You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your new wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you vow, nor your free will offerings, nor the wave offering of your hand;
Not to eat the flesh of a sin offering prepared within the sanctuary
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וְכָל־חַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ לֹא תֵאָכֵל בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהיר הכהנים מאכול בשר חטאות הנעשות בפנים. והוא אמרו יתעלה וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה אל הקדש וגו'. ומי שאכל מהם לוקה. ולשון ספרי לא תאכל באש תשרף כל שהוא טעון שריפה הרי הוא בלא תעשה על אכילתו. (שם, שם פי"א):
That He prohibited the priests from eating the meat of sin-offerings processed inside [the Sanctuary]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Every sin-offering whose blood is to be brought to the [...] Sanctuary, etc." (Leviticus 6:23). And one who eats of them is lashed. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 8:7) is, "'It may not be eaten; it must be burned with fire' - anything that involves burning, involves a negative commandment for its eating. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 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 ritual instruction
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
- Requires a standing Temple
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 Kept as an ethical principle
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite As the catalog records it: non applicable
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.
Josephus
- Ant. 3.230-232 carried a parallel General treatment of sin-offering procedure rather than a precise parallel to the inner-hattat burning rule
The New Testament
- Hebrews 13:11-12 reinterpreted it Maps the burning of hattat remains outside the camp onto Jesus's death outside the gate, appropriating Priestly spatial-holiness symbolism for christological typology
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 an incompatible method.
The commandment prescribes flogging (malkot, thirty-nine lashes) as the court-imposed sanction for eating inner sin-offering flesh; modern human-rights norms categorically prohibit judicially administered corporal punishment as degrading treatment.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; the malkot sanction prescribed for this offense is incompatible with that prohibition as interpreted by the Human Rights Committee.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that criminal Sanhedrin jurisdiction lapsed with the destruction of the Second Temple; the offense is also temple-dependent, rendering the sanction doubly inoperative — both institutionally and substantively — in any post-70 CE context.