If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,
Not to subtract from the commandments of the Torah
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
לֹא־תֹסֵף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו מגרוע התורה לא מהכתוב ולא מהמקובל. והוא אמרו ולא תגרע ממנו, ובמקומות רבים אמרו עובר משום בל תגרע, עברת על בל תגרע. (ראה, שם):
He prohibited us from subtracting from the Torah, neither from what is written nor from what is received. And that is His saying, "and do not subtract from it" (Deuteronomy 13:1). And in many places, they said, "and he transgresses on account of, do not subtract"; "you have transgressed, do not subtract." (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 2.)
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 prohibition
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
- 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 Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite Binding
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)
- 1QS 8:15-16 The catalog describes this reception as: thematic Torah fidelity parallel
Rabbinic aggadah
- Sifre Deuteronomy §82 expanded it homiletically
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 4.143 rationalized it
Josephus
- Contra Apionem 1.42 affirmed it
The New Testament
- Revelation 22:18-19 carried a parallel the canon-formula 'add/take away' transposed onto the apocalyptic book itself, echoing Deut 4:2/13:1
- Matthew 5:18-19 reinterpreted it 'not one jot or tittle shall pass' affirms inviolability while reframing fulfillment
The Qur'an and hadith
- Q 2:79 rejected it polemically
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 inscriptional integrity / curse on one who alters or effaces the stela's words Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence Epilogue (rev. cols. xlix–li) Roth, Law Collections 2nd ed. (1997)
- neo assyrian vassal treaties prohibition on altering or removing the words of the treaty tablet, with curse sanctions Relationship to the parallel: shared formulary Concluding curse/integrity section (lines 410–413) Parpola & Watanabe, SAA 2 (1988)
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 a direct contradiction.
Malkot for the non-violent, victimless act of performing a religious practice with fewer elements than prescribed conflicts with the normative prohibition on corporal punishment for self-regarding conduct.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; lashes for subtracting from a ritual practice (e.g., three Sukkot species instead of four) constitute degrading treatment under post-1966 international human-rights standards.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Corporal punishment for an incomplete religious performance produces a sanction grossly disproportionate to any identifiable harm, violating the core principle that penalties must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Malkot jurisdiction lapsed with the dissolution of the ordained Sanhedrin; the de jure lashes sanction for bal tigra remains in classical halakhah but has been inoperative since late antiquity.