Emor: Chizkuni's Version of Rashi Defining "Harlot"

In the sidra of Emor, Vayikra 21:7 reads:

אִשָּׁ֨ה זֹנָ֤ה וַחֲלָלָה֙ לֹ֣א יִקָּ֔חוּ וְאִשָּׁ֛ה גְּרוּשָׁ֥ה מֵאִישָׁ֖הּ לֹ֣א יִקָּ֑חוּ כִּֽי־קָדֹ֥שׁ ה֖וּא לֵאלֹהָֽיו׃

They shall not take [into their household as their wife] a woman defiled by harlotry, nor shall they take one divorced from her husband. For they are holy to their God

That is, a kohen should not marry a zonah. What is that? Rashi elaborates:

זנה. שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה בְעִילַת יִשְׂרָאֵל הָאָסוּר לָהּ, כְּגוֹן חַיָּבֵי כָּרֵתוֹת אוֹ נָתִין אוֹ מַמְזֵר (ספרא; יבמות ס"א):

זנה is a woman who had sexual intercourse with an Israelite who is forbidden to her as a husband, for instance, with those whom she may not marry under the penalty of excision, or a Gibeonite or a ממזר (that is, a man born from the union of a couple who are liable to excision for such a union) (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1 7; Yevamot 61b).

This language of בְעִילַת יִשְׂרָאֵל in particular seems a bit strange, but the הָאָסוּר לָהּ, כְּגוֹן clarifies.

However, some manuscripts just have the briefer version. For instance, here is Munich 5, from the year 1233:

Looking at the source in the Sifra, we see a three-way dispute. Though “cf.” above is Latin conferatur, meaning to compare / contrast with what is written. The Sifra reads:

[ז] "אשה זונה" – ר' יהודה אומר זו איילונית. וחכמים אומרים אין "זונה" אלא גיורת ומשוחררת ושנבעלה בעילת זנות. ר' אליעזר אומר פנוי הבא על הפנויה שלא לשם אישות.

7) (Vayikra 21:7) ("A woman who is a zonah and a challalah they shall not take, and a woman divorced from her husband they shall not take; for he is holy to his G d.") "a woman who is a zonah": R. Yehudah says: This is an aylonith (a barren woman [i.e., the term "zonah" also includes an aylonith]). And the sages say: This is a proselytess or a freed maidservant or one whose cohabitation was one of znuth (i.e., illicit). R. Eliezer says: Also (included) is cohabitation of a single man with a single woman not for the sake of marriage.

[ח] "וחללה" – איזו היא חללה? זו שנולדה מאחד מכל הפסולים.

8) "and a challalah" What is a challalah? A woman that was born of a marriage forbidden (to the priesthood).

See the bolded position. I don’t like the “also” in the translation, but conceptually, sure, Rabbi Eliezer could be including this in addition to more. The point is that if you asked me which best matches a simple beilat Yisrael, that would be Rabbi Eliezer.

Some (I’m thinking Mekorei Rashi) point out that if you look at Yevamot 61, the Mishna writes:

מַתְנִי׳ כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט לֹא יִשָּׂא אַיְלוֹנִית, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים לֹא יִשָּׂא אַיְלוֹנִית, שֶׁהִיא זוֹנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין זוֹנָה אֶלָּא גִּיּוֹרֶת וּמְשׁוּחְרֶרֶת וְשֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה בְּעִילַת זְנוּת.

MISHNA: A common priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children, unless he already has a wife and children. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife and children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the zona about whom it is stated in the Torah that a priest may not marry her. Intercourse with her is considered a licentious act because she is incapable of bearing children. And the Rabbis say: The only women in the category of zona, who are therefore forbidden to a priest, are a female convert, a freed maidservant, and any woman who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with a man she is prohibited from marrying.

with Rabbi Eliezer not mentioned in the Mishna, and Rashi explaining the position of the chachamim as ושנבעלה בעילת זנות - כגון ישראלית הנבעלת לפסול לה. In Yevamot, the position was ascribed in Sifra to Rabbi Eliezer seems to instead be that of Rabbi Eleazar¹. — רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: פָּנוּי הַבָּא עַל הַפְּנוּיָה שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִישׁוּת — עֲשָׂאָהּ זוֹנָה.

OK. Note that Rashi in Yevamot’s explanation of Chachamim would match the lengthier version of Rashi on Torah, mentioning כגון ישראלית הנבעלת לפסול לה. However, the the short version does not even appear in the Mishnah, and would accord with Rabbi Eliezer / really Rabbi Eleazar.

This brings us to Chizkuni who, besides a commentator in his own right, is a very early Rishonic supercommentator of Rashi. He writes:

The Hebrew text of Chizkuni points out this conundrum above. Namely, he first cites the short Rashi text in full, and understands it as corresponding to this Rabbi Eleazar position, of simply an unmarried woman sleeping with an Israelite man. Thus, Chizkuni asks “but why should she become invalid from this to a common kohen? For the only Tanna we find who maintains an unmarried man with an unmarried woman renders her a zonah is Rabbi Eliezer (or Eleazar); and the halacha is not like him, and a zonah is only one who sleeps with a pasul, as Rashi himself writes in Elu Naarot.”

The English text in the image above is Eliyahu Munk’s translation, but he messed it up at the very start. He renders the quote from Rashi as “a woman who had engaged in a sexual relationship with a partner forbidden to Israelites;” But in this, he seems to be influenced by our printed version of Rashi which follows niv’elet leYisrael with הָאָסוּר לָהּ. Thus, a partner forbidden to Israelites. This makes no sense, since Chizkuni’s whole point is that we aren’t looking for one explicitly forbidden to her as a pasul, like a Giveonite or a mamzer. It should just be “who had engaged in a sexual relationship with an (unmarried) Israelite”.

The way Eliyahu Munk renders Rashi makes the entire Chizkuni analysis incomprehensible, and someone looking at Rashi as quoted everywhere would find no help, persisting in this mistaken reading.

Note that it might not be mistaken. Perhaps the expanded Rashi is original (unlikely, I think), or perhaps the expanded Rashi was a reaction to objections of Chizkuni and others and perhaps even reflects Rashi’s actual intent. Regardless, for the sake of understanding Chizkuni, we need to present Rashi as he appeared to / was understood by Chizkuni himself, and even better, note the divergent Rashi texts.

1. with Rabbi Eliezer also appearing, taking a completely different definition of zonah, namely eshet ish who strayed.