Issurei Biah - Chapter 17

This term is defined in depth in the following chapter.

This term is defined in Chapter 19.

As was the practice until the later years of the First Temple.

I.e., in the later years of the First Temple, the oil of anointment was entombed together with the Holy Ark. From that time onward, the High Priests assumed their position by wearing the eight garments of the High Priest. [See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Megilah 1:9).]

See Hilchot Melachim 7:1 which states: In both a milchemet mitzvah (a war that it is a mitzvah to wage) and a milchemet hareshut (a war that we have license to wage), a priest is appointed to address the nation before the battle. He is anointed with the oil of anointment and is called, the meshuach milchamah.
Although this individual is not a High Priest with regard to the Temple service, since he was anointed, certain of the dimensions of the High Priesthood are incumbent upon him.

I.e., a High Priest - and the others mentioned - are bound by a positive commandment to marry a virgin and a negative commandment to marry a widow.

The Rambam's wording is somewhat inexact. For the prohibition applies even if the priest merely consecrated the woman and entered into relations with her. Marriage (nissuin) is not required (Kiddushin 78a).

He does, however, receive lashes for violating the prohibition against promiscuous relations, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Ishut I :4).

According to the Rambam’s understanding of Kiddushin 78a, b, for the prohibition to apply both marriage and intimate relations are necessary. If the priest performs one of these acts without the other, the Scriptural prohibition does not apply. The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam and maintains that the prohibition applies even when consecration is not involved.

According to the literal meaning of the verse, the object of the verb “desecrate” is “his offspring.” If a priest enters into a relationship with one of these women, his offspring are challalim, “desecrated,” and are not considered as members of the priestly family. Nevertheless, Kiddushin, loc. cit., interprets the phrase non-literally, explaining that the verb refers to the woman. By entering into relations with the priest, she becomes “desecrated” from the priesthood, i.e., forbidden to marry a priest. Moreover, the fact that the prohibition against a High Priest entering into relations with a widow mentions that term implies that causing the woman to be placed in such a status is prohibited. Since she is given that status even if the relations are held outside of marriage, marriage is not a fundamental element of the prohibition.

As stated in Halachah 1.

For the prohibition against these relations involve the woman as well as the man. See Keritot 10b, Yevamot 84b.

Chapter 3, Halachah 14.

See Chapter 18, Halachah 1.

In which instance, the prohibition applies only if she was consecrated (Halachah 2).

When a man dies childless, her widow is required to marry her deceased husband's brother in the rite called yibbum. She is forbidden to marry anyone else. If he does not desire to marry her, he must release her through the ritual called chalitzah. See Deuteronomy, ch. 25, Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah.

Just as a divorcee is released from her connection to her husband through a get, a childless widow is released from her obligation to her brother-in-law through chalitzah.

The punishment given for the violation of a Rabbinic commandment.

E. g., her brother-in-law performed the chalitzah rite, it was, however, questionable if he was obligated to do so or not, or if he was in fact her brother-in-law or not.

If, however, she was definitely a chalutzah, we would compel him to divorce. For a person should be compelled to observe a Rabbinic prohibition. Similarly, before he marries her, he should be prevented for doing so. Since there is a possibility that a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, we should prevent him from risking its violation. If, however, the couple are already married, we follow the principle “When there is a question of a Rabbinic prohibition involved, we rule leniently.”

I.e., she is not considered as a challalah, a woman who entered into forbidden relations with a priest.

I.e., he or she is not considered as a challal or a challalah.

A woman was divorced in a manner whether it was questionable whether the divorce was effective or not and afterwards, her husband died.

As related in Halachah 12, this applies to a situation in which there is a question whether a man consecrated a woman in an effective manner or not and then dies. Hence, there is a question whether she is a widow.

See Chapter 18, Halachah 12.

The offspring of a priest who had relations with a woman concerning whom a doubt existed whether she was forbidden to him or not (Chapter 19, Halachah 9).

He is required to divorce her, based on the principle “When a doubt concerning a Scriptural prohibition is involved, we take the more stringent view” (Maggid Mishneh). In this instance, since there is a possibility that a Scriptural prohibition is involved in the marriage to each of these women, we rule stringently and require a divorce. A get is required, for even if there is a prohibition involved - and certainly if there is no prohibition involved - the consecration is binding. For the woman to be able to remarry, she must be divorced.

Hilchot Ma‘achalot Assurot 5:5 gives an example of this concept. When a person rips a limb from a living animal which causes the animal to become treifah, he is considered to have transgressed two prohibitions: the prohibition against eating flesh from a living animal and the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is treifah, for both prohibitions take effect at the same time.

This concept is exemplified in the following two halachot. See also Hilchot Ma‘achalot Assurot 7:2.

This principle is exemplified by Hilchot Ma‘achalot Assurot 8:6 which relates that a person who partakes of a gid hanesheh, a sciatic nerve, of an animal which is treifah is liable for two transgressions. Since when the animal became treifah, its entire body became encompassed in the prohibition, that prohibition also encompasses the gid even though it was prohibited beforehand.

I.e., on the basis of the principle that a prohibition that includes additional factors takes effect.

I.e., her second husband divorced her.

By having relations with a priest.

By engaging in relations with a person whom she is forbidden to marry.

I.e., if her father was a priest, after her marriages, she returns to his home and may partake of terumah. Alternatively, if her second husband was an ordinary priest and she gave birth to a child, she may partake of terumah because of her child.

I.e., the priest is liable for additional sets of lashes.

I.e., she becomes a zonah first. If other prohibitions precede her becoming a zonah, she receives the appropriate number of lashes (Maggid Mishneh).

For the other prohibitions would not add anything once she becomes forbidden in this manner.

The fact the she was widowed or divorced several times does not increase the number of prohibitions involved.

And thus she is still a virgin and fit to marry a High Priest.

In Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 6:10, the Rambam states that the woman must perfonn chalitzah, because were her yevam to perform yibbum, he would acquire her as his wife. Moreover, according to law, he should perform yibbum, because whenever the observance of a positive commandment conflicts with the observance of a negative commandment, the positive commandment takes precedence. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade yibbum lest he engage in relations with her a second time.. In such an instance, relations with her are forbidden and there is no mitzvah. For the positive commandment of yibbum applies only the first time the couple engage in relations.

For the reason mentioned in the previous note.

The Hebrew term the Rambam uses maamar has a specific halachic meaning. As explained in Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 2:1, although according to Scriptural Law, the yibbum relationship is established through intimate relations, our Sages ordained that before engaging in relations, a yevam declare his intent to his yevamah. They equated this declaration with consecration.

For a maamar does not establish a relationship.

Because she is already his wife.

And because of the doubt, she is forbidden to a High Priest.

The term “maiden” refers to a girl between the age of twelve and twelve and a half who has manifested signs of physical maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:1).

Twelve and a half. This is the meaning of the term throughout this chapter.

Since he must marry a virgin, he is forbidden to marry anyone other than a virgin. Even if he consecrated the woman beforehand, if he has not married her and she attains maturity after he is appointed as a High Priest, he may not marry her, as will be stated in Halachah 17.

As stated in Hilchat K’lei HaMikdash 5:10, a High Priest may not have two wives while he is performing the Yom Kippur services. Here the Rambam is stating that the prohibition applies not only on Yorn Kippur, but throughout the year.
The Ra’avad notes that II Chronicles 24:3 speaks of Yehoyada the High Priest and the marriage of two women, seemingly contradicting the Rambam’s ruling. The Ra’avad interprets the verse as stating that Yehoyada married the women himself. (Similarly, Rav Moshe HaCohen and others question the Rambam’s ruling.) Rambam LeAm, however, advances the interpretation that the verse is stating that Yehoyada had Y oash marry the women.

I.e., she lost her virginity through an accident of some sort.

And she is forbidden to a High Priest.

This addition is necessary, for if she lost her virginity through relations with an animal, she is disqualified (Meiri).

For he is guilty of transgressing merely a positive commandment and lashes are not given for such a transgression.

Since a transgression is involved in engaging in relations with her, he is compelled to divorce her. Nevertheless, we require a bill of divorce since the consecration is binding.

As stated in Halachah 12 with regard to a widow.

For he is commanded to marry a virgin and she is not. Even though it is he himself who caused her to lose her virginity, she is not acceptable. Since she is not a virgin, a transgression is involved every time he enters into relations with her. Hence, he is obligated to divorce her.
In the instance mentioned in the previous halachah, he had already consecrated the woman, but in this instance, he did not consecrate her first (Maggid Mishneh).

Because, as stated in Halachah 13, he must marry a maiden, a girl between twelve and twelve and a half.

And thus she is considered as a different person and, in an abstract sense, not the same woman whom he consecrated. In this manner, the Rambam (based on Yevamot 59a) makes a distinction between this instance and one in which a priest consecrated a widow and then was appointed as High Priest, as mentioned in Halachah 12.

For even if at the outset, she was passed the age of maturity when he married her, he is allowed to remain married to her, as stated in Halachah 15.

As explained in Hilchot Gerushin, ch. 11, according to Scriptural Law, when a girl’s father dies before she reaches the age of twelve, there is no way that she can marry until she reaches that age. Nevertheless, our Sages gave her mother and/or brothers the right to marry her off if they believe that it is to her advantage. Because this marriage does not have a basis in Scriptural Law, a get is not required to absolve it. Instead, the girl may simply leave her husband’s house. To formalize the absolution of the relationship all that is necessary is for her to declare that she desires to leave the marriage in the presence of two witnesses. Since the relationship was never binding according to Scriptural Law, she is not disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

As stated in Hilchot Gerushin 11:16, even if at one point she was divorced with a get, since she was released through mi ‘un, the fact the she was divorced previously is not of consequence. For it is obvious that the divorce is unnecessary.

E. g., a man who performed chalitzah with his deceased brother’s widow without realizing that she was pregnant and hence, not required to perform this rite before remarrying.

In the case of an Israelite, there would be no difficulty, for it is possible that he remarried his divorcee. In the case of a priest, however, this would be forbidden, for a priest is forbidden to marry any divorcee, even his own.

For a rumor that follows a marriage is not sufficient grounds to require a divorce.

After being widowed from her first husband.

Since the rumor preceded the second marriage, the second priest should not have married her, because of the doubt regarding the validity of the marriage that the rumor caused. And since he married her in possible violation of the law, he is forced to divorce her.

As stated in Hilchot Ishut 9:22, we are speaking about a rumor that has been substantiated by a court. It is not conclusive evidence that a woman has been consecrated, but it is far from mere hearsay. If a rumor has not been substantiated in a court, it is of no substance.

Chapter 10, Halachah 20.

Since a chalutzah is forbidden only because of a Rabbinic ordinance, when we are not certain the woman performed this rite, there is no prohibition, as stated in Halachah 7. The Ra’avad, however, rules stringently and maintains that since we. are speaking about a rumor with substance, even a rumor that she is a chalutzah can cause her to be forbidden.

We do not disqualify a woman when there· is a question about her lineage unless there is explicit testimony that she is not acceptable (Maggid Mishneh).

This refers even to a rumor substantiated in court (Beit Shmuel 6:30).

And committed adultery or engaged in relations that would cause her to be forbidden to the priesthood, as explained in the following chapter.

E. g., going out to the marketplace with her hair uncovered, spinning flax in the marketplace in a manner that shows her arms to men, playing frivolously with youths, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 24:12.

I.e., testimony regarding conduct that leads to the conclusion that she committed adultery although the adulterous relations themselves were not observed, as mentioned in ibid.:15.

For in such an instance, the woman accepts the prohibition upon herself, as will be stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 9.