Moses said to the people, “Don’t be afraid, for God has come to test you, and that his fear may be before you, that you won’t sin.”
Not to make figures of the human form
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּן אִתִּ֑י אֱלֹ֤הֵי כֶ֙סֶף֙ וֵאלֹהֵ֣י זָהָ֔ב לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּ לָכֶֽם
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהירנו מעשות צורות בעלי חיים מהעצים והאבנים והמתכות וזולתם ואע"פ שלא יעשו להעבד, וזה הרחקה מעשות הצורות כלל כדי שלא יחשוב בהם מה שיחשבו הסכלים עע"ז שיחשבו כי לצורות כחות. והוא אמרו יתעלה לא תעשון אתי אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב. ולשון מכילתא בענין לאו זה על צד הבאור אלהי כסף לא תעשו שלא תאמר הריני עושה לנוי כדרך שאחרים עושין במדינות תלמוד לומר לא תעשו לכם. והעובר על לאו זה חייב מלקות. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו ואי זה מן הצורות אפשר לציירם ואי זה מהם לא יצויירו ואיך יהיה תאר הציור בפ"ג מע"ז. והתבאר בסנהדרין (דף ז':) שלאו זה גם כן רוצה לומר אמרו לא תעשון כולל ענינים מכוונת מצוה זו. אבל פשטיה דקרא מדבר במה שזכרנו כמו שהתבאר במכילתא. (וישמע יתרו, מדע הלכות ע"ז וחקות העכו"ם פ"ג):
That He prohibited us from making images from wood, stones, metal and other [substances] - and even though they are not made to worship. And this distancing, of not making images at all, is in order that one not think that which the foolish worshippers of idolatry think about them - that the images have power. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You shall not make any gods of silver or gods of gold with Me" (Exodus 20:20). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael Chapter 20:20:2) regarding the content of this negative commandment, by way of explanation is, "'You shall not make any gods of silver' - that you should not say, 'Behold I shall make it for ornamentation, as others do in the provinces.' [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not make [...] for yourselves.'" And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for lashes. And the regulations of this commandment - and which forms can be fashioned and which cannot be fashioned and what is the description of fashioning - have already been explained in Chapter 3 of Tractate Avodah Zarah. And it has already been explained in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 7b) that this negative statement - meaning to say, His saying, "You shall not make" - includes content beyond this commandment. But the simple understanding of the verse is that it is speaking about that which we mentioned, as is explained in the Mekhilta. (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 3.)
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, with modification
- Conservative Binding, with modification
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite Contested
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
- Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Bachodesh 6 (on Exod 20) expanded it homiletically
Philo of Alexandria
- De Decalogo 66-76 rationalized it
Josephus
- Ant. 3.91 affirmed it Paraphrases the Decalogue's prohibition of images generally, affirming the aniconic principle
The New Testament
- Acts 17:29 affirmed it Paul argues the divine is not to be likened to gold, silver, or stone shaped by human art; affirms aniconism regarding divine representation rather than the human-figure prohibition specifically
The Qur'an and hadith
- Q 21:52-54 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.
- enuma elish Babylonian cosmogony depicts both gods and humans in thoroughly anthropomorphic terms; against this backdrop the rabbinic prohibition against three-dimensional human-form sculpture polemically restricts replication of the human form as a near-divine likeness Relationship to the parallel: polemical contrast Tablet I (the gods described in anthropomorphic terms) and Tablet VI (creation of humanity from Kingu's blood to serve the gods) Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths (Eisenbrauns, 2013)
- ugaritic texts Ugaritic mythology is thoroughly anthropomorphic in its description of divine beings and presupposes that anthropomorphic divine statues are appropriate cult objects; the Israelite prohibition on human-form sculpture contrasts with this Levantine norm Relationship to the parallel: polemical contrast KTU 1.3–1.6 (Baal Cycle: anthropomorphic descriptions of El, Baal, Anat, and Mot) Smith and Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle (Brill, 1994, 2009)
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.
UDHR Article 19 protects freedom of expression, including artistic creation; a rabbinic extension prohibiting three-dimensional human-form sculpture — even purely decorative — restricts a basic mode of visual and artistic expression enforced through corporal punishment.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
Violation carries thirty-nine lashes; no contemporary legal system imposes corporal punishment for the production of sculpture, figurines, or other representations of the human form.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; thirty-nine lashes for crafting a human-form sculpture constitutes such treatment.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Malkot requires a beit din of three with true semikha (Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:2; Rambam Hilkhot Sanhedrin 5:4 / 16:1), a chain effectively broken; the corporal sanction is de facto suspended, and in practice even Orthodox communities permit two-dimensional human representations, substantially narrowing the prohibition's operative scope.