You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the grain.
Not to muzzle an ox or any animal while it is working in the field
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
לֹא־תַחְסֹם שׁוֹר בְּדִישׁוֹ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהירנו ממנוע הבהמה מאכול מהדבר שתעבוד בו עבודתה, כגון שתדוש בגורן או שתשא תבן על גבה ממקום למקום לא תמנע מאכול ממנו. והוא אמרו יתעלה לא תחסום שור בדישו, והתבאר שאחד השור ואחד כל בהמה בלאו דחסימה אלא שדבר הכתוב בהווה ושוה הוא הדיש או שאר המלאכות לא תמנע מאכול בשעת מלאכה מהדבר שתעבוד בו, וכל מי שמנע בה לוקה ואפילו חסמה בקול. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו בבבא מציעא. (שם, שם):
He prohibited us from preventing an animal from eating from the thing upon which it is doing its work - such that if it is threshing a threshing field or carrying straw on its back from one place to another, he may not prevent it from eating from it. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing" (Deuteronomy 25:4). And it is explained that it is the same [if it is] an ox or any other animal - it is [included] in the negative commandment of 'muzzling.' It is only that Scripture is speaking according to what is common. And plowing and other work is the same - one should not not prevent it from eating that which it is working with at the time of the work. And anyone who prevents it is lashed - even if he 'muzzles' it with his voice. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Bava Metzia. (See Parashat Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, Diverse Species 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 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 Kept as an ethical principle
- Reconstructionist Kept as an ethical principle
- Karaite 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.
Josephus
- Ant. 4.233 affirmed it
The New Testament
- 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 read it allegorically Paul applies the law to apostolic material support, asking 'Is God concerned about oxen?'
- 1 Timothy 5:18 read it allegorically Pastoral repetition citing the muzzling verse for the right of elders to compensation
The Church Fathers
- John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians, Hom. 22 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.
Maimonides (Hilkhot Sekhirut 13:1–3) classifies the muzzling prohibition as a Torah-level offense subject to thirty-nine lashes; modern penal proportionality precludes corporal punishment for a single agricultural animal-welfare infraction, even though the underlying ethic of the law aligns with modern animal-welfare norms.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; court-administered flogging for muzzling a working animal is an incompatible enforcement method under international human-rights standards.
-
abrogated_in_practice
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
The malkot sanction has not been administered since the dissolution of the Sanhedrin; the de jure corporal-punishment norm exists but is not operative in contemporary Jewish legal practice.