Halakhah for Kiddushin 154:2
אלא שבא על אלמנה אחת שלש ביאות היכי דמי אי דלא אתרו ביה פשיטא דאינו חייב אלא אחת
But if he was warned for each, why does he incur only one penalty? Did we not learn: If a nazir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
And [it] is practiced by priests in every place and at all times. And one who transgresses it and marries a divorcee and has intercourse is liable for lashes. But so long as he does not have intercourse, he does not become liable for lashes. And even a high priest, who is liable for two negative commandments - on account of "he shall not take, and on account of "He shall not profane," as we will write below with God's help (Sefer HaChinukh 274) - and is lashed for both of them, is never lashed for [even] one of them, except after he has intercourse. But if he did not have intercourse, he is [also] not lashed for "he shall not take" - as "he shall not take" is bound with the negative commandment of "He shall not profane" (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 17:4). And there are times when the high priest will become liable for four [sets] of lashes with one intercourse - for example if she was a widow and became a divorcee and [then] became a profaned woman and [then] became a licentious woman. And about what is similar to this, the Sages, may their memory be blessed, would say (Kiddushin 77b) it is a supplementary prohibition. As behold, at first the widow was permitted to a common priest. But when she got divorced, a prohibition was added to her - that she became forbidden to a common [priest]. Yet she was still permitted to eat priestly tithe. But when she became profaned, a prohibition was added to her - that she became forbidden from eating priestly tithe. Yet she was still permitted to an Israelite. But when she became a licentious woman, a prohibition was added to her concerning an Israelite - as behold, we have found a prohibition for an Israelite with a licentious woman: As a woman who is volitionally licentious while in her husband's [domain] is forbidden to the husband and to the one who had intercourse [with her]. But if this order is changed - for example that she first became a licentious woman, etc. - we are only liable for one [set of] lashes for her intercourse; as this is not a supplementary prohibition. And there is a great principle about all of the prohibitions of the Torah: A prohibition does not rest upon [another] prohibition unless the prohibitions came together or one adds other things - as we said - or [it was] an inclusive prohibition (issur kollel).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy