If you hear about one of your cities, which Yahweh your God gives you to dwell there, that
Not to entice a fellow Israelite to worship idols
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן־אִמֶּךָ אוֹ־בִנְךָ אוֹ־בִתְּךָ אוֹ אֵשֶׁת חֵיקֶךָ אוֹ רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ בַּסֵּתֶר לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה וְנַעַבְדָה אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהירנו מהסית והוא שידרוש אחד מישראל לעבוד ע"ז והוא הנקרא מסית כמו שקדם באורו. ולשון אזהרה מזה ולא יוסיפו לעשות בדבר הרע הזה. והעובר על לאו זה חייב סקילה כמו שבא בכתוב כי הרוג תהרגנו. והאיש שמשתדל המסית שיוסת לו הוא ראוי שיהרגנו כמו שבאר יתעלה ידך תהיה בו בראשונה. ולשון ספרי מצוה זו ביד המוסת. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו בסנהדרין. (שם, שם פ"ה):
That He prohibited us from inciting. And that is that one preach to an individual Jew to worship an idol. And this is called an inciter (mesit), as was previously explained. And the language of the prohibition of this is, "and they will not continue to do like this evil thing" (Deuteronomy 13:12). And one who transgressed this negative commandment is liable for stoning, as appears in the verse, "But rather surely kill him" (Deuteronomy 13:10). And the person that the inciter is trying to incite is the appropriate [one] to kill him - as He, may He be exalted, explains, "let your hand be the first against him." And the language of the Sifrei is, "This commandment is with the hand of the incited." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 5.)
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 case law — "if X, then Y"
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
No applicability flags are recorded for this commandment.
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
- Death by stoning (sekilah)
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 Kept as an ethical principle
- Reform Rejected
- Reconstructionist Rejected
- Karaite Binding, with modification
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)
- 11QTemple (11Q19) LIV (with LV) read it more strictly
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.315-316 (within 1.313-318) affirmed it
Josephus
- Ant. 4.207 affirmed it
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.
- neo assyrian vassal treaties obligation to report and not conceal seditious speech, even from kin Relationship to the parallel: polemical contrast §10; conspiracy/non-concealment clauses §§108-122 Parpola and Watanabe, SAA 2 (1988)
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 prescribes capital punishment by stoning for the private act of verbally urging a family member to worship a deity other than YHWH; post-Enlightenment religious freedom holds that no state may impose the death penalty on a person for private religious speech directed at consenting adults, regardless of its theological content.
-
Articles 18 and 19
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
The commandment criminalizes private persuasive religious speech with a capital sanction; UDHR Article 18 protects the right to manifest and share one's religion, and Article 19 protects freedom of expression, both of which are categorically violated by making personal religious advocacy a capital offense.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Stoning for a private verbal act of religious persuasion is among the most extreme disproportionate sanctions conceivable under modern penal theory, which precludes capital punishment for non-violent speech acts.
-
ICCPR Article 14
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
The mesit procedure explicitly suspends normal due-process protections — including the prohibition on entrapment, the presumption of innocence, and the requirement that courts actively seek grounds for acquittal — in violation of ICCPR Article 14's guarantee of a fair trial in criminal proceedings.
-
Article 6 (right to life)
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 6 limits the death penalty to the most serious crimes; private religious solicitation does not approach this threshold, and the capital sanction prescribed by Deuteronomy 13 and confirmed by Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:10 is categorically incompatible with Article 6.
-
general abrogation note
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that capital jurisdiction lapsed with the dissolution of the Sanhedrin; the de jure norm prescribing stoning for private religious enticement remains textually authoritative but is not de facto enforced.