Sefer HaChinuch ספר החינוך

That a priest not marry a divorcee: That a priest — whether a high [priest] or a common [one] — not marry a divorcee, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:7), “and a woman divorced from her husband they shall not take.”

That which I wrote about the prohibition of the licentious woman previous to this (Sefer HaChinukh 266) is from the roots of the commandment.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 59a) that she is called a divorcee even from betrothal, and there is no need to say from marriage. But one who refused (child marriage) — even if he divorced her with a bill of divorce and brought her back and she refused him — behold she is permitted to a priest (Yevamot 108a). And a released woman (chalutsah) — meaning to say a woman that went out from [the domain of] her levirate husband with release — is forbidden to a priest rabbinically, since they gave her the legal status of a divorcee (Yevamot 24a). A priest that brought in (married) a possible divorcee or licentious woman or profaned woman turns her out with a bill of divorce. But if he brought in a possibly released woman, he does not turn her out with a bill of divorce; as the Sages only decreed about a certainly released woman. And any [woman] that is not fitting to be released is not disqualified to the priesthood if she was released. If a rumor went out about her that she was released, we do not concern ourselves with that rumor. As the Sages are the ones that decreed about a released woman that she be like a divorcee, and they are [also] the ones that were lenient in these matters that we said. And the rest of its details are in Kiddushin and Yevamot.

And [it] is practiced by priests in every place and at all times. And one who transgresses it and marries a divorcee and has intercourse is liable for lashes. But so long as he does not have intercourse, he does not become liable for lashes. And even a high priest, who is liable for two negative commandments — on account of “he shall not take, and on account of “He shall not profane,” as we will write below with God’s help (Sefer HaChinukh 274) — and is lashed for both of them, is never lashed for [even] one of them, except after he has intercourse. But if he did not have intercourse, he is [also] not lashed for “he shall not take” — as “he shall not take” is bound with the negative commandment of “He shall not profane” (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 17:4). And there are times when the high priest will become liable for four [sets] of lashes with one intercourse — for example if she was a widow and became a divorcee and [then] became a profaned woman and [then] became a licentious woman. And about what is similar to this, the Sages, may their memory be blessed, would say (Kiddushin 77b) it is a supplementary prohibition. As behold, at first the widow was permitted to a common priest. But when she got divorced, a prohibition was added to her — that she became forbidden to a common [priest]. Yet she was still permitted to eat priestly tithe. But when she became profaned, a prohibition was added to her — that she became forbidden from eating priestly tithe. Yet she was still permitted to an Israelite. But when she became a licentious woman, a prohibition was added to her concerning an Israelite — as behold, we have found a prohibition for an Israelite with a licentious woman: As a woman who is volitionally licentious while in her husband’s [domain] is forbidden to the husband and to the one who had intercourse [with her]. But if this order is changed — for example that she first became a licentious woman, etc. — we are only liable for one [set of] lashes for her intercourse; as this is not a supplementary prohibition. And there is a great principle about all of the prohibitions of the Torah: A prohibition does not rest upon [another] prohibition unless the prohibitions came together or one adds other things — as we said — or [it was] an inclusive prohibition (issur kollel).