“ ‘All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall come on his head, until the days are fulfilled in which he separates himself to Yahweh. He shall be holy. He shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long.
A nazirite shall not cut his hair during the period of his vow
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
תַּעַר לֹא־יַעֲבֹר עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהיר הנזיר מלגלח. והוא אמרו תער לא יעבור על ראשו. ומי שגלח גם כן ראש הנזיר לוקה במתגלח ומעת שגילח שער אחת לוקה. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצות נזיר כלם במסכת נזיר. (שם, שם):
He prohibited the nazirite from shaving. And that is His saying, "no razor shall pass over his head" (Numbers 6:5). And one who shaves the head of a nazirite is also lashed, just like the one who is shaved; and he is lashed from the time he shaves one hair. And the regulations of these commandments of the nazirite have already all been explained in Tractate Nazir. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 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 As the catalog records it: theoretically binding but defunct
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite Position uncertain
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
- Numbers Rabbah 10:7 expanded it homiletically
- Nazir 4b The catalog describes this reception as: halakhic discussion
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.247-254 read it allegorically
Josephus
- Ant. 4.72 affirmed it
- War 2.313 affirmed it
The New Testament
- Acts 18:18 affirmed it Paul shaves his head at Cenchreae for a vow of unspecified type, plausibly a nazirite-type votive arrangement; the timing suggests the conclusion rather than violation of such a vow
- Acts 21:23-24 affirmed it Four men under a vow whose heads are shaved at its completion; Paul pays the expenses, indicating continued Second-Temple nazirite practice
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 sanction of thirty-nine lashes (malkot) for cutting one's hair during a self-chosen nazirite vow conflicts with the modern penal principle of proportionality; applying corporal punishment to a personal grooming act — even one in violation of a voluntarily assumed religious commitment — is disproportionate by any post-Enlightenment penal standard.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
No contemporary legal system imposes criminal penalties of any kind for cutting one's own hair; even granting that breach of a solemn vow might generate civil or religious liability, the method of judicial flogging is categorically incompatible with modern prohibitions on cruel or degrading punishment.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that the Sanhedrin's jurisdiction to administer malkot lapsed with the destruction of the Second Temple; the flogging sanction for nazirite hair-cutting is a de jure norm in halakhic literature but has no operative enforcement mechanism in any existing Jewish legal system.