“ ‘You shall not swear by my name falsely, and profane the name of your God. I am Yahweh.
Not to swear falsely by God's name
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וְלֹא־תִשָּׁבְעוּ בִשְׁמִי לַשָּׁקֶר וְחִלַּלְתָּ אֶת־שֵׁם אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהירנו מעבור על שבועות בטוי, והוא אמרו יתברך לא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, ושבועת בטוי הוא שנשבע על ענינים שאפשר לנו לעשותן או שלא נעשה בלא מניעות התורה ונשבענו על דבר מהם שנעשהו או שלא נעשהו, והנה חובה עלינו לקיים מה שנשבענו והוזהרנו שלא לעבור על השבועה, והוא באמרו ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר. ובגמרא שבועות (דף כ"א) אמרו איזוהי שבועת שקר נשבע להחליף, ותקנו זאת ואמרו אימא נשבע והחליף רוצה לומר שהוא נשבע על דבר ועשה הפך מה שנשבע עליו. ושם התבאר בשלישי משבועות ובתמורה (דף ג') גם כן הוא שמשבועת שקר היא העברת שבועת ביטוי. והוא אמרם שבועת שקר ה"ד כלומר איך תהיה שבועת שקר שאין בה מעשה, שזה היתה כוונת זה המאמר הקודמת שם, אי נימא שלא אוכל ואכל התם מעשה עבד אלא דאמר אוכל ולא אכל ההוא מי לקי והא איתמר עלה וכו'. והעובר על לאו זה אם היה מזיד לוקה ואם היה שוגג יקריב קרבן עולה ויורד כמו שבארנו במצוה ע"ב ממצות עשה. והוא אמרו בגמרא משבועות (שם) זו היא שבועת בטוי שחייבין על זדונה מלקות ועל שגגתה קרבן עולה ויורד, ושם התבארו משפטי מצוה זו. ודע שאמרם בזאת המצוה שהמזיד בה חייב מלקות אין מאמרם זה ממה שיורה שיש עון יתחייב מלקות אע"פ שלא היה בזדון, אבל כשתשמע אותו שיורה שיאמר בשום עון שהוא חייב מלקות בין מה שקדם בין מה שיבא, דע שלא יתחייב לו זה אלא אם כן היה מזיד בעדים והתראה כמו שהתבאר מתנאי העדים והתראה במסכת סנהדרין, אולם השוגג או האנוס אינו חייב בשום פנים לא מלקות ולא כרת וכל שכן מיתת בית דין, וזה מתחייב בכל המצות ודעהו. ואולם נבאר בקצת מצות ונאמר ואם היה מזיד חייב מלקות או מיתה להיותו חייב קרבן אם היה שוגג באותו ענין, כי אין כל עון חייב בשגגה קרבן, אבל כל מה שיתחייב מלקות (או כרת) או מיתת בית דין לא יתחייבו בו כי אם בעדים והתראה, וידוע כי ההתראה היא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד. ודע זה השורש ולא תבקשנו לכפול זאת. (קדושים תהיו, הפלאה הלכות שבועות פ"א):
That He prohibited us from violating an oath on an utterance. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "You shall not swear falsely by My name" (Leviticus 19:12). And an oath on an utterance is when we swear about things that are possible for us to do or for us not to do, without any restriction of the Torah - and we swear about one of these things, that we will do it or we will not do it. And behold it is an obligation for us to fulfill what we swore, and we are prohibited [from] violating the oath. And that is His saying, "You shall not swear falsely by My name." And in the Gemara, Shevuot (Shevuot 21a), they said, "Which is a false oath? He swore to alter [what already happened]." And they fixed this and said, "I would say, 'He swore and altered'" - meaning to say, that he swore about something and did the opposite of what he swore about. And there - in the third chapter of Shevuot and also in Temurah (Temurah 3b) - they explained that a false oath is the violation of an oath on an utterance. And that is their saying, "What are the circumstances of the false oath" - meaning to say, how could there be a false oath without an act? For this was the intention of the preceding statement there. "If we say, 'I will not eat,' and he ate; there he performed an act. And if it was where he said, 'I will eat,' and he did not eat; is he lashed? But wasn’t it stated about it, etc." (The above quote confirms that the Talmud understands a false oath to be an oath on an utterance.) And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed if it was volitional; and is liable for a variable sacrifice if he was inadvertent, as we explained in Commandment 72 of the Positive Commandments. And this is what they said in the Gemara in Shevuot (Shevuot 21a), "This is the oath on an utterance for which one is liable for lashes, when volitional; and a variable sacrifice when inadvertent." And the regulations of this commandment are explained there. But know that their saying about this commandment that the one who is volitional about it is liable for lashes - this statement of theirs has nothing to indicate that there is a sin that makes one liable for lashes even though it was not volitional. Rather when you hear it indicating to say about any sin, that [one who does it] is liable for lashes - whether in that which preceded or that which will [still] come - know that one will not be liable for this unless he was volitional, with witnesses and a warning, as is explained about the stipulations of witnesses and the warning in Tractate Sanhedrin. However one who was inadvertent or under duress is not liable under any circumstances - not for lashes, not for excision and, all the more so, not for a death penalty of the court. And this is required in all of the commandments - and know this. Nevertheless, we will explain it in a few commandments and say, "And if he was volitional, he is liable for lashes or death," in that he is liable [in that case] for a sacrifice when inadvertent. For not every sin is liable for a sacrifice when inadvertent. However everything that is liable for lashes (or excision) or a death penalty of the court is only liable for it with witnesses and a warning. And it is well-known that the warning is to distinguish between one inadvertent and one who is volitional. And know this principle, so that you do not [need to] request its repetition. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Oaths 1.)
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
- A guilt-offering (asham)
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
- Reform Kept as an ethical principle
- Reconstructionist Kept as an ethical principle
- 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)
- CD 15:1-5 read it more strictly
- CD 9:8-12 read it more strictly
Rabbinic aggadah
- Vayikra Rabbah 6:3 expanded it homiletically
- Tanhuma Vayikra 7 expanded it homiletically
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 2.2-38 rationalized it
- De Decalogo 82-95 rationalized it
Josephus
- Ant. 3.91-92 affirmed it
The New Testament
- Matthew 5:33-37 read it more strictly Sermon on the Mount escalates from 'do not swear falsely' to swearing not at all
- James 5:12 read it more strictly echoes the Matthean prohibition on oaths altogether
The Church Fathers
- Augustine, De Sermone Domini in Monte 1.17.51 reinterpreted it
- Origen, treatment of oaths (cf. Contra Celsum and homiletic material on swearing) reinterpreted it
The Qur'an and hadith
- Q 2:224-225 carried a parallel
- Q 5:89 carried a parallel
- Q 16:91-94 carried a parallel
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 false oath in property/ownership litigation, capital liability for the perjurer Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence §§9-11 Roth, Law Collections 2nd ed. (1997)
- code of hammurabi exculpatory oath before the god clearing an agent of liability Relationship to the parallel: shared formulary §103 Roth, Law Collections 2nd ed. (1997)
- code of hammurabi oath by the divine name to clear an accused wife Relationship to the parallel: shared formulary §131 Roth, Law Collections 2nd ed. (1997)
- laws of eshnunna illegal distraint of a debtor's dependent and liability for death of a distrainee (distraint procedure, not primarily oath-based) Relationship to the parallel: shared theme §§22-24 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.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
The prescribed sanction of thirty-nine lashes (malkot) for swearing falsely by God's name conflicts with the modern penal principle of proportionality, under which corporal punishment for a speech-act offense — however morally serious — is categorically disproportionate and prohibited in virtually all post-Enlightenment legal systems.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
Contemporary penal codes address perjury and false swearing through fines and custodial sentences, not corporally; the method of lashes prescribed by the rabbinic tradition is incompatible with modern criminal-law norms prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment even where the underlying offense remains an actionable wrong.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that capital and corporal jurisdiction by a Sanhedrin effectively lapsed with the destruction of the Second Temple and the cessation of ordained courts; the malkot sanction for false swearing therefore exists as a de jure norm but has not been enforced within a functioning Jewish legal system for nearly two millennia.