MISHNAH: There exist women¹ permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs, permitted to their levirs but forbidden to their husbands, permitted to both of them, or forbidden to both. The following are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs: If a simple priest was betrothed² to a widow and has a brother who is High Priest, or a qualified man married a qualified woman and has a disqualified brother³[priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother., or an Israel married an Israelite woman and has a bastard brother, or a bastard married a bastard woman and has an Israel brother, [the women] are permitted to their husbands and forbidden for their levirs.

footnotes: ¹ Women who are forbidden but not by an incest prohibition whose marriages are nevertheless valid, cf. Halakhah 2:3. ² In the Babli: is married to. ³ In the Babli: If a desecrated

HALAKHAH: “There exist women permitted to their husbands,” etc. Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava asked before Rebbi Jonah: Why “married”? Even “betrothed”! Why a widow? even a virgin⁴ is a version modified according to the discussion here. The questions refer to the Cohen who has a brother who is High Priest. A widow is forbidden to the High Priest even if she is not a sister-in-law. The same questions are asked in the Babli, 84a.! Are these all? She and her co-wife⁵ ed. Ḥ. Albeck, p. 89, Note עה.. I also have others: The co-wife of one suspected of adultery is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir⁶5:11–31 (Sifry Num. 8). If the husband dies before he can bring his suspected wife to the Temple, she cannot be married in levirate and neither can her co-wife but the suspicion of adultery of one wife has no bearing on the status of the co-wife in the marriage.. If his brother had slept with the sister of one who had performed ḥalîṣah with him, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir⁷ with brother B. If A dies childless, his widow is forbidden to B. However, this prohibition is purely rabbinical and its place should be in the discussion of Mishnah 5.. If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir⁸. This supports Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi Jonah said, the groupings of Rebbi are not exhaustive⁹.

footnotes: ⁴ The questions show that the Mishnah before the Amoraim was the Babylonian version and that the Mishnah in the Yerushalmi ms. and editio princeps ⁵ He holds that with a woman also the co-wife is forbidden; cf. Mishnah 2:3 and the commentary of Meïri, Bet Habeḥira, Yebamot, ⁶ A woman formally charged by her husband as a possible adulteress is forbidden to her husband until she undergoes the ordeal described in Num. ⁷ Brother A had married the sister of a woman who had performed ḥalîṣah ⁸ While a qualified woman is not forbidden to marry a desecrated or otherwise disqualified man (see the next paragraph) and could have married the disqualified brother in a first marriage, she cannot be married in levirate since her child would be barred from the priesthood and could not come “in place of the deceased” who was a priest. The widow therefore is forbidden to the disqualified brother by the incest prohibition of the sister-in-law.The mention of this sentence here is not a scribal error as assumed by the commentaries. ⁹ Accepted by the Babli, 84b.

“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say in the name of Rav that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified men against qualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified women but it is only disqualified women against qualified women¹⁰. “If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]¹¹? So is the Mishnah: If a desecrated [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother¹². Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state¹³ 1(12). The verse Lev. 21:7, “A promiscuous and a desecrated woman they should not take and a woman divorced from her husband they should not take…” The two prohibitions are interpreted as one for the man, not to take a disabled wife, and one for the woman, not to seduce a man into a forbidden marriage.: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men¹⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁰ This paragraph is in very bad shape. It seems that it should be corrected as follows: ¹¹ Priestly women are not enjoined to stay in their priestly status. The Babli concurs, 84b, also in the name of Rav. ¹² Since the wife is disabled for the priesthood by her marriage to the desecrated man, she is forbidden to the brother. ¹³ Babli 84b, Sifra Emor Pereq ¹⁴ The clause “nor qualified women against disqualified men” is shown to be false.

MISHNAH: These are permitted to their levirs and forbidden to their husbands: If a High Priest was betrothed to a widow and has a brother who is a simple priest, or qualified [priest] married a disqualified woman and has a disqualified brother, or an Israel married a bastard woman and has a bastard brother, or a bastard who married an Israel woman and has an Israel brother; [the women] are permitted to their levirs and forbidden to their husbands.

HALAKHAH: “The following are permitted to their husbands,¹⁵” etc. He only said “betrothed¹⁶”, but if he copulated with her, the copulation disqualifies her. That is what we stated: “Forbidden to both of them.”

footnotes: ¹⁵ A quote from Mishnah 2, irrelevant for the sequel. ¹⁶ In Mishnah 3, the mention of betrothal is essential; in Mishnah 4 the mention of marriage. In Mishnah 2, either betrothal or marriage may be mentioned for the High Priest’s brother.

Are these all? There are others: If somebody takes back a woman he divorced after she had been married [to another man], she is forbidden to the husband¹⁷ 24:4. but permitted to the levir. If he slept with the sister of a woman with whom he had performed ḥalîṣah, she is forbidden to the husband¹⁸ but permitted to the levir. If a man with injured testicles married a qualified woman, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir. This supports Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi Jonah said, the groupings of Rebbi are not exhaustive⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁷ Deut. ¹⁸ A purely rabbinical prohibition as sister of a quasi-wife; cf. Halakhah4:7. ⁹ Accepted by the Babli, 84b.

MISHNAH: Forbidden to both of them: If a High Priest married a widow and has a brother who is a High Priest or a simple priest, or a qualified [priest] married a disqualified woman and has a qualified brother, or an Israel married a bastard woman and has an Israel brother, or a bastard married an Israel woman and has a bastard brother; these [women] are forbidden to both of them and all other women are permitted to their husbands and their levirs.

HALAKHAH: Are these all¹⁹? There are others: A woman suspected of adultery⁶5:11–31 (Sifry Num. 8). If the husband dies before he can bring his suspected wife to the Temple, she cannot be married in levirate and neither can her co-wife but the suspicion of adultery of one wife has no bearing on the status of the co-wife in the marriage. is forbidden to both of them. The widow after ḥalîṣah²⁰ she is forbidden to all levirs. If nevertheless one of the levirs marries her, she remains forbidden to all of them. is forbidden to both of them. If a man with injured testicles married a qualified woman and has a brother with injured testicles, she is forbidden to both of them. This supports Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi Jonah said, the groupings of Rebbi are not exhaustive⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁹ This refers to Mishnah 4. ⁶ A woman formally charged by her husband as a possible adulteress is forbidden to her husband until she undergoes the ordeal described in Num. ²⁰ If a woman was freed by ḥalîṣah ⁹ Accepted by the Babli, 84b.

MISHNAH: Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim²¹. If she is secondarily prohibited to the husband but not to the levir, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir²². Secondarily prohibited to the levir but not to the husband, she is forbidden to the levir but permitted to the husband. Secondarily prohibited to both of them, she is forbidden to both of them. She may claim neither Ketubah²³ nor usufruct²⁴ nor upkeep nor wear²⁵ but the child is qualified²⁶ and one forces him to divorce her²⁷. A widow married to the High Priest, a divorcee of one that performed ḥalîṣah married to a simple priest, a female bastard or a Gibeoness married to an Israel, and Israel woman married to a Gibeonite or a bastard have a claim of Ketubah²⁸.

footnotes: ²¹ Cf. Mishnah 2:4. ²² Since the first marriage was legitimate by biblical standards the levirate also will be legitimate by biblical standards. ²³ Cf. Chapter 4, Note 84. ²⁴ She cannot reclaim the usufruct the husband had from her dowry during the marriage. ²⁵ If part of the dowry was in the form of vessels or clothing, she cannot claim the diminution in value caused by wear during the marriage. ²⁶ Since the marriage is completely legitimate by biblical standards, the child is qualified even for the office of High Priest. ²⁷ The rabbinic court if it has the power to do so. All these rules are made to dissuade women to consent to such a marriage which otherwise they would have no incentive to refuse since the children are qualified. ²⁸ Since in this case the children are disqualified, the woman has every incentive not to agree to such a marriage.

HALAKHAH: “Secondary prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim,” etc. “If she is secondarily, rabbinically, prohibited to the husband but not to the levir, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir.” Does she have Ketubah from the levir? Since she is permitted to him, she has Ketubah, or because the Ketubah is a lien on the estate of her first husband and she was forbidden to him, does she have no Ketubah²⁹; in this case, the court will actively prohibit a claim of Ketubah.?

footnotes: ²⁹ The question is not answered; in the absence of a rule, no claim of the woman married in levirate can be enforced in court. The Babli, 85a, decides that she has no Ketubah

“If she is secondarily prohibited to the levir but not to the husband, she is forbidden to the levir but permitted to the husband.” Does she have Ketubah from the levir? Since she is forbidden to him, she does not have Ketubah, or because the Ketubah is a lien on the estate of her first husband and she was permitted to him, does she have Ketubah³⁰ is not enforceable in court.?

footnotes: ³⁰ The question is not treated in the Babli. Her claim of Ketubah

³¹ 11:7.“No usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, that he has from her only the usufruct³². Rebbi Yose the Sidonian³³ stated before Rebbi Jeremiah, in disgreement with Rebbi Jeremiah³⁴: “He has the right to what she finds and earns, and to dissolve her vows.” What means “no usufruct”? That she cannot reclaim from him the usufruct he had [from her property].

footnotes: ³¹ From here to the end of the Halakhah, this is Halakhah Ketubot ³² This is the only right he has as a husband; he has no right to what she finds or earns, nor may he dissolve any of her vows. ³³ An Amora of the fourth generation; he appears in the Babli as Rav Yosef Ṣidonî. ³⁴ The Tosephta, 2:4, states the opposite: “He has no right to what she finds and earns, and no right to dissolve her vows.”

Rebbi Yose said: All the time Rebbi Hila told me, state in your baraita that he inherits from her and defiles himself for her³⁵. We have also stated so: A man defiles himself for his qualified wife but does not become defiled for his disqualified wife³⁶. 21:1–3). The secondarily prohibited is a qualified wife by biblical standards; he must bury her. A divorcee for a Cohen is disqualified; he may not become impure for her..

footnotes: ³⁵ Tosephta 2:4. ³⁶ A Cohen is required to become impure for the burial of his close relatives (Lev

Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Mana: May the slaves of a secondarily forbidden [wife]³⁷ eat heave? He said to him, be quiet, it is better for you. She eats³⁸ but her slaves do not eat³⁹ 6:20, commentary of Radbaz.).

footnotes: ³⁷ The mortmain slaves of the wife of a Cohen. ³⁸ Her marriage is legitimate by biblical standards. ³⁹ Since the husband has no obligation to feed her and her slaves, the acquisition is not complete and the slaves cannot eat from what the Cohen does not have to give them (Maimonides, Hilkhot Terumah

There, we have stated⁴⁰ 9:8.: “A forced bill of divorce is valid in Israel⁴¹; it is invalid from Gentiles.⁴²” Samuel said, it is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood⁴³. And Samuel said, publicize in your towns: It is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood. Samuel said, one does not force, only disqualify⁴⁴. Samuel said, one does not force except for example a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one freed by ḥalîṣah for a simple priest. But did we not state: “Secondarily forbidden”? Did he not say “for example”⁴⁵? But did we not state: “A person who by a vow forbids his wife to have any usufruct from him, up to 30 days he shall appoint a caretaker; after 30 days he shall divorce her and pay Ketubah”! We heard that he shall divorce; did we hear that one forces him⁴⁶?

footnotes: ⁴⁰ Mishnah Giṭṭin ⁴¹ If a rabbinic court forces the husband to divorce his wife, the divorce is valid. ⁴² If the wife appeals to the Gentile court or ruler to force a divorce from her husband, the divorce document is invalid (except, as stated in the Mishnah, if the Gentile court or ruler forces the husband to obey the directives of the rabbinic court.) ⁴³ The woman who uses the instruments of the Gentile government to force a divorce is not divorced but disqualified for the priesthood. ⁴⁴ In the absence of parallel sources, it is difficult to ascertain the exact text and its meaning. ⁴⁵ He approves of judicial intervention in the case of any sinful marriage, whether by biblical or rabbinic standards. ⁴⁶ In this case, only moral pressure is acceptable; one may not jail the recalcitrant husband until he agrees to a divorce.

What is the difference between these and those⁴⁷ at the time of divorce and the secondarily prohibited who do not.? Since these are words of the Torah and the words of the Torah do not need support, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, because they are words of the Sopherim and the words of the Sopherim need support, therefore they do not have Ketubah. Some want to say since these are punished together with the child, they did not fine them, therefore they have Ketubah. Those, since they are not punished together with the child, they fined them, therefore they do not have Ketubah⁴⁸ What is the difference between them? He who remarried his divorced wife after she had remarried⁴⁹. For him who says since these are words of the Torah, and this case is a word of the Torah, therefore she has Ketubah. For those who want to say since these are punished together with the child, this one, since neither she nor the child is punished, therefore, she has no Ketubah.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ Between the disqualified women married to priests who receive Ketubah ⁴⁸ A more detailed discussion is in Tosephta 2:4/Babli 85b. Both these sources stress that a disqualified woman has no reason to seek out a Cohen since her child will be desecrated whereas a secondarily forbidden (who might be permitted to him by another sect) might want to be married by a relative. ⁴⁹ This case is not discussed in the parallel sources.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila say that they differ about upkeep⁵⁰. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may demand upkeep⁵¹. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, one says to [him]⁵² as לו., divorce her! And you say so? They wanted to say so, they differ about the conditions attached to a Ketubah⁵³ Chapter 4).. Everybody agrees that she cannot claim support since they even punished her heirs, so much more herself. But for him who says that they differ about upkeep it follows that they do not differ about the conditions attached to a Ketubah. They fined her but not her heirs.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ In the case of an irregular marriage of a Cohen. ⁵¹ From her husband. ⁵² Reading לה in the ms. and the ediio princeps ⁵³ The general framework of the obligations of a husband towards his wife and her heirs which can be enforced even if not written in the document (Mishnah Ketubot

MISHNAH: An Israel woman betrothed to a Cohen, or pregnant from a Cohen⁵⁴, or waiting for her Cohen levir, and also a Cohen woman betrothed to an Israel may not eat heave. An Israel woman betrothed to a Levite, or pregnant from a Levite, or waiting for her Levite levir, and also a Levite woman betrothed to an Israel may not eat tithe. A Levite woman betrothed to a Cohen, or pregnant from a Cohen, or waiting for her Cohen levir, and also a Levite woman betrothed to a Cohen may not eat either heave or tithe.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ A pregnant widow, cf. Mishnah 7:3. All cases will be explained in the Halakhah.

HALAKHAH: “An Israel woman betrothed to a Cohen.” “Any pure person in your house may eat it,⁵⁶. 18:11, speaking of heave. While she was acquired by her husband (cf. Chapter 1, Note 63), she is not in his house before the actual marriage. She has a claim if the husband drags his feet for the marriage, cf. Mishnah Ketubot 5:2–3.” but she is not in his house. “From a Cohen”, for the one born in his house; this one is not born in his house⁵⁷. 22:11: “Any born in his house, they should eat from his food.” The unborn does not eat.. “The one waiting for her Cohen levir,” “any pure person in your house may eat it,” but she is not in his house. “And also a Cohen woman betrothed to an Israel,” “a daughter of a Cohen when she will belong to an outside man⁵⁸. 22:12: “she may not eat from the holy heaves.”.” One⁵⁹ pregnant from an Israel or waiting for an Israel levir: “When she returns to her father’s house⁶⁰. 22:12: “she may eat from her father’s food.” The same argument in the Babli, 87a. A longer discussion in Sifra Emor Pereq 6(1),” that excludes the one waiting for her levir, “as in her youth⁵⁹,” that excludes the pregnant one.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Num ⁵⁷ This refers to the pregnant widow. The reason given is a misquote from Lev ⁵⁸ Lev ⁵⁹ Speaking of the parallel cases not mentioned in the Mishnah of a Cohen’s daughter betrothed to, pregnant from, or waiting for a levir of, an Israel. ⁶⁰ Lev ⁵⁹ Speaking of the parallel cases not mentioned in the Mishnah of a Cohen’s daughter betrothed to, pregnant from, or waiting for a levir of, an Israel.

“An Israel woman betrothed to a Levite,” “you and your house⁶¹. 18:31.” but she is not in his house. “Pregnant from a Levite,” “born in the house,” this one is not born in his house⁵⁷. 22:11: “Any born in his house, they should eat from his food.” The unborn does not eat.. Rebbi Yose said, is not “born in the house” written only for a Cohen? As you say there, whoever is born lets eat, whoever is not born does not let eat; here also whoever is born lets eat, whoever is not born does not let eat⁶². “Waiting for her Levite levir,” “you and your house,” but he is not in her house. “And also a Levite woman”: “And a daughter of a Cohen when she will belong to an outside man⁵⁸. 22:12: “she may not eat from the holy heaves.”.” Is there not written “daughter of a Cohen”? Rebbi Yose said “daughter”, whether she is a Cohen’s or a Levi’s⁶³ a daughter” and not simply “a daughter”, following R. Aqiba one has to add another category of daughters who do not eat their part of agricultural produce.. The daughter of a Cohen who was married to an Israel may return and eat, the daughter of an Israel who was married to a Cohen may return and not eat. One⁶⁴ pregnant from an Israel or waiting for an Israel levir: “When she returns to her father’s house,” that excludes the one waiting for her levir, “as in her youth,” that excludes the pregnant one.

footnotes: ⁶¹ Num ⁵⁷ This refers to the pregnant widow. The reason given is a misquote from Lev ⁶² All rules for the Levites are (rabbinically) derived from those of the Cohen; they are not biblical. ⁵⁸ Lev ⁶³ This argument is a little less cryptic in the Babli, 68b, in the name of R. Abba: Since it is written “and ⁶⁴ Again the case of the Levite is assimilated into that of the Cohen.

“A Levitic woman betrothed to a Cohen.” “Any pure person in your house may eat it,⁵⁶. 18:11, speaking of heave. While she was acquired by her husband (cf. Chapter 1, Note 63), she is not in his house before the actual marriage. She has a claim if the husband drags his feet for the marriage, cf. Mishnah Ketubot 5:2–3.” but he is not in her house. “From a Cohen”, for the one born in his house; this one is not born in his house⁵⁷. 22:11: “Any born in his house, they should eat from his food.” The unborn does not eat.. “The one waiting for her Cohen levir,” “any pure person in your house may eat it,” but she is not in his house. ⁶⁵ 5:9, Notes 176–177.“Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [betrothed] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim⁶⁶.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Num ⁵⁷ This refers to the pregnant widow. The reason given is a misquote from Lev ⁶⁵ This text is copied from Ma‘aser Sheni ⁶⁶ This last sentence is inappropriate here; it refers to the position of R. Joḥanan that the daughter of a Cohen betrothed to a Levite may eat tithe. The discussion in the Babli, 86a/b, remains inconclusive.

MISHNAH: An Israel woman married to a Cohen shall eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she shall eat heave. If [then] she married a Levite, she shall eat tithe. If he died but she had a son from him, she shall eat tithe. If [then] she marries an Israel, she may eat neither heave nor tithe.

MISHNAH: If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat neither heave nor tithe. If her son from the Israel died, she may eat tithe⁶⁷. From the Levite, she may eat heave. If her son from the Cohen died, she may eat neither heave nor tithe.

footnotes: ⁶⁷ Not only her child, but all of her child’s children. As long as any descendant of the husband is alive, she belongs to the husband’s family. This holds for all these cases. This Mishnah presumes that a Cohen, being also a Levite, is free to eat tithe, as are all members of his household.

MISHNAH: A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel may not eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may not eat heave. If [then] she married a Levite, she may eat tithe. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat tithe. If [then] she married a Cohen, she may eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat heave. If her son from the Cohen died, she may eat tithe; from the Levite, she may not eat tithe. If her son from the Israel died, she returns to her father’s house and for this case it was said: “She returns to her father’s house as in her youth⁶⁸. 22:13. “If the daughter of a Cohen becomes a widow or divorcee without issue, she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s food, but no outsider may eat of it.”.”

footnotes: ⁶⁸ Lev

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat⁶⁹? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter⁷⁰. 22:13.”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,⁷¹. 137:8, speaking of Edom.” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph⁷². 22:12, a daughter who does not eat, Lev. 22:13 one who does eat.. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat⁷³. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg⁷⁴. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,⁷⁵. 22:13. “If the daughter of a Cohen becomes a widow or divorcee without issue, she returns to her father’s house as in her youth; she shall eat of her father’s food.” As usual, the prefix מ is used as partitive. The same argument (anonymous) in Sifra Emor Pereq 6(1), Babli 87a.” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ As long as the Cohen’s son is alive she should be able to eat heave since for him she remains in the Cohen’s family after her husband’s death. ⁷⁰ Lev ⁷¹ Ps ⁷² Lev ⁷³ A Cohen’s daughter married to a person disqualified for priesthood remains permanently disabled. ⁷⁴ Cf. Chapter 8, Note 228. ⁷⁵ Lev