When a stranger lives as a foreigner with you, and would like to keep the Passover to Yahweh, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it. He shall be as one who is born in the land; but no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
An uncircumcised priest shall not eat terumah
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וְכָל־עָרֵל לֹא־יֹאכַל בּוֹ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהיר מלאכול הערל תרומה והוא הדין לשאר קדשים שערל מוזהר מאכילתם, וזאת האכילה לא התבארה בכתוב אבל היא נלמדת בגזרה שוה. והמקבלים בארו על זה שזה האיסור הוא מדאורייתא. ולשון גמרא יבמות (דף ע') מנין לערל שאינו אוכל תרומה נאמר תושב ושכיר בפסח וכן בתרומה מה תושב ושכיר שנאמר בפסח ערל אסור בו אף תושב ושכיר האמור בתרומה ערל אסור בו והוא הדין לשאר קדשים. וזה גם כן לשון ספרא ושם אמרו רבי עקיבא אומר איש איש לרבות את הערל ושם התבאר ר"ל בגמרת יבמות שמה"ת משוך אוכל בתרומה ומדבריהם גזרו עליו מפני שנראה כערל. הנה כבר התבאר לך שערל אסור בתרומה מן התורה והמשוך אסור מדבריהם, והבן זה, ושם אמרו משוך צריך שימול מדבריהם. (שם פ"ז):
That He prohibited an uncircumcised one from eating the priestly tithe. And the law is the same for other consecrated foods - that an uncircumcised one is forbidden to eat them. But this [prohibition of] eating is not made explicit in Scripture, but is rather learned from a verbal analogy. Yet the receivers [of the tradition] have explained that this prohibition is from the Torah. And the language of the Gemara, Yevamot (Yevamot 70a), is, "From where [do we know] that an uncircumcised one does not eat priestly tithe? It is stated, 'A sojourner (toshav) and a hired servant' (Exodus 12:45) with regard to the Pesach-offering; and [it is stated, 'a tenant (toshav) of a priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the consecrated food' (Leviticus 22:10),] with regard to priestly tithe. Just as 'a toshav and a hired servant,' stated with regard to the Pesach-offering, an uncircumcised one is forbidden from [eating] it; so too, 'a toshav and a hired servant,' stated with regard to priestly tithe, an uncircumcised one is forbidden from [eating] it." And the law is the same for other consecrated foods. And this is also the language of Sifra (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4:18). And there they said, "Rabbi Akiva said, '"A man, a man" (Exodus 12:4), is to include the uncircumcised.'" And there - meaning in the Gemara, Yevamot - it is made clear that according to the Torah, one [whose circumcised foreskin is] pulled may eat of the priestly tithe. But [rabbinically], they decreed about him [that he may not eat of it], because he looks like one who is uncircumcised. Behold it has already been made clear to you that one uncircumcised is forbidden [to eat] priestly tithe, from the Torah; whereas one who is pulled is forbidden [rabbinically]. And understand this. And there, they said, "One pulled must get circumcised [rabbinically]." (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 7.)
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 flat, unconditional command
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
- 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.
Rabbinic aggadah
- Genesis Rabbah 46 expanded it homiletically
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.1-11 rationalized it
- De Migratione Abrahami 92 read it allegorically
Josephus
- Antiquities 1.192 affirmed it
The New Testament
- Romans 2:28-29 read it spiritually Paul reinterprets circumcision as 'of the heart, by the Spirit,' relativizing the physical requirement that underlies cultic access
- Acts 7:8 affirmed it Stephen's speech affirms the 'covenant of circumcision' given to Abraham as historical institution
The Church Fathers
- Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 19 rejected it polemically
- Barnabas, Epistle of Barnabas 9 read it allegorically
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 conditions priestly food access on a bodily modification (circumcision) and enforces that condition with flogging (malkot); modern penal and bodily-autonomy frameworks reject corporal punishment for non-violent ritual-status violations, particularly when the bodily state may reflect a hereditary medical exemption.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; imposing flogging on a priest who consumes sacred food while uncircumcised -- a bodily state that may result from a hereditary medical exemption from circumcision -- violates this prohibition.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Modern penal proportionality doctrine precludes corporal punishment for non-violent ritual-status violations; the malkot sanction for an uncircumcised priest's terumah consumption 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.