According to R. Meir who holds that a woman awaiting a pentateuchally forbidden cohabitation may not eat terumah, this woman also may not eat; but according to R. Eleazar and R. Simeon who maintain that a woman awaiting a pentateuchally forbidden cohabitation may eat
—