It shall have a hole for the head in the middle of it. It shall have a binding of woven work around its hole, as it were the hole of a coat of mail, that it not be torn.
Not to tear the robe of the High Priest
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
כְּפִי תַחְרָא יִהְיֶה־לּוֹ לֹא יִקָּרֵעַ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו מקרוע פי מעיל כהן גדול אבל יהיה ארוג כמו שהוגבל. והוא אמרו יתעלה כפי תחרא יהיה לו לא יקרע, ומי שחתכו במספרים או הדומה להם לוקה. (שם, שם):
He prohibited us from tearing the edge of the robe of the high priest, but it should rather be woven to its border. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "it shall be like the opening of a coat of mail, that it not tear" (Exodus 28:32). And one who cuts it with scissors, or that which is similar to them, is lashed. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 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 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
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 Not binding
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite Not binding
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.
Josephus
- Ant. 3.159-161 carried a parallel Descriptive of the construction of the High Priest's me'il (robe); attests the garment's seamless woven collar but does not directly address the tearing prohibition.
The New Testament
- Matthew 26:65 The catalog describes this reception as: contested allusion Caiaphas rends his garments; some read this as a literary signal of high-priestly delegitimization in light of the prohibition, though the verb used (diarrēssō) and the garment in question are debated.
- Mark 14:63 The catalog describes this reception as: contested allusion Parallel account of the high priest tearing his tunics (chitōnas) at the trial of Jesus; note that chitōnas denotes tunics rather than the me'il specifically at issue in Exod 28:32, weakening any direct connection to this prohibition.
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 thirty-nine lashes for deliberately tearing a priestly garment, a non-violent act involving a textile object; modern norms prohibit corporal punishment.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; lashes for rending a priestly robe constitutes such treatment under contemporary international human-rights standards.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Modern penal proportionality precludes corporal punishment for the destruction of a garment, however sacred; the lashes sanction is disproportionate under any post-Enlightenment sentencing framework.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that the Sanhedrin's jurisdiction to impose malkot lapsed after 70 CE; the conflict is de jure, not enforced. The commandment is additionally doubly inoperative because the Temple and the priestly office presupposed by it no longer exist.