“You and your sons are not to drink wine or strong drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die. This shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.
Not to enter the Temple or approach the altar while intoxicated
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
יַ֣יִן וְשֵׁכָ֞ר אַל־תֵּ֣שְׁתְּ ׀ אַתָּ֣ה ׀ וּבָנֶ֣יךָ אִתָּ֗ךְ בְּבֹאֲכֶ֛ם אֶל־אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד וְלֹ֣א תָמֻ֑תוּ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהירנו מהכנס למקדש או להורות באחד מדיני התורה בהיותנו שכורים, והוא אמרו יתעלה יין ושכר אל תשת וגו' וסמיך ליה להורות את בני ישראל וגו'. ולשון התלמוד שתה רביעית יין אל יורה. ויש חלוק בעונש לאו זה כי שתוי יין אי אפשר להכנס מבין האולם ולמזבח עם כל ההיכל ואם עבר ונכנס [חייב מלקות ואם עבד והוא שתוי יין] חייב מיתה בידי שמים. ואם שתה מן המשקים המשכרין זולת יין ועבד חייב מלקות לבד ולא מיתה, וכל מי שיורה והוא שתוי יין בין כהן בין ישראל עובר על לאו בין שהיה שתוי יין או שאר משקין. ולשון ספרא יין אל תשת אין לי אלא יין שאר משקין המשכרין מנין תלמוד לומר ושכר אם כן למה נאמר יין על היין במיתה על שאר משקין במלקות, ושם נאמר מנין שאינו חייב אלא בשעת עבודה תלמוד לומר אתה ובניך אתך בבאכם אל אהל מועד ולא תמותו. ושם אמרו יכול יהו ישראל חייבין מיתה על ההוראה תלמוד לומר אתה ובניך אתך ולא תמותו, אבל ישראל אינם במיתה. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו בשני מזבחים. (ויהי ביום השמיני, הל' ביאת מקדש פט"ז):
That He prohibited us from entering the Temple or giving instruction about one of the laws of the Torah while we are drunk. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Do not drink wine or strong drink, etc." (Leviticus 10:9). And adjacent to it (Leviticus 10:11) is, "And that you may teach the Children of Israel, etc." And the language of the Talmud (Nazir 38a) is, "One who drank a quarter measure, he should not instruct." And there is variation in the punishment for [transgressing] this negative commandment: As it is not [permitted for one] to enter between the hall and the altar and into all of the sanctuary. But if one transgressed and entered, [he is liable for lashes. However if he served while drunk,] he is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And if he drank from the other intoxicating drinks besides wine, and served, he is only liable for lashes and not for death. And anyone who gives instruction while drunk transgresses a negative commandment - whether he is a priest or an Israelite, whether he is drunk from wine or from other drinks. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1:2) is, "'Do not drink wine' - I only [know about] wine. From where [do we know about] other intoxicating drinks? [Hence] we learn to say, 'or strong drink.' If so, why does it state, 'Do not drink wine?' For wine, [the punishment is] with death; for other beverages, with lashes." And there, it is said, "From where [do we know] that he is only liable [if he is drunk] at the time of the service? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you or your sons, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you may not die.'" And there, they [also] said, "Perhaps Israelites would be liable for death for instruction (when drunk). [Hence] we learn to say, 'you or your sons [...] that you may not die' - but Israelites are not with death." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the second [chapter] of Zevachim. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary.)
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
No court-imposed penalty is recorded.
At the hands of Heaven
- Death at the hands of Heaven (mitah bidei shamayim)
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 Kept as an ethical principle
- Reform Kept as an ethical principle
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite 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.
Rabbinic aggadah
- Leviticus Rabbah 12:1 expanded it homiletically
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.98-100 rationalized it
Josephus
- Ant. 3.278-279 (cf. priestly purity/conduct material; precise locus uncertain) carried a parallel
The New Testament
- Luke 1:15 carried a parallel John the Baptist to drink neither wine nor strong drink (oinon kai sikera), echoing the yayin/shekhar pairing of priestly/Nazirite sobriety
Beside the older legal codes of its world
The commandment set beside the ancient Near-Eastern legal collections scholars compare it to — a descriptive comparison, not a claim of dependence.
- egyptian negative confession The Spell 125 Negative Confessions enumerate moral and ritual offenses the deceased denies committing before the divine tribunal; a thematic — though interpretive rather than explicit — parallel can be drawn to the Israelite concern for the proper moral-physical state of one who enters the sacred sphere, but the confessions do not contain a discrete sobriety declaration Relationship to the parallel: shared theme Ch. 125 (the 42 Negative Confessions / Declarations of Innocence before the divine tribunal) Faulkner, The Egyptian Book of the Dead (rev. ed. 1972)
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 corporal punishment (thirty-nine lashes) for entering a sacred precinct while intoxicated, a status offense involving no harm to persons; modern norms prohibit flogging.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; lashes for entering a building while intoxicated 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 entering a space while intoxicated, a non-violent status offense; 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.