“Say to Aaron, ‘None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect may approach to offer the bread of his God.
A priest with a temporary blemish shall not serve until the blemish heals
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
אִישׁ מִזַּרְעֲךָ לְדֹרֹתָם אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם לֹא יִקְרַב לְהַקְרִיב לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהיר בעל מום עובר שלא לעבוד כל זמן שהמום בו כמו הגרב והילפת והדומה להם מהמומים העוברים. והוא אמרו יתברך כי כל איש אשר יהיה בו מום לא יקרב. ולשון ספרי איש מזרעך לדורותם אשר יהיה בו מום אין לי אלא מום קבוע מום עובר מנין תלמוד לומר כי כל איש אשר בו מום לא יקרב. מי שעבר ועבד במום עובר לוקה. וכבר התבארו משפטי מומים עוברין וקבועין בשביעי מבכורות. (שם, שם פ"ז):
That He prohibited a priest with a temporary blemish - such as scurvy or a scab or that which is similar to them - to serve [in the Temple] so long as he has the blemish. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "For any man who has a blemish shall not approach" (Leviticus 21:18). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Emor, Section 7:3) is, "'Anyone of your offspring, through [all] their generations who will have a blemish' (Leviticus 21:17) - I only [know about] a permanent blemish. From where [do we know the same for] a temporary blemish? [Hence] we learn to say, 'For any man who has a blemish shall not approach.'" And the regulations of permanent and temporary blessings have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of Bekhorot. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 6.)
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 case law — "if X, then Y"
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
- Binding in the land of Israel
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 Rejected
- Karaite Rejected
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)
- 1QSa (1Q28a) II.3-9 The catalog describes this reception as: analogical extension (blemish exclusion logic applied to the eschatological congregation, not a direct reinterpretation of Lev 21 priestly service)
Philo of Alexandria
- De Spec. Leg. 1.80-81 rationalized it
Josephus
- Ant. 3.278-279 The catalog describes this reception as: paraphrastic restatement
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.
-
Article 26
This framework classifies the relation as a substantive tension.
The commandment suspends a priest's occupational eligibility on the basis of a temporary physical condition, framing the body's state as intrinsically disqualifying regardless of the priest's functional capacity; while closer to modern 'fit for duty' standards than the permanent-blemish ban (#196), the criterion remains the physical condition rather than an inability to perform the required tasks, generating tension with non-discrimination norms.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
The commandment prescribes corporal punishment (thirty-nine lashes) for a priest performing service while temporarily physically impaired; modern norms prohibit flogging as a sanction for any offense.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Modern penal proportionality precludes corporal punishment for performing a ritual act while temporarily physically impaired; 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 it presupposes a functioning Temple.