“ ‘No stranger shall eat of the holy thing: a foreigner living with the priests, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
A tenant or hired servant of a priest shall not eat terumah
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וְכָל־זָר לֹא־יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ תּוֹשַׁב כֹּהֵן וְשָׂכִיר לֹא־יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהיר תושב כהן ושכירו מלאכול תרומה, והוא אמרו תושב כהן ושכיר לא יאכל קדש. ואם אכל דינו כדין שאר זרים. (שם, שם):
That He prohibited a tenant of a priest, or his hired servant from eating the priestly tithe. And that is His saying, "a tenant of a priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the consecrated food" (Leviticus 22:10). And if he ate [it], his law is like the law of other outsiders. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 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 prohibition
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
- 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, with modification
- 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.
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.119-121 rationalized it
Josephus
- Ant. 3.227-231 The catalog describes this reception as: partial parallel
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 flogging (malkot) for a tenant or hired laborer who eats priestly sacred food; modern penal frameworks recognize no legitimate basis for corporal punishment for non-violent dietary infractions arising from a religious household-membership classification.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; mandatory flogging of a hired laborer for consuming terumah violates this prohibition.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Modern penal proportionality doctrine precludes corporal punishment for non-violent dietary or ritual infractions; the malkot sanction for a tenant or hired servant eating sacred food exceeds any proportionate response recognized in post-Enlightenment penal theory.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that the Sanhedrin's corporal jurisdiction lapsed with the disruption of ordained court succession; malkot for this offense is de jure but has not been enforceable within Jewish legal history since the cessation of ordained courts.