אמר ליה הא נמי תניתוה אירס את האלמנה ונתמנה להיות כהן גדול יכנוס שאני התם דכתיב (ויקרא כא, יד) יקח אשה
The other replied, You have learned this also: [A priest who] betrothed a widow, and was subsequently appointed to be a High Priest, may consummate the marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 61a, which proves that betrothal is the main factor.
');"><sup>10</sup></span> — There it is different because it is written, Shall he take to wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 14. From the superfluous word wife it is deduced (v. infra 61a) that in the case mentioned the High Priest may consummate the marriage. This, however, supplies no answer to the question under consideration.
');"><sup>11</sup></span> Here also it is written wife!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 13.
');"><sup>12</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
From the laws of the commandment are that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 59a) that she is called a widow even from the betrothal; and that [in the case] of a high priest whose brother dies [and leaves a widow] even from betrothal, behold this one should not do levirate marriage, but rather release [her]. If she was designated by a questionable designation and her betrothed died, behold she is a questionable widow and forbidden - as any doubt in a Torah law is forbidden from Torah writ. And therefore they, may their memory be blessed, said in every place that [in the case of] a doubt in Torah law, [we go] towards stringency. And the rest of its details are in Yevamot and Kiddushin. And a high priest who transgresses it and designates a widow and has intercourse with her, is lashed twice - one on account of 'a widow he shall not take,' and one on account of "he shall not profane his seed" - which is a negative commandment on its own, and as we will write nearby (Sefer HaChinukh 274). But if he designated her and did not have intercourse afterwards, he is not lashed at all - and even on account of 'he shall not take.' And [it is] like they said there in Kiddushin 78a, "If he had intercourse, he is lashed; if he did not have intercourse, he is not lashed [...]. For what reason is he commanded 'he shall not take'? On account of 'he shall not profane.'" But if he had intercourse with the widow - even though he did not designate her, it is implied that he is lashed one [set], on account of "he shall not profane." As so did they, may their memory be blessed, explain (Kiddushin 78a), "He shall not profane": not her and not his seed. And likewise did they say there in Kiddushin, "And 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" - meaning to say, it is included in "And he shall not profane." [Hence] it is implied that 'he shall not profane' proper ones [such as the widow], nor [shall he profane] 'his seed.'
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
