for that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What would he sleep in? It will happen, when he cries to me, that I will hear, for I am gracious.
Not to curse a ruler or leader of the people
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו מלקלל הנשיא. והוא אמרו ונשיא בעמך לא תאור, וזה השם רוצה לומר נשיא ישימהו הכתוב על המלך אשר לו הממשלה אמר אשר נשיא יחטא, וחכמים ישימוהו במוחלט על ראש הישיבה של שבעים זקנים, ובכל התלמוד ובמשנה יאמרו נשיאים ואבות בית דין, ובלשונם (סנהדרין י"ט:) נשיא שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול והמלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול. ודע שזה הלאו הוא כולל גם כן הנשיא עם המלך, כי ענין לאו זה שהוא מזהיר שלא לקלל כל מי שיש לו ממשלה לצוות והוא במעלה העליונה בין שהיתה שלטונית או תוריית והוא ראש הישיבה וזה המובן מדין מצוה זו, והעובר על לאו זה לוקה. (שם, שם):
He prohibited us from cursing a nassi (elevated one). And that is His saying, "and do not maledict a nassi among your people" (Exodus 22:27). And this title - meaning to say, nassi - was placed by Scripture upon a king who has power. It said [about a king], "If a nassi sins." But the sages placed it on the head of the academy of seventy elders. And in all of the Talmud and the Mishnah, they said, "the nessiim and the heads of the court." And in their language (Sanhedrin 19b), "'[In the case of] a nassi who forwent his honor, his honor is forgiven (it is effective); [of] a king who forwent his honor, his honor is not forgiven (it is not effective)." And know that this negative commandment includes [the rabbinic] nassi, along with the king. For the content of this negative commandment is that it prohibits cursing anyone who has the power to command and is at the highest level - whether it is governmental or pertaining to Torah. And [the latter] is the head of the academy; and that is what is understood from the law of this commandment. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is lashed. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 26.)
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 Binding, with modification
- 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.
Philo of Alexandria
- De Vita Mosis 2.205-206 reinterpreted it Philo treats the divine-blasphemy clause of the verse (Exod 22:27a / LXX 'you shall not revile gods') rather than the ruler-cursing clause specifically
Josephus
- Against Apion 2.237 reinterpreted it Addresses the same verse's blasphemy clause (against reviling gods) rather than the ruler-cursing clause specifically
- Antiquities 4.207 rationalized it
The New Testament
- Acts 23:5 affirmed it In the Lukan narrative Paul cites Exod 22:27 (LXX: 'you shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people' — the Greek verb 'speak evil of' rather than strictly 'curse') after rebuking the high priest, with the narrative presenting the prohibition as still binding
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.
- middle assyrian laws offenses involving a married woman and theft of temple/household property; no close lèse-majesté parallel Relationship to the parallel: shared theme A §§1-3 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 19
This framework classifies the relation as a substantive tension.
The prohibition on cursing a ruler, enforced by lashes, functions as a lèse-majesté provision that restricts verbal expression directed at political authority; UDHR Article 19 guarantees freedom of expression including the right to criticize those in power, and international human rights bodies have repeatedly identified lèse-majesté laws as incompatible with this right.
-
Article 5
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
The prescribed penalty of up to thirty-nine lashes for cursing a communal leader constitutes corporal punishment that UDHR Article 5 prohibits as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Imposing flogging as the sanction for a verbal offense against a political leader is disproportionate by modern penal standards, which reserve corporal punishment for no offense and require that sanctions bear a rational relationship to the harm caused.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that the authority to administer court-imposed lashes lapsed with the dissolution of the Sanhedrin after the destruction of the Second Temple; the flogging penalty is de jure operative but has no extant enforcement mechanism.