מַהוּ בָּתַר נִישּׂוּאִין אָזְלִינַן אוֹ בָּתַר אֵירוּסִין אָזְלִינַן what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: Do we follow the time of marriage, at which point she was unfit for him according to most tanna’im, who hold that a High Priest may not marry a grown woman, as she is no longer called “a wife in her virginity” (Leviticus 21:13)? Or do we follow the time of betrothal, at which point she was of suitable age?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ תְּנֵיתוּהָ נִתְאַרְמְלוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין פְּסוּלוֹת מִן הָאֵירוּסִין כְּשֵׁרוֹת Shmuel said to him: You learned it in the mishna: If they were widowed or divorced from marriage, they are disqualified from partaking of teruma, but if they were widowed or divorced from betrothal, they are fit to partake of teruma. This indicates that disqualifications from the privileges of priesthood are determined based upon marriage rather than betrothal.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְשַׁוּוֹיֵהּ חֲלָלָה לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לִי דְּבִיאָה הִיא דִּמְשַׁוְּויָה חֲלָלָה כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לִי וְהוּא אִשָּׁה בִבְתוּלֶיהָ יִקָּח מַאי קִיחָה דְקִדּוּשִׁין בָּעֵינַן אוֹ קִיחָה דְנִישּׂוּאִין בָּעֵינַן Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef said to Shmuel: With regard to causing her to become a ḥalala I did not raise a dilemma, as it is clear that it is intercourse that causes her to become a ḥalala. When I raised a dilemma, it was with regard to the verse pertaining to a High Priest: “And he shall take a wife in her virginity” (Leviticus 21:13). What does “take” mean in this verse? Do we require that only the taking of betrothal must occur when she is in her virginity, i.e., when she is a minor or a young woman, or perhaps we require even the taking of marriage to be performed when she is a minor or young woman?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵיתוּהָ אֵירַס אֶת הָאַלְמָנָה וְנִתְמַנָּה לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל יִכְנוֹס שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דִּכְתִיב יִקַּח אִשָּׁה Shmuel said to him: This, too, you learned in a mishna (61a): If he betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her, despite the fact that a High Priest is prohibited from marrying a widow. This indicates that her permissibility to him is determined according to the time of the betrothal rather than the time of marriage. The Gemara refutes this proof: There it is different, as it is written: “He shall take for a wife” (Leviticus 21:14). The superfluous expression “for a wife” indicates that he is permitted to marry the widow in this case.
הָכָא נָמֵי כְּתִיב אִשָּׁה אַחַת וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם The Gemara objects: Here, too, with regard to a woman who matured after betrothal, it is written: “And he shall take a wife in her virginity,” and this should indicate that he may marry the grown woman in this case. The Gemara answers that the term “wife” allows for the inclusion of one case but not two. Consequently, since a High Priest may marry a widow he had betrothed before he was appointed High Priest, it cannot also be derived that he may marry a grown woman that he had betrothed before she matured.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ הָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי גּוּפַהּ וְהָא לָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי גּוּפַהּ The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include the case of a widow and exclude that of a grown woman? The Gemara answers: In this case, of the grown woman, her body has changed, and therefore she is forbidden to him even though she was betrothed before she matured. In that case, of the widow, her body has not changed. It is the priest’s personal status that has changed, and therefore she remains permitted.
מַתְנִי׳ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לֹא יִשָּׂא אַלְמָנָה בֵּין אַלְמָנָה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין בֵּין אַלְמָנָה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין וְלֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת הַבּוֹגֶרֶת רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁירִין בְּבוֹגֶרֶת [וְלֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת מוּכַּת עֵץ] MISHNA: A High Priest may not marry a widow, whether she is a widow from betrothal or a widow from marriage. And he may not marry a grown woman. He may marry only a minor or a young woman. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare a grown woman fit to marry a High Priest. And he may not marry a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן אַלְמָנָה לֹא יִקַּח בֵּין אַלְמָנָה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין בֵּין אַלְמָנָה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין פְּשִׁיטָא מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵילַף אַלְמָנָה אַלְמָנָה מִתָּמָר מָה לְהַלָּן מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין אַף כָּאן מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן GEMARA: The Sages taught: The verse states with regard to a High Priest: “A widow…he shall not take” (Leviticus 21:14), which prohibits him from marrying any widow, whether she is a widow from betrothal or a widow from marriage. The Gemara is surprised by this statement: This is obvious, as the verse is referring to a widow without further specification. The Gemara answers: It is necessary; lest you say that one should derive a verbal analogy between the words “widow” and “widow,” based upon the usage of that term in a verse with regard to Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law (Genesis 38:11), as follows: Just as there, Tamar was a widow from marriage, so too here the verse is referring only to a widow from marriage. The tanna therefore teaches us that this is not the case.
וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי דֻּומְיָא דִּגְרוּשָׁה מָה גְּרוּשָׁה בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין בֵּין מִן הָאֵירוּסִין אַף אַלְמָנָה בֵּין מִן הָאֵירוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין The Gemara asks: And say that it is indeed so, that the suggested verbal analogy is correct. The Gemara answers: It is similar to the case of a divorcée: Just as a divorcée is forbidden to a priest whether she was divorced from marriage or from betrothal, so too a widow is forbidden to a High Priest whether she is a widow from marriage or from betrothal.
וְלֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת הַבּוֹגֶרֶת תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן וְהוּא אִשָּׁה בִבְתוּלֶיהָ יִקָּח פְּרָט לַבּוֹגֶרֶת שֶׁכָּלוּ לָהּ בְּתוּלֶיהָ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁירִין בְּבוֹגֶרֶת § It was taught in the mishna: And a High Priest may not marry a grown woman. The Sages taught that the verse: “And he shall take a wife in her virginity” (Leviticus 21:13) excludes a grown woman, whose hymen has worn away, i.e., it is no longer as complete as that of a minor or a young woman; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare a grown woman fit to marry a High Priest.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר בְּתוּלָה אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת בְּתוּלִים מַשְׁמַע בְּתוּלֶיהָ עַד דְּאִיכָּא כׇּל הַבְּתוּלִים בִּבְתוּלֶיהָ בִּכְדַרְכָּהּ אִין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ לָא The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Meir holds that were the verse referring simply to a virgin it would have indicated that even a woman with partial signs of virginity, i.e., a grown woman, is permitted. Since the verse states “her virginity,” it means that she is fit to marry a High Priest only if all of the signs of her virginity are intact, which excludes a grown woman. The full expression “in her virginity” indicates that if she has experienced sexual intercourse in a typical manner, which takes place in the area of her virginity, i.e., her hymen, yes, she is disqualified from marrying a High Priest; but if she has experienced sexual intercourse in an atypical manner i.e., anal intercourse, no, she is not disqualified.
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבְרִי בְּתוּלָה בְּתוּלָה שְׁלֵימָה מַשְׁמַע בְּתוּלֶיהָ וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת בְּתוּלִים בִּבְתוּלֶיהָ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כׇּל בְּתוּלֶיהָ קַיָּימִין בֵּין בִּכְדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ And Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon hold that were the verse referring simply to a virgin, it would have indicated that only a complete virgin is fit to marry a High Priest, but not a grown woman. When it states “her virginity,” it indicates that even a woman with partial signs of virginity, i.e., a grown woman, is fit to marry the High Priest. The full expression “in her virginity” indicates that she is not fit to marry to marry a High Priest unless all of her virginity is intact, i.e., she has not engaged in intercourse of any kind, whether typical sexual intercourse or atypical sexual intercourse.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב נִבְעֲלָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ פְּסוּלָה לַכְּהוּנָּה מֵתִיב רָבָא וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה בְּאִשָּׁה הָרְאוּיָה לוֹ פְּרָט לְאַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If she had atypical sexual intercourse, she is disqualified from the High Priesthood, i.e., from marrying the High Priest. Rava raised an objection based upon a baraita: The verse states with regard to rape: “And she shall be his wife” (Deuteronomy 22:19), and the Sages explained that this is referring only to a woman suitable for him, excluding a widow for a High Priest and a divorcée or a ḥalutza for a common priest. In these cases, the rapist is not permitted to marry his victim.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי אִלֵּימָא בִּכְדַרְכָּהּ מַאי אִירְיָא מִשּׁוּם אַלְמָנָה תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ בְּעוּלָה אֶלָּא לָאו שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ וּמִשּׁוּם אַלְמָנָה אִין מִשּׁוּם בְּעוּלָה לָא The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this halakha? If we say that the High Priest raped her by engaging in typical intercourse, why does the baraita specifically state that she is forbidden to him because she is a widow? Let him derive this halakha from the fact that she is now a non-virgin. Rather, is it not that he had atypical intercourse with her, and due to the fact that she is a widow, yes, that is the reason she is forbidden, but due to the fact that she is a non-virgin, no, that is not the reason she is forbidden? This indicates that a woman who had intercourse in an atypical manner is not considered a non-virgin and is not disqualified from marrying a High Priest.