This passage from the Sifra, the halakhic Midrash on Leviticus, is typical of the complex logical argumentation of this work. The Sifra makes a sustained argument that Scriptural sources are necessary for the derivation of halakhah because logical deduction alone is always open to refutation. In this passage, the Sifra explains the application of the principle that wives of priests may eat of the priestly rations while wives of Israelites may not.

7 If a priest’s daughter is married to a man who is an outsider [she may not eat of the sacred (priestly) rations] (Lev. 22:12); I know that this applies if she has married a person of irreparably tainted genealogy [mamzer]. 222 How do I know that it applies even if she married a Levite or an Israelite? Scripture says, “to an outsider.” 223 How do I know that if a widow is married to a high priest, or a divorcee or a woman who has performed the rite of removing the shoe 224 is married to an ordinary priest, they may not eat of the priestly rations? 225 Scripture says, “to a man,” to a man [husband] who bestows upon her the right to eat priestly rations. 226

8 But is that not a matter of logic? 227 If in the case of the marriage of the daughter of a priest to an Israelite, with whom sexual relations do not invalidate her later on from returning to the priestly caste should her husband die and she have no children, yet having had sexual relations with him does invalidate her from eating priestly rations, then a high priest, or a divorcee or a woman who has performed the rite of removing the shoe who is married to an ordinary priest, with whom having had sexual relations invalidates her from ever entering the priestly caste again, 228 is it not logical that it should invalidate her from eating priestly rations? No! 229 If you have said this regarding an Israelite who does not bestow on any woman the right to eat priestly rations, will you say the same of the high priest or the ordinary priest who certainly does bestow on other women the right to eat priestly rations? 230

Since 231 he bestows the right on other women to eat priestly rations, sexual relations with him should not invalidate this woman from eating priestly rations. Accordingly, Scripture states, “to a man,” a man who bestows upon her the right of eating priestly rations. 232

9 “She may not eat of the sacred (priestly) rations.” She may not eat priestly rations, but she may bestow that right on her mother.

10 How so? An Israelite woman who married a priest 233 and gave birth to a daughter with him, and then the daughter went and married an Israelite, 234 —I might have said that just as she does not have the right to eat priestly rations, so her mother may not eat priestly rations. Scripture says, “she may not eat of the sacred (priestly) rations”—while she may not eat priestly rations, her mother may eat priestly rations. 235

221. Trans. L. H. Schiffman.

222. Amamzeris the descendant of an adulterous or incestuous marriage and is forbidden to marry a priest, Levite, or tree Israelite.

223. Meaning anyone who is not a priest.

224. Cf. Deut. 25-5-10. This rite was performed in a case of refusal to perform levirate marriage.

225. Because such a marriage violates the law of the Torah.

226. A priest who marries her in violation of the law does not have that right.

227. If so, then why do we need a verse to explain the law?

228. She may never marry a priest.

229. This law cannot be derived from logic.

230. You may not derive anything regarding the law of priests by deduction from that of ordinary Israelites. Hence, we need a Scriptural verse to tell us that a woman married to a priest whom she is forbidden to marry may not eat of the priestly rations.

231. The text now sets out what you might think if not for the biblical command of Lev. 22-12.

233. And so is permitted to eat priestly rations.

234. And so she may no longer eat priestly rations since she has left her father’s house. 

235. Even though her daughter has married, she may still eat priestly rations by right of her marriage to a
priest.