משנה: בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן מִנְחָתָהּ נִשְׂרֶפֶת וְכֹהֶנֶת שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מִנְחָתָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת. מַה בֵין כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֶנֶת. מִנְחַת כֹּהֶנֶת נֶאֱכֶלֶת מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת. כֹהֶנֶת מִתְחַלֶּלֶת וְאֵין כֹּהֵן מִתְחַלֵּל. כֹּהֶנֶת מִטַּמְּאָה לַמֵּתִים וְאֵין כֹּהֵן מִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים. כֹּהֵן אוֹכֵל בְּקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְאֵין כֹּהֶנֶת אוֹכֶלֶת בְּקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים. MISHNAH: The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen is burned201Since it is the husband’s money; cf. Sotah 2:1:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.1.3">Chapter 2:1, Note 7., the offering of a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel is not burned202The woman becomes a member of her husband’s clan.. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten. A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated203This is explained in the Halakhah. An illicit marriage bars the wife and her children from ever marrying into the priesthood; a Cohen who divorces his forbidden wife returns to his priestly status.. A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead, a Cohen may not defile himself for the dead204The prohibition of the impurity of the dead is clearly addressed to the sons of Aaron, Lev. 21:1.. A Cohen eats most holy [food] a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food]205This is a clearly biblical precept; spelled out in Leviticus.6.11">Lev. 6:11,Leviticus.6.22">22; Sotah 7:6:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.7.6.2-4">7:6..
הלכה: בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן כול׳. מַה בֵין כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֶנֶת. מִנְחַת כֹּהֶנֶת נֶאֱכֶלֶת. מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת. דִּכְתִיב. וְכָל־מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל. לֹא כֹהֶנֶת. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בָּעֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. וְהָא כְתִיב וְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְיַין כַּסְפּוֹ. מֵעַתָּה כֹהֵן וְלֹא כֹהֶנֶת. מַאי כְדוֹן. וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו. אֶת שֶׁבְּנוֹ עוֹמֵד תַּחְתָּיו. יָצָאת זוֹ שֶׁאֵין בְּנָהּ עוֹמֵד תַּחְתֶּיהָ. HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten207Leviticus.6.16">Lev. 6:16.;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money208Leviticus.22.11">Lev. 22:11. The verse states that slaves of a Cohen may eat of his sanctified food and we hold (cf. Yebamot 7:1) that the slaves of a Cohen’s daughter may eat if and only if she can eat. Should the mention of the masculine form “Cohen” not exclude the daughter of a Cohen. Accepted without discussion in Sotah.23b">Babli 23b; Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(4).,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;209Leviticus.6.15">Lev. 6:15. Verse 16 is an appendix to a paragraph speaking only of the (male) High Priest. The son of a Cohen’s daughter belongs to his father’s clan, not hers.” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.
כֹהֶנֶת מִתְחַלֶּלֶת. וְאֵין כֹּהֵן מִתְחַלֵּל. דִּכְתִיב וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְעַמָּיו. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זֶרַע שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַלֵּל. הִיא עַצְמָהּ מְנַיִין. וְדִין הוּא. מַה אִם הַזֶּרַע שֶׁלּא עָבַר עֲבֵירָה הֲרֵי הוּא מִתְחַלֵּל. הִיא שֶׁעָֽבְרָה עֲבֵירָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּתְחַלֵּל. הוּא עַצְמוֹ יוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵירָה וְאֵינוֹ מִתְחַלֵּל. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְאִישׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְחַלֵּל בְּכָל־מָקוֹם. תֹּא̇מַר בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא מִתְחַלֶּלֶת בְּכָל־מָקוֹם. הוֹאִיל וְהִיא מִתְחַלֶּלֶת בְּכָל־מָקוֹם דִּין הוּא שֶׁתִּתְחַלֵּל. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ לוֹמַר. לֹא יָחֵל. לֹא יְחַלֵּל. אַף מִי שֶׁהָיָה כָשֵׁר וְנִתְחַלֵּל. 210The entire paragraph is from Sifra Emor Pereq 2(7–8). For the Sotah.23b">Babli, 23b, it seems obvious that a woman forbidden to a Cohen becomes desecrated; one only needs a verse to free the Cohen from desecration.“‘A Cohen’s daughter is desecrated, a Cohen is not desecrated.’ For it is written: ‘He shall not desecrate his seed in his clan.211Leviticus.21.15">Lev. 21:15, speaking of the High Priest who married a widow, divorcee, or desecrated woman. The children of such a forbidden union are desecrated in their clan and are permanently barred from any priestly function.’ Not only that he desecrates his seed; from where [that he desecrates] herself212A woman who ever slept with a man whom she could not lawfully marry is considered a whore prohibited to a Cohen. By marrying her, he desecrates her permanently.? It is a conclusion of an argument. Since the seed who did not commit any sin is desecrated, she, who committed a sin213While it is stated two times that a Cohen sins in marrying a woman forbidden to him (Leviticus.21.7">Lev. 21:7), it is never stated that the forbidden woman sins in letting herself be married by the Cohen. The Sifra[Emor Pereq 1(12)] derives a warning to her from the double prohibition in Leviticus.21.7">Lev. 21:7., is it not logical that she should be desecrated? He himself gives a counter-argument since he sinned and is not desecrated. No. If you talk about the man who is not otherwise desecrated214He is not permanently desecrated even if he sleeps with a slave girl, a Gentile, or a whore., what can you say about a woman who can be otherwise desecrated? Since she can be otherwise desecrated, it is an argument that she should be desecrated! If you wish215If you consider the pseudological argument invalid., you can say, he shall not desecrate - “he shall not repeatedly desecrate,’216The root חול, חלל “to desecrate” appears in the Pentateuch also in Hiph‘il. The use of the intensive instead of the causative in Leviticus.21.15">Lev. 21:15 is taken to imply more than one desecration. The Kiddushin.77a">Babli, Qiddušin 77a, derives different disabilities from the same argument.” even to desecrate one who is enabled.
כֹּהֶנֶת מִטַּמְּאָה לַמֵּתִים. רִבִּי דּוֹסָא מִמַּלְחִיָּא רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. כֹּהֶנֶת מוּתֶּרֶת לָצֵאת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. מַה טַעֲמָא. אֱמוֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים. לֹא אֶל הַכּוֹהֲנֹת. דִּלֹכֵן מַה אֲנָן אָֽמְרִין. הוֹאִיל וְהִיא בִּכְלַל גְּזֵירָה לֹא תֵצֵא. וּתְהֵא בִּכְלַל גְּזֵירָה וְלֹא תֵצֵא. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצֵאת מַדְחֶה פָּרָשַׁת טֻמְאוֹת. “A Cohen’s daughter may defile herself for the dead.” Rebbi Dosa from Malḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A Cohen’s daughter is permitted to leave the Land217A Cohen is prohibited from defiling himself in the impurity of the dead, Leviticus.21.1-4">Lev. 21:1–4. By rabbinic decree, a Cohen is forbidden to leave the Land of Israel since the other countries, even disregarding the biblical impurity inherent in them, might be full of unrecognized graves so that the Cohen would automatically incur at least the doubt of contamination by a grave.. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim218Leviticus.21.2">Lev. 21:2: “Say to the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron.” The prohibitions in this paragraph inherently concern only the males of the family. This is explicit in Sifra Emor, Introduction; alluded to in Sotah.23b">Babli, 23b..” Not to the daughters of Cohanim. If it were not so, what would he say? Because she is included in the decree, she cannot leave. Why should she not be included in the decree and be forbidden to leave219Since the prohibition is rabbinic anyhow, how can the extent of the prohibition be measured by biblical standards? It is unlikely that the prohibition was known before the war of Bar Kokhba. We find king Yannai outside the Land, but he was a Sadducee and opposed to rabbinic prohibitions. But it is reported that R. Eleazar ben Azariah, a Cohen, descendant of Ezra in the tenth generation, went to Rome.? If you say so, you push aside the paragraph on impurities220Since rabbinic decrees are גדירה, fences around the Law, they should not prohibit what is explicitly permitted in the Pentateuch..
כֹּהֵן אוֹכֵל בְּקָדְשֵׁי הַקָּדָשִׁים וְאֵין כֹּהֶנֶת אוֹכֶלֶת בְּקָדְשֵׁי הַקָּדָשִׁים. דִּכְתִיב כָּל־זָכָר בַּכֹּהֲנִים יֹאכֲלֶנּוּ. “A Cohen eats most holy [food], a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].” For it is written (Leviticus.7.6">Lev. 7:6): “Every male among the Cohanim shall eat it.”