“ ‘Don’t profane your daughter, to make her a prostitute; lest the land fall to prostitution, and the land become full of wickedness.
Not to allow the people of Israel to practice prostitution
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
אַל־תְּחַלֵּל אֶת־בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ וְלֹא־תִזְנֶה הָאָרֶץ וּמָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ זִמָּה
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
- Reform Kept as an ethical principle
- Reconstructionist Kept as an ethical principle
- 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.
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 3.51 read it more strictly Philo's treatment of harlotry/porneia in Spec. Leg. 3; linkage to Lev 19:29 is thematic rather than a verse-specific lemma
The New Testament
- 1 Corinthians 6:15-18 reinterpreted it Pauline extension of porneia prohibition into a Christological body theology
The Qur'an and hadith
- Q 24:33 carried a parallel
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 regulation of nadītu/šugītu votaries' dowry, inheritance, and property status Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence §§178-184 Roth, Law Collections 2nd ed. (1997)
- middle assyrian laws veiling regulations distinguishing wives, daughters, and prostitutes (harimtu) Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence A §40 Roth, Law Collections 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 substantive tension.
As broadened by Maimonides into a general prohibition of extramarital sexual activity, the commandment restricts consensual adult sexual conduct between private parties; modern normative frameworks increasingly recognize consensual adult sexuality as falling within a protected sphere of personal autonomy not subject to criminal sanction.
-
Article 17 (privacy)
This framework classifies the relation as a substantive tension.
ICCPR Article 17 protects individuals against arbitrary interference with their privacy; a prohibition on consensual adult sexual commerce or extramarital sex, enforced by corporal punishment, constitutes an interference with private conduct that the Covenant's privacy right is designed to shield.
-
Article 5 (prohibition of cruel or degrading treatment)
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Thirty-nine lashes as the prescribed penalty for a sexual-conduct or commercial violation constitutes corporal punishment categorically prohibited under UDHR Article 5 as cruel or degrading treatment.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Modern penal proportionality precludes corporal punishment for consensual sexual conduct between adults; flogging for prostitution-related violations is categorically disproportionate by post-Enlightenment standards.
-
rabbinic tradition
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
The authority to impose lashes (malkot) lapsed with the dissolution of the ordained Sanhedrin (70 CE); no Jewish court presently possesses jurisdiction to administer this sanction, rendering the enforcement mechanism de jure only.