You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your new wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you vow, nor your free will offerings, nor the wave offering of your hand;
Not to eat the second tithe of grain outside Jerusalem
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
לֹא־תוּכַל לֶאֱכֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ וְתִירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהירנו מאכול מעשר שני של דגן חוץ לירושלים. והוא אמרו יתעלה לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך, ומי שאכל מעשר שני בלא פדיון לוקה אבל בתנאי שהתבאר במכות (דף י"ט:) והוא שאכלהו בחוץ אחר שראה פני הבית כלומר שהגיע לפנים מחומת ירושלים, והוא אמרו שם מאימתי חייבין משיראה פני הבית. (שם, הלכות מעשר שני פ"ב):
That He prohibited us from eating the second tithe from grain, outside of Jerusalem. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You may not eat in your cities the tithe of your grain" (Deuteronomy 12:17). And one who eats second tithe without redemption is lashed, but on condition of that which is explained in Makkot (Makkot 19b). And that is that one eats it outside after it saw the presence of the Temple; meaning it arrived within the [city] wall of Jerusalem. And that is their saying there, "From when are we liable? From when it sees the presence of the Temple." (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 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.
- Requires a standing Temple
- 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 Not binding
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite Binding, with modification
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)
- 11QTemple (11Q19) XLIII read it more strictly
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.151-155 rationalized it
Josephus
- Ant. 4.205, 4.240 affirmed it
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 prescribes corporal punishment (thirty-nine lashes) for consuming one's own lawfully-owned grain outside a designated city — a non-violent dietary infraction. Modern proportionality doctrine excludes corporal punishment for such offenses entirely.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; the lash sanction for consuming grain outside Jerusalem is classified as inhuman or degrading treatment under international human-rights standards.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that both Sanhedrin corporal jurisdiction and the operative second-tithe regime lapsed with the Temple's destruction; the commandment is doubly inoperative — requiring a standing Temple and an ordained Sanhedrin — making the conflict de jure rather than practically enforced.