Kiddushin, Daf Ayin Het, Part 1
אמר רב יהודה כהן גדול באלמנה לוקה שתים אחת משום (ויקרא כא, ז) לא יקח ואחת משום (ויקרא כא, ו) לא יחלל
Rav Yehudah said: If a High Priest [has intercourse] with a widow, he is lashed twice, once on account of, he shall not take, (Leviticus 21:14) and once on account of, he shall not profane (21:15).
A High Priest who has sex with a widow has transgressed two prohibitions, not just one. The second one is for making her into a halalah.
ולילקי נמי משום (ויקרא כא, טו) לא יחלל זרעו בשלא גמר ביאתו
Then let him be lashed on account of, he shall not profane his seed (Leviticus 21:15)?
[This refers to a case where] he does not complete the intercourse.
He should also be liable for profaning his seed. The answer is that R. Yehudah was referring to a case where he had coitus interruptus (a beloved Latin word). Since he had no seed, he can t be liable for profaning it. Note that she is profaned by intercourse whether or not the act was completed.
מתיב רבא אלמנה וגרושה לוקה משום שני שמות מאי לאו שני שמות ותו לא
לא שני שמות על זה ושני שמות על זה
Rava raised an objection: [If a High Priest has intercourse with] a widow and divorced woman, he is lashed on account of two names of transgressions.
Does this not mean two transgressions and no more?
No: two transgressions for the one, and two for the other.
Rava tries to use a baraita to prove that the High Priest is punished once for each transgression, not twice. The case here is where the woman was first a widow and then became a divorcee.
But the Talmud resolves the baraita to say that it refers to two transgressions for each named prohibition, to include a separate transgression for he shall not profane for each transgression. That s four sets of lashes for one act of sex. I hope it was worth it.
אי הכי אימא סיפא גרושה וחלוצה אינו חייב אלא על אחת
ה"ק אינו חייב אלא על אחת ולעולם שני שמות
If so, say the second clause: [For] a divorced woman and halutzah he is liable only on account of one?
This is what it means: he is liable only on account of one, but it is two named prohibitions.
If the woman was both a divorcee and a halutzah (released from Levirate marriage) the High Priest is punished only once, but again, this is not simply once, it is once (for a divorcee) that is twice (to include he shall not profane. ).
וחלוצה דרבנן והתניא גרושה אין לי אלא גרושה חלוצה מנין תלמוד לומר ואשה מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא
Now, is a halutzah [forbidden only] by rabbinic law? Was it not taught: I know it only of a divorced woman: how do I know it of a halutzah? Scripture says: and a woman (Leviticus 21;7). It is a rabbinic prohibition, and the verse is a mere support.
The implication of the earlier baraita is that the prohibition of a halutzah to a High Priest is only of rabbinic origin and that s why he is not lashed for having relations with her. But the baraita here derives the prohibition of a halutzah from the word and a woman. This implies that the prohibition is from the Torah.
The answer is that this midrash is not the source of the prohibition. The prohibition is only of rabbinic origin. The midrash is only an asmakhta a verse brought as mere support.