When a stranger lives as a foreigner with you, and would like to keep the Passover to Yahweh, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it. He shall be as one who is born in the land; but no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
Not to allow an uncircumcised person to eat the Passover offering
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וְכָל־עָרֵל לֹא־יֹאכַל בּוֹ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהירנו מהאכיל פסח לערל. והוא אמרו יתעלה וכל ערל לא יאכל בו. והערל שאכל לוקה. (שם, שם פ"ט):
That He prohibited us from feeding the Pesach-offering to one uncircumsized. And that is His saying, "but one uncircumcised may not eat from it" (Exodus 12:48). (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 9.)
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
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 As the catalog records it: binding in principle (non operative without Temple)
- Conservative As the catalog records it: binding in principle (non operative without Temple)
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite As the catalog records it: binding in principle (non operative without Temple)
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
- Exodus Rabbah 19:5 expanded it homiletically
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.1-11 rationalized it
Josephus
- Antiquities 1.192 affirmed it
The New Testament
- Galatians 5:2-6 treated it as abrogated Paul argues circumcision as covenant prerequisite is abrogated for those in Christ (a general argument bearing on rules such as Exod 12:48, not a direct citation of it)
- Romans 2:25-29 read it spiritually redefines circumcision as inward/of the heart, dissolving the bodily prerequisite
- Acts 15:1-29 treated it as abrogated Jerusalem Council exempts Gentile believers from circumcision
The Church Fathers
- Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 16, 19 rejected it polemically
- Origen, Contra Celsum 5.48 read it allegorically
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 substantive tension.
By conditioning participation in a communal religious meal on circumcision, the commandment creates coercive pressure on adult male converts to undergo an irreversible surgical procedure; modern bodily-autonomy norms hold that state-backed coercion toward surgical alteration of the body is impermissible.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; the malkot sanction for allowing an uncircumcised person to eat the Passover offering 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 offense is temple-dependent and cannot arise in current practice.