Halakhah su Levitico 19:29

Sometimes the reasons for commandments are similar to negative commandments and are thought of as being included in that which should be counted by itself. And this is like its stating, "Then the first husband who sent her away shall not take her to wife again [...] you must not bring sin upon the land" (Deuteronomy 24:4): Its stating, "you must not bring sin upon the land," is the reason for the prohibition that preceded it. It is as if it is saying that if you do this, you will cause great loss to the land. An it is [also] like its stating, "Do not profane your daughter and make her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry" (Leviticus 19:29). For its stating, "lest the land fall into harlotry," is the reason. It as if it said that the reason of this prohibition is so that "the land not fall into harlotry." And so too, its stating, "you shall not make yourselves unclean therewith and become unclean with them" (Leviticus 11:43): After mentioning the prohibition of the various species that are forbidden to eat, it gave a reason for this and said, "you shall not make yourselves unclean" by eating them. It is as if it is saying that which caused this to be prohibited is the making of oneself impure. And to explain that which He, may He be blessed, said after He prefaced not taking ransom from a murderer, "You shall not defile the land" (Numbers 35:34) - they said in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 160:13), "The verse is telling us that spilling blood defiles the land." Hence behold it is clear that this negative statement is the reason for the previous negative commandment, not something else. And likewise regarding that which is stated, "He shall not go outside the sanctuary and not profane" (Leviticus 21:12) - if he does go outside, he profanes. And someone besides us already erred about this principle as well, and counted all of these [as] negative commandments, without observation. However whoever counted them will be embarrassed when they ask him and say, "What thing does this negative commandment prohibit?" And he will not have anything to answer at all. So through this, it becomes clear that it is not be counted. And this is what we intended to clarify about this principle.

Rabbi Soloveichik further argues that permitting the use of a mikveh for invalid conversions constitutes the violation of yet other biblical prohibitions. Ramban, in his Commentary on the Bible, Leviticus 19:29 and Deuteronomy 23:18, as well as in his glosses on Rambam's Sefer ha-Mizvot, shoresh 5, and mizvot lo ta'aseh, no. 355, declares that the verse, "There shall not be a prostitute from among the daughters of Israel, nor shall there be a prostitute from among the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:18), and the verse, "and the land shall not be filled with licentiousness" (Leviticus 19:29), constitute admonitions to the Bet Din forbidding it to allow liaisons between persons who cannot contract a valid marriage. Rabbi Soloveichik asserts that, according to Ramban, the prohibitions are not addressed solely to the members of the Bet Din, but devolve upon any person capable of preventing the acts in question. Hence, any person who facilitates a forbidden liaison of such nature is guilty of violating these two prohibitions. Permitting use of a mikveh for an invalid conversion serves to provide sanction for a conjugal relationship between a Jew and a person who, in reality, is a non-Jew and hence, concludes Rabbi Soloveichik, constitutes a violation of these prohibitions.

One about whom it has been claimed [that he had relations] with an unmarried woman, there are those who say that he shouldn't marry her because of the bad talk [that will result] for it looks like they are confirming the rumor. But there are those that say it is a mitzvah to marry her. Hagah: The first reasoning is the main one. And if there is fear that she will go out to an "evil culture" (i.e. marry out of Judaism), he may marry her. And all of this refers to a simple rumor, but if he certainly had relations with her, it is a mitzvah to marry her, but we don't enforce that (ibid). But if a rumor went out concerning that she had relations with two men, the first only a rumor and the second added to her insult, the second has a mitzvah to marry her. But if the rumor is of equal strength with regard to both, one is married and one is not married, the second has a mitzvah to marry her (ibid). See above siman 22, whether she is trustworthy in this matter. A prostitute that was requested of one who promised to pay her a price and he denies it, he must take an oath as is true in other suits (Ribash, siman 41). This is what the Torah obligated the rapist and the seducer to pay money, when it just happened. But a father is not allowed to give his daughter to be a harlot, and about this it is written, "Do not defile your daughter to make her a harlot" (Leviticus 19:29). And anyone who prepares herself to be a harlot, whether on her own accord or her father's is considered a "kedeshah" and there is no distinction in this matter between a virgin and a non-virgin. And a court may fine prostitutes in order to erect a fence. And it happened with one who fornicated with a non-Jew, that they cut her nose off, in order to disfigure her (Responsa of the Rosh 18).