then he shall be shaved, but he shall not shave the itch. Then the priest shall isolate the one who has the itch seven more days.
Not to shave or cut the hair of the tzaraat affliction
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וְהִתְגַּלָּ֔ח וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖תֶק לֹ֥א יְגַלֵּ֑חַ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהיר מלגלח שער הנתק. והוא אמרו ואת הנתק לא יגלח. ולשון ספרא מנין לתולש סימני טומאה שעובר בלא תעשה תלמוד לומר ואת הנתק לא יגלח. (תזריע, הלכות טומאת צרעת פ"א):
He prohibited shaving off the scab [of tsaraat]. And that is His saying, "but he shall not shave the scab" (Leviticus 13:33). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9:7) is, "From where [do we know] that one who tears away signs of impurity transgresses a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, 'but he shall not shave the scab.'" (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 1.)
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 ritual instruction
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
No applicability flags are recorded for this commandment.
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.
Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls)
- 4Q266 (4QDamascusª) frag. 6 col. i preserves Qumran skin-affliction (ṣāraʿat) purity halakhah broadly developing the Lev 13 examination rules The catalog describes this reception as: restated/elaborated
Josephus
- Ant. 3.264-269 reinterpreted it
The Church Fathers
- Origen, Homiliae in Leviticum 8 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 a direct contradiction.
The commandment prohibits a person from shaving a portion of their own body (the neteq area) under penalty of corporal punishment; modern norms of bodily autonomy hold that individuals possess sovereign authority over their own physical persons, making state-imposed physical penalties for self-grooming decisions a direct conflict.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
The prescribed sanction of thirty-nine lashes (malkot) for shaving a diagnostic skin area constitutes corporal punishment; ICCPR Article 7 prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, which post-Enlightenment legal consensus treats as inclusive of judicially imposed flogging.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Imposing thirty-nine lashes for shaving a portion of one's own afflicted scalp or beard — a diagnostic regulatory act rather than a harmful act against another person — is grossly disproportionate by the standards of modern penal theory, which calibrates punishment to the gravity of harm caused.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that malkot jurisdiction lapsed with the dissolution of the ordained Sanhedrin in the fourth century CE; the de jure norm prescribing flogging for neteq-shaving remains on the books but is doubly inoperative — neither the diagnostic procedure nor the punishing court exists.