You must not offer to Yahweh that which has its testicles bruised, crushed, broken, or cut. You must not do this in your land.
Not to castrate any male creature, human or animal
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וּמָע֤וּךְ וְכָתוּת֙ וְנָת֣וּק וְכָר֔וּת לֹ֥א תַקְרִ֖יבוּ לַֽיהוָ֑ה וּֽבְאַרְצְכֶ֖ם לֹ֥א תַעֲשֽׂוּ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהיר מהפסיד כלי התשמיש מן הזכרים מאיזה מין שיהיה מבעלי חיים, ושוה בזה האדם וזולתו, והוא אמרו אחר שאמר ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות וגו' ובארצכם לא תעשו, ובא הפירוש גם כן ובכם לא תעשו. והעובר על לאו זה לוקה, רוצה לומר מי שיסרס איש מאישי איזה מין שיהיה. ובפרק שמונה שרצים (דף קי"א) אמרו מנין לסרוס באדם שהוא אסור תלמוד לומר ובארצכם לא תעשו בכם לא תעשו. ואפילו מסרס אחר מסרס חייב דאמר רבי חייא בר אבין אמר רבי יוחנן הכל מודים במחמץ אחר מחמץ שהוא חייב שנאמר לא תאפה חמץ ולא תעשה חמץ במסרס אחר מסרס שהוא חייב שנאמר ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות אם על כרות חייב על נתוק לא כל שכן אלא להביא נותק אחר כורת שהוא חייב. והתבארו משפטי מצוה זו במקומות משבת ויבמות. (אמור, שם פ"ט):
He prohibited the destruction of male sexual organs of any animal species that it may be. And regarding this, there is no difference between man and others besides him. And that is His saying - after He said, "And [an animal that has its testicles] crushed, mangled, torn or cut, etc." - "and in your land you shall not do [so]" (Leviticus 22:24). And the explanation comes (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7:11) [that this is also [for a man] - "and in you (uvachem" - a combination of the first two letters and the last two letters of "uvearzechem"). And one who transgresses this negative commandment - meaning to say, one who castrates a being from any of the species - is lashed. And in the chapter [entitled] Shmoneh Sheratzim (Shabbat 110b), they said, "From where [do we know] about castration of people? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and in your land (uvearzechem) you shall not do [so]' - and in you (uvachem), you shall not do so." And one is even liable for castration after castration: "As Rabbi Chiyya bar Avin said that Rabbi Yochanan said, 'Everyone agrees that one who leavens [a meal-offering] after it is leavened is liable - as it is stated, 'It shall not be baked leavened' (Leviticus 6:10); and, 'it shall not be made with leaven' (Leviticus 2:11). [And likewise] that one who castrates after one who castrates is liable - as it is stated, 'And [an animal that has its testicles] crushed, mangled, torn or cut, shall not be offered to the Lord, and in your land you shall not do [so].' If one is liable when it is cut; when it is detached, is he not all the more so liable? Rather, it is to include that one who detaches, after one who cuts, is liable." And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in [various] places in Shabbat and Yevamot. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 9.)
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 Kept as an ethical principle
- 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.
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.325 rationalized it Addresses the broader complex of genital mutilation and exclusion of the castrated from the assembly (cf. Deut 23) rather than Lev 22:24 specifically
Josephus
- Ant. 4.290-291 The catalog describes this reception as: paraphrase restatement
The New Testament
- Matthew 19:12 reinterpreted it Reference to those who 'made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven' presupposes the Israelite/Jewish discomfort with castration but spiritualizes the category; not a direct citation of Lev 22:24
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.
- neo assyrian royal inscriptions the institutionalization of castrated palace officials (ša rēši) in Neo-Assyrian and later Achaemenid court administration as the foreign practice against which the Israelite prohibition against castrating any male implicitly contends Relationship to the parallel: polemical contrast ša rēši (palace officials, frequently castrated) attested across Neo-Assyrian administrative and royal correspondence Mattila, The King's Magnates (SAAS 11, 2000); cf. SAA correspondence volumes for ša rēši attestations
- hittite laws Hittite laws on bestiality and prohibited sexual unions, distinguishing among animal species in sexual-offence cases; relevant only as loose comparative background for ANE legal attention to sexual and bodily norms, not as a direct anti-castration parallel Relationship to the parallel: shared theme §§187-200a (bestiality and prohibited sexual unions) Hoffner, The Laws of the Hittites: A Critical Edition (Brill, 1997)
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 prohibits castration of any male, including consensual surgical procedures on one's own body; bodily-autonomy frameworks hold that competent adults have the right to authorize medical procedures including orchiectomy (for cancer treatment), vasectomy, or gender-affirming surgery, all of which fall within the biblical prohibition as interpreted by Maimonides.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
The commandment's rabbinic application criminalises medically recognised and routinely performed surgical procedures (including castration for testicular cancer, hormone-refractory prostate cancer, and gender dysphoria treatment); modern medical law uniformly recognises patient consent as authorising such interventions, making the prohibition incompatible in method with contemporary bioethical and criminal-law norms.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
The prescribed penalty of thirty-nine lashes for performing or authorising castration constitutes a form of corporal punishment prohibited by modern criminal law as cruel and degrading.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; flogging as the sanction for violation constitutes degrading punishment under international human rights standards.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that the flogging sanction requires a functioning Sanhedrin, which lapsed with the Second Temple's destruction; enforcement is thus suspended in practice, though the prohibition itself remains formally operative in halakhic discourse.