You shall not eat any abominable thing.
Not to eat consecrated animals that have become disqualified
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
לֹא תֹאכַל כָּל־תּוֹעֵבָה
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהירנו מלאכול פסולי המוקדשים שאין מותר לאכלן, וזהו כשנעשה אנחנו המום בכוונה כמו שהתבאר בבכורות (דף ל"ד) או שהיה אותו הקרבן נפסל אחר שחיטתו בדרך מדרכי ההפסד שימנעו אכילתו, והוא אמרו יתעלה לא תאכל כל תועבה. ולשון ספרי לא תאכל כל תועבה בפסולי המוקדשין הכתוב מדבר, ושם אמרו רבי אליעזר אומר מנין לצורם אוזן בבכור ואכל ממנו שעובר בלא תעשה תלמוד לומר לא תאכל כל תועבה. ומי שאכל ממנו לוקה. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו בבכורות. (ראה, הלכות פסולי המוקדשין פי"ח):
That He prohibited us from eating disqualified consecrated foods that are not permissible to eat - and that is when we make a blemish intentionally, as is explained in Bekhorot (Bekhorot 35a); or that a sacrifice was disqualified after its slaughtering in one of the ways that spoil it, that prevent its eating. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You shall not eat any abomination" (Deuteronomy 14:3). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 99:2) is, "'You shall not eat any abomination' - the verse is speaking about offerings which have become disqualified." And there (Sifrei Devarim 99:1), they said, "Rabbi Eliezer says, ' From where [do we know] about one who slit the ear of a a first-born animal and ate of it, that he transgresses a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, "You shall not eat any abomination."'" And one who eats of them is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Bekhorot. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 18.)
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
- Lashes (malkot)
At the hands of Heaven
- Karet — being 'cut off'
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 Rejected
24 of 613 commandments have been examined in depth so far — this one is queued.
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) and divine excision (karet) for eating consecrated animals that have become ritually disqualified (through piggul, notar, or tumah), a Temple-specific sacrificial category; modern penal frameworks recognize no legitimate basis for corporal or supernatural punishment for non-violent violations of ceremonial food classifications.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; imposing flogging (malkot) for consuming ritually disqualified sacrificial food violates this prohibition. The additional divine-excision (karet) sanction, understood as premature death or loss of afterlife, is incompatible with ICCPR Article 6 (right to life) as a judicially enforceable penalty.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Modern penal proportionality doctrine precludes corporal punishment or religiously-framed existential penalties for non-violent violations of religious dietary classifications arising from sacrificial-disqualification rules; both the malkot and karet sanctions for eating disqualified consecrated animals exceed any proportionate response recognized in post-Enlightenment penal theory.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
This commandment is doubly inoperative: both the Temple context on which the prohibition depends and the Sanhedrin's corporal jurisdiction have lapsed since 70 CE; the conflict is de jure, but no enforcement mechanism has existed since then.