and he illuminated our eyes from the mishna, i.e., he demonstrated that the mishna serves as the basis for his opinion: With regard to the wife of an Israelite who was raped, although she is permitted to her husband, she is disqualified for the priesthood. Therefore, if her husband dies, she may not marry a priest. And the tanna of our mishna also taught: And so too, in the case of one who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden [arayot] by the Torah or with those who are unfit to marry him even though they are not in the category of arayot, the woman is disqualified from marrying a priest.

What is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? What, is it not that it is no different whether they have intercourse unwittingly or intentionally, and it is no different whether they have intercourse due to coercion or willingly? And it is taught that he has rendered her disqualified from marrying a priest.

The Gemara refutes this proof: No, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to the initial stage of intercourse, as this too invalidates her. The Gemara asks: The initial stage of intercourse of whom? If we say it is referring to those with whom relations are prohibited and carry a punishment of karet or death [arayot], is this to say that the halakha with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited is derived from the halakha with regard to a yevama, as implied by the phrase: And so too? On the contrary, we derive the halakha of a yevama from the halakha with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited, as the main source that indicates that the initial stage of intercourse is considered intercourse is stated in the context of those with whom relations are prohibited and not in the context of a yevama.

Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to atypical, i.e., anal, sexual intercourse with those with whom relations are prohibited [arayot]. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: On the contrary, the main source that atypical intercourse is considered intercourse, which is based upon the verse “The cohabitations of a woman” (Leviticus 18:22) is written with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited [arayot].

Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to atypical intercourse by those liable for violating an ordinary prohibition not punishable by karet, with regard to whom the expression: The cohabitations of a woman, does not appear. In any event, Rav Sheshet’s proof from the mishna is not conclusive.

§ Rava said: With regard to the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged if he later has intercourse with her, due to the fact that it is prohibited for a priest to have intercourse with a zona. The Gemara expresses surprise: Due to the prohibition proscribing a zona, yes; due to ritual impurity, no? The Torah refers to a married woman who has had intercourse with another man as ritually impure, and she is forbidden to her husband. The Gemara emends Rava’s statement: Say that he is also flogged due to the prohibition with regard to a zona.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection based upon a verse with regard to a sota: “And neither was she taken” (Numbers 5:13) indicates that she is forbidden to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, but if she was forcibly taken, i.e., raped, she is permitted to her husband. The term “And…she” indicates that although these principles apply in this case, you have another case of a woman who is prohibited even though she was forcibly taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest.

And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva, e.g., the prohibition proscribing a priest’s wife to her husband if she has been raped, which is derived from the fact that the Torah indicates that the wife of an Israelite remains permitted, has the status of a positive mitzva, not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition.

Rabba said in response: All married women who engaged in extramarital intercourse were included in the category of zona. When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: “And neither was she taken,” as it is only in that case that she is forbidden, it thereby indicates that if in fact she was forcibly taken, she is permitted. By inference, unlike the wife of an Israelite, the wife of a priest remains as she was. Since the Torah does not limit the category of zona with regard to the wife of a priest, she is considered a zona even if she was raped.

And some say a different version of this discussion. Rabba said: With regard to the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged for having intercourse with her due to her ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: Due to ritual impurity, yes; due to the prohibition proscribing a zona, no? Apparently, in a case of rape, the victim is not called a zona.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection from the verse: “And neither was she taken” indicates that she is forbidden to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, but if she was forcibly taken, she is permitted to her husband. The term: “And…she,” indicates that although these principles apply in this case, you have another case of a woman who is forbidden even though she was forcibly taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest. And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva has the status of a positive mitzva, not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition.

Rava said: All were included in the verse “Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she was made ritually impure” (Deuteronomy 24:4). When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: “And neither was she taken,” as it is only in that case that she is forbidden, it thereby indicates that if she was forcibly taken she is permitted. By inference, the wife of a priest remains as she was, and she is forbidden.

MISHNA: A widow to a High Priest, a divorcée, or a ḥalutza to a common priest, even if they had only engaged in betrothal and had not yet had intercourse, may not partake of teruma. Since they are forbidden to the men who betrothed them, the betrothal itself disqualifies them from the privileges of priesthood even if they are the daughters of priests. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare them fit to partake of teruma. Since the prohibition is violated through the act of intercourse and not betrothal, the women are disqualified only once they have intercourse.

In a case where these women were widowed or divorced, if it was from marriage, they are disqualified from the priesthood and may not partake of teruma. This is because a woman prohibited from marrying a priest who has intercourse with a priest becomes a ḥalala, and is thereby disqualified from partaking of teruma. However, if they were widowed or divorced from their state of betrothal, they are once again fit to partake of teruma according to all opinions.

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: This is an a fortiori inference: Just as optional betrothal, e.g., in the case of an Israelite who betroths the daughter of a priest, does not entitle her to partake of teruma, as her betrothal to a non-priest disqualifies her from partaking of her father’s teruma, is it not all the more so true in a case of betrothal that constitutes a transgression, as in the cases in the mishna?

They said to him: No, if you say that this is true with regard to an Israelite, whose status cannot entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, as one betrothed to an Israelite may never partake of teruma, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to betrothal to a priest that constitutes a transgression, where his status does entitle her to partake of teruma in a different case, as marriage to a priest entitles a woman to partake of teruma in a case where it is permitted for them to marry?

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: In the case of a priest with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals who betrothed the daughter of an Israelite, which is prohibited by the verse “He that is crushed or maimed shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2), we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Meir on the one hand and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon on the other.

According to Rabbi Meir, who said that a woman who is reserved for intercourse that is invalid, i.e., prohibited, by Torah law may not partake of teruma, this one may also not partake of teruma, as it is prohibited by Torah law for her to have intercourse with a man with crushed testicles. According to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say that a woman who is reserved for intercourse that is invalid by Torah law may partake of teruma until she actually engages in the prohibited act of intercourse,