If any of the meat of the sacrifice of his peace offerings is eaten on the third day, it will not be accepted, and it shall not be credited to him who offers it. It will be an abomination, and the soul who eats any of it will bear his iniquity.
Not to eat the flesh of a sacrifice offered with improper intent (pigul)
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר־זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לֹא יֵרָצֶה הַמַּקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב לוֹ פִּגּוּל יִהְיֶה וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת מִמֶּנּוּ עֲוֺנָהּ תִּשָּׂא
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהירנו מאכול פגול, והפגול הוא קרבן שהפסידתו המחשבה בשעת שחיטתו או בשעת הקרבתו וחשב האיש שהתעסק בהקרבתו שיאכל ממנו אחר זמנו, וכמו שבארו באור שלם בשני מזבחים (דף כ"ז). ואולם האזהרה מאכול פגול הוא אמרו לא יאכל כי קדש הוא כמו שבארנו במצוה שלפני זאת. ואולם העונש למדנו אותו מאמרו בפגול בפ"ב (דף כ"ט) ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח השלמים ובאה הקבלה בזה הפסוק שהוא ידבר בקרבן שהפסידה אותו המחשבה בעת הקרבתו, והוא יקרא פגול, ובאמרו האכל אמנם רצה כשחשב עליו שיאכל ממנו ביום השלישי. אמר כוף אזנך לשמוע במחשב על זבחו שיאכל ממנו ביום השלישי הכתוב מדבר שהוא יפסל בזאת המחשבה, ומי שאכל ממנו אחר זאת המחשבה חייב כרת מאמרו והנפש האוכלת ממנו עונה תשא, ואמר בנותר ואוכליו עונו ישא. ובגמרא כריתות (דף ה') אמרו אל תהא גזרה שוה קלה בעיניך שהרי פגול מגופי תורה ולא למדנו הכתוב כי אם בגזרה שוה ויליף עון עון מנותר כתיב הכא עונה תשא וכתיב התם ואוכליו עונו ישא מה להלן כרת אף כאן כרת, ומי שאכל גם כן פגול בשגגה יביא חטאת קבועה. וכבר התבארו משפטי פגול ונותר במקומות רבים מסדר קדשים. (ואתה תצוה, שם):
That He prohibited us from eating piggul. And piggul is a sacrifice that was spoiled by the intention at the time of its slaughter or the time of its being offered - [in that] the man who was occupied with its being offered thought that he would eat it after its time. And it is explained completely in the second [chapter] of Zevachim (Zevachim 27). Indeed, the prohibition about eating piggul is from, "it shall not be eaten because it is holy" (Exodus 29:34) - as we explained with the previous commandment. However we have learned the punishment from His saying about piggul in [Parashat Tzav], "And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of [his] peace-offering be eaten at all on the third day, [etc.]" (Leviticus 7:18). And the tradition about this verse appeared [and taught] that it was speaking about a sacrifice that was spoiled by intention at the time of its offering; and that is called piggul. And in His saying, "be eaten," He indeed meant that he intended to eat it on the third day. They said (Zevachim 29a), "Open your ear to hear that the verse is speaking about one who intends to eat from his sacrifice on the third day" - that it is disqualified with that intention. And one who eats from it after that intention is liable for excision, due to His saying, "and the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity." [As] He had said about notar, "So everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity" (Leviticus 19:8). And in the Gemara, Keritot (Keritot 5a), they said, "A verbal analogy should never be regarded lightly in your eyes, as piggul is one of the essential laws of the Torah, and Scripture taught it only through a verbal analogy. [... It is learned from notar, by way of the common use of the word, iniquity.] It is written there, 'So everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity,' and it is written here, 'and the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.' Just as there, it is excision; here too, it is excision." And also one who eats piggul inadvertently must bring a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of piggul and notar have already been explained in many places in the Order of Kodashim. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 18.)
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.
- 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
- Karet — being 'cut off'
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 Not binding
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite As the catalog records it: binding (plain sense only)
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 1.222-225 rationalized it
Josephus
- Ant. 3.229 paraphrased it
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 pigul 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.