I have not eaten of it in my mourning, neither have I removed any of it while I was unclean, nor given of it for the dead. I have listened to Yahweh my God’s voice. I have done according to all that you have commanded me.
Not to eat the second tithe while ritually impure
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וְלֹא־בִעַרְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ בְּטָמֵא
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו מאכול מעשר שני בטומאה ואפילו בירושלים עד שיפדה, שהשורש אצלנו מעשר שנטמא פודין אותו אפילו בירושלים, כמו שהתבאר במכות (דף י"ט:), והאזהרה ממנו לא בערתי ממנו בטמא. ובאה הקבלה בין שאני טמא והוא טהור בין שאני טהור והוא טמא. ובשלישי ממכות (שם) התבאר ג"כ שהמעשר והבכורים אסור לבער מהן בטומאה והאוכלן בטומאת עצמו לוקה, אבל בתנאי שיאכל זה המעשר בטומאה בירושלים בלא פדיון, ואז ילקה כמו שזכרנו. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו בסוף מכות. (כי תבא, הלכות מעשר שני פ"ג):
That He prohibited us from eating second tithe when impure - even in Jerusalem - until it has been redeemed. For the principle with us is that we redeem second tithe that has become impure - even in Jerusalem - as is explained in Makkot (Makkot 19b). And its prohibition is, "I have not cleared out any of it while impure" (Deuteronomy 26:14). And the tradition appeared about it (Makkot 19b): "Whether I am impure and it is pure; or I am pure and it is impure." And in the third chapter of Makkot, it is also explained that it is forbidden to clear out tithes and firstfruits while impure; and one who eats them while impure is lashed. But [here] it is on condition that he eats this tithe when impure in Jerusalem without redemption. And then he is lashed, as we mentioned. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Makkot. (See Parashat Ki Tavo; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 3.)
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 command embedded in narrative
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 Not binding
- 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.
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.131-144 rationalized it
Josephus
- Ant. 4.240-243 The catalog describes this reception as: summarized
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 thirty-nine lashes for eating while in a state of ritual impurity — a category of bodily status (from contact with a corpse, bodily discharge, or skin condition) that has no penal significance in modern law. Corporal punishment for a ritual-purity infraction is wholly disproportionate under modern penal theory.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; lashing for consuming food while in a bodily state classified as ritually impure meets the threshold of inhuman or degrading punishment under international human-rights standards.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that Sanhedrin corporal jurisdiction lapsed with the destruction of the Second Temple and the disappearance of ordained judicial authority; the malkot sanction for this ritual-purity offense is de jure but inoperative in practice.