but you shall surely kill him. Your hand shall be first on him to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of all the people.
Not to refrain from hating the enticer to idol worship
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
לֹא־תֹאבֶה לוֹ וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו וְלֹא־תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ עָלָיו וְלֹא־תַחְמֹל וְלֹא־תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שימנע המוסת להקל נטירת המסית אבל הוא חייב לנטור אותו על כל פנים וכל זמן שלא יטור הוא עובר על מצות לא תעשה. והיינו דאמר יתעלה ולא תשמע אליו, ובא הפירוש מכלל שנאמר עזוב תעזוב עמו יכול אתה עוזב לזה, תלמוד לומר ולא תשמע אליו. (שם, שם):
That an incited one refrain from lightening the grudge against the inciter. Rather, he is obligated to begrudge the inciter no matter what. And so long as he does not begrudge him, he transgresses a negative commandment - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "and do not listen to him" (Deuteronomy 13:9). And it appears in the explanation (Sifrei Devarim 89:2), "It is implied from its being stated, 'you must surely unload with him' (Leviticus 19:18) [that] perhaps you should unload [with] this one. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and do not listen to him.'" (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 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
No court-imposed penalty is recorded.
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 Position uncertain
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 Specialibus Legibus 1.315-318 The catalog describes this reception as: discussed
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 against the sovereign; prohibition on harboring conspirators Relationship to the parallel: polemical contrast §10 Parpola & 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 mandates the active cultivation of hatred toward a family member solely on account of that member's religious advocacy; freedom of conscience encompasses the right to one's own emotional and cognitive responses to others' beliefs, and legally compelled hatred of a person for their religious convictions exceeds even the most restricted conception of permissible thought regulation.
-
Article 18 (freedom of thought)
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 18 protects freedom of thought absolutely, without qualification or exception; the commandment imposes a legal obligation to experience and maintain a specific negative emotional state toward a family member for their religious speech, penetrating the dimension of inner feeling that Article 18 identifies as beyond any state interference.