Sefer HaChinuch ספר החינוך

That a priest not marry a profaned woman (challalah): That a priest — whether a high [priest] or a common [one] — not marry a profaned woman, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:7), “A woman who is licentious or profaned they shall not take.” And profaned is called one who was born from those disqualified from the priesthood — such as the daughter of a widow from the high priest or the daughter of a divorcee from a common priest — or was profaned by the intercourse of one of those disqualified to the priesthood.

That which I wrote about the prohibition of the licentious woman previous to this is from the roots of the commandment.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 78a) that there is no liability for lashes until he has intercourse. But [if] he married her and did not have intercourse, he is not lashed — as there is no liability for lashes without intercourse. And [both] he and her are lashed; and that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 84b), “Fitting women are not [prohibited] from marrying disqualified men,” is not from this matter at all — and we will explain the thing below on this page. As this one who has had intercourse with someone to whom she is forbidden, is also included in the obligation — and like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said that there is no difference between a woman and a man regarding all of the punishments of the Torah, except for the designated maidservant, [about] which I have written above in the Order of Vayikra in the commandment of a definite guilt-offering (Sefer HaChinukh 129).

And likewise from the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sotah 23a) that the body of the priest himself who transgresses the sin — who has intercourse with the profaned woman — is not profaned with this, even though his seed is profaned. And from when he inserts himself in her — whether she had intercourse through rape or through inadvertence, and whether in her [conventional] way or not in her way — she becomes profaned; and that is when the priest was nine years and a day and above, and she was three years and a day [old] and above — she is [then] profaned. And that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 56b) that she is not made a profaned woman except with intercourse, but with designation alone she is not rendered profane. However, with [actual] marriage, she is made a profaned woman even if she did not have intercourse; because every married woman is assumed to have had intercourse, even if she is found to be a virgin. And that which they said (Yevamot 60a) that a priest who has intercourse with a menstruant — even if it is [punishable] with excision — does not make her profane; as the matter of profanation is only with a prohibition that is specific to the priests, such as a widow, a divorcee, a profaned woman, a licentious woman or one who has had intercourse with one of those disqualified to the priesthood, such as the profaned priests. And that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 85a) that there are profaned priests from the words of the [Rabbis]. How is this? A priest that had intercourse with a released woman (chalutsah), who is forbidden to a priest rabbinically, and [so] she is a profaned woman rabbinically and her seed are profaned priests rabbinically. But [regarding] a priest that has intercourse with one of the secondary [prohibitions], his seed from her are not profaned priests — not even rabbinically — as it is a prohibition that is the same for everyone and is not specific to the priests, and as we wrote above.

A priest that has intercourse with a possibly licentious woman, such as a possible convert or freed [maidservant], or with a possible divorcee; and so [too,] a high priest who has intercourse with a possible widow — behold this is a doubtfully profaned woman and the offspring is a doubtfully profaned priest. It comes out that there are three [types of] profaned priests: a profaned priest from Torah writ; a profaned priest from the words of [the Rabbis]; and a doubtfully profaned priest. And we give upon any doubtfully profaned priest or profaned priest from the words of [the Rabbis] the stringencies of the priests and the stringencies of the Israelites. He does not eat from the priestly tithe and does not become impure for the dead and he must marry a woman that is fitting for a priest. And if he ate priestly tithe or became impure or married a divorcee, a profaned woman [or a] licentious woman, we strike him with rabbinic lashes of rebellion. But behold, a certainly profaned priest from Torah writ is like a non-priest and marries a divorcee and becomes impure for the dead; as it is stated (Leviticus 21:1), “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aharon” — even though they are sons of Aharon, [not] until they are in the [their] priesthood. And they, may their memory be blessed, also received (Sifra, Emor, Section 1:2) as the explanation of that verse, “‘The sons of Aharon,’ and not the daughters of Aharon — from here that fit women are not warned (prohibited) from marrying disqualified ones.” And so a priestess is permitted to marry a profaned priest, a convert and a freed [slave]. And therefore they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 73a) that a convert is permitted to marry a priestess and a mamzeret: a priestess for the reason we said, that they were not warned from marrying ones disqualified; and a mamzeret on account that the congregation of converts is not called a congregation — and with the prohibition of the mamzer, it is written (Deuteronomy 23:3), “A mamzer shall not come into the congregation of the Lord.” And that which they said (Kiddushin 77a) that all the seed of a profaned priest that married a fit woman are profaned priests and disqualified to the priesthood; since the offspring goes after the father in this matter, as it is stated (Numbers 1:18), “and they shall be pedigreed by their families [according to the houses of their fathers].” And any widow from a family into which a possible profaned priest was mixed is forbidden to a priest at the outset. But if she married [him], she should not leave (be divorced) — since there is a double doubt. And we are not concerned about a double doubt, even in a [law] of Torah writ. But if a certainly profaned priest is mixed into a family, every woman from it is forbidden to marry a priest, until he examines [her lineage]. And the rest of its details are in Kiddushin and Yevamot.

And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times. And one who transgresses it and married a certainly profaned woman and has intercourse with her is liable for lashes. [If] he married a possibly profaned woman or a woman profaned rabbinically, we strike him with lashes of rebellion. And that is at the time when the Israelites would judge capital cases. But at this time, we do not administer lashes — and as we will write below with God’s help in the Order of Ki Tetseh (Sefer HaChinukh 594) in the positive commandment of lashes.