You shall burn the engraved images of their gods with fire. You shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it for yourself, lest you be snared in it; for it is an abomination to Yahweh your God.
Not to derive any benefit from the gold or silver overlay of an idol
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
לֹא־תַחְמֹד כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב עֲלֵיהֶם וְלָקַחְתָּ לָךְ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהירנו שלא ליהנות בתכשיטין שיקשטו בהן לע"ז. והוא אמרו יתברך לא תחמוד כסף וזהב עליהם. ובספרי ביאר שצפוי נעבד אסור וסמכו אותו באמרו יתברך לא תחמוד. ומי שעבר על לאו זה חייב מלקות. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו בע"ז. (והיה עקב, שם פ"ח):
That He prohibited us from benefiting from the ornaments with which an idol is decorated. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "you shall not covet the silver and gold on them" (Deuteronomy 7:25). And in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2:9), it explains that the covering of that which has been worshipped is forbidden; and they attached it to His, may He be blessed, saying, "you shall not covet." And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for lashes. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Avodah Zarah. (See Parashat Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 8.)
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
- Reform Kept as an ethical principle
- 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.
Rabbinic aggadah
- Avodah Zarah 44a expanded it homiletically
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.21-31 rationalized it
Josephus
- Antiquities 4.207 reinterpreted it
The New Testament
- Romans 2:22 carried a parallel Paul rhetorically rebukes one who 'abhors idols' yet 'robs temples' (hierosyleis), reflecting the live first-century question of profiting from idol metals
- Acts 19:24-27 carried a parallel Ephesian silversmiths' trade in Artemis shrines dramatizes the economic value of cult-image metalwork the prohibition targets
The Qur'an and hadith
- Q 21:57-58 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 Hammurabi's prologue lists his lavish provision of precious metals and materials for the divine cult-statues of Babylon's gods, demonstrating that the gold/silver overlay of divine images was a prestigious material expression of devotion in Mesopotamian culture — exactly the allure the Deuteronomic prohibition guards against Relationship to the parallel: polemical contrast Prologue Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (Scholars Press, 1997)
- enuma elish The gods construct and lavishly appoint Marduk's temple Esagila; the lavish precious-metal investment in Babylonian divine images is the cultural institution that makes the tzipui (overlay) of conquered idols a temptation requiring specific legal prohibition Relationship to the parallel: shared theme Tablet VI Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths (Eisenbrauns, 2013)
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 substantive tension.
The commandment prohibits economic dealings with the precious-metal overlay of idols, extending the contagion-based exclusion to the most material dimension of other religions' sacred objects; religious-freedom norms protect the right of religious communities to use, sell, and transfer their sacred materials without religiously motivated economic ostracism by law.
-
Article 18
This framework classifies the relation as a substantive tension.
ICCPR Article 18 protects the freedom to manifest religion in practice and observance; the specific prohibition on economic benefit from idol overlay operates as a legally enforced religious classification that penalizes contact with the material expressions of non-Israelite worship, conflicting with Article 18's broader protection of religious manifestation.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
The commandment prescribes 39 lashes for handling or trading in the gold or silver coating of a religious image; contemporary criminal law imposes no prohibition on commercial dealings with metal based on the religious origin of the object from which it derives.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; lashes for economic dealings with idol overlay constitute corporal punishment categorically barred by this provision.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that lash-jurisdiction lapsed with the dissolution of ordained Sanhedrin courts after 70 CE; the de jure sanction for this prohibition is textually operative but practically suspended.