You shall not walk in the customs of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
Not to follow the customs or practices of the idolaters
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וְלֹא תֵלְכוּ בְּחֻקֹּת הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִי מְשַׁלֵּחַ מִפְּנֵיכֶם
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו מללכת בדרכי העכו"ם ומהתנהג במנהגותיהם ואפילו במלבושיהם ובקבוציהם במושבם. והוא אמרו יתעלה לא תלכו בחקות הגוים, ובא הפירוש לא אמרתי אלא החקוקים להם מאבותיהם. ולשון ספרי ובחקותיהם לא תלכו בנימוסות שלהם ובדברים החקוקים להם כגון טרטריאות וקרקסיאות, ואלו הם מינים ממושבם שהיו מתקבצין בהם לעבודת הצלמים, רבי מאיר אומר אלו דרכן של אמורים שמנו חכמים, רבי יהודה אומר שלא תנהיר שלא תגדל ציצית ושלא תספר קומי. ומי שעשה דבר מאלה חייב מלקות, ונכפלה האזהרה מזה הענין במקום אחר, והוא אמרו השמר לך פן תנקש אחריהם שמא תדמה להם ותעשה כמעשיהם והיה לך למוקש שלא תאמר הואיל והוא יוצא בתלוסין אף אני אצא בתלוסין, והוא מין ממיני זיון הפרשים. וכבר ידעת לשון הנביא על כל הלובשים מלבוש נכרי (צפניה א׳:ח׳). וזה כלו להתרחק מהם ולגנות כל חקותיהם ואפילו במלבוש. והתבארו משפטי מצוה זו בששי משבת. (קדושים תהיו, מדע הלכות ע"ז וחקות העכו"ם פי"א):
He prohibited us from following in the ways of the idolaters, and from behaving according to their practices - and even with their clothing and with their gatherings in their assemblies. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You shall not follow the practices of the nation(s)" (Leviticus 20:23). And in the explanation (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8:8), it appears - "I only said those that were established for them from their forefathers." And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:8) is, "'And in their statutes you shall not walk' (Leviticus 18:3) - in their customs, those things that are established for them, such as theatres and circuses." And these were types of assemblies in which they would gather for worship of the images. "Rabbi Meir says, 'These are the ways of the Amorites, which the Sages enumerated.' Rabbi Yehudah says, 'that you not round [your face], and not cultivate locks, and not wear the hair komi.'" And one who does one of these things is liable for lashes. And the prohibition of this content was repeated in another place. And that is His saying, "Take heed unto yourselves, lest you are drawn in after them" (Deuteronomy 12:30). Lest you resemble them and do their deeds and it becomes a stumbling block; that you should not say, "Since they are going out with telusin, I will also go out with telusin" - and that is a type of weapon of the Persians. And you already know the language of the prophet (Zephaniah 1:8), "and all such as are clothed in foreign garments." And this is all to distance ourselves from them and to revile all of their practices, and even their clothes. And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in the sixth [chapter] of Shabbat. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 11.)
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 Rejected
- Reconstructionist Rejected
- Karaite As the catalog records it: uncertain/unattested (Karaite halakhic treatment of this category is not clearly documented; binding by analogy is conjectural)
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 12:6-11 carried a thematic parallel addresses halakhah governing relations with gentiles (trade, sabbath conduct) generally rather than a direct reinterpretation of the chukkot ha-goyim prohibition
Rabbinic aggadah
- Sifra Qedoshim 9:8 expanded it homiletically
- Leviticus Rabbah 23:9 expanded it homiletically
Josephus
- Contra Apionem 2.173-174 carried a thematic parallel passage addresses Jewish fidelity to ancestral law generally rather than the specific prohibition on imitating gentile custom
The New Testament
- 2 Corinthians 6:17 reinterpreted it echoes the separation-from-the-nations motif of Lev 20:23-26 applied to the early church
The Qur'an and hadith
- Sunan Abi Dawud 4031 (man tashabbaha bi-qawmin fa-huwa minhum tradition) 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.
- egyptian negative confession Egyptian ethical self-declarations that similarly define correct conduct by contrast with a catalogue of forbidden behaviors; the Holiness Code's contrast of Israelite ethics against Egyptian and Canaanite practice mirrors the Egyptian negative confession's rhetorical structure of self-definition through denial Relationship to the parallel: shared theme Book of the Dead Ch. 125, declarations 1–42 Allen, The Egyptian Book of the Dead: Documents in the Oriental Institute Museum (OIP 82, 1960)
- ugaritic texts Canaanite cultic practices, especially Baal and Asherah veneration attested in the Baal Cycle and the ritual corpus; these illustrate the kind of cultic 'statutes' of the nations that the Holiness Code rhetorically targets in Lev 20:23 Relationship to the parallel: polemical contrast Baal Cycle (KTU 1.1–1.6) and Ugaritic ritual texts Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (SBL, 2002)
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 commandment prohibits adopting the cultural practices, dress, entertainment, and social customs of non-Jewish populations on pain of flogging; freedom of conscience and expression encompasses the right to adopt or share cultural practices without state coercion, which the prohibition's enforcement mechanism directly contradicts.
-
Article 18 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion)
This framework classifies the relation as a substantive tension.
The broad Maimonidean reading extends the prohibition to dress, hairstyle, and any practice associated with other cultural-religious communities; ICCPR Article 18 protects the freedom to manifest religion or belief in practice and observance, and the imposition of flogging for cultural imitation of a religious group creates a coercive framework incompatible with that freedom.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
Rabbinic tradition classifies willful violation of the chuqqot ha-goyim prohibition as punishable by thirty-nine lashes; post-Enlightenment penal systems hold that corporal punishment for lifestyle or cultural conduct is cruel and disproportionate.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
The prescription of malkot (flogging) for imitation of non-Jewish cultural practices — including dress, entertainment attendance, and aesthetic customs — violates the modern principle of proportionality, which precludes corporal punishment for non-violent cultural behavior.
-
Article 5 (prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment)
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
The flogging sanction applicable to violations of the chuqqot ha-goyim prohibition constitutes corporal punishment that UDHR Article 5 categorically prohibits, irrespective of the underlying conduct targeted.