When a man takes a wife and marries her, then it shall be, if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a certificate of divorce, put it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
To marry according to Torah law through betrothal and marriage
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
כִּי־יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבְעָלָהּ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
היא שצונו לבעול בקדושין ולתת דבר ביד האשה או בשטר או בביאה, וזו היא מצות קדושין, והרמז עליו כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה וגו', הורה שהוא יקנה בביאה, ואמרו ויצאה והיתה, כי כמו שההוצאה בשטר אף ההויה בשטר. וכמו כן למדנו שהיא נקנית בכסף מאמרו באמה העבריה אין כסף לאדון זה אבל יש כסף לאדון אחר ומנו אב. אבל קדושין דאורייתא אמנם הם מבוארים שהם בביאה כמו שהתבאר במקומות מכתובות וקדושין ונדה. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו בשלמות במסכת קדושין. ובבאור אמרו (קדושין ט':) קדושי ביאה שהם דאורייתא. (כי תצא, נשים הלכות אישות):
That is that He commanded us to marry with kiddushin: To give something into the hand of the woman; through a contract; or through sexual intercourse. And that is the commandment of kiddushin. And the hint to this is, "When a man takes a wife, and marries (which can also mean, has intercourse with) her etc." (Deuteronomy 24:1) - indicating that he effectuates [the marriage] with intercourse; and His saying, "And she leaves [...] and becomes" (Deuteronomy 24:2) - since just like the leaving (divorce) is with a contract, so too is the becoming (marriage) with a contract. And likewise have we learned that [it is effectuated] with money, from His saying about a Hebrew maid-servant, "there is no money" (Exodus 21:11) - to this master, there is no money, but there is money to another master. And who is that? The father [of a bride]. But kiddushin from the Torah is nevertheless explained to be with intercourse, as is explained in [various] places in Ketubot, Kiddushin and Niddah. And the regulations of this commandment have already been completely explained in Tractate Kiddushin. But women are not obligated in this commandment. And in the explanation, they said (Kiddushin 9b), "Kiddushin with intercourse, which is from the Torah." (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Marriage.)
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.
- Recorded as practiced today
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
No court-imposed penalty is recorded.
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 Binding, with modification
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Binding, with modification
- Karaite Binding, with modification
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.
Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls)
- CD 4:20-5:2 read it more strictly
- 11QT 57:17-19 read it more strictly
Rabbinic aggadah
- Genesis Rabbah 68:4 expanded it homiletically
- Genesis Rabbah 17:2 expanded it homiletically
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 3.72 rationalized it
Josephus
- Ant. 4.244-245 affirmed it
The New Testament
- Matthew 19:4-6 reinterpreted it Jesus subordinates the Deuteronomic marriage-divorce framework to the creation archetype, citing Genesis 1:27 ('male and female') and Genesis 2:24 ('one flesh')
- Mark 10:6-9 reinterpreted it marriage presented as indissoluble by divine design, subordinating the Deuteronomic divorce concession to the creation order
The Qur'an and hadith
- Q 4:4 The catalog describes this reception as: thematic parallel (mahr/bridal gift)
- Q 4:24 The catalog describes this reception as: thematic parallel (mahr/marriage payment)
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.
- code of hammurabi a marriage contracted without formal agreement/contract is invalid ('she is no wife') Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence §128 Roth, Law Collections 2nd ed. (1997)
- laws of eshnunna marriage invalid without contract/parental agreement and bridewealth Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence §27-28 Roth, Law Collections 2nd ed. (1997)
- laws of lipit ishtar marital inheritance and provisions concerning a man's wife and offspring Relationship to the parallel: shared theme §§24-27 Roth, Law Collections 2nd ed. (1997)
- middle assyrian laws betrothal formalities — oil-pouring (anointing) at betrothal (§42) and bridewealth/death-of-betrothed provisions (§43) Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence A §§42-43 Roth, Law Collections 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.
-
Article 16
This framework classifies the relation as a substantive tension.
The qiddushin framework, formulated as a unilateral act of acquisition by the husband (laqach/ba'al), positions the wife as the object of a legal transaction rather than an equal party; CEDAW Article 16 requires states to ensure equal rights and responsibilities of spouses in marriage and its dissolution.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a substantive tension.
The rabbinic marriage institution as derived from this commandment vests the initiation of the marriage bond exclusively in the groom's acquisition act, with no corresponding positive obligation on the woman, encoding a structural inequality in the formation of the marital relationship.