It shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go where she desires; but you shall not sell her at all for money. You shall not deal with her as a slave, because you have humbled her.
Not to enslave a beautiful captive woman after having relations with her
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וְהָיָה אִם־לֹא חָפַצְתָּ בָּהּ וְשִׁלַּחְתָּהּ לְנַפְשָׁהּ וּמָכֹר לֹא־תִמְכְּרֶנָּה בַּכָּסֶף לֹא־תִתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו מהתעמר באשת יפת תואר אחר שבא עליה. רוצה לומר שלא יעבידה ויניחה אצלו כשאר השפחות המשמשות כעבד. והוא אמרו לא תתעמר בה תחת אשר עניתה. ולשון ספרי לא תתעמר לא תשתמש. הנה התבאר לך שאלו שני לאוין יזהירו משני ענינים חלוקים, וזה שהוא מזהיר מלמכרה לזולתו ומהשאירה גם כן אצלו על דרך העבדות אבל יעשה כמו שצוה יתעלה ושלחתה לנפשה. וכן בארו (סנהדרין פ"ה:) בגונב נפש באמרו והתעמר בו ומכרו, ואמרו משיכניסהו ברשותו וישתמש בו. והתבארו דיני אשת יפת תואר בראשון מקדושין. (תצא, שם):
He prohibited us from exploiting a captive woman (yefat toar) after one has sexual intercourse with her. [This] means to say that he does not work her and leave her to be like one of the other maidservants that serve as slaves. And that is His saying, "you shall not exploit her, since you have afflicted her" (Deuteronomy 21:14). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 214:5) is, "'You shall not exploit her' - you shall not use her." Behold it has been made clear to you that these two negative commandments are prohibiting two separate matters. And that is that He prohibits from selling her to someone besides him; and also from leaving her with him in the manner of slavery. Rather he should do, like that which He, may He be exalted, commanded - "you shalt let her go where she will." And so did they explain in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 85b) about one who kidnaps a soul, from His saying, "and he exploited him and sold him" (Deuteronomy 24:7). They said, "It is from when he brings him into his domain and uses him." And the laws of the captive woman have been explained in the first [chapter] of Kiddushin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8.)
Hebrew: Sefer HaMitzvot, Warsaw 1883 (public domain). English: Sefaria Edition, trans. Rabbi Francis Nataf, 2021 (CC0). Via Sefaria; translator’s footnotes omitted.
Literary form: a case law — "if X, then Y"
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
No applicability flags are recorded for this commandment.
Classical halakhic consequences
The consequences the classical halakhah attaches to this commandment, grouped by who imposes them. Where a category has none recorded, that absence is itself meaningful.
Imposed by a court
- Lashes (malkot)
At the hands of Heaven
No divinely-imposed consequence is recorded.
Ritual remedy
No ritual remedy is recorded.
How the streams of Judaism treat this commandment
The streams of Judaism read the same commandment differently — an ongoing plurality, not a ranking. Each position below is reported as the catalog records it; none is presented as the correct one.
- Orthodox Binding
- Conservative Kept as an ethical principle
- Reform Rejected
- Reconstructionist Rejected
- Karaite Position uncertain
24 of 613 commandments have been examined in depth so far — this one is queued.
How later traditions received this commandment
How later traditions read or reworked this commandment, each attributed to its own voice. The catalog’s own classification of each reception is shown as it records it, never adopted as GEBible’s.
Rabbinic aggadah
- Sifre Deuteronomy §214 expanded it homiletically
Philo of Alexandria
- De Virtutibus 109-115 expanded it homiletically
Josephus
- Ant. 4.257-259 expanded it homiletically
Beside the older legal codes of its world
The commandment set beside the ancient Near-Eastern legal collections scholars compare it to — a descriptive comparison, not a claim of dependence.
- hittite laws betrothal, abduction of a betrothed woman, and bride-price/dowry disputes Relationship to the parallel: shared theme §§28-31 Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (1997)
- code of hammurabi status of a slave-woman who bore children to her master and the disposition of those children upon the master's death; loose thematic parallel to status protection Relationship to the parallel: shared theme §§170-171 Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (1997)
- middle assyrian laws classification and treatment of various categories of women including those in dependent domestic status; no prohibition on re-enslaving a woman after sexual use, and no grant of autonomous departure Relationship to the parallel: polemical contrast Tablet A §§40-44 Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (1997)
Where this commandment meets modern human-rights frameworks
One modern normative lens, attributed to it — not GEBible’s assessment. Each row names the framework it measures against and the catalog’s own classification of the relation.
This framework catalogues tensions; it records agreement in only one of its entries. The near-total tension rate is the shape of the instrument, not a finding.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
The commandment carries a punishment of thirty-nine lashes (malkot) for enslaving the captive woman; post-Enlightenment penal codes universally prohibit judicial corporal punishment as a sanction for any offense.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; judicially administered flogging constitutes degrading punishment under authoritative treaty-body interpretation.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that corporal jurisdiction lapsed with the dissolution of the Sanhedrin; the malkot sanction exists de jure but has not been enforced for approximately two millennia.