A priest if forbidden from the Torah to marry a divorced woman, a harlot, or a challalah (a woman of invalid priestly lineage) and is forbidden from a Chalutzah from the rabbis. Therefore if he transgressed and married a a questionable Chalutzah he does not have to divorce her, but if he married a divorced woman, even if she was only questionably divorced, he must divorce her regardless if she was divorced out of engagement or full marriage. Even the spirit of a Get (document of divorce) invalidates a woman from marrying a priest and they force him to divorce her. What's the case of the spirit of a Get? If he says to her "You are divorced from me put you are not permitted to anyone else, even though she is not divorced via this type of Get she becomes invalidated for priests. [Rema: Even if she was only divorced from the voice of engagement, even if it was clear that there was no substance to the engagement and they only give her a Get due to a stringency she is invalidated from marrying a priest.] But if he gives her a Get on a condition that was not fulfilled, it is not considered a Get and she is not invalidated and a priest can divorce a woman on a condition.
A minor girl who refuses her husband is permitted to marry a priest, but if he gave her a Get she is forbidden. If after he gave her a Get, he remarried her and she then refused she becomes permitted to a priest because her refusal nullifies the Get. If after she was divorced she was married to a different man and refused him, there are those who say she is permitted to a priest.
A rumor goes out: "Ploni the kohen divorced his wife." Yet behold, she sits beneath him [i.e. there is no doubt they are still together], we do not force her apart from him. For we don't listen to rumors after marriage or after engagement. And if [the rumor is] he died, and she marries a different kohen, [we don't listen to the rumor and] she must separate [from her new husband].
If a voice went out that so-and-so the priest has written a Get for his wife if they call in the place giving a Get writing, even if they also call writing, writing it is as if the voice went out saying, so-and-so has divorced his wife, but if they do not call giving a Get writing, there is no concern.
If a "voice" goes out about a woman that she got married and [then] divorced, we suspect the "voice" to prohibit her to a priest. Specifically when the "voice" emanated without a excuse, but if it emanated with an excuse, e.g. the "voice" emanated that got married or divorced on a condition, or he threw the marriage [money/object/document] or divorce document and it is a doubt whether it was closer to him or her, we do not suspect the "voice." If there was an excuse for the divorce but not the marriage, we suspect the "voice" of the marriage to prohibit her to the world and we do not suspect the "voice" of the divorce to prohibit her to a priest. Specifically when the excuse emanates with the "voice" immediately but if the "voice" emanated clearly and after some time the excuse emanates, it does not nullify the "voice." If afterwards it becomes clear that the "voice" was a lie, even if there wasn't an excuse, we nullify [the "voice"]. Any "voice" that wasn't upheld in a Jewish court is not a "voice" to be concerned for. (If a "voice" emanated that she was a chalutza (woman whose husband died without children her brother-in-law refused to marry her) some say we are not concerned.)
A Kohen who marries any one of the women who are forbidden to him, we excommunicate them and anybody who does business with them, and similar severe actions such as this, until he divorces her.
A priest who divorced his wife, she should not live with him in the alley. If they were living in rented quarters or a shared courtyard, she is pushed aside because of him [i.e. she must leave]. If it was her courtyard, he is pushed aside because of her [i.e. he must leave]. These things will be explained in siman 119.
Who is deemed a "zonah" [who is forbidden to a kohen]? Whoever is not a Jewess, or who is a Jewess that had sexual relations with a man to whom she is forbidden to marry in a generally applicable prohibition, or who had sexual relations with a "cholol" (the child of a kohen and a woman who was forbidden to the kohen), even though she is permitted to be married to this man. Accordingly, a woman who committed bestiality, even though she [is punished] with stoning, she does not become a zonah and she does not become invalid to a kohen, because she did not have sexual relations with a human. And a man that has relations with a menstruating woman, even though she is punished with kareth, she does not become a zonah and she does not become invalid to a kohen, because she is not forbidden to him. And similarly a man that has relations with a single woman, even though she is a lewd woman that made herself freely available, which is punishable with lashes, she does not become a zonah and she does not become invalid to a kohen, because she is not forbidden to him. However, a woman who had sexual relations with someone who is forbidden by a Biblical negative commandment, which are generally prohibited and are not uniquely [forbidden] to kohanim, or with someone who is forbidden by a Biblical affirmative commandment—and it need not even be said with someone who is forbidden by virtue of a forbidden incestual relationship—or with a non-Jew or slave, since she is forbidden to this person to marry, she is deemed a zonah. And so with a convert and a freed slave, even if she converted or was freed while she was less than three years old, since she was not a Jewess, she is deemed a zonah and is forbidden to a kohen. And so a woman who is subject to yibum (levirate marriage) with whom an unrelated person had relations, she becomes a zona. Some opinions say that one who has relations with one who is forbidden by a Biblical affirmative commandment or by a Biblical negative commandment—even the other negative commandments—she does not become a zonah except for instance in which one has relations with a woman subject to yibum.
Any woman who becomes a zonah upon sexual relations, it is whether she was raped or consented or was inadvertent, whether it was the usual way or the unusual way (sodomy), once there is penetration she is disqualified as a zonah, provided that she is at least three years and one day old, and the male is at least nine years and one day old, or older.
The wife of a priest who had relations [with another man] even if she was forced is forbidden to him.
The wife of a non-levite Jew who was raped even though she is permitted to her husband is forbidden to marry a priest.
The wife of a priest who said to her husband I was raped or a made a mistake and another man slept with me, or if one witness came and testified that she committed adultery whether forced or willingly, she is not forbidden to her husband because perhaps she has taken interest in a different man. But if her husband believes her the witness is believed as well and he must divorce her to remove them from suspicion.
The wife of a priest who said to her husband I was raped, even though she is permitted to her husband as was explained, she is forbidden to any other priest after her husband dies because she admitted she slept with another man and made herself forbidden and has become partially forbidden.
A Cohen who betrothes an adult or child, and after some time has relations with her and finds her not a virgin, she is forbidden to him by doubt - perhaps she had relations before betrothal [and is permitted] or perhaps after betrothal [and is forbidden]. But if a Yisrael who makes this claim, she is not forbidden to him, for there are two doubts here - perhaps before betrothal and perhaps after betrothal, and even if it was after betrothal, perhaps it was forced [and she is not forbidden] and perhaps it was willingly [and she is forbidden], for if she is raped she remains permitted to a Yisrael. Therefore if her father betrothed her to a Yisrael when she was less than three years and one day old, and he claims to have found her not a virgin, she is forbidden to him by doubt, because there is only one doubt here - perhaps it was forced, or perhaps willingly, and in a Torah prohibition we must be stringent in a doubtful case.
Any woman whose husband (or the Court) expressed jealousy about her, and then she was privately with the man she was warned about, and did not drink the Sotah-waters, is forbidden to her husband, even if he is a Yisrael. If her husband dies, she is forbidden to marry a Cohen.
If she becomes know in the city as unfaithful, we don't suspect her. Even if her husband sent her out because she violated Dat Yehudit [the customs of Jewish women] or for something disgusting, and he died before he gave her the divorce document , she is permitted to a Cohen.
A single woman whom they saw having intercourse with someone, and the one who had intercourse left and they said to her: Who was this that had intercourse with you? And she said: A valid man. She is believed. Furthermore, even if they saw her pregnant and they said to her: Who impregnated you? And she said: A valid man. Behold, she is believed and she (and her daughter) are permitted to a priest. When is this so? When the place where she had intercourse was a crossroads, or at the corners of a field where everyone passes by, and most passersby are valid, and most of the city from which the passersby came from are valid. For the sages made a stringency with genealogy and required two majorities. But if most passersby would disqualify her [from marrying a priest] such as non-Jews, or mamzers or other such ilk, even though the place they came from was mostly valid, or if most of the men of the place were invalid, even though most passersby were valid, we cannot trust her and we must say: You had relations with one who would disqualify you, and you may not marry a priest. But if she does marry [a priest] she need not be divorced. And there are those who say that if she says: I had relations with a valid man, one majority alone is sufficient to make her valid, and ex post facto, even if most are invalid.
If they saw that she had intercourse or she was impregnated in the city, even if there was only one non-Jew there or one disqualified priest or someone like that, she may not be married ab initio to a priest, for all [populations] that are fixed are judged as fifty/fifty. And if she is married, she need not be divorced since she says, "I had relations with a valid one." If she was mute or deaf or if she said, "I don't know whom I had intercourse with" or if she was a minor who couldn't tell the difference between a valid one and an invalid one, this one is a doubtfully profaned woman and if she is married to a priest she must be divorced, unless there were two majorities found there who were valid. And there are those who say that even if she was impregnated in the city if the man who had intercourse went to her she may be married ab initio, since most of the city and most of its groups are valid, unless she went to him. And in general as well, when we don't know who went to whom, she may be married ab initio. If the child of a non-Jew was mixed up with a Jewish child, they immerse both for the sake of conversion, and each of them is a doubtful convert.