Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, even all creeping things that creep on the earth, them you shall not eat; for they are an abomination.
Not to eat any worms or larvae found in fruit or produce
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
כֹּל הוֹלֵךְ עַל־גָּחוֹן וְכֹל ׀ הוֹלֵךְ עַל־אַרְבַּע עַד כָּל־מַרְבֵּה רַגְלַיִם לְכָל־הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל־הָאָרֶץ לֹא תֹאכְלוּם כִּי־שֶׁקֶץ הֵם
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו מלאכול תולעים המתילדים בפירות ובזרעים ומעת שילכו ויצאו על שטח אותן הזרעים או אותן הפירות (ובזרעים). ואפילו מצאנו אותם אחר כן תוך הזרע או תוך הפרי אינו מותר לאכלם ומי שאכלם לוקה. והוא אמרו לכל השרץ השורץ על הארץ לא תאכלום. ולשון ספרא להביא את שפרשו לארץ וחזרו. (שם, שם):
He prohibited us from eating worms that are born in fruit and seeds from the time they go out and exit to the surface of those seeds or those fruits. And even if we found them afterwards within the seed or within the fruit, it is not permitted to eat them; and one who eats them is lashed. And that is His saying, "among all things that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat them" (Leviticus 11:42). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12:3) is, "To include those that separated to the [outside] world and returned [to the fruit's interior]." (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 2.)
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.
- Recorded as practiced today
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 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
- Leviticus Rabbah 13:5 expanded it homiletically
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 4.113-118 read it allegorically
Josephus
- Ant. 3.259-260 affirmed it General summary of clean and unclean creatures following Lev 11, not a specific ruling on produce-worms
The New Testament
- Acts 10:9-16 treated it as abrogated Petrine vision declaring all foods clean; later read by gentile Christianity as voiding the dietary taxonomy of Lev 11 including its swarming-creature prohibitions
The Church Fathers
- Epistle of Barnabas, Barnabas 10 read it allegorically Allegorizes the dietary taxonomy of Lev 11 generally rather than the produce-worm particular
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 imposes flogging for incidentally consuming worms or larvae in produce; applying corporal punishment to what is often an inadvertent dietary act is incompatible with modern principles of bodily autonomy and mens rea requirements.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; thirty-nine lashes for consuming microscopic organisms in food constitutes a form of degrading physical punishment proscribed under international human-rights law.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Proportionality doctrine requires punishment calibrated to actual harm; flogging for the incidental ingestion of produce-borne organisms is grossly disproportionate under any secular penal framework, particularly given the potential for unwitting violation.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Malkot jurisdiction requires a functioning Sanhedrin, which has not existed since the Second Temple era; the lash sanction is de jure but has been practically inoperative for nearly two millennia.