Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Even ha-Ezer/7
Paragraph 1- If a woman was captured and is three years old or older, she is prohibited from marrying a kohen because she is an uncertain-zonah given that she may have had sexual relations with a gentile. If she has a witness that she was not secluded with a gentile, she is permitted to the priesthood. Even a slave, maidservant or relative is believed for this kind of testimony. Even women are who not believed when it comes to testifying on a woman’s ability to marry, such as a woman’s mother-in-law etc., would be believed with respect to a captive. If two captives each testified on each other they would be believed. Likewise, a minor speaking in passing would be believed. An incident occurred where a son was captured with his mother, and in passing the son said that when he and his mother went to draw water he was paying attention to his mother, and when they want to pick wood he was paying attention to his mother, and the Rabbis allowed her to marry a kohen based on the son’s testimony. There are those who write that a minor is believed even where he intends to testify.
Paragraph 2- A husband is not believed to testify on his captive wife that she was not defiled because a person cannot testify for himself. Likewise, the woman’s maidservant cannot testify for her. The husband’s maidservant, however, can testify for her. The woman’s maidservant would be believed if she testified in passing. A gentile is invalid for testimony on a captive. He would not even be believed in passing. There are those who are lenient where he says it in passing. The same is true in the case of hearsay. Testimony in passing is only effective to be lenient, but not to be stringent.
Paragraph 3- If a kohen testified on a captive that she is valid, he may not marry her because he may have set his her eyes on her. If he paid her ransom and testified on her, he can marry her because had he not known that she was pure, he would not have paid money.
Paragraph 4- If a woman said she was captured and is pure, she would be believed because “the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted,” even if there was a solo witness testifying that she was captured. If there were two witnesses on her capture, however, she would not be believed unless one testified she was pure.
Paragraph 5- If there were to witnesses to the fact that a woman was captured, and a solo witness testifies she was defiled and the other contradicts him and testifies she was pure and did not seclude with a gentile before being redeemed, she would be permitted, even if the witness testifying for her was a slave or maidservant. There are those who say that if she says she was defiled she would be believed against a solo witness saying she was pure, but not against two witnesses.
Paragraph 6- If a woman says she was captured but is pure, and the court permitted her to remarry or she married in the presence of a court and they did not object, and two witnesses on the captivity then come, she can marry in the first instance and would not have her permissible ruling revoked. Even if her captors enter after her and she is now captured by her masters in our presence, she would not lose the right to marry and we would watch her from now until she is redeemed. If two witnesses later come and say she was defiled, even if she was married and even if she had children, she must be divorced. If a solo witness comes it is of no effect.
Paragraph 7- If a woman says she was captured and is pure and has witnesses to that effect, we do not say to wait for the witnesses to arrive. Rather, we permit her immediately. Moreover, even if there is a rumor that there are witnesses with respect to the fact that she was defiled, we would permit her until those witnesses arrive, because we were lenient when it comes to a captive.
Paragraph 8- If a father said his daughter was captured and he redeemed her, he is not believed to prohibit her, whether she is an adult or minor. The same is true if he says she had a forbidden sexual relationship.
Paragraph 9- If a kohen’s wife becomes prohibited to him because she was captured, because the restriction is uncertain they are allowed to live in the same courtyard, so long as there are always children or household members watching them.
Paragraph 10- If a city was under siege and taken captive, and the gentiles surrounded the city on all sides so that not one woman could escape without them seeing her and leaving with their permission, all of the women inside the city are disqualified like they were captives, because they may have had sexual relations with the gentile, other than girls under the age of three. If it was possible for a woman to escape and the captors wouldn’t know or there was a hiding place in that city, it would save all the women from being prohibited, even if the hiding place can only hold one woman. How would it save them? Any woman who says she is pure would be believed, even if she does not have a witness, because since she is able to say I escaped when the city was under siege or I was in the hiding spot and was rescued, she can also say I did not escape and did not hide but I was not defiled. When is this true? In case where it was the army of that country they are living in and they are not afraid. Thus we are concerned they may have had sexual relations. In the case of a occupying army that broke in and spread out, however, the women would not be prohibited because they do not have the time for sexual relations because they are busy taking booty and fleeing. If the women went with them when they returned and were not in their control, even if the Jews pursued them and rescued them, they would be prohibited. There are those who disagree and say that the women are prohibited even with an army of another country.
Paragraph 11- If a woman was captured by a gentile for monetary reasons, she is even permitted to the priesthood. This is only where the Jew owed the money so they would be afraid to touch her lest they lose money. If they captured her in order that they ransom her so they would not lose any money out of pocket, however, she would be prohibited to her kohen husband. If she was taken for capital punishment reasons, she would be prohibited to the priesthood. Thus, if her husband was a kohen, she would be prohibited to him. There are those who say that where she was taken for capital punishment reasons, she would even be prohibited to her yisrael husband because we are concerned she willingly agreed to have sexual relations in order that they not kill her. This is only where she was captured for her own crime and there is a concern of death. Where they were captured for their husbands’ crime, however, they would not be prohibited unless the husband received a death verdict. There are those who say that in any case where the woman thinks she will survive from a ransom and return, she would not be prohibited to her yisrael husband because she will not consent, even though she was taken captive for her own crime. In times of hostility and a lot of murder, the rabbis permitted such a woman to her yisrael husband, in accordance with the first opinion. If she was captured by gentiles but Jews come and go next to where she is, she is permitted to her husband. If a Jew and his wife became apostates and then returned, his wife is permitted to him and we are not concerned she committed adultery while married to him, even if her husband was a kohen. If only the wife became an apostate, she would even be prohibited to her yisrael husband unless she has a solo witness stating she did not commit adultery, just like the rules of a captive. There are those who are lenient and say we are not concerned she may have committed adultery. In a time of persecution where they were forced to become apostates and they returned was the compulsion had passed, we can be lenient and permit the woman to remain married, even if her husband is a kohen. If a woman vowed to become an apostate but did not become one yet and then repented, she is permitted to her husband. When is this true? Where the Jews have the upper hand on the gentiles and they have a fear of the Jews. In a place where the gentiles have the upper hand, however, even in a case where a woman is taken captive for a monetary debt, once she enters the gentile’s domain, she is prohibited unless she has a solo witness testifying for her, as in the case of a captive. This all applies where a woman was captured by gentiles and given over to them. If she secluded with them, however, even if she owes them, we would not prohibit her on the basis of seclusion, notwithstanding the fact that she acted inappropriately. Even if a rumor emerged that she had an affair, we are not concerned for any rumor that emerges following marriage with respect to prohibiting a woman to her husband. If she secluded with the intent to commit adultery, however, one should be stringent.
Paragraph 12- What is a challalah? Someone who is born of out of a prohibited priesthood relationship. For example, if a standard kohen has sexual relations with a zonah or divorcee, or a kohen gadol has a sexual relationship with a widow or marries a non-virgin and has a sexual relationship with her, the women become challalos for all eternity. If one of these woman gave birth to a child, regardless of whether the father was this person that made her a challalah or someone else, the child will be a challal, regardless of whether the child was male or female. The woman herself becomes a challalah as soon as the man penetrates her, whether the relationship was accidental, intentional, rape or consensual, so long as the kohen was nine years old or above and the woman was three years old or above. In the case of a kohen who marries a woman from a prohibited priesthood relationship, and the woman becomes widowed from erusin, however, she would not become a challalah. If she was widowed from nisuin, however, even if she did not have a sexual relationship, she becomes a challalah, because every woman is presumed to have had a sexual relationship after nisuin, even if her virginity is intact.
Paragraph 13- The kohen himself who violated the prohibition and had sexual relations with someone prohibited to a kohen would not become a challal.
Paragraph 14- If a kohen has a sexual relationship with any prohibited relationship or a woman awaiting yibum, and she became pregnant from their first encounter, the child would not be a challal. He will, however, have made the woman a zonah and if he or another kohen has subsequent sexual relations with her, the child would be a challal. If a kohen has sexual relations with a convert or freed slave, however, the child would be a challal, even from the first encounter.
Paragraph 15- If a kohen has sexual relations with a nidah, the child is valid and is not a challal.
Paragraph 16- If a challal marries a valid woman, any child they have would be a challal. The same applies to all male descendants of all future generations. If she gave birth to a female, the daughter would be prohibited to the priesthood. If the daughter married a yisrael and gave birth to a daughter, however, that daughter would be permitted to the priesthood because in a case where a yisrael marries a challalah the child is valid.
Paragraph 17- If a gentile or slave has sexual relations with a Jewish girl, and she gives birth to a daughter, that daughter is prohibited to the priesthood.
Paragraph 18- If a kohen marries a pregnant divorcee, regardless of whether the child is his or another’s, and the woman gives birth after she becomes a challalah, the child is valid because it was not conceived from sinful seed.
Paragraph 19- If a kohen has sexual relations with a woman who performed chalitza, she and her children would be rabbinical challalim. If a kohen has sexual relations with a “shniya”, however, she and her children are valid.
Paragraph 20- If a kohen has sexual relations with an uncertain-zonah or uncertain-divorcee or uncertain-chalutza, the woman would be an uncertain-challalah, and her child would be an uncertain-challal. We would place stringencies of the priesthood and the stringencies of a yisrael on the child. He cannot eat terumah nor defile himself via a dead body. He must marry a woman that is fit for the priesthood. If he ate terumah, defiled himself or married a divorcee we would give him mardus lashes. The same is true in the case of a rabbinical challal. In the case of a certain biblical challal, however, the child is like a non-kohen and may marry a divorcee and defile himself with a corpse, because the verse states, “say to the kohanim, sons of Aharon,” meaning even if they are sons of Aharon they must be in the state of priesthood.
Paragraph 21- If a convert married a female convert and gave birth to a daughter, she may not marry a kohen in the first instance. The same applies even to her daughter’s daughter for all future generations, even if the conception and birth were both while they were Jewish. If she married a kohen, he does not have to divorce her. If one side is a Jew, such as where a convert married a Jewish girl or a Jewish male married a female convert, the daughter is permitted to a kohen in the first instance. The same is true where a freed slave married a Jewish girl or a Jewish boy married a freed slave.
Paragraph 22- A female kohen is permitted to marry a challal, convert and freed slave, because there is no commandment for a valid woman not to marry someone disqualified for the priesthood, as the verse states, “the sons of Aharon,” which excludes the daughters of Aharon.
Paragraph 23- If an uncertain-challal or certain-challal assimilated with a family, and likewise if an uncertain-illegitimate or certain-illegitimate assimilated, the law was discussed in Siman 2.