Sefer HaChinuch ספר החינוך

That a high priest not marry a widow: That only a high priest not marry a widow, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:14), “A widow and a divorcee and a profaned woman, a licentious woman — these he shall not take.” And the verse did not need to repeat the prohibition of “a divorcee and a profaned woman, a licentious woman” with a high priest — as they were forbidden more generally to any priest, and he is the head of the priests. And therefore, they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Kiddushin 77a), that the repetition of this warning of “a divorcee and a profaned woman, a licentious woman” with a high priest comes to teach us this matter: And they said in the Gemara in Kiddushin that it comes to teach that at a time that it happens that all of these prohibitions happen with one woman in this order — that at first, she is widowed; and afterwards she divorces; and afterwards she is profaned; and afterwards she becomes a licentious woman — and the high priest has intercourse with her, he is liable four [sets] of lashes for one intercourse. And this is when he was warned about [the] four negative commandments. And if a common priest had intercourse with her, he will be lashed three [sets]. And the reason that they are liable for several [sets of] lashes when [her status changed] in this order is because there is a supplementary prohibition in this matter. And [it is] as we wrote above close by in the commandment of the prohibition of a divorcee to a priest (Sefer HaChinukh 268) — that a prohibition does not rest upon [another] prohibition except when it is a supplementary prohibition or [it was] an inclusive prohibition (issur kollel) or [several prohibitions come] at one time, as it is explained in Tractate Keritot 14b. And it is not necessary to say that if he had intercourse with four women and one of them was a widow, one was a divorcee, one was a profaned woman and one was a licentious woman, and he was warned about all of them, he is liable for four [sets] of lashes — whether he has intercourse in the order or not in the order — since they are different bodies.

And if you will ask and say, how can he be lashed several [sets of] lashes — whether for one woman or several — take heed, it is established for us that we do not administer lashes for a general negative commandment; [and] behold, this is a general negative commandment, as behold the prevention of all of them comes from one negative commandment — and as we wrote above (Sefer HaChinukh 7) according to the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed! The answer is — know that they, may their memory be blessed, elucidated this matter; and that is their saying in the Gemara Kiddushin 77b about that which is written about a common priest (Leviticus 21:7), “and a woman divorced from a man they shall not take,” that it is for this reason that the divorcee was separated with [its own] negative commandment — to teach that we administer lashes for the divorcee on her own. And [just] like we administer lashes for the divorcee on her own, so do we administer lashes for the profaned woman and for the licentious woman on her own. And they said there, “In the same way that a divorcee and a profaned woman and a licentious woman [are] divided [into separate negative commandments] with a common priest, so too [are they] divided with a high priest.” And to teach these things was the prevention repeated with a high priest, as we said.

It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] because there are foreign (external) thoughts in marriage to a widow. [It is] similar to that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Pesachim 112a), “[When] a young man marries a widow, there are three dispositions in the bed, etc.”

From the laws of the commandment are that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 59a) that she is called a widow even from the betrothal; and that [in the case] of a high priest whose brother dies [and leaves a widow] even from betrothal, behold this one should not do levirate marriage, but rather release [her]. If she was designated by a questionable designation and her betrothed died, behold she is a questionable widow and forbidden — as any doubt in a Torah law is forbidden from Torah writ. And therefore they, may their memory be blessed, said in every place that [in the case of] a doubt in Torah law, [we go] towards stringency. And the rest of its details are in Yevamot and Kiddushin. And a high priest who transgresses it and designates a widow and has intercourse with her, is lashed twice — one on account of “a widow he shall not take,” and one on account of “he shall not profane his seed” — which is a negative commandment on its own, and as we will write nearby (Sefer HaChinukh 274). But if he designated her and did not have intercourse afterwards, he is not lashed at all — and even on account of “he shall not take.” And [it is] like they said there in Kiddushin 78a, “If he had intercourse, he is lashed; if he did not have intercourse, he is not lashed [...]. For what reason is he commanded ‘he shall not take’? On account of ‘he shall not profane.’” But if he had intercourse with the widow — even though he did not designate her, it is implied that he is lashed one [set], on account of “he shall not profane.” As so did they, may their memory be blessed, explain (Kiddushin 78a), “He shall not profane”: not her and not his seed. And likewise did they say there in Kiddushin, “And Rava concedes in [the case of] a high priest with a widow, that if he had intercourse and did not designate [her], he is lashed. What is the reason? As [the Torah] states, ‘And he shall not profane his seed,’ and behold, he profaned” — meaning to say, it is included in “And he shall not profane.” [Hence] it is implied that “he shall not profane” proper ones [such as the widow], nor [shall he profane] “his seed.”