A girl who was taken captive and was three years and a day or older is prohibited to a Cohen, because she is suspected to have had illicit relations, that she was copulated with by a non-Jew. And if she has a witness that no non-Jew was secluded with her, she is allowed to a Cohen. Even a slave or maidservant or relative is trusted in this testimony. Rema: and even women who are not trusted in women's testimony, like her mother-in-law, etc. are trusted with a captive (Rif on Ketubot 2). Two captives that testify about each other are trusted. Also a minor who speaks in innocence [without knowing the implications of his testimony] is trusted. An event: a child was captured with his mother, the child spoke in his innocence and said: We were captured among the non-Jews, me and my mother, I went to draw water, and my mind was on my mother, to gather wood, and my mind was on my mother. The wise-ones married her to a Cohen according to his testimony. There is one who writes that a child is believed even if he means to testify.
The husband is not trusted to testify for his captive wife, because a man does not testify for himself. And her handmaid does not testify for her. But the maid of her husband testifies for her. And a handmaid who speaks without knowing the implications of her statement, is believed. Rema: Kuti (non-Jews) are invalid to testify about captives, and even without knowing the implications of their statements, he is not trusted. (Rosh 32). There are those that are lenient in the case of "knowing the implications of their statements" (Ravid). And it is the same law in a case of a witness testifying he heard from another witness. And "knowing the implications of their statements" is only effective in case of being lenient, not when being strict (Rid Cohen 8).
A priest who testified about a woman that she is pure [was not violated] he may not marry her, lest he set his eyes on her. And if he redeemed her and testified about her, he may marry her, for had he not known that she was pure, he wouldn't have placed his money on her.
A woman that says "I was captive, and I remained clean" she is trusted, for the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted - even if there is a witnesses that testifies she was taken captive. But if there are two witnesses that say say she was taken captive, she is not trusted until one testifies that she is clean.
If there were two witnesses that she was taken captive, and one witness testifies that she was defiled, and one contradicts the others and testifies about her that she is pure and that no non-Jew was secluded with her before she was redeemed, even if the one who testifies that she is pure is a slave or handmaiden, she is permitted. Hagah: And there are those who say that if she says: I was defiled, she is believed to oppose the one witness who says she is pure, but not the two witnesses (Hagahot Alfasi, Haishah Shenitarmalah).
One who says: I was taken captive and I am pure, and the court allowed her to remarry or she was married in the presence of the court and they didn't protest against her, and afterwards two witnesses came and testified that she was taken captive, behold this one can be married ab initio and she does not lose the permission she has to remarry. And even if the captor comes in after her and she is now seen to be a captive in front of us in the hands of her masters, she doesn't lose the permission she has to remarry. And they guard her from this point onwards until she is redeemed. And if two witnesses later come saying she was defiled, even if she married and had children, she need be divorced. And if one witness comes, it is nothing.
If she said: I was taken captive and I am pure and I have witnesses that I am pure. We don't say: Let's wait until witnesses come, rather we permit her immediately. Furthermore, even if a voice goes out that there are witnesses to her being defiled, they permit her immediately until the witnesses come, for with a captive the rabbis were lenient.
A father who said: My daughter was taken captive and I redeemed her, whether she is of majority age or a minor, he is not trusted to make her prohibited. The same is true if he says that she had relations with someone forbidden (Hagahot Maymoniyot, 18, in the name of the Rashba).
A priest's wife who was prohibited to him because she was taken captive, since the issue [of whether she was defiled] is doubtful, behold she is permitted to live with him in the same courtyard, as long as his sons and the members of his household are always there to watch over him.
A city that was under siege and was taken captive, if non-Jews surrounded the city from all directions in order that not even one woman could escape before they see her and take her back, behold all of the women in the city are invalid as captives, lest they had intercourse with non-Jews, unless they were three years old or younger. But if it was possible for a woman to escape without them knowing, or if there was one hiding place in the city, even if it doesn't hold more than one woman, behold this saves all of them. How does it save? That any woman who says, I am pure, she is believed even without a witness, for she could say, "I escaped when the city was taken captive" or "I was in the hiding place and I was protected" therefore she is believed to say I didn't escape, I didn't hide and I wasn't defiled. To what does this refer? With a band from that kingship, that dwells in that city and has no fear, therefore we are concerned lest they had intercourse. But a band from another kingship that broke through, the women are not prohibited, for there was no time for them to fornicate, for they are busy taking booty and escaping. And if women were taken captive into their domain, even if Israel chased after them and saved them, behold they are forbidden. And there are those who disagree and say that even with a band from another kingship, they are forbidden.
A woman who was kidnapped by idol-worshippers for monetary reasons, is permitted even to a priest. Note: Only if they owe money to the kidnappers, in which case they fear to touch the woman so that they do not lose [their money] from their pocket. But if they grabbed her in order to ransom her for money, in which case there would be no out-of-pocket loss, she is forbidden to her priestly husband (Toldot Adam V'Chava / Rabbenu Yerucham chapter 23, and as suggested in Tosafot in chapter Ain Maamidin Avoda Zara 23a). If she was kidnapped for capital reasons, she is forbidden to the priesthood, and therefore if her husband was a priest, she is forbidden to him. Note: Some say that if she was kidnapped for capital reasons, she is forbidden even to her Israelite husband, because we fear that she acceded to the kidnappers to save her life (Tosafot, Rosh, Tur, Ran, and Piskei Maharai chapter 92). This is only when she is accused of capital crimes and she fears dying (Hagahot Maimoni chap. 18 in the name of "some say"). But those captured on their husbands' account are not forbidden unless the husband was sentenced to death ( Piskei Maharai chapter 92). Some say that any place that she can presume to live by being redeemed and returned, she is not forbidden to her Israelite husband, for she does not accede [to the kidnappers] even when she is captured on her own account (ibid.). And in times of anger and widespread murder, our Rabbis permitted her to her Israelite husband, following the first approach. If she is captured by Kuthites, and Jews are coming in and out by her, she is permitted to her husband (Hagahot Maimoni chap. 18). An Israelite who became apostate along with his wife, and then both returned [to Judaism], she is permitted to him and we do not worry that she committed adultery, even if the husband was a priest. If the wife became apostate herself, she is forbidden to her husband, even an Israelite (Responsa Rashba, Hagahot Mordechai Ketuboth), unless she has [at least] one witness that she did not commit adultery, similar to a captive. And some are lenient and say that we do not worry about adultery in this case (ibid.). In times of inquisition, when people converted under threat, and then returned after the threat had passed, it is appropriate to be lenient and permit women to return even to their priestly husbands (Rosh, rule 32). If a woman vowed to convert but did not yet convert, and then retracted, she is permitted to her husband (Maharik, root 160). Under what circumstances? When Israel rules over the Kuthites and they fear Israel, but when the Kuthites are stronger, even if [she was kidnapped] for financial matters, since it was done under the rule of the Kuthites she is forbidden [to her husband] unless someone testified on her behalf, similar to the case of a [war] captive. Note: All this applies to one who was incarcerated at the hands of the Kuthites and under their control. But if she was alone with Kuthites, even if she owes them money, we do not forbid her for sequestering alone [with the Kuthite] even though she violated religious law. Even if a rumor of adultery circulated, all rumors after marriage are insufficient to forbid her to her husband (Responsa Rosh). However, if she sequestered with the intent of adultery, it is appropriate to be stringent (Maharik, root 160).
Which [women] are chalalah [not holy]? One who is born of those forbidden to the priesthood, such as a priest other than the high priest who comes to a prostitute or divorcee, and the high priest comes to those [prostitute and divorcee] or to a widow, or who marries a woman who is not a virgin and comes to her, these are made not holy forever. And if he begets a child from her, whether he is the one who rendered her chalalah or whether it was another, the offspring, whether male or female is chalal, and she herself is rendered chalalah by his coming to her to awaken her, whether he come onto her by accident or on purpose, whether unwillingly or willingly, and the man who will be a priest from the age of nine years and one day and older, and the woman with whom intercourse has been had from the age of three years and one day and older. But a priest who betrothes a woman from those forbidden to the priesthood, but she is widowed or divorced from the forbidden one, she is not chalalah. But if he has married her, even if they haven't had sex, she is chalalah, because all who are married are assume to no longer be virgins, even if she is found to be a virgin.
A priest who transgressed and had sexual relations with a woman forbidden to priests [e.g. a divorcee] does not become deconsecrated from the priesthood.
A priest who had sexual relations with one of the forbidden partners or with a woman awaiting levirate marriage, and she became pregnant from the first intercourse, the child is not deconsecrated [i.e. invalidated] from priesthood, but he has caused her to be treated as a prostitute. If he or another priest subsequently had relations with her, the child is deconsecrated. But a priest who has relations with a convert or a freed [Canaanite] slave even if she conceived with the first intercourse, the child is deconsecrated.
A priest who had sexual relations with a menstruant woman, the child is kosher and not deconsecrated [i.e. invalidated from the priesthood].
...A Halal who marries a kosher woman, the resulting child from her is also a Halal, as is the grandson, and so on to the end of all generations. If the child is a girl, that child is forbidden to the priesthood. But if she marries an Israelite and has a daughter, that daughter is kosher for the priesthood, for the child of an Israelite who marries a Halalah is kosher.
A non-Jew and a slave that have relations with an Israelite girl and a girl is born from them, the daughter is not allowed to marry a priest.
A priest who married a pregnant divorcee, whether [she was pregnant] by him or by another, and she gave birth after she had been desanctified to the priesthood, the child is valid [to the priesthood] for he didn't come from a sinful drop.
A priest who had relations with a woman who had previously been released from levirate marriage, she and her offspring are halalim from rabbinic decree. But a priest who had relations with a woman prohibited due to second degree incest, she is valid and his offspring with her are valid.
A Cohen who comes to a possible prostitute (or a possible divorcee or a possible released woman - Tur), this is possible desecration and the offspring is a possible halal, and is given the restrictions of Cohanim and the restrictions of Israel. He may not eat Trumah and may not be exposed to a dead body, may only marry a woman permitted to a Cohen, and if he ate (trumah) or was exposed (to a dead body) or married a divorcee, they strike him with a stroke of rebellion. And this is the ruling regarding a halal of their words [i.e., rabbinic]. But the confirmed halal of Torah is like a Zar and may marry a divorcee and be exposed to the dead, as it is said "Say to the Cohanim the sons of Aaron" (Lev. 21:1) even though they are the sons of Aaron, not until they are serving as Cohanim.
If a male convert marries a female convert who then gives birth to a daughter, she may not in principle be married to a kohen (priest) -- even the daughter's daughter for several generations, despite the fact that her conception and birth were in holiness. And if she was [nonetheless] married to a kohen, she does not go out [necessarily from her marriage]. And if she were on one side Israelite, such as if a male convert married an Israelite woman or an Israelite man married a female convert, the daughter is permitted to a kohen even in principle. And that is the rule for a male emancipated slave who marries a Israelite woman or an Israelite man who marries an female emancipated slave.
A daughter of priests may be married to a hallal (the son of a priest through a forbidden relationship), or to a convert, or to an emancipated slave, women with fitting ancestry not having been warned against marrying those unfit for priesthood, as the verse says, "Sons of Aaron" (Lev 21:1) and not 'daughters of Aaron."
A family that has within it a doubtful case of halal or a certain one, and so too if it has a doubtful case of a mamzer [born of a forbidden relationship] or a certain mamzer, this is clarified in section 2.