Composite manuscript: Hebrew letters to the Jewish court of Paris by Pinchas Michael Abdallah (Gaster Hebrew MS 1207)

Some say that it is permitted and there is a dispute in the Torah, and these are the permitters (the Halacha and some commentators). And some say that it is forbidden and one is flogged for this on account of "Do not have a cult prostitute" Deuteronomy 23:18, and these are the prohibitors (Rambam Maimonides and the Rosh Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel and the Tur), etc. All of them have harsh language. And this is that Rabbi Moses whom I wrote of from the rabbis of Ashkenaz, also a Halachic expert, his voice is pleasant, and the spirit of his comprehension is the Rabbi of Chelkat Mechokek Portion of the Lawgiver on the H.H. Shulchan Aruch / Chosen Mishpat, and this is his language: "And some say that it is forbidden and one is flogged for this on account of 'Do not have a cult prostitute.' From the words of Maimonides and the Tur, it is not implied that it would be forbidden in such a case, only a family defect, and the essence is [clear]. And if it were the prohibition of 'Do not have a cult prostitute,' it would be incumbent upon the court to force this. And what is the difference to me regarding the heifer [of redemption] which was punishable by excision spiritual severance/death on the basis of, and what is the difference to me regarding the prohibition of a cult prostitute, the H.H. And this is a Biblical law. And also from the words of Maimonides, it is not [indicated] that there would be flogging in the place of one who is set apart for one man, for he wrote: 'Anyone who has intercourse with a woman for the sake of promiscuity without betrothal is flogged.' It is implied that for one who is set apart for him for the sake of intimacy, even without betrothal, there is no prohibition... and in the laws of kings, he did not write [so], but only: 'However, the commoner is forbidden in all of them,' and he did not write that he is flogged for it." Thus far the language of Chelkat Mechokek. And behold, his words before him are a strong argument between the permitters and the prohibitors, and he proved with straightness the Rabbi of the Rema, who did not understand the words of the prohibitors, who are Maimonides, the Rosh, and the Tur. And even according to their method in strictness, it would be incumbent upon the court to force this, and that is [that] such a woman is considered a cult prostitute according to the opinion of the aforementioned prohibitors. And he did not explain his words as to which court it was incumbent upon to force the free woman to remove her from his house. Since it is so, it will always be kindled between the courts: this one permits and is lenient, and this one is strict and forbids. Behold, the Rabbi of Chelkat Mechokek is one of the later authorities to conclude [there is] a dispute over the Rema.