Sefer HaChinuch ספר החינוך

That a high priest not have intercourse with a widow: That a high priest not have intercourse with a widow — and even without designation (kiddushin), as it is stated (Leviticus 21:15), “And he shall not profane his seed among his people.” And they said in Kiddushin 78a, “A high priest with a widow is lashed two [sets], on account of ‘he shall not take,’ and on account of ‘he shall not profane’” — meaning that if he married her and had intercourse with her, he is lashed two [sets of] lashes. But if he had intercourse with her without having designated her, he is lashed on account of “he shall not profane”; and like Rava says there: “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.” If he designated her and did not have intercourse with her, he is not lashed on account of “he shall not take” — as behold, we say there, “For what reason is he commanded ‘he shall not take?’ On account of ‘he shall not profane.’” It is implied that the whole time that he does not profane, he is not lashed.

And this reason we learned even with a common priest regarding the women forbidden to him. And even though this verse of “he shall not profane,” is regarding the high priest and with a widow, we learned from it that the common [priest] is also not liable for lashes with the women forbidden to him until he has intercourse. As [the Torah] was certainly not more stringent with the common [priest] than with the high. And [it is] as they elucidated it there in Kiddushin, “If he had intercourse, he is lashed; if he did not have intercourse, he is not lashed.” And they said that this law is also with a common priest — that he is not liable for the women forbidden to him until he first designates [her] and afterwards has intercourse. But if he had intercourse with a licentious woman or a divorcee or a profaned woman without designation — even though it is forbidden to him and he becomes disqualified for the priesthood — he is not lashed; since the prevention is not elucidated about this explicitly, as “he shall not profane” is written in the section of the high priest and specifically about a widow. But with a licentious woman or a divorcee or a profaned woman, the high priest is only lashed one [set] for them when he marries them and afterwards has intercourse with them; however if he has intercourse with them without designation — even though it is forbidden and he becomes disqualified for the priesthood — he does not have a liability for lashes for this. Rather, his law is exactly like the law of the common priest. As specifically regarding the widow is it that a negative commandment was designated for the high priest, to make him liable for “he shall not profane” — meaning for intercourse without designation, as we said — but not with the three others. As the three others were only repeated with a high priest for that matter that we said above (Sefer HaChinukh 273), to divide — meaning to say to make liable for each and every one [on its own]. And there is still another reason in the matter: That with a widow, there is a profaning in the intercourse. As she was fitting for common [priests], and she became disqualified with the intercourse. And hence he should be made liable for her, and on account of “he shall not profane.” But with the other three, we should not make him liable for lashes because of intercourse without designation — as behold, we cannot say, “profane,” about them; as behold, they are [already] profaned for a common priest before the intercourse.

In the [commandment] previous to it [can be found] from the roots of the commandment and also a few of its laws.

And this commandment is practiced at the time of the [Temple] when we had a high priest. If he transgressed and had intercourse with a widow — even without designation — he is lashed on account of “he shall not profane.” As behold, he profaned the widow; as she was fitting to a common priest and now she is forbidden to him. And we have already said that he is obligated not to profane — neither her nor his seed. And the profaning of his seed is relevant to say when he has intercourse with a divorcee, a profaned woman [and] a licentious woman, who are profaned. And when he has intercourse with them, he does not profane them; as behold, they are [already] profaned. [Rather] it is his seed that he profanes, as his seed is in a place of profanation. And it is relevant to say profaning of the woman when he has intercourse with a widow, as she is still fitting to a common priest. And with this intercourse of the high priest, she is made a licentious woman; and behold, he profaned her from her being fit. And there is no doubt that the seed is also profaned, as the seed is also profaned in her automatically. But the distinction that there is between the profaning with her and the profaning of the seed is that she is profaned with insertion, but the seed [is only profaned] from the completion of intercourse — as it is [found] in the Gemara (Kiddushin 78a).