Halakhah for Yevamot 117:5
הכא נמי כתיב אשה אחת ולא שתים
— Only one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deduction may be made from the term 'wife'. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> but not two. And what is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what do you see'? Why should the deduction be made to permit the marriage of the widow to a High Priest and not that of the minor who became adolescent? ');"><sup>14</sup></span> — In the case of the one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minor who became of age. ');"><sup>15</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