(Devarim 23:18) "There shall be no harlot from the daughters of Israel": You (beth-din) are exhorted (to keep harlotry) from the daughters of Israel, but you are not thus exhorted vis-à-vis gentile women. "and there shall be no harlot form the sons of Israel": You are exhorted vis-à-vis the sons of Israel, but not vis-à-vis Canaanite men. Why mention both kadesh (a male harlot [homosexuality]) and kedeshah (a female harlot). If you (beth-din) are exhorted vis-à-vis a kedeshah — of lesser stringency — in Israel; how much more so are you thus exhorted vis-à-vis a kadesh, (who is subject to the death penalty)! Or, conversely, if you are not exhorted vis-à-vis a Canaanite kadesh — of greater stringency, then how much more so are you not thus exhorted vis-à-vis a Canaanite kedeshah! (Why, then, must both be mentioned?) Both are necessary. For if only kedeshah were mentioned and not kadesh, I would say: You are exhorted vis-à-vis a kadesh — of greater stringency — in Israel; but you are not thus exhorted vis-à-vis a kedeshah — of lesser stringency. Or, you are not exhorted vis-à-vis a kedeshah — of lesser stringency — among the Canaanites; but you are exhorted vis-à-vis a kadesh — of greater stringency among the Canaanites. It is, therefore, written "There shall be no harlots from the daughters of Israel, and there shall be no harlots from the sons of Israel" — and you are not thus exhorted vis-à-vis the Canaanites.
(דברים כג יח) לֹא תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אִי אַתָּה מֻזְהָר עָלֶיהָ בָּאֻמּוֹת. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ אִי אַתָּה מֻזְהָר עָלָיו בָּאֻמּוֹת. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין: וּמָה אִם קְדֵשָׁה קַלָּה אַתָּה מֻזְהָר עָלֶיהָ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, קָדֵשׁ חָמוּר אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּהֵא מֻזְהָר עָלָיו בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל? אוֹ חִלּוּף: אִם קָדֵשׁ חָמוּר אִי אַתָּה מֻזְהָר עָלָיו בָּאֻמּוֹת, קְדֵשָׁה קַלָּה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא מֻזְהָר עָלֶיהָ בָּאֻמּוֹת? מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר קָדֵשׁ? צָרִיךְ לְאָמְרוֹ, שֶׁאִלּוּ נֶאֱמַר קְדֵשָׁה וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר קָדֵשׁ, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: אִם קְדֵשָׁה קַלָּה אַתָּה מֻזְהָר עָלֶיהָ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, קָדֵשׁ חָמוּר אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּהֵא מֻזְהָר עָלָיו בָּאֻמּוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לֹא תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אִי אַתָּה מֻזְהָר עָלֶיהָ בָּאֻמּוֹת, וְלֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ, אִי אַתָּה מֻזְהָר עָלָיו בָּאֻמּוֹת.
(Devarim 23:18) "There shall be no harlot from the daughters of Israel": You (beth-din) are exhorted (to keep harlotry) from the daughters of Israel, but you are not thus exhorted vis-à-vis gentile women. "and there shall be no harlot form the sons of Israel": You are exhorted vis-à-vis the sons of Israel, but not vis-à-vis Canaanite men. Why mention both kadesh (a male harlot [homosexuality]) and kedeshah (a female harlot). If you (beth-din) are exhorted vis-à-vis a kedeshah — of lesser stringency — in Israel; how much more so are you thus exhorted vis-à-vis a kadesh, (who is subject to the death penalty)! Or, conversely, if you are not exhorted vis-à-vis a Canaanite kadesh — of greater stringency, then how much more so are you not thus exhorted vis-à-vis a Canaanite kedeshah! (Why, then, must both be mentioned?) Both are necessary. For if only kedeshah were mentioned and not kadesh, I would say: You are exhorted vis-à-vis a kadesh — of greater stringency — in Israel; but you are not thus exhorted vis-à-vis a kedeshah — of lesser stringency. Or, you are not exhorted vis-à-vis a kedeshah — of lesser stringency — among the Canaanites; but you are exhorted vis-à-vis a kadesh — of greater stringency among the Canaanites. It is, therefore, written "There shall be no harlots from the daughters of Israel, and there shall be no harlots from the sons of Israel" — and you are not thus exhorted vis-à-vis the Canaanites.
[דָּבָר אַחֵר לֹא תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה] זוֹ אַזְהָרָה לַמֻּפְנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית לח כא): ״לֹא הָיְתָה בָזֶה קְדֵשָׁה״.