Daily Mitzvah (Rambam)

The 161st prohibition is that the Kohen gadol — and only he1 — is forbidden from marrying a widow.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "He must not marry a widow, a divorcee, a chalalah or a zonah."

The Torah repeats the prohibition regarding the divorcee, chalalah and zonah for a Kohen gadol [even though he, as a Kohen, is already prohibited by virtue of the previous prohibitions] to cover the case described in tractate Kiddushin. That is, if the same woman was a widow, divorcee, zonah and chalalah — a Kohen gadol who had relations with her would receive four sets of lashes, and a regular Kohen who had relations with her would receive three sets. The statement there is, " 'a widow, a divorcee, a chalalah or a zonah' — if these [disqualifications] happened in order, he is punished for each separately." They thereby explain that this refers to one woman [with all four disqualifications].

When the Sages said, "in order," they meant that these disqualifications occurred [to her] in the order given in the verse, i.e., first she was widowed; then [she remarried and was subsequently] divorced; then became a chalalah3; and then a zonah.4

The reason we are forced to say this [i.e., that the four disqualifications happened in this order], is because we wish to find a case where he receives four sets of lashes for one woman in one act of intercourse. There is, however, a principle that a single act can not entail more than one prohibition, unless it is an issur mosif,5 an issur kollel,6 or an issur bas achas,7 as we explained in our commentary on tractate K'risus.8 If the [four disqualifications] occur in this order, each will be an issur mosif, as we explained there.9

If, however, [the prohibitions were associated with] different women — i.e., he had relations with [four different women,] one widow, one chalalah, one zonah, and one divorcee — it is obvious that he would receive lashes for each separate case.10

However, someone might ask the following question: "since we have a principle that one does not receive [more than one set of] lashes for a 'collective prohibition,'11 why should he receive lashes for each one [of the four]? They are all included in one statement?!"

You should know that because of this question, the Torah repeats the prohibition regarding a divorcee, zonah, and chalalah when mentioning the Kohen gadol. This teaches us that regarding them, he is just like a regular Kohen, who receives lashes for each prohibition individually.

[And how do we know this itself — that they count separately for the regular Kohen? The proof is as follows:] the regular Kohen receives lashes for each separately because since one of them was singled out, we learn that all count separately. It is [singled out in] the statement,12 "[they shall not marry a woman who is a zonah or a chalalah;] they shall not marry a woman who has been divorced from her husband." Since the divorcee was singled out,13 and he is lashed separately for this, [we derive that] so too he is lashed separately for the zonah and separately for the chalalah.

This is the meaning of the statement of our Sages in tractate Kiddushin,14 "just as the divorcee is singled out from the chalalah and zonah for a regular Kohen, so too are they separated for the Kohen gadol." There it is also explained that if they were different women, he receives lashes for each one separately, whether or not they were in this order.

We have therefore explained that each of these counts as a separate mitzvah, and therefore one receives lashes for each one separately.

It is also explained there that the regular Kohen never receives lashes unless he marries her and has relations with her, as they said, "if he had relations,15 he receives lashes, if he did not have relations,16 he does not receive lashes. [How do we know this?] One statement explains the other:17 Why does it say, 'he must not marry'? In order that, 'he must not profane.' "18

These four mitzvos are fully explained in tractates Yevamos and Kiddushin.

Footnotes

1.

As opposed to a regular Kohen.

2.

Lev. 21:14.

3.

Through marrying a Kohen, who was forbidden to her since she was divorced.

4.

Through having relations with a non-Jew, for example, or incestual relations. A Kohen gadol who thereafter had relations with this woman would receive four sets of lashes.

5.

An "extended prohibition," i.e., more people are affected by the second prohibition. For example, as a widow, only a Kohen gadol could not marry her, whereas a regular Kohen could. When she later remarries and divorces, she becomes prohibited to a regular Kohen as well. Therefore, the Kohen gadol who marries her gets two prohibitions.

6.

An "inclusive prohibition," i.e., more objects are affected by the second prohibition. For example, one who eats non-kosher food on Yom Kippur would be guilty of two prohibitions. This is because the first prohibition covers only non-kosher food. The second, Yom Kippur, is more inclusive, covering kosher food as well.

7.

A "simultaneous prohibition," i.e., that both prohibitions came into existence at the same time. For example, someone tore a limb from an animal, rendering the animal treifa in the process. The meat became eiver min hachai (N182) and treifa (N181) simultaneously, and the person who eats it is therefore guilty of two prohibitions.

8.

Ch. 3, Mishneh 4.

9.

When she was a widow, she was prohibited only to a Kohen gadol. Once she is divorced, she is also prohibited to a regular Kohen, but is still allowed to eat terumah. When she becomes a chalalah, she may no longer eat terumah. When she becomes a zonah, she would become prohibited even to her non-kohen husband, since a married woman who has relations with another man becomes prohibited to her husband. Therefore, each of the four prohibitions adds to the previous one. If, on the other hand, she was first divorced and then widowed, nothing would be added and the Kohen would receive only one set of lashes.

10.

I.e., the Gemara doesn't give the only case where he is punished four times, only the case which isn't obvious.

11.

One statement that includes several related prohibitions. For example, the prohibition (Lev. 2:11), "you may not burn any leaven or honey as a fire-offering to G‑d," counts as only one prohibition, rather than one for offering leaven and another for offering honey. So too, one might ask, all the prohibitions here should be counted as part of one prohibition, since they are part of one statement.

12.

Lev. 21:7.

13.

It does say, for example, "they shall not marry a woman who is a zonah or a chalalah, or a divorcee."

14.

77b.

15.

After marriage.

16.

But just married her.

17.

Rather than creating a totally separate prohibition, subjecting him to lashes even if there were no relations.

18.

The Gemara explains that the word "profane" refers to him having relations with her. Lev. 21, verse 14 states, "he must not marry a widow, a divorcee, etc." and verse 15 states, "he will then not profane his children." Since the verses are connected, we see that the prohibition of marriage is bound to the problem of profaned children (i.e., chalalim). Therefore, marriage alone without relations is not enough to transgress the violation. This, however, applies only to a regular Kohen, not the Kohen gadol. See N162 below.

The 162nd prohibition is that the Kohen gadol is forbidden from having relations with a widow, even without marriage.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "he will then not profane his children."

The explanation of this is that a regular Kohen is prohibited from marrying [a divorcee, chalalah, or zonah], as it is written,2 "they shall not marry," meaning kiddushin. Nevertheless, he does not receive lashes unless he has relations with her, as explained above.3 If, however, he had relations with her without marriage — although it is prohibited and he invalidates her [i.e. makes her a chalalah] — he does not receive lashes, since it is not explicitly mentioned.

Regarding a Kohen gadol, though, there are two distinct prohibitions: one being "he must not marry," i.e. the prohibition of marriage; and the second, "he will then not profane his children," i.e. having relations even without marriage.

Tractate Kiddushin says,4 "Rava agrees regarding a Kohen gadol and a widow — that if he has relations without marrying her, he receives lashes. [The reason is that] the verse says, 'he will then not profane his children,' but he did."

It also says there, "a Kohen gadol [who marries and has relations] with a widow receives two sets of lashes: one for 'he must not marry,' and one for, 'he will then not profane his children.' "

This prohibition applies exclusively to [relations with] a widow,5 because she is the only one prohibited to the Kohen gadol and permitted to a regular Kohen. Therefore, with this act of relations she first became a chalalah and prohibited to a regular Kohen.

Regarding [a Kohen gadol with] a divorcee, zonah, or chalalah, however, the law is just like that of a regular Kohen [and he does not receive lashes for having relations if there was no marriage]. This is because they were all invalid for a regular Kohen to begin with, and were only repeated regarding a Kohen gadol for the reason mentioned above.6

Footnotes

1.

Lev. 21:15.

2.

Ibid. 21:7.

3.

N161.

4.

78a.

5.

Although the children become chalalim not only when a Kohen gadol has relations with a widow, but also when he (or a regular Kohen) has relations with a divorcee, etc. It would therefore seem that the verse, "he will then not profane his children," hence this prohibition, should not apply only to a widow.

6.

In N161.

The 38th mitzvah is that the Kohen gadol is commanded to marry a young1 virgin.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "he must marry a virgin."

In explanation of this, our Sages said,3 "Rabbi Akiva would declare a child illegitimate even if a positive commandment was violated." They explained this statement that, for example, "a Kohen gadol had relations with a non-virgin, who is forbidden to him by virtue of a positive commandment." [It is termed a positive commandment rather than a prohibition] because of our principle, "a prohibition which is derived from a positive commandment is considered a positive commandment." It is clear from this discussion that this is considered a positive commandment [and therefore included among the 613].

The Sages also said, "he is commanded regarding a virgin."

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the sixth chapter of Yevamos and in passages in Kesubos and Kiddushin.

Footnotes

1.

He must marry her within 6 months after she reaches puberty. See Hilchos Issurei Biyah, 17:13.

2.

Lev. 21:13.

3.

Kesubos 30a.

The 160th prohibition is that a Kohen is forbidden to marry a divorcee.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "They shall not marry a woman who has been divorced from her husband."

Footnotes

1.

Lev. ibid.

The 158th prohibition is that a Kohen is forbidden to marry a zonah.1

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "They shall not marry a woman who is a zonah or a chalalah."3

Should he have relations with her [after they marry4], he is punished by lashes.

Footnotes

1.

Literally, "a prostitute." Here the term refers to a woman who has had relations with a man who would be prohibited for her to marry. Therefore a woman who had relations with a non-Jew, for example, becomes a zonah and a Kohen may not marry her.

2.

Lev. 21:7.

3.

See next mitzvah.

4.

See N161 below. Hilchos Issurei Biyah, 17:2.

The 159th prohibition is that a Kohen is forbidden to marry a chalalah.1

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "They shall not marry a woman who is a zonah or a chalalah."

Should he have relations with her [after they marry], he is punished by lashes.

Footnotes

1.

Literally, "a profaned woman." This term refers to a woman whose status has been affected by one of these priestly marriage prohibitions, e.g., should a Kohen marry a divorced woman (which violates N360), both the woman and her daughter get the status of a chalalah.

2.

Lev. ibid.