he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink. He shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of fermented drink, neither shall he drink any juice of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried.
A nazirite shall not drink wine or any grape-derived beverage
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
מִיַּ֤יִן וְשֵׁכָר֙ יַזִּ֔יר חֹ֥מֶץ יַ֛יִן וְחֹ֥מֶץ שֵׁכָ֖ר לֹ֣א יִשְׁתֶּ֑ה וְכָל־מִשְׁרַ֤ת עֲנָבִים֙ לֹ֣א יִשְׁתֶּ֔ה וַעֲנָבִ֛ים לַחִ֥ים וִיבֵשִׁ֖ים לֹ֥א יֹאכֵֽל
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהיר הנזיר משתות יין והחמר והיינות שבשרש עירובם מן הענבים. והוא אמרו כל משרת ענבים לא ישתה, וכבר הפליג באזהרה מזה ואפילו חומץ יין וחומץ שכר (שבו נתערב היין) אינו מותר לשתותו, והוא אמרו חומץ יין וחומץ שכר לא ישתה. ואין הלאו מצוה בפני עצמה, כי אילו אמר יין לא ישתה וחומץ לא ישתה היו שתי מצות, ואמנם אמר וחומץ יין לא ישתה הרחקה מן היין. והתבאר בגמרא נזירות (דף ל"ו) שאמרו משרת הוא לאסור טעם כעיקר, והראיה היותם מצוה אחת כי כששתה יין והחמר אינו לוקה שתים כמו שיתבאר אחר זה. וכל זמן שישתה נזיר רביעית יין או חומץ לוקה. (נשא את ראש, הפלאה הלכות נזירות פ"א):
He prohibited the nazirite from drinking wine or [other drinks] the mixture of which [includes] grapes. And that is His saying, "neither shall he drink anything in which grapes have been steeped" (Numbers 6:3). And he already accentuated the prohibition about this, such that it is not permissible to drink even wine vinegar or vinegar of strong drink (in which wine is mixed). And that is His saying, "he shall not drink vinegar of wine nor vinegar of strong drink." But this negative statement is not a separate negative commandment. For if He had said, "He shall not drink wine and he shall not drink vinegar," they would have been two commandments. However He said, "he shall not drink vinegar of wine" - a distancing from wine. And it is explained in the Gemara, Nazir (Nazir 36), that His saying, "have been steeped," is to forbid the taste [of the grapes] like the substance. And the proof about their being one commandment is that if he drinks wine and vinegar, he is not lashed twice, as will be explained after this (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 206). And whenever a nazirite drinks a reviit of wine or vinegar, he is lashed. (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 ritual instruction
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 Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- 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.
Rabbinic aggadah
- Numbers Rabbah 10:7-8 expanded it homiletically
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.247-254 read it allegorically
Josephus
- Antiquities 4.72 affirmed it
The New Testament
- Luke 1:15 carried a parallel John the Baptist 'shall drink no wine or strong drink,' echoing nazirite/Samson abstention language
- Acts 18:18; 21:23-26 affirmed it Paul depicted undertaking a vow and financing nazirite offerings, presupposing the institution's validity
Beside the older legal codes of its world
The commandment set beside the ancient Near-Eastern legal collections scholars compare it to — a descriptive comparison, not a claim of dependence.
- ugaritic texts wine featured prominently in Canaanite divine-assembly and cultic banquet scenes associated with Baal worship, providing the cultural-religious context against which total grape-abstention functions as a counter-statement Relationship to the parallel: polemical contrast Baal Cycle (KTU 1.3 ii; 1.4 iii) — banquet and wine scenes in divine assembly Smith and Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2 vols. (Brill, 1994, 2009)
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 prescription of thirty-nine lashes (malkot) for consuming grape products during a voluntarily assumed nazirite vow conflicts with the modern penal principle of proportionality; corporal punishment for a dietary choice — even one the individual freely foreswore — is categorically disproportionate under post-Enlightenment criminal law.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
No post-Enlightenment legal system criminalizes the consumption of grape-derived products under any circumstances; the method of judicial flogging for this dietary violation is wholly incompatible with modern prohibitions on cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
The Sanhedrin's jurisdiction to impose malkot lapsed with the destruction of the Second Temple, per standard rabbinic tradition; the flogging sanction for nazirite wine-drinking therefore remains a de jure norm in halakhic codes without operative enforcement in any Jewish legal system since the first century CE.