If a priest’s daughter is married to an outsider, she shall not eat of the heave offering of the holy things.
A daughter of a priest married to a non-priest shall not eat terumah
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וּבַת־כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר הִוא בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהיר החללה מאכול את הקדש שהיה מותר לה לאכול תרומה וחזה ושוק. והוא אמרו יתעלה ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר היא וגו'. ובגמרא יבמות (דף ס"ח) אמרו לאיש זר כיון שנבעלה לפסול לה פסלה ואמרו היא בתרומת הקדשים במורם מן הקדשים לא תאכל רוצה לומר חזה ושוק, ושם נאמר לכתוב קרא היא בקדשים לא תאכל מאי תרומת הקדשים שמע מיניה תרתי, כלומר כיון שנבעלה לפסול לה נפסלה בתרומה ושהיא כשתהא נשואה לזר ומת חוזרת לתרומה ואינה חוזרת לחזה ושוק, ויהיה זה הלאו שהוא לא תאכל כולל שני ענינים אחד מהם אזהרה לחללה מאכילת קדשים, והשני אזהרה לכהנת שנשאת לזר מאכילת חזה ושוק ואע"פ שמת בעלה או גרשה. ואולם איסור אכילתה בתרומה והיא תחת הזר אינו מזה הכתוב, ואמנם הביאו ראיה עליו מאמרו וכל זר לא יאכל קדש, ואמרו מי שהיא תחת הזר הוי אומר היא כזר. וכשעברה לאו זה גם כן היא לוקה. (שם, הלכות תרומות פ"ו):
That He prohibited a desecrated woman (challalah) from eating the consecrated foods that had been permitted for her to eat - the priestly tithe, the breast and the thigh. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And if a priest’s daughter be married to an outsider, etc." (Leviticus 22:12). And in the Gemara, Yevamot (Yevamot 68a), they said, "'To an outsider' - once she has sexual relations with someone disqualified from her, he disqualifies her." And they said, "'From the priestly tithe of the consecrated foods (terumat hakodashim)' - that which is lifted (muram) from the consecrated foods - 'she shall not eat.'" [That] means to say, the breast and the thigh. And there, it is said, "Let Scripture write, 'from consecrated foods, she shall not eat.' What is [added by writing], 'the priestly tithe of the consecrated foods?' We understand two [things, and not just one]!" Meaning (those two things are): Once she has sexual relations with someone disqualified from her, he disqualifies her from [eating] priestly tithe; and if she marries an outsider and he dies, she returns to [eating] priestly tithe, but she does not return to [eating] the breast and the thigh. And it comes out that this negative commandment - which is "she shall not eat" - includes two matters. One of them is the prohibition of a desecrated woman eating consecrated foods; and the second is the prohibition for a priestess who married an outsider eating the breast and the thigh - even though her husband dies or divorces her. However the prohibition of her eating priestly tithe when she is [still married] to the outsider is not from this verse. Indeed, they brought a proof about it from His saying, "And no outsider shall eat of the consecrated food" (Leviticus 22:10); and they said, "One who is [married to an] outsider - I would say is like an outsider." And she is also lashed if she transgresses this negative commandment. (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 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.
- 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 Kept as an ethical principle
- Reform Rejected
- Reconstructionist Rejected
- 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.
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.129-131 rationalized it
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.
- middle assyrian laws Regulation of married women's status and the legal consequences of household transfer through marriage, widowhood, and divorce, including dowry and the loss or retention of privileges tied to a prior household. Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence Tablet A §§25-38 Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (Scholars Press, 1997)
- code of hammurabi Legislation on marriage, household membership, and the legal consequences of a woman's transfer between households through marriage, divorce, or widowhood, determining her entitlements and obligations. Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence §§137-149 Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (Scholars Press, 1997)
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 16
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
The commandment automatically reduces a woman's sacral entitlements upon marriage to a non-priest, making her religious-food rights wholly dependent on her husband's caste identity; CEDAW Article 16 requires that both spouses retain equal rights in marriage and that neither loses legal standing solely by reason of the other's status.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
No parallel commandment diminishes a male priest's privileges upon marriage to a non-priestly woman; the commandment imposes a unidirectional rule whereby a woman's legal-religious status is entirely determined by her husband's lineage, an asymmetry incompatible with post-Enlightenment principles that a woman's civil and religious rights are independent of her spouse's caste identity.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
The commandment prescribes flogging (malkot) for a priest's daughter who eats terumah after marrying a non-priest; modern penal frameworks recognize no legitimate basis for corporal punishment for a non-violent dietary infraction arising from a marital-transfer-of-status rule.
-
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 woman for eating sacred food in circumstances that changed solely because of her marriage 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 infractions arising from marital-status reclassifications; the malkot sanction for a priest's daughter who eats terumah after marrying a non-priest 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.