You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute, or the wages of a male prostitute, into the house of Yahweh your God for any vow; for both of these are an abomination to Yahweh your God.
Not to have sexual relations without the formal bond of marriage
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
לֹא־תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהיר שלא לבא על אשה בלא כתובה וקדושין, והוא אמרו לא תהיה קדשה מבנות ישראל. וכבר נכפלה האזהרה בזה הענין בלשון אחר, והוא אמרו אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה. ולשון (ספרי)[ספרא] אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה זה המוסר בתו פנויה שלא לשם אישות, וכן המוסרת עצמה שלא לשם אישות. ושמע ממני למה כפל לאו זה בזה הלשון ואיזה ענין נוסף בו, וזה שכבר קדם שהבא על הבתולה בין שיהיה מפתה או אונס שאין חייב שום עונש מן העונשין אלא קנס ממון ולקחת אותה כמו שהתבאר בכתוב, והיה עולה במחשבתנו שאחר שזה הדבר אין בו אלא קנס ממון שיהיה דינו כדין כל דבר שבממון, וכמו שיש רשות לאדם לתת לחבירו ממונו כמו שירצה ויפטרהו במה שיש לו אצלו, שיהיה לו כמו כן מותר שיקח בתו הנערה ויתננה לאיש שיבעל אותה ויפטרהו מזה, אחר שזה זכות מזכיותיו, רוצה לומר החמשים כסף שהם לאבי הנערה, או גם כן יתננה לו על תנאי שיקח ממנו כך וכך דינרים, על כן הזהיר מזה ואמר אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה, לפי שזה שדנתי לענשו ממון לבד, אמנם הוא כשיקרה שיפתנה איש או יאנוס אותה, אבל כשיהיה הענין ברצון שניהם יחד ובהסכמה אין דרך לזה. והראיה בזה הטעם באמרו לא תזנה הארץ ומלאה הארץ זמה, לפי שהפתוי והאונס לא יקרה אלא מעט אבל כשהיה הענין בבחירה והסכמה ירבה זה ויתפשט בארץ, וזה טעם יפה מאד ומשובח בזה הפסוק והוא נאות לכל מה שזכרוהו החכמים למה שהסכימו עליו הדינים התוריים. ועל זה הלאו דפנויה לוקין. והתבארו משפטי מצוה זו במקומות מיבמות. (כי תצא, נשים הלכות אישות):
He prohibited - not to have sexual intercourse with a woman without a contract (ketubah) and marriage (kiddushin). And that is His saying, "There shall be no harlot from the daughters of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:18). And the prohibition of this content was already repeated with a different language; and that is His saying, "Do not profane your daughter to make her a harlot" (Leviticus 19:29). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7:2) is, "'Do not profane your daughter to make her a harlot' - that is one who gives over his single daughter, not for the sake of marriage; and, similarly, her giving herself over, not for the sake of marriage." And listen to me [as to] why this negative commandment was repeated with this language, and what content was added with it: And that is that He already preceded that one that has sexual intercourse with a virgin - whether it was seduction or whether it was rape - is not liable for any of the punishments, but rather for a monetary fine and to [have to] marry her, as is explained in Scripture. So it would enter our thoughts that since there is only a monetary fine, its law is like any monetary matter. So just like a person has the right to give his money to his fellow as he wants, and exempt him from [returning] anything that he has with him; it would likewise be permissible for him to take his maiden daughter and give her to a man for him to have sexual intercourse, and then exempt him from it - meaning to say, the fifty [measures of] silver which go to the father - given that this is one of his rights; or to also give her to him, on condition that he receive such and such dinars from him. That is why He prohibited this and said, "Do not profane your daughter to make her a harlot." For that which I judged to only punish him with money is in fact [only] when it happens that a man seduces her or rapes her. But that the matter be with the mutual consent of both of them and permissible, there is no way [for such a] thing! And the proof for this explanation is His saying [in the continuation of the verse], "lest the land fall into harlotry, and the land be filled with lewdness." For seduction and rape only occur a little, but if the matter were to be by choice and permissible, it would grow and spread in the land. And this explanation is very fine and praiseworthy regarding this verse; and it is fitting regarding all that the Sages mentioned and all that is in accordance with Torah laws. And we give lashes for this negative commandment of a single woman; and the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in various places in Yevamot. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Marriage.)
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.
- Recorded as practiced today
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 Binding, with modification
- Reform Kept as an ethical principle
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite 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.
Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls)
- CD 4:17-21 The catalog describes this reception as: thematic parallel (addresses zenut generally within the 'three nets of Belial' rather than the qedeshah prohibition specifically)
Rabbinic aggadah
- Genesis Rabbah 85:5-8 The catalog describes this reception as: exegetical treatment of the qedeshah/zonah terminology (Tamar narrative)
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.280-281 rationalized it Philo treats prohibitions touching prostitution and the harlot's hire within a rationalizing ethical framework; the precise section reference here is unverified and may misapply the locus (the harlot's-hire prohibition is not securely at 1.280-281) — to be checked against the Cohn-Wendland critical edition
Josephus
- Antiquities 4.245-246 read it more strictly within Josephus's recasting of Mosaic marriage law, including the prohibition on marrying a prostitute; the distinct prohibition on a harlot's hire (Deut 23:18b) is handled elsewhere (Ant. 4.206) and is not part of this range
The New Testament
- 1 Corinthians 6:15-18 reinterpreted it Pauline porneia prohibition reframes non-marital sex around union with Christ's body; LXX rendering of qedeshah as pornē feeds this lexical field
- 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 reinterpreted it abstention from porneia as sanctification, echoing the holiness framing
The Qur'an and hadith
- Q 17:32 carried a parallel
- Q 24:2-3 carried a parallel, with divergence
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.
- middle assyrian laws regulation of veiling and public status distinguishing wives, concubines, hierodules, and prostitutes (harimtu); §40 governs the harlot's (and others') prohibition on veiling, §41 the concubine Relationship to the parallel: polemical contrast A §40 (with related §41) Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (1997)
- code of hammurabi dowry and inheritance rights of naditu/priestess women dedicated to deities; categorical divergence — these are property-law provisions for a priestess class, not sexual-conduct prohibitions, so the parallel is illustrative of a different legal sphere rather than a direct prohibition match Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence §§178-182 Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (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.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Under the Maimonidean reading, this commandment criminalizes all consensual non-marital sexual activity between adults, including premarital sex by mutual agreement; bodily autonomy as a foundational post-Enlightenment norm holds that the state may not regulate consensual adult sexual conduct that harms no third party.
-
Article 17
This framework classifies the relation as a substantive tension.
ICCPR Article 17 protects individuals against arbitrary interference with their privacy; the criminalization of consensual non-marital sexual relations between adults constitutes an interference with sexual privacy that the covenant's proportionality requirement does not countenance.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
The sanction of thirty-nine lashes for consensual sexual conduct outside the marriage framework is incompatible with post-Enlightenment criminal law, which prohibits corporal punishment and does not recognize non-marital consensual adult sex as a cognizable criminal offense.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that the authority to impose malkot lapsed with the dissolution of the ordained Sanhedrin; the flogging sanction has not been enforced for approximately two millennia, though the de jure norm remains.