This passage isn’t available in the reading corpus yet. Read in context
A hired worker shall not eat of the produce while still engaged in the work
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
כִּי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ וְקָטַפְתָּ מְלִילֹת בְּיָדֶךָ וְחֶרְמֵשׁ לֹא תָנִיף עַל קָמַת רֵעֶךָ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהיר השכיר שלא לקחת מהאוכל שיעבוד בו יותר מאכילתו. והוא אמרו ואכלת ענבים כנפשך שבעך וגו'. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו בשביעי ממציעא ושם התבאר מה מותר לו לאכול ומה שאין לו רשות שיאכל ואם יאכלנו יהיה עובר על ואל כליך לא תתן. (שם, שם):
He prohibited the worker from taking more than he can eat from something that he is working on. And that is His saying, "you may eat grapes as you desire, to your satisfaction, etc." (Deuteronomy 23:25). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of [Bava] Metzia. And there,what is permitted for him to eat and what he does not have permission to eat is explained - such that if he eats it, he transgresses, "but you may not place it in your vessel." (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Hiring 12.)
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 case law — "if X, then Y"
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, with modification
- Reform Kept as an ethical principle
- Reconstructionist Kept as an ethical principle
- Karaite As the catalog records it: not recognized as distinct
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. 4.234 affirmed it Josephus paraphrases the allowance for passersby/travelers to eat grapes and standing grain by hand (cf. Deut 23:25-26), reframing it as a provision of generosity to those in need rather than as a worker-contract rule
The New Testament
- Matthew 12:1 carried a parallel Disciples pluck grain by hand on the Sabbath as they pass through fields; reflects the Deut 23:26 hand-plucking allowance, with the controversy shifted to Sabbath observance rather than the eating right itself
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 12:1–15) prescribes thirty-nine lashes for a harvest worker who eats produce at an impermissible point in the work cycle; modern penal proportionality precludes corporal punishment for a workplace timing infraction with no direct victim or significant harm.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; judicial flogging for consuming produce during active work rather than at a prescribed break falls within the class of punishments that international human-rights bodies consistently classify as degrading.
-
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 conflict with modern penal norms is not enforced in practice.