“Tell Aaron and his sons to separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they make holy to me, and that they not profane my holy name. I am Yahweh.
A ritually impure priest shall not serve in the Temple
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
דַּבֵּר אֶל־אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל־בָּנָיו וְיִנָּזְרוּ מִקָּדְשֵׁי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת־שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהיר כהן טמא מלאכול בתרומה. והוא אמרו איש מזרע אהרן והוא צרוע. ובגמרא מכות (דף י"ד:) אזהרה לתרומה מנין מאיש איש וגו' איזהו דבר שהוא שוה בזרע אהרן הוי אומר זה תרומה, רצה לומר שיאכלוהו הזרע כלו זכרים ונקבות. וכבר נכפלה האזהרה גם כן בזה הענין באמרו יתעלה ושמרו את משמרתי. והעובר לאו זה חייב מיתה בידי שמים. ובסנהדרין (דף פ"ג) מנו מחוייבי מיתה ובכללם מי שאכל בטומאה תרומה טהורה והביאו ראיה מאמרו ושמרו את משמרתי. (אמור אל הכהנים, שם פ"י):
He prohibited an impure priest from eating the priestly tithe. And that is His saying, "Whichever man of the seed of Aharon that is stricken with tzaraat" (Leviticus 22:4). And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 14b): "From where [do we know] of a prohibition of the priestly tithe? From, 'Whichever man, etc.' What is something that is equal among the seed of Aharon? I would say, 'This is the priestly tithe'" - that is to say, that all of the seed will eat it, males and females. And the prohibition about this content has also already been repeated by His, may He be exalted, saying, "And they shall keep My charge" (Leviticus 22:4). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 83a), they listed those liable for death - and among them was one who ate pure priestly tithe when he was impure. And they brought a proof from His saying, "And they shall keep My charge." (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10.)
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
- 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 Not binding
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite As the catalog records it: non binding (Temple dependent)
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.
Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls)
- 4QMMT B (4Q394-399) The catalog describes this reception as: stringent purity halakhah (topically related)
- CD 11-12 read it more strictly
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.116-118 rationalized it
Josephus
- Ant. 3.278-279 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 a direct contradiction.
The commandment subjects a priest to corporal punishment (thirty-nine lashes) for performing Temple service while ritually impure; modern frameworks treating the person as sovereign over non-harmful activity preclude state-imposed flogging as a sanction for a condition (ritual impurity) that is biologically natural and carries no moral culpability.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; court-administered lashes for performing a religious duty while in a state of ritual impurity — a non-violent, non-harmful act — constitutes corporal punishment that international human-rights law categorically prohibits.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Modern penal proportionality doctrine bars corporal punishment for a non-violent offense with no victim; the thirty-nine-lash penalty for a kohen who performs Temple service while ritually impure is disproportionate by any post-Enlightenment sentencing standard.
-
abrogated_in_practice
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
This commandment is doubly inoperative: malkot jurisdiction requires a qualified Sanhedrin (lapsed 70 CE), and the prohibition itself is Temple-dependent — both conditions for enforcement have been absent since the destruction of the Second Temple.