Be careful that you don’t offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see;
Not to offer sacrifices outside the Temple courtyard
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן־תַּעֲלֶה עֹלֹתֶיךָ בְּכָל־מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו שלא נקריב דבר מן הקרבנות בחוץ רוצה לומר חוץ לעזרה וזה יקרא מעלה בחוץ, והוא אמרו יתעלה השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך. ולשון ספרי אין לי אלא עולות שאר קדשים מנין תלמוד לומר ושם תעשה יכול לא יהיו אלא בעשה תלמוד לומר ושם תעלה, עולה בכלל היתה ולמה יצתה להקיש אליה ולומר לך מה עולה מיוחדת שהיא בעשה ולא תעשה כך כל שהוא בעשה הרי היא בלא תעשה. ואני אבאר לך הענין וזה שבעולה בא לשון אזהרה מהקריב אותה בחוץ, והוא אמרו פן תעלה, ובא בפירוש בפסוק אחר בצווי להקריב העולה בפנים, והוא אמרו יתעלה שם תעלה. וזה מצות עשה שיקריב שם העולה. במקום אשר יבחר ה' אולם שאר קדשים בא להם הצווי שיקריבו בפנים, והוא אמרו ושם תעשה ללמד שבחוץ לא תעשה. והשרש אצלנו לאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה, והוא אמרו הנה ועדיין אני אומר שאר קדשים לא יהיו אלא בעשה רוצה לומר שיהיו מי שיקריב קדשים בחוץ עובר בלאו הבא מכלל עשה לבד, ולכן אמר ושם תעלה עולותיך כדי שיגיע ההיקש ויהיו הקרבנות כעולה וכמו שהמקריב עולה בלא תעשה כך שאר הקרבנות. והעובר על לאו זה במזיד חייב כרת ושוגג חייב חטאת קבועה, ולשון הכרת בפרשת אחרי מות במעלה בחוץ כתיב אשר יעלה עולה או זבח ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו ונכרת. ובספרי ונכרת האיש מעמיו עונש שמענו אזהרה מנין תלמוד לומר השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך. ולשון גמרא זבחים (דף ק"ו:) כתיב עונש וכתיב אזהרה עונש ונכרת אזהרה השמר לך פן תעלה. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו בי"ג מזבחים. (ראה אנכי, מעשה הקרבנות פי"ח):
He prohibited us - that we not sacrifice any of the sacrifices outside. [This] means to say, outside of the [Temple] courtyard. And this is called, bringing up outside. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Take care lest you bring up your burnt-offerings" (Deuteronomy 12:13). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 70:5-6) is, "I only [know about] burnt-offerings. From where [do we know about] the other consecrated animals? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and there shall you do' (Deuteronomy 12:14). Perhaps [other offerings] are subject only to a positive commandment. [Hence] we learn to say, 'there shall you bring up [your burnt-offerings].' Burnt-offerings were included [in all of the offerings]. Why were they singled out? To serve as [the basis for] a comparison, and to tell you, 'Just as burnt-offerings, which are characterized by being subject to a positive commandment, are subject to a negative commandment; so too, all offerings that are characterized by being subject to a positive commandment are surely subject to a negative commandment.'" And I will explain the content to you. And that is that the language of a prohibition appears with a burnt-offering - and that is His saying, "lest you bring up." And in another verse, the explanation appears with a command to offer the burnt-offering inside - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "and there shall you bring up" - and that is the positive commandment that one offer the burnt-offering there, "in the place that the Lord will choose." However the [only] command that comes [for] the other consecrated animals is that they offer them inside - and that is His saying, "and there shall you do" - to teach that you should not do [it] outside. But the principle with us is that a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. And that is their saying, "I would still say [that] other consecrated animals would only be with a positive commandment." [This] means to say that the one who sacrifices other consecrated animals would only [transgress] a positive commandment - that is that one who sacrifices other consecrated animals outside would only transgress a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment. And hence He said, "and there shall you bring up your burnt-offerings" - so as to extend the comparison, and that the [other] sacrifices be like the burnt-offering: So just like one who offers a burnt-offering [outside] is with a negative commandment, so too [with] the other sacrifices. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for excision when volitional; and a fixed sin-offering when inadvertent. And the language of excision is [found] in Parashat Acharei Mot about someone who brings up an offering outside - it is written, "who brings up a burnt-offering or a sacrifice: And does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting [...], he will be excised" (Leviticus 17:8-9). And in the [Sifra]: "'That man will be excised from his people' - we have understood the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Take care lest you bring up your burnt-offerings.'" And the language of the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 106a), is, "The punishment is written, and the prohibition is written: The punishment, 'he will be excised'; the prohibition, 'Take care lest you bring up.'" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the thirteenth [chapter] of Zevachim. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 18.)
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.
- Requires a standing Temple
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
- Karet — being 'cut off'
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 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.
Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls)
- 11QTa (Temple Scroll) 52:13-21 read it more strictly
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.67-68 rationalized it
Josephus
- Antiquities 4.200-201 affirmed it
- Contra Apionem 2.193 rationalized it
The New Testament
- John 4:20-24 read it spiritually Samaritan-Jerusalem dispute over the legitimate place of worship reframed as worship 'in spirit and truth', superseding fixed cultic geography
- Hebrews 13:10-13 reinterpreted it the single sacrificial locus relocated to Christ 'outside the camp'
The Church Fathers
- Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 1.6 read it spiritually
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.
Mishnah Makkot 3:15 prescribes malkot (flogging) for offering a sacrifice outside the Temple courtyard, a non-violent procedural-religious offense with no human victim. Modern penal proportionality categorically precludes corporal punishment for such violations.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
Post-Enlightenment criminal law rejects flogging as a permissible sanction; any contemporary regulatory equivalent of the centralization mandate would be enforced through civil or administrative mechanisms, not corporal punishment.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
The malkot sanction is doubly inoperative: Sanhedrin corporal jurisdiction lapsed after 70 CE, and the commandment presupposes a functioning Temple whose absence makes the prohibited act impossible to commit — rendering both the offense and its sanction legally moot.