Commentaire sur Le Lévitique 19:29

אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה DO NOT PROSTITUTE THY DAUGHTER TO CAUSE HER TO BE A HARLOT — Scripture speaks of one who gives his unmarried daughter away for illegitimate concubinage (cf. Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 2; Sanhedrin 76a).

PROFANE NOT THY DAUGHTER, TO MAKE HER A HARLOT. “This refers to one who gives his unmarried daughter [to a man] without the intention of betrothal. LEST THE LAND FALL INTO HARLOTRY. If you do so, the soil too will be unfaithful to you and it will produce its fruits in another place and not in your Land. And so does Scripture state, Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there hath been no latter rain, and thou hadst a harlot’s forehead etc.”¹⁷⁷Jeremiah 3:3. This is Rashi’s language. But I have not understood his opinion, for the term “harlotry” in the Torah nowhere applies to an unmarried woman, since it is the accepted decision of the law¹⁷⁸Yebamoth 61 b. that if an unmarried man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman, without the intention of thereby making her his wife, he has [nonetheless] not rendered her thereby “a harlot.” And in Tractate Sanhedrin the Sages have clearly stated this principle:¹⁷⁹Sanhedrin 50 b. “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by becoming a harlot etc.¹⁸⁰Further, 21:9. I might think that this applies even if she be unmarried.” Thereupon the Rabbis asked:¹⁸¹Sanhedrin 51 a. “[But how could one think this to be the case?] Is it not written by becoming a harlot [and the term ‘harlot’ applies only to a married woman who commits adultery]?” To this question the Rabbis answered, that [the above supposition was] “in accordance with the [unaccepted] opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that if an unmarried man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman, without the intention of thereby making her his wife, he does render her ‘a harlot.’” [From this text it is obvious that the accepted opinion of the Sages is that if she was unmarried, he does not render her “a harlot.”] Similarly the Rabbis have said that the verse They [i.e., the priests] shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned,¹⁸²Further, 21:7. does not apply to an unmarried woman, but only to a proselytess and a freed bondwoman, or to one who had intercourse with a man in the nature of fornication, such as with a man whose betrothal to her would not be valid, as is explained in Yebamoth¹⁷⁸Yebamoth 61 b. and in the Sifra:¹⁸³Sifra, Emor 1:7. “A woman that is a harlot.¹⁸²Further, 21:7. Rabbi Yehudah says that this refers to a sterile woman. But the Sages say: The word ‘harlot’ refers only to a proselytess, a freed bondwoman, or to one who had intercourse with a man in the nature of fornication. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if an unmarried man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman, without the intention of thereby making her his wife, this too [is a case of the ‘harlot’].” Similarly the Rabbis have said¹⁸⁴Terumah 29 b. with reference to the prohibition, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot … into the House of the Eternal,¹⁸⁵Deuteronomy 23:19. that this has no application whatever to an unmarried woman. But the Beraitha taught in the Torath Kohanim¹⁸⁶Sifra, Kedoshim 7:1. [which is the source for Rashi’s interpretation] and which is also mentioned in Tractate Sanhedrin¹⁸⁷Sanhedrin 76 a. [namely, that the verse before us refers to one who gives his unmarried daughter for immorality], may either be in accordance with the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer [mentioned above] and is not the final decision of the law, or it may be a case of one who gives his [unmarried] daughter for immorality with a person with whom she can contract no marital status, such as with a Cuthean or a slave, or any of those persons [with whom sexual relations are forbidden] by punishment of excision or death by the hands of the court, which is “harlotry” in the opinion of the Sages. It is this which they intended in saying, “[this verse refers to] one who gives his unmarried daughter to a man without the intention of marriage,” that is to say, to a man with whom it is impossible that there be a marital status.
Similarly, that which the Rabbi taught there in the Sifra¹⁸⁸Sifra, Kedoshim 7:3. This was mentioned here by Rashi. with reference to the expression lest the Land fall into harlotry, that the fruits of the Land will turn faithless [and grow in other places and not in your Land], is a homiletic exposition derived from the word ha’aretz (the Land), since it is not written “lest the people of the Land fall into harlotry.” But the main intention of this expression is [to establish] a second negative commandment, which the author of the “Hilchoth Gedoloth”¹⁸⁹See Vol. II, p. 350, Note 70. has already counted in his enumeration of the [three hundred and sixty-five] negative commandments, it being an admonition directed to the man who commits the immoral act and to the daughter herself, that she should not give herself over to immoral relationships. And it is on the basis of this [interpretation of the verse] that the Rabbis have said there in that Beraitha [in Torath Kohanim]: “And similarly she who gives herself over to immoral relationships [transgresses a negative commandment].” And the meaning of the verse is [as follows]: Since a daughter is in the control of her father, and he is permitted “in her youth” [i.e., when she is not yet twelve and a half years old] to betroth her to a man, and to cause her to enter the bridal-canopy, and one who violates or seduces her must pay the fine to the father [thus accordingly we might think that the father is at liberty to allow a man to have an immoral relationship with his unmarried daughter], therefore Scripture explained that he is not permitted to give her to anyone for immoral purposes, admonishing [first] the father [against doing it] by means of a negative commandment. After having admonished the father, He warned also those engaged in the harlotry, the man and the woman.
Now Rashi wrote in the section of Emor El Hakohanim:¹⁹⁰Further, 21:7. “A harlot. This is a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man who is forbidden to her [as a husband], such as those [whom she may not marry] under the penalty of excision, or a Nathin [a descendant of the Gibeonites¹⁹¹The word ‘Nathin’ [literally: givers] derived from the verse in Joshua 9:27 stating that Joshua “gave” the Gibeonites as hewers of wood etc.] or a mamzer” [i.e., a person born from a union which is itself prohibited under the penalty of excision]. Now this comment constitutes an admission on the part of Rashi that the term “harlotry” does not apply where marriage between them would be possible, except that he does include under this term [of “harlotry”] also those that are forbidden by means of a negative commandment [the punishment for which being whipping, such as marriage to a mamzer]. This is also Rashi’s opinion in his commentaries on the Gemara¹⁹²Yebamoth 61 a. [i.e., that “harlotry” applies to all cases where he is forbidden to her — even if only under the penalty of whipping]. But this too is not correct, for it is only [by means of intercourse with] those whom she may not marry under the penalty of excision, or a Cuthean or a bondman with whom she can contract no marital status, that she is rendered a “harlot” so that a priest who takes her as his wife is liable to whipping because of [marrying] a harlot; but [as a result of intercourse] with those whom she is prohibited [to marry] by means of a [mere] negative commandment — such as a mamzer, or an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte — she is not rendered a “harlot,” and a priest who takes her as his wife is not liable to whipping. However, [as a result of that forbidden relationship], she becomes disqualified from eating the heave-offering and from marrying a priest.¹⁹³Thus, because of her forbidden relationship with a mamzer etc., if she be a priest’s daughter who ordinarily is permitted to eat of the heave-offering [and the priest’s share the thigh and the breast he receives from an Israelite’s peace-offering] she is now forbidden to eat. Similarly, if she was a priest’s daughter, or a Levites or an Israelite’s, she is henceforth forbidden to marry a priest. For it is written, And if a priest’s daughter be married unto an ‘ish zar’¹⁹⁴Literally: “a stranger,” a common man, a Levite or lay-Israelite. But here in the text before us it is understood as “a disqualified man,” such as a mamzer. she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the holy things,¹⁹⁵Further, 22:12. [which the Sages interpreted¹⁹⁶Yebamoth 68 a.]: as soon as she has intercourse with a man she may not marry, he disqualifies her [from eating the holy food].¹⁹⁷See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 128-9. And [if she has intercourse with a man who is] guilty of transgressing a prohibition affecting only the priesthood [for which he is liable to whipping, such as a High Priest who had intercourse with a widow], she becomes a chalalah [a woman of impaired priestly status, and therefore she may not marry even a common priest, who is ordinarily allowed to marry a widow].¹⁹⁸See ibid., p. 150, Note 1.

אל תחלל את בתך, "Do not profane your daughter, etc." G'd commands the father of a daughter not to make her into a sex-object even by merely displaying her beauty and enjoying the compliments paid to her beauty. The honour of a daughter is not in the admiring glances she receives by men ogling her but by her presiding in her domain inside the home. Even though a father displays his daughter in order to facilitate finding a suitable husband for her, G'd still commanded that from the girl's point of you it is a profanation for her; such displays may eventually lead to the daughter engaging in harlotry even at the instigation of her father. Once the father uses his daughter's physical charms to attract a husband and thereby a substantial dowry for himself, he may become tempted to use her earnings from illicit sex for himself instead. He may be exploiting the natural sexual desires which are kindled when the girl knows she is on display and admired. The next step in such permissiveness may be the spread of harlotry in the land until the land becomes so permeated by this sin that it will spew out its inhabitants. Eventually, the whole sin will be debited to the father who first ignored the prohibition in our verse. Read what I have written on Leviticus 18,2 in connection with the verse כמעשה ארץ מצרים. I have explained there that the sense of vision and the fantasies it conjures up is stronger than the will-power seated in one's brain and that this is why one must not feed the sense of vision with anything liable to arouse one's libido or someone else's libido either.