It shall be eaten on the same day; you shall leave none of it until the morning. I am Yahweh.
Not to leave any flesh of the thanksgiving offering until morning
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יֵאָכֵל לֹא־תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד־בֹּקֶר
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהירנו מאכול נותר והוא מה שנשאר מבשר קדשים אחר הזמן המונה לאכילתם. ולא באה בתורה אזהרה בבאור. והוא אמרו יתעלה בפרשת קדושים בזבח קרבן שלמים והנותר עד יום השלישי באש ישרף, ואם האכל יאכל ביום השלישי וגו' ונכרתה הנפש. הנה נתבאר שהוא בכרת אם היה מזיד ואם היה שוגג חייב קרבן חטאת קבועה, וזה העונש כתוב ואולם האזהרה היא מאמרו במלואים לא יאכל כי קדש הוא זה הכנוי שהוא הוא גם כן כולל כל מה שנפסל שאין מותר לאכול כמו הנותר. ובמעילה (דף י"ז:) אמרו על לשון המשנה הפגול והנותר אין מצטרפין זה עם זה מפני שהם שני שמות אמרו לא שנו אלא לטומאת ידים דרבנן אבל לענין אכילה מצטרפין דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר לא יאכל כי קדש הוא כל שבקדש פסול ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו, והפגול והנותר הם מפסולי הקדש ולפיכך כל אחד משניהם מוזהר מאכול אותו באמרו לא יאכל כי קדש הוא. וכבר התבאר עונש הנותר שהוא בכרת. (קדושים, שם י"ח):
That He prohibited us from eating notar - and that is what is left over from the meat of consecrated items after the time assigned for their eating. But the prohibition about this is not explicit in the Torah. [However the punishment is explicit.] And that is His, may He be exalted, saying in Parashat Kedoshim about the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, "what is left over by the third day must be consumed with fire. If it should be eaten on the third day, etc. that person shall be excised" (Leviticus 19:6-8). Behold it is explicit that it is [punished] with excision if it was volitional. And if it was inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. So the punishment is written. However the prohibition is His statement about the inauguration-offerings - "it shall not be eaten because it is holy" (Exodus 29:33). And this reference, "it," is also including everything that was disqualified, such as notar - that it is not permissible to eat [it]. And one who transgressed and ate [it] is lashed. And in Meilah (Meilah 17b), they said about the language of the Mishnah, "Piggul (a sacrifice disqualified by its intention) and notar do not join together, on account of their being two separate categories" - they said, "That was only learned with regards to the ritual impurity of the hands, which is rabbinic. But with regards to the matter of eating, they do join together. As it is taught, 'Rabbi Eliezer says, "'It shall not be eaten because it is holy' - [this teaches that regarding] any consecrated food that has been disqualified, the verse comes to apply a negative commandment about its eating."'" And piggul and notar are among the disqualifications of consecrated foods. So therefore each one of them was forbidden from being eaten by His saying, "It shall not be eaten because it is holy." And it has already been explained that the punishment for notar is excision. (See Parashat Kedoshim; 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 prohibition
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
- A sin-offering (ḥatat)
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 Binding in principle
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.
Rabbinic aggadah
- Leviticus Rabbah 9:1-2 expanded it homiletically
- Berakhot 54b The catalog describes this reception as: homiletic derivation (four who give thanks, derived from Ps 107; basis for later Birkat HaGomel — attributed rabbinic tradition, not a historical claim about Temple practice)
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.212-223 rationalized it
Josephus
- Ant. 3.229 affirmed 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 malkot for leaving thanksgiving-offering flesh until morning; post-Enlightenment penal norms reject corporal punishment as a state sanction for ritual food-handling infractions.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; judicially administered flogging for retaining sacrificial leftovers beyond the permitted window constitutes prohibited treatment under that article.
-
abrogated_in_practice
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Both the malkot sanction and the underlying offense are doubly inoperative: corporal jurisdiction lapsed with the dissolution of the Sanhedrin, and the offering itself cannot be brought absent a functioning Temple.