Not to have sexual relations with a woman without a marriage contract and betrothal: That we have been prevented from having sexual relations with a woman without a marriage contract and betrothal. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:18), “No daughter of Israel shall be a prostitute.” And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 355) and this is his language: “The negative commandment about this matter has already been duplicated with a different language in the verse (Leviticus 19:29), ‘Do not desecrate your daughter to make her a harlot’ — and the [following is the] language of Sifrei Kedoshim 7:3, ‘“Do not desecrate your daughter” — this is one who gives over his single daughter not for the sake of marriage and also [a woman] who gives herself over not for the sake of marriage.’ And hear from me for what [reason] this negative commandment of strong language was duplicated, and what matter was added with it (see Mishneh Torah, Virgin Maiden 2:17): That which He already made precede from His laws that one who has sexual relations with a virgin — whether it be a seduction or a rape — is not obligated any one of the punishments, except only to [give] money and to marry the woman with which he had sexual relations, as it is explained in the verse, would let it come into our thoughts that since this thing only requires the payment of money, that this law goes according to the procedure of financial law. And [if so, just] like a person has the right to give whatever of his money to his fellow and he leaves it to him to do his will with that which is [now] his; so too has [the father] the right to take the maiden with him and to give her to a man to have sexual relations with her, since that is his lot that he is deserving of — meaning to say the fifty shekel-coins of silver that go to the father of the maiden. And this [father] will also give her on condition that he takes from him such-and-such dinar-coins. And he is prevented from this [thought] and it is told to him, ‘Do not desecrate your daughter to make her a harlot.’ Since that which is My law with her to only take money, however, is only when there is an incident when a man seduces or rapes [her]; but when the matter is with the consent of both of them together and it is public, there is no permissibility to this at all from any angle. And He showed the explanation for this and stated (Leviticus 19:29), ‘lest the land fall into harlotry and the land be filled with depravity.’ [This is] since the existence of seduction and rape is limited, but when the matter would be by choice and consent, it would spread and fill the land. And this reason is very nice and it enhances the verse. And similar to this is all that which the Sages have mentioned and all that they agreed upon regarding the Torah laws.” To here is his language, may he be blessed. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrangled with him about this (in his critique of Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 355) and said that this negative commandment of the prostitute is not coming to warn one having sexual relations without a wedding contract and betrothal, as the wedding contract is neither a commandment nor a form of acquiring a woman at all, according to the Torah. But [rather] the main negative commandment [here] is coming to warn not to have sexual relations with a woman that is forbidden [in marriage] to the man having sexual relations in such a way that betrothal would not be effective for him with her. As they, may their memory be blessed, elucidated in the Gemara (Yevamot 61a), that the harlot (zonah) that is mentioned in every place in the Torah is none other than a woman who an Israelite has sexual relations with, when betrothal would not be effective for him with her. And this is the harlotry that the Torah distanced and loathed forever and [here] it warned the [man] and the [woman] about it. And so too from the foundation of this matter is that the verse warns the court that they should not let a woman be abandoned among them, since her end will be to have sexual relations with men that she is forbidden to [in marriage], to the point that betrothal is not effective for them with her. As there is no doubt that a woman abandoned to the many will not be exacting afterwards ‘between a piece of permissible fat and a piece of forbidden fat.’ And so too does it warn the father of the girl about this explicitly in another verse; that he should not abandon her to harlotry and not to give her over to one who cannot have betrothal with her. And about this is it stated, “Do not desecrate your daughter to make her a harlot.” And it is all from the reason mentioned — since she will have sexual relations with one who she is forbidden to [in marriage]; not from the reason of marriage contract and betrothal, as is the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed.
And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, also said that when the master of the Targum (Onkelos), translated [the verse as], “Never shall a woman of Israel be [married] to a man slave, and a man shall not marry, etc.,” he combined with this that we should not be mixed up with the slaves, as it is also sexual relations [of a couple for which] betrothal is not effective. And because of this, is it stated in this language: “No [daughter of Israel] shall be, etc.” Since had the verse stated, “There shall not be among you a male prostitute or a female prostitute,” slaves would have been included in the category of the prohibition; since they are also obligated in the commandments, except for those places where they are excluded — when Israel is explicitly specified, as with stealing a soul, wherein it is written there, “from his brother, from the Children of Israel.” And so too, here, where it states, “from the daughters of Israel” and “from the sons of Israel” — it is implied that the warning is to Israel alone; not to the slaves. And about the matter of this prohibition about “There shall not be a male prostitute,” I have already written the disagreement that [exists] between the two Sages mentioned there in the Order of Acharei Mot concerning the negative commandment of male cohabitation (Sefer HaChinukh 209), see there.
I have written what I know about the roots of the matter of distancing depravity in the Order of Acharei Mot (Sefer HaChinukh 188) and in the Order of Vayishma Yitro about the negative commandment of “do not commit adultery” (Sefer HaChinukh 35).
4
וְדִינֵי מִצְוָה זוֹ מְבֹאָרִין בְּמַסֶּכֶת כְּתֻבּוֹת וְקִדּוּשִׁין [א"ה סימן ו].
And the laws of this commandment are elucidated in Tractate Kiddushin. (See Tur, Even HaEzer 6.)
And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and lays with a single woman is liable for lashes — [both] he and she — even if the man having sexual relations with her can have betrothal with her, according to the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed. But according to Ramban, may his memory be blessed, a single man and a single woman who have sexual relations are not liable, except if she is sexually forbidden to him, to the extent that betrothal is not effective for him with her, as we have explained. And included in this prohibition is also that it is upon a court that knows that there is among them a woman who has abandoned herself, to eliminate this evil from among them. But they do not have a liability for lashes, as they are not doing an act; but their punishment is very great — since the entire degradation of the generation is attributed to one who has the ability in his hand to protest and does not protest.
שֶׁלֹּא לִבְעֹל אִשָּׁה בְּלֹא כְּתֻבָּה וְקִדּוּשִׁין – שֶׁנִּמְנַעְנוּ מִלִּבְעֹל אִשָּׁה בְּלֹא כְּתֻבָּה וְקִדּוּשִׁין, וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (דברים כג יח) לֹא תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְכָתַב הָרַמְבַּ"ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה (בסהמ"צ ל"ת שנה) וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ, וּכְבָר נִכְפַּל הַלָּאו בָּזֶה הָעִנְיָן בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֵר בַּכָּתוּב (ויקרא יט כט) אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ. וּלְשׁוֹן סִפְרֵי (קדושים ז ג) אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ, זֶה הַמּוֹסֵר בִּתּוֹ פְּנוּיָה שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִישׁוּת, וְכֵן הַמּוֹסֶרֶת עַצְמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִישׁוּת (עי' רמב"ם נערה בתולה פ"ב הי"ז). וּשְׁמַע מִמֶּנִּי לְאֵיזֶה דָּבָר נִכְפַּל זֶה הַלָּאו בָּזֶה הַלָּשׁוֹן וְאֵיזֶה עִנְיָן הוֹסִיף בּוֹ, וְזֶה שֶׁכְּבָר קָדַם מִדִּינָיו שֶׁהַבּוֹעֵל בְּתוּלָה, בֵּין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מְפַתֶּה אוֹ אֹנֶס אֵינוֹ חַיָּב שׁוּם עֹנֶשׁ מִן הָעֳנָשִׁים, אֶלָּא לִשְׁקֹל מָמוֹן לְבַד וְשֶׁיִּשָּׂא הָאִשָּׁה הַהִיא שֶׁבָּעַל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִתְבָּאֵר בַּכָּתוּב, וְיִהְיֶה עוֹלֶה בְּמַחְשַׁבְתֵּנוּ שֶׁאַחַר שֶׁזֶּה הַדָּבָר אֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא פִּרְעוֹן מָמוֹן, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הוֹלֵךְ דִּינוֹ אַחַר דִּין דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ רְשׁוּת לָאָדָם לָתֵת לַחֲבֵרוֹ מִמָּמוֹנוֹ מָה שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְיַנִּיחַ לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת חֶפְצוֹ בְּשֶׁלּוֹ, גַּם כֵּן יִהְיֶה רְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁיִּקַּח לוֹ בִּתּוֹ הַנַּעֲרָה וְיִתְּנָהּ לְאִישׁ שֶׁיִּבְעַל אוֹתָהּ אַחַר שֶׁזֶּהוּ חֻקּוֹ הָרָאוּי לוֹ, כְּלוֹמַר הַחֲמִשִּׁים כֶּסֶף שֶׁהֵם לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה, זֶה יִתְּנֶנָּה לוֹ כְּמוֹ כֵן עַל תְּנַאי שֶׁיִּקַּח מִמֶּנּוּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ דִּינָר, וְנִמְנַע מִזֶּה וְנֶאֱמַר לוֹ אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ, לְפִי שֶׁזֹּאת שֶׁדַּנְתִּי בָּהּ לָקַחַת מָמוֹן לְבַד אָמְנָם הוּא כְּשֶׁיִּקְרֶה מִקְרֶה שֶׁיְּפַתֶּה אִישׁ אוֹ יֶאֱנֹס, אֲבָל כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַדָּבָר בִּרְצוֹן שְׁנֵיהֶם יַחַד וּבְפִרְסוּם אֵין שׁוּם צַד הֶתֵּר לָזֶה בְּשׁוּם עִנְיָן. וְהֶרְאָה טַעַם בָּזֶה וְאָמַר (ויקרא שם) לֹא תִזְנֶה הָאָרֶץ וּמָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ זִמָּה. לְפִי שֶׁהַפִּתּוּי וְהָאֹנֶס יִמְעַט מְצִיאוּתָם, וּכְשֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָעִנְיָן בִּבְחִירָה וְרָצוֹן יִרְבֶּה זֶה וְיִתְפַּשֵּׁט בָּאָרֶץ. וְזֶה טַעַם יָפֶה מְאֹד וּמְשֻׁבָּח בְּזֶה הַפָּסוּק, וְהוּא דּוֹמֶה לְכָל מָה שֶׁזָּכְרוּ אוֹתוֹ הַחֲכָמִים וּלְמָה שֶׁהִסְכִּימוּ עָלָיו הַדִּינִים הַתּוֹרִיִּים, עַד כָּאן מִלְּשׁוֹנוֹ זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה. וְהָרַמְבַּ"ן זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה (בהשגתו לספר המצוות שם) תָּפַשׂ עָלָיו בָּזֶה וְאָמַר כִּי אֵין הַלָּאו הַזֶּה דִּקְדֵשָׁה בָּא לְהַזְהִיר לְבוֹעֵל בְּלֹא כְּתֻבָּה וְקִדּוּשִׁין, שֶׁאֵין בָּזֶה אִסּוּר תּוֹרָה, שֶׁהַכְּתֻבָּה אֵינָהּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּלָל מִצְוָה וְקִנְיָן בָּאִשָּׁה. אֲבָל עִקַּר הַלָּאו בָּא לְהַזְהִיר שֶׁלֹּא לָבֹא עַל אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל, בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין לוֹ בָּהּ, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאֲרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה בַּגְּמָרָא (יבמות סא, א) שֶׁאֵין הַזּוֹנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם בַּתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין לוֹ בָּהּ, וְזֶהוּ הַזְּנוּת שֶׁתַּרְחִיק הַתּוֹרָה וְתִמְאַס לְעוֹלָם, וְתַזְהִיר הַבּוֹעֵל וְהַנִּבְעֶלֶת עַל זֶה. וּכְמוֹ כֵן מִיְּסוֹד הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה הוּא שֶׁיַּזְהִיר הַכָּתוּב הַבֵּית דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יַנִּיחוּ אִשָּׁה מֻפְקֶרֶת בֵּינֵיהֶם, לְפִי שֶׁסּוֹפָהּ לְהִבָּעֵל לַאֲנָשִׁים שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה לָהֶם עַד שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין לָהֶם בָּהּ, שֶׁאֵין סָפֵק כִּי הַמֻּפְקֶרֶת לָרַבִּים לֹא תַּקְפִּיד אַחַר כֵּן בֵּין חֲתִיכַת שֻׁמָּן לַחֲתִיכַת חֵלֶב, וּכְמוֹ כֵן הֻזְהַר אֲבִי הַבַּת עַל זֶה בְּפֵרוּשׁ בְּפָסוּק אַחֵר שֶׁלֹּא לְהַפְקִירָהּ לִזְנוּת וְלֹא לְמָסְרָהּ לְמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין, וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ. וְהַכֹּל מִן הַטַּעַם הַנִּזְכָּר, כִּי תִּבָּעֵל לְמִי שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה עָלָיו, לֹא מִטַּעַם כְּתֻבָּה וְקִדּוּשִׁין כְּדַעַת הָרַמְבַּ"ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה.
Not to have sexual relations with a woman without a marriage contract and betrothal: That we have been prevented from having sexual relations with a woman without a marriage contract and betrothal. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:18), “No daughter of Israel shall be a prostitute.” And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 355) and this is his language: “The negative commandment about this matter has already been duplicated with a different language in the verse (Leviticus 19:29), ‘Do not desecrate your daughter to make her a harlot’ — and the [following is the] language of Sifrei Kedoshim 7:3, ‘“Do not desecrate your daughter” — this is one who gives over his single daughter not for the sake of marriage and also [a woman] who gives herself over not for the sake of marriage.’ And hear from me for what [reason] this negative commandment of strong language was duplicated, and what matter was added with it (see Mishneh Torah, Virgin Maiden 2:17): That which He already made precede from His laws that one who has sexual relations with a virgin — whether it be a seduction or a rape — is not obligated any one of the punishments, except only to [give] money and to marry the woman with which he had sexual relations, as it is explained in the verse, would let it come into our thoughts that since this thing only requires the payment of money, that this law goes according to the procedure of financial law. And [if so, just] like a person has the right to give whatever of his money to his fellow and he leaves it to him to do his will with that which is [now] his; so too has [the father] the right to take the maiden with him and to give her to a man to have sexual relations with her, since that is his lot that he is deserving of — meaning to say the fifty shekel-coins of silver that go to the father of the maiden. And this [father] will also give her on condition that he takes from him such-and-such dinar-coins. And he is prevented from this [thought] and it is told to him, ‘Do not desecrate your daughter to make her a harlot.’ Since that which is My law with her to only take money, however, is only when there is an incident when a man seduces or rapes [her]; but when the matter is with the consent of both of them together and it is public, there is no permissibility to this at all from any angle. And He showed the explanation for this and stated (Leviticus 19:29), ‘lest the land fall into harlotry and the land be filled with depravity.’ [This is] since the existence of seduction and rape is limited, but when the matter would be by choice and consent, it would spread and fill the land. And this reason is very nice and it enhances the verse. And similar to this is all that which the Sages have mentioned and all that they agreed upon regarding the Torah laws.” To here is his language, may he be blessed. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrangled with him about this (in his critique of Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 355) and said that this negative commandment of the prostitute is not coming to warn one having sexual relations without a wedding contract and betrothal, as the wedding contract is neither a commandment nor a form of acquiring a woman at all, according to the Torah. But [rather] the main negative commandment [here] is coming to warn not to have sexual relations with a woman that is forbidden [in marriage] to the man having sexual relations in such a way that betrothal would not be effective for him with her. As they, may their memory be blessed, elucidated in the Gemara (Yevamot 61a), that the harlot (zonah) that is mentioned in every place in the Torah is none other than a woman who an Israelite has sexual relations with, when betrothal would not be effective for him with her. And this is the harlotry that the Torah distanced and loathed forever and [here] it warned the [man] and the [woman] about it. And so too from the foundation of this matter is that the verse warns the court that they should not let a woman be abandoned among them, since her end will be to have sexual relations with men that she is forbidden to [in marriage], to the point that betrothal is not effective for them with her. As there is no doubt that a woman abandoned to the many will not be exacting afterwards ‘between a piece of permissible fat and a piece of forbidden fat.’ And so too does it warn the father of the girl about this explicitly in another verse; that he should not abandon her to harlotry and not to give her over to one who cannot have betrothal with her. And about this is it stated, “Do not desecrate your daughter to make her a harlot.” And it is all from the reason mentioned — since she will have sexual relations with one who she is forbidden to [in marriage]; not from the reason of marriage contract and betrothal, as is the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed.
וְעוֹד אָמַר הָרַמְבַּ"ן זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה (שם), כִּי בַּעַל הַתַּרְגּוּם כְּשֶׁתִּרְגֵּם, לֹא תְהֵא [אִתְּתָא מִ]בְּנָת יִשְׂרָאֵל לִגְבַר עֶבֶד וְלֹא יִסַּב גַּבְרָא וְגוֹ' יִחֵד בָּזֶה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְעָרֵב עִם הָעֲבָדִים, שֶׁהִיא גַּם כֵּן בִּיאָה שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהֶן, וּמִפְּנֵי כֵן נֶאֱמַר בְּלָשׁוֹן הַזֶּה לֹא יִהְיֶה וְגוֹ', שֶׁאִלּוּ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּךָ קָדֵשׁ וּקְדֵשָׁה הָיוּ הָעֲבָדִים נִכְלָלִין בִּכְלַל הָאִסּוּר, שֶׁגַּם הֵן חַיָּבִין בַּמִּצְוֹת זוּלָתִי בִּמְקוֹמוֹת מוּעָטִים שֶׁפֹּרַט בָּהֶן יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּפֵרוּשׁ, כְּמוֹ בְּגוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁכָּתוּב שָׁם מֵאֶחָיו מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּכְמוֹ כֵן בְּכָאן שֶׁאָמַר מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִכְּלָל שֶׁהָאַזְהָרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְבַד, לֹא עַל הָעֲבָדִים. וּבְעִנְיָן הַלָּאו הַזֶּה דְּלָא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ כְּבָר כָּתַבְתִּי הַמַּחְלֹקֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִשְׁנֵי הַחֲכָמִים הַנִּזְכָּרִים בּוֹ בְּסֵדֶר אַחֲרֵי מוֹת בְּלָאו דְּמִשְׁכַּב זְכוּר (מצוה רט) עַיֵּן שָׁם.
And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, also said that when the master of the Targum (Onkelos), translated [the verse as], “Never shall a woman of Israel be [married] to a man slave, and a man shall not marry, etc.,” he combined with this that we should not be mixed up with the slaves, as it is also sexual relations [of a couple for which] betrothal is not effective. And because of this, is it stated in this language: “No [daughter of Israel] shall be, etc.” Since had the verse stated, “There shall not be among you a male prostitute or a female prostitute,” slaves would have been included in the category of the prohibition; since they are also obligated in the commandments, except for those places where they are excluded — when Israel is explicitly specified, as with stealing a soul, wherein it is written there, “from his brother, from the Children of Israel.” And so too, here, where it states, “from the daughters of Israel” and “from the sons of Israel” — it is implied that the warning is to Israel alone; not to the slaves. And about the matter of this prohibition about “There shall not be a male prostitute,” I have already written the disagreement that [exists] between the two Sages mentioned there in the Order of Acharei Mot concerning the negative commandment of male cohabitation (Sefer HaChinukh 209), see there.
מִשָּׁרְשֵׁי עִנְיַן הַרְחָקַת הַזִּמָּה כָּתַבְתִּי מָה שֶׁיָּדַעְתִּי בּוֹ בְּסֵדֶר אַחֲרֵי מוֹת (מצוה קפח) וּבְסֵדֶר וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ בְּלָאו דְּלֹא תִּנְאָף (מצוה לה).
I have written what I know about the roots of the matter of distancing depravity in the Order of Acharei Mot (Sefer HaChinukh 188) and in the Order of Vayishma Yitro about the negative commandment of “do not commit adultery” (Sefer HaChinukh 35).
וְדִינֵי מִצְוָה זוֹ מְבֹאָרִין בְּמַסֶּכֶת כְּתֻבּוֹת וְקִדּוּשִׁין [א"ה סימן ו].
And the laws of this commandment are elucidated in Tractate Kiddushin. (See Tur, Even HaEzer 6.)
וְנוֹהֵג אִסּוּר זֶה בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן בִּזְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת. וְהָעוֹבֵר עַל זֶה וְשָׁכַב עִם הַפְּנוּיָה חַיָּבִים מַלְקוּת הוּא וְהִיא, וַאֲפִלּוּ כְּשֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין, לְדַעַת הָרַמְבַּ"ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה, וּלְדַעַת הָרַמְבַּ"ן זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה לֹא יִתְחַיְּבוּ פָּנוּי הַבָּא עַל הַפְּנוּיָה אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה עָלָיו עַד שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין לוֹ בָּהּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּבִכְלַל הַלָּאו גַּם כֵּן בֵּית דִּין שֶׁיָּדְעוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶם אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִפְקִירָה עַצְמָהּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם לְבַעֵר הָרָע מִקִּרְבָּם, וְאֵין עֲלֵיהֶם חִיּוּב מַלְקוּת, לְפִי שֶׁהֵם אֵינָן עוֹשִׂין מַעֲשֶׂה, אֲבָל עָנְשָׁם גָּדוֹל מְאֹד, שֶׁכָּל קִלְקוּל הַדּוֹר נִתְלֶה בְּמִי שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ לִמְחוֹת וְאֵינוֹ מוֹחֶה.
And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and lays with a single woman is liable for lashes — [both] he and she — even if the man having sexual relations with her can have betrothal with her, according to the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed. But according to Ramban, may his memory be blessed, a single man and a single woman who have sexual relations are not liable, except if she is sexually forbidden to him, to the extent that betrothal is not effective for him with her, as we have explained. And included in this prohibition is also that it is upon a court that knows that there is among them a woman who has abandoned herself, to eliminate this evil from among them. But they do not have a liability for lashes, as they are not doing an act; but their punishment is very great — since the entire degradation of the generation is attributed to one who has the ability in his hand to protest and does not protest.