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.
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).
שֶׁלֹּא יִבְעֹל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אַלְמָנָה – שֶׁלֹּא יִבְעֹל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אַלְמָנָה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּלֹא קִדּוּשִׁין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא טו) וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו, וְאָמְרוּ בְּקִדּוּשִׁין (עח, א) כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם, מִשּׁוּם לֹא יִקָּח, וּמִשּׁוּם וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל, כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁאִם נְשָׂאָהּ וּבְעָלָהּ לוֹקֶה שְׁתֵּי מַלְקוּיוֹת, וְאִם בְּעָלָהּ מִבְּלִי שֶׁקִּדְּשָׁהּ לוֹקֶה אַחַת מִשּׁוּם לֹא יְחַלֵּל, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר רָבָא שָׁם, וּמוֹדֶה רָבָא בְּאַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁאִם בָּעַל וְלֹא קִדֵּשׁ לוֹקֶה, מַאי טַעְמָא? וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וַהֲרֵי חִלֵּל. קִדְּשָׁהּ וְלֹא בְּעָלָהּ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם לֹא יִקָּח, דְּהָא אָמְרִינַן הָתָם דְּמָה טַעַם קָאָמַר מָה טַעַם לֹא יִקַּח? מִשּׁוּם לֹא יְחַלֵּל. מַשְׁמַע דְּכָל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא חִלֵּל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.
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.
וְזֶה הַטַּעַם לְמַדְנוּהוּ אַף בְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט בַּנָּשִׁים הָאֲסוּרוֹת לוֹ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתוּב זֶה דְּלֹא יְחַלֵּל בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל הוּא וּבְאַלְמָנָה, לָמַדְנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁאֵין הַהֶדְיוֹט גַּם כֵּן חַיָּב מַלְקוּת בַּנָּשִׁים הָאֲסוּרוֹת לוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּקַּח וְיִבְעֹל, דְּוַדַּאי לֹא הֶחְמִיר הֶדְיוֹט מִגָּדוֹל, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאֲרוּ שָׁם בְּקִדּוּשִׁין בָּעַל לוֹקֶה לֹא בָּעַל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁדִּין זֶה גַּם כֵּן בְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הַנָּשִׁים הָאֲסוּרוֹת לוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִבְעֹל. אֲבָל בָּעַל זוֹנָה אוֹ גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה בְּלֹא קִדּוּשִׁין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה אָסוּר לוֹ וּפְסָלוֹ לַכְּהֻנָּה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא נִתְבָּאֲרָה הַמְּנִיעָה בּוֹ מִזֶּה בְּפֵרוּשׁ, דְּלֹא יְחַלֵּל בְּפָרָשַׁת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הוּא כָּתוּב וּבְאַלְמָנָה דַּוְקָא. אֲבָל בְּזוֹנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה אַף הַכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל גַּם כֵּן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא מַלְקוּת אַחַת כְּשֶׁנָּשָׂא אוֹתָן וְאַחַר כָּךְ בְּעָלָן, אֲבָל בְּעָלָן בְּלֹא קִדּוּשִׁין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה אָסוּר לוֹ וּפְסָלוֹ מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה אֵין לוֹ בָּזֶה חִיּוּב מַלְקוּת, אֶלָּא דִּינוֹ בָּזֶה כְּמוֹ כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט בְּשָׁוֶה, שֶׁלְּעִנְיַן הָאַלְמָנָה דַּוְקָא הוּא שֶׁנִּתְיַחֵד הַלָּאו בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל לְחַיְּבוֹ בְּלֹא יְחַלֵּל, כְּלוֹמַר בִּבְעִילָה בְּלֹא קִדּוּשִׁין, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ אֲבָל לֹא בַּשָּׁלוֹשׁ הָאֲחֵרוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא נִכְפְּלוּ הַשָּׁלֹשׁ הָאֲחֵרוֹת בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל אֶלָּא לְאוֹתוֹ עִנְיָן שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ לְמַעְלָה (מצוה רעג) לְחַלֵּק, כְּלוֹמַר לְחַיֵּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. וְעוֹד יֵשׁ טַעַם אַחֵר בַּדָּבָר, שֶׁבָּאַלְמָנָה יֵשׁ בָּהּ חִלּוּל בִּבְעִילָה, שֶׁהָיְתָה כְּשֵׁרָה לְהֶדְיוֹט וְנִפְסְלָה בַּבְּעִילָה, וְעַל כֵּן יֵשׁ לְחַיְּבוֹ מַלְקוּת עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם לֹא יְחַלֵּל, אֲבָל בַּשָּׁלֹשׁ הָאֲחֵרוֹת אֵין לְחַיְּבוֹ מַלְקוּת בִּבְעִילָה מִבְּלִי קִדּוּשִׁין, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לָנוּ לוֹמַר בָּהֶן חִלּוּל, שֶׁהֲרֵי מְחֻלָּלוֹת וְעוֹמְדוֹת הֵן לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט קֹדֶם בְּעִילָה.
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.
מִשָּׁרְשֵׁי הַמִּצְוָה. בַּקּוֹדֶמֶת לָהּ, וּקְצָת דִּינֶיהָ גַּם כֵּן.
In the [commandment] previous to it [can be found] from the roots of the commandment and also a few of its laws.
וְנוֹהֶגֶת מִצְוָה זוֹ, בִּזְמַן הַבַּיִת שֶׁהָיָה לָנוּ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. עָבַר וּבָעַל אַלְמָנָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּלֹא קִדּוּשִׁין לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם לֹא יְחַלֵּל, שֶׁהֲרֵי חִלֵּל לְאַלְמָנָה שֶׁהָיְתָה רְאוּיָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, וְעַכְשָׁו אֲסוּרָה לוֹ, וּכְבָר אָמַרְנוּ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב שֶׁלֹּא יְחַלֵּל לֹא לָהּ וְלֹא לְזַרְעוֹ, וְחִלּוּל זַרְעוֹ שַׁיָּךְ לוֹמַר כְּשֶׁבָּא עַל גְּרוּשָׁה חֲלָלָה זוֹנָה שֶׁהֵן מְחֻלָּלוֹת, וּכְשֶׁהוּא בָּא עֲלֵיהֶן, אֵינוֹ מְחַלְּלָן, שֶׁהֲרֵי מְחֻלָּלוֹת וְעוֹמְדוֹת הֵן, אֲבָל זַרְעוֹ הוּא שֶׁמְּחַלֵּל, שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ בִּמְקוֹם חִלּוּל. וְחִלּוּל הָאִשָּׁה שַׁיָּךְ לוֹמַר, בְּבָא עַל הָאַלְמָנָה שֶׁהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה עֲדַיִן לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט וּבְבִיאָה זוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי חִלְּלָהּ מִכַּשְׁרוּתָהּ, וְאֵין סָפֵק כִּי גַּם הַזֶּרַע מְחֻלָּל בָּהּ מִמֵּילָא, אֲבָל הַחִלּוּק שֶׁיֵּשׁ בֵּין הַחִלּוּל שֶׁבָּהּ לְחִלּוּל הַזֶּרַע שֶׁהִיא מְחַלֶּלֶת בְּהַעֲרָאָה וְהַזֶּרַע בְּגוֹמֵר בִּיאָתוֹ, כִּדְאִיתָא בַּגְּמָרָא (קדושין שם).
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).