There shall be no yeast found in your houses for seven days, for whoever eats that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a foreigner, or one who is born in the land.
No leaven shall be found in one's possession during Passover
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שְׂאֹר לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו שלא יראה חמץ בכל גבולנו שבעת ימים. והוא אמרו ולא יראה לך חמץ ולא יראה לך שאור בכל גבולך שבעת ימים, ואין אלו שני לאוין בשני ענינין אבל הם בענין אחד. ובבאור אמרו פתח הכתוב בחמץ וסיים בשאור לומר לך היינו חמץ היינו שאור, כלומר אין הפרש בין חמץ ושאור. ומי שעבר והניח חמץ ברשותו אינו חייב מלקות אלא אם כן לקח חמץ בפסח וקנאו שעשה בו מעשה. ולשון התוספתא המשייר חמץ בפסח והמקיים כלאי הכרם אינו לוקה. (בא אל פרעה, שם):
He prohibited us - that chametz not be seen within all of our boundaries for seven days (starting on the 15th of Nissan). And that is His saying, "no chametz may be seen with you, and no leaven may be seen in all your boundaries" (Exodus 13:7). And these are not two negative commandments, but they are rather about the same content. And in the explanation (Beitzah 7b), they said, "The verse opened with chametz and ended with leaven to tell you that chametz and leaven is the same thing" - meaning there is no difference between chametz and leaven. And one who transgressed and left chametz in his property is only liable for lashes if he took chametz on Pesach and acquired it, since he did an action. And the language of the Tosefta (Tosefta Makkot 4:5) is, "One who leaves over chametz on Pesach, and one who allows a forbidden mixture of the vineyard, is not lashed." (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 1.)
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
- 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 Binding
- Reform Kept as an ethical principle
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite As the catalog records it: binding variant interpretation
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
- Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 5 expanded it homiletically
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 2.150-161 affirmed it
Josephus
- Antiquities 3.249 affirmed it
The New Testament
- 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 read it allegorically Paul reads the removal of leaven as purging 'the old leaven of malice and wickedness'; the physical prohibition becomes a moral-spiritual metaphor
- Matthew 16:6-12 read it allegorically 'leaven of the Pharisees' as metaphor for teaching/doctrine
- Galatians 5:9 read it allegorically 'a little leaven leavens the whole lump' as proverb for corrupting influence
The Church Fathers
- Origen, Contra Celsum 8.22 read it spiritually Origen's general treatment of festival observance spiritualizes Jewish feast-keeping; not a targeted exegesis of the leaven prohibition
- Augustine, Contra Faustum 12.8 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 an incompatible method.
The commandment prescribes malkot for owning leaven during Passover, even without consuming it; post-Enlightenment penal norms reject corporal punishment as a state sanction for mere possession of a food product.
-
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 possession (not consumption) of a food product during a religious festival constitutes prohibited treatment under that article.
-
abrogated_in_practice
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Corporal jurisdiction lapsed with the dissolution of the Sanhedrin in the Second Temple era; no contemporary Jewish court administers malkot, though the de jure norm remains binding in orthodox halakhah.