He shall not marry a widow, or one divorced, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute. He shall take a virgin of his own people as a wife.
The High Priest shall not marry a widow
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה זֹנָה אֶת־אֵלֶּה לֹא יִקָּח כִּי אִם־בְּתוּלָה מֵעַמָּיו יִקַּח אִשָּׁה
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהיר כהן גדול מליקח אלמנה. והוא אמרו אלמנה וגרושה וגו'. ואולם כפל האזהרה על כהן גדול בגרושה וחללה זונה בעבור הענין הכתוב בקידושין (דף ע"ז), והוא כי כשיקרה שתהיה אשה אחת אלמנה גרושה וחללה זונה ובא עליה כהן גדול לוקה ארבע ואם כהן הדיוט לוקה שלש. ושם אמרו אלמנה וגרושה וחללה זונה בזמן שהם כסדר חייב על כל אחת ואחת ובארו שהוא באשה אחת, וענין אמרו כסדר שיהיו בה אלו הענינים על סדר הפסוק שתהיה תחלה אלמנה ואחר כך גרושה עוד תהיה אחר זה חללה ואחר כך זונה. ואולם הוצרכנו לזה בעבור היותה אשה אחת ובבעילה אחת שנרצה שנחייבהו על ארבע מלקיות, והשרש אצלנו אין איסור חל על איסור אם [לא] שיהיה איסור כולל או שיהיה איסור מוסיף או איסור בת אחת כמו שבארנו במקומות מכריתות בפירושנו וכשיהיו על הסדר הזה יהיה בכלם איסור מוסיף כמו שהתבאר שם. אבל כשיהיו נשים רבות כגון שבא על אלמנה ועל אשה אחרת חללה ועל אשה אחרת גרושה ועל אשה אחרת זונה אין ספק שלוקה על כל אחת ואחת. ואפשר שתקשה ותאמר אחר שהשרש אצלנו שאין לוקין על לאו שבכללות לאיזה דרך יהיה לוקה על כל אחת ואחת ובאה האזהרה מהם בכלן בלשון אחד, דע כי על זה הענין נכפלה האזהרה על כהן גדול בגרושה זונה חללה כדי שילמדנו שדינו בהן כדין כהן הדיוט מלקות על כל אחת ואחת, ואמנם נתחייב כהן הדיוט מלקות על כל אחת ואחת בעבור שנפרדה אחת מהן בלאו אחד והיו כלם לחלק. והוא אמרו ואשה גרושה מאישה לא יקחו, ואחר שנפרדה הגרושה בלאו הוא לוקה על הגרושה בפני עצמה, וזהו ענין אמרם בגמרא קדושין (שם ע"ב) כשם שחלוקה גרושה מחללה וזונה בכהן הדיוט כך חלוקה בכהן גדול, ושם התבאר כי בהיות הנשים גופין מוחלקין לוקה על כל אחת ואחת בין שיהיה על הסדר בין שלא יהיה על הסדר. הנה כבר התבאר לך כי האזהרה מכל אחד מהן מצוה בפני עצמה ולפיכך לוקה על כל אחת ושם התבאר שכהן הדיוט אינו חייב מלקות על אחת מהן עד שיקח ויבעול, והם אמרו בעל לוקה לא בעל אינו לוקה מה טעם קאמר מה טעם לא יקח משום לא יחלל. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו רוצה לומר ארבע מצות אלו על השלמות ביבמות וקדושין. (שם, שם):
That He prohibited a high priest from taking (marrying) a widow. And that is His saying, "A widow, a divorcee, etc." (Leviticus 21:14). Moreover, He repeated the prohibition of the high priest with a divorcee, a desecrated woman and a zonah on account of the content that is written in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 77a). And that is when it happens that the same woman is a divorcee, a widow, a desecrated woman and a zonah, and a high priest has sexual relations with her - he is lashed four [sets of] lashes; and if he is an ordinary priest, three. And there they said, "'A widow, a divorcee, a desecrated woman and a zonah' - when they are in order - he is liable for each and every one." And they explained that that is with one woman; and the matter of their saying, "in order," is that they [happened to] her in the order of the verse - that she first be a widow, and afterwards a divorcee, and after that a desecrated woman and afterwards a zonah. However we required this on account of her being one woman and it being one intercourse, since we wanted to obligate him with four [sets of] lashes. And the principle with us is that one prohibition cannot take effect on top of [another] prohibition, unless it is a [more] comprehensive prohibition, an additive prohibition or a prohibition that came together [with it], as we explained in [various] places in Keritot in our commentary (on the Mishnah). So when they are in this order, each one of them will be an a additive prohibition, as is explained there. But if there are several women - such as if he had sexual relations with a widow, with another woman who is desecrated, with another woman who is a divorcee and with another woman who is a zonah - there is no doubt that he would be lashed for each and every one. But it is possible that you will ask and say, "Since it is a principle with us that we do not give lashes for a general negative commandment, in what way can we give lashes for each and every one?" Know that it is for this matter that the prohibition of a divorcee, a zonah and a desecrated woman were repeated for a high priest - so that it would teach us that his law about them is the same as that of an ordinary priest: Lashes for each and every one. Indeed, the ordinary priest is liable for lashes for each and every one on account of one of them being separated as a [separate] negative commandment, such that they were all differentiated. And that is His saying, "and they shall not take a woman divorced from her husband" (Leviticus 21:7) - that since the divorcee was separated as a negative commandment, he is lashed for the divorcee on its own. And this is the content of their saying in the Gemara, Kiddushin (Kiddushin 77b), "Just like a divorcee, a desecrated woman and a zonah are differentiated for an ordinary priest, so too are are they differentiated for a high priest." And there, it is [also] explained that when the women are different entities (four distinct women), he is lashed for each and every one - whether they are in order or whether they are not in order. Behold it has already been made clear to you that the prohibition about each one of them is a separate commandment, and therefore he is lashed for each one. And there, it is explained that an ordinary priest is not liable for lashes until he marries and has sexual relations. And they said (Kiddushin 78a), "If he has sexual relations, he is lashed; if he does not have sexual relations, he is not lashed. [The verse] is saying what is the reason. What is the reason of, 'he shall not take?' That 'he shall not desecrate' (Leviticus 21:15)." And the regulations of this commandment - meaning to say, these four commandments - have already been fully explained in Yevamot and Kiddushin. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 17-19.)
Hebrew: Sefer HaMitzvot, Warsaw 1883 (public domain). English: Sefaria Edition, trans. Rabbi Francis Nataf, 2021 (CC0). Via Sefaria; translator’s footnotes omitted.
Literary form: a prohibition
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
- Requires a standing Temple
Classical halakhic consequences
The consequences the classical halakhah attaches to this commandment, grouped by who imposes them. Where a category has none recorded, that absence is itself meaningful.
Imposed by a court
- Lashes (malkot)
At the hands of Heaven
No divinely-imposed consequence is recorded.
Ritual remedy
No ritual remedy is recorded.
How the streams of Judaism treat this commandment
The streams of Judaism read the same commandment differently — an ongoing plurality, not a ranking. Each position below is reported as the catalog records it; none is presented as the correct one.
- Orthodox Binding
- Conservative Kept as an ethical principle
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite Not binding
24 of 613 commandments have been examined in depth so far — this one is queued.
How later traditions received this commandment
How later traditions read or reworked this commandment, each attributed to its own voice. The catalog’s own classification of each reception is shown as it records it, never adopted as GEBible’s.
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.101-111 rationalized it
Josephus
- Antiquities 3.277 rationalized it
Beside the older legal codes of its world
The commandment set beside the ancient Near-Eastern legal collections scholars compare it to — a descriptive comparison, not a claim of dependence.
- code of hammurabi regulations governing the restricted marriage, inheritance, and reproductive conduct of dedicated cultic women (nadītu and related classes) whose consecrated status entailed restrictions on remarriage after widowhood or change of sponsor; offers a comparative case of legal management of cultic-personnel marital status, though the Mesopotamian rules apply to the dedicated woman rather than to a male priest Relationship to the parallel: shared theme §§178-182 Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (Scholars Press, 1997)
Where this commandment meets modern human-rights frameworks
One modern normative lens, attributed to it — not GEBible’s assessment. Each row names the framework it measures against and the catalog’s own classification of the relation.
This framework catalogues tensions; it records agreement in only one of its entries. The near-total tension rate is the shape of the instrument, not a finding.
-
Article 16
This framework classifies the relation as a substantive tension.
CEDAW Article 16 requires equal rights for men and women in all matters relating to marriage; the prohibition against the High Priest marrying a widow denies a woman eligibility for the highest-status marriage in the community solely because of her prior marital history, a criterion applied exclusively to women and with no male equivalent.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a substantive tension.
The widow's exclusion from High Priestly marriage rests on a symbolic logic of 'first-ness' that treats prior association with another man as a disqualifying taint on the woman, applying a purity-of-relational-history standard to women alone in the context of marital eligibility.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
The prescribed penalty of thirty-nine lashes for violating the widow-marriage prohibition employs corporal punishment, which modern criminal law universally prohibits as cruel and degrading.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; flogging as the enforcement mechanism constitutes degrading punishment under international human rights standards.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that the flogging sanction requires a functioning Sanhedrin, and this commandment is doubly inoperative because the High Priest's office itself ceased with the Temple's destruction; neither the prohibition's institutional subject nor its enforcement mechanism currently exists.