Zevachim 114b — the Talmud in English

It would therefore appear that anyone who sacrifices an offering that is lacking its time, even if he sacrificed it inside,

should also receive lashes

for this prohibition, for the prohibition of “You shall not do” was stated at Gilgal even concerning the public bama that was there in the Tent of Meeting, and the Tent of Meeting is “inside”; and from here a warning is learned for anyone who sacrifices an offering lacking its time inside.

Why, then, did Rabbi Zeira say:

that he does not receive lashes for an offering lacking its time inside? Because

the verse detached it

to invalidate an offering lacking its time from all the other invalid offerings, which, when sacrificed, violate the prohibition of “It shall not be accepted,” stated concerning offerings having a blemish, and from which all invalid offerings were included; and the verse detached the prohibition of an offering lacking its time

to a positive commandment

that is extra, which was written concerning an offering lacking its time because it had not been seven days under its mother, in order to teach concerning an offering lacking its time that it is not included among all the invalid offerings and that it has no prohibition of “It shall not be accepted,” but only this positive commandment. However, according to Reish Lakish, an offering lacking its time should nevertheless incur lashes on account of the prohibition of “You shall not do,” which teaches concerning an offering lacking its time inside?

And we answer:

Perhaps this matter

that Rabbi Zeira said, that an offering lacking its time does not incur lashes—

is according to the Rabbis

who disagreed with Rabbi Shimon in our Mishna and do not expound “You shall not do” concerning an offering lacking its time outside, [and their view is that this prohibition was stated only concerning the sacrifice of communal obligations at Gilgal ], but

according to Rabbi Shimon

who obligates one who sacrifices an offering lacking its time to receive lashes on account of “You shall not do,”

so too here

one who sacrifices an offering lacking its time inside violates this prohibition and receives lashes!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Rabbi Shimon concedes that one does not receive lashes for sacrificing an offering lacking its time inside, because although the prohibition “You shall not do” was stated at Gilgal also concerning one who sacrifices inside on the public bama, it is impossible to learn from it to everyone who sacrifices an offering lacking its time inside, because only

the inside of Gilgal, in relation to Shiloh, is considered outside!

Since the bama at Gilgal was not a place fit for the sacrifice of the obligatory offerings of an individual , and this is unlike the other offerings lacking their time, in which the invalidity is in the offering, whereas the place inside is fit, and the prohibition of “You shall not do” is not applicable; rather, it applies only to an offering lacking its time that one slaughtered outside, and we have not found a prohibition concerning an offering lacking its time inside .

Rabba said: The reason for Rabbi Shimon

that one who slaughters outside an offering that is presently invalid violates a prohibition, since it will be fit after some time, is

as it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: From where is it derived that one who sacrifices a Paschal offering on an individual’s bama at the time when bamot are prohibited

in the wilderness, or in the days of Shiloh, or during the time of the Temple,

is subject to a prohibition? The verse says: “You may not sacrifice the Paschal offering

at one of your gates,” that is, on a bama that is everywhere.

Could it also be so at the time when bamot are permitted,

that he violates a prohibition if he sacrifices the Paschal offering on an individual’s bama?

The verse says: “At one of your gates.” I told you so only at a time when all Israel enters through one gate.

That is, at the time when bamot are prohibited, when offerings are sacrificed only in one place.

And we inquire:

When

does one who sacrifices the Paschal offering on an individual’s bama violate this prohibition?

If you say after midday,

of the fourteenth of Nisan, that is, at the time of its sacrifice,

must he also be liable for excision?

For he slaughtered outside an offering that is fit inside.

Rather, is it not

that he slaughtered the Paschal offering

before midday,

when the time of its sacrifice had not yet arrived? Therefore there is no excision for it, since it is not fit inside, but nevertheless he violates a prohibition , since it is fit to be sacrificed after midday; and from here Rabbi Shimon learned that also with an offering lacking its time that one slaughtered outside, one violates a prohibition .

And we reject this:

No; actually,

the beraita is speaking of one who slaughtered it

after midday,

and nevertheless he is not liable for excision, because

he is situated at a time when bamot are permitted,

that is, at Gilgal or Nob and Gibeon, where bamot were permitted for every individual to sacrifice vow or freewill offerings upon them; but the Paschal offering, which is obligatory, is sacrificed only on a public bama [a Paschal offering is considered a communal offering because all Israel sacrifices it together, and therefore it is sacrificed on a public bama, unlike the obligatory offerings of an individual, which are not sacrificed at all at the time when bamot are permitted].

And at the time when bamot are permitted, “You may not sacrifice” was stated to teach that one may not sacrifice a Paschal offering or any obligatory offering on an individual’s bama [but there is no excision for it, because it is a time when bamot are permitted]; and this Paschal offering is not lacking its time, since it is presently fit to be sacrificed on a public bama, and Rabbi Shimon cannot learn from here that with every offering lacking its time outside one violates a prohibition.

And we raise a difficulty:

But

the beraita

says, “at the time when bamot are prohibited,” does it not?

And we answer: The beraita means a time when there is

a prohibition of the bama for it,

for the Paschal offering, which is prohibited to sacrifice on an individual’s bama , but it is a time of

permission of the bama for its fellow,

for vow and freewill burnt offerings and peace offerings, which are permitted to be sacrificed on an individual’s bama at a time when bamot are permitted.

Accordingly, the explanation of the conclusion of the beraita, “Could it also be so at the time when bamot are permitted,” is as follows: Could it be prohibited to sacrifice the Paschal offering before midday on an individual’s bama, at which time it is sacrificed as a peace offering, since a Paschal offering not in its proper time is a peace offering, and peace offerings are permitted on an individual’s bama? The verse says, “At one of your gates”: I told you so only at a time when all Israel enters through one gate—that is, after midday, when they all come to the public bama to sacrifice their Paschal offerings .

We learned in the Mishna: Which is

an offering lacking its time

because of its owners? A man with a discharge, a woman with a discharge, a woman after childbirth, and a leper, who sacrificed their sin offerings and guilt offerings outside.

And we inquire:

And

since

these

a man with a discharge, a woman with a discharge, and a woman after childbirth

are they subject to guilt offerings?

Why did we learn that they sacrificed “their guilt offerings” outside? [The questioner did not have the version “and a leper.”]

And we answer:

Zeira said: Teach

in the Mishna

“a leper” together with them!

And a leper brings a guilt offering.

We further learned later in the Mishna:

their burnt offerings and their peace offerings

outside.

And we inquire:

And

since

are these subject to peace offerings?

For even a leper does not have a peace offering.

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said: Teach

also in the Mishna

“a nazirite”!

And he is obligated to bring a peace offering.

And we conclude:

As for Zeiri,

that is, the addition of “leper” that Zeira added,

the tannaim established it

in the Mishna and taught in it also “and a leper” ; but

as for Rav Sheshet,

that is, the addition of “nazirite,”

the tannaim did not establish it

within the Mishna; rather, we answer this way in the Gemara, like every instance of “the text is incomplete” stated in the Talmud.

Rabbi Ḥelkiya bar Tovi said:

Concerning what we learned in the Mishna, that when a man with a discharge or a woman with a discharge sacrificed their guilt offering outside before the time had arrived, and the owners are obligated to bring them, they are exempt from excision and from a prohibition [according to the Rabbis, while according to Rabbi Shimon they are liable for a prohibition], since they are not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,

it was taught

so

only

when he slaughtered the guilt offering outside for

its sake,

for the sake of a guilt offering [and the same law applies when he slaughtered them without specification, whose law is like one who slaughters for its sake], because their guilt offering is not yet fit to be sacrificed inside.

But

if he slaughtered the guilt offering outside

not for its sake,

but for the sake of another offering, such as for the sake of a burnt offering,

he is liable

on account of slaughtered offerings outside ,

since it is fit

to be accepted under this designation inside . Conversely, changing the designation of the offering from a guilt offering to a burnt offering does not invalidate it, and it follows that it is fit to be sacrificed with the thought of

not for its sake inside!

And this applies specifically to a guilt offering, which is valid when not for its sake, except that it does not fulfill the owners’ obligation. But with a sin offering, which becomes invalid through the thought of not for its sake, he is exempt for it even if he slaughtered it not for its sake outside; therefore Rabbi Ḥelkiya did not discuss it .

We raise a difficulty:

If so,

in a case where the guilt offering was slaughtered outside

should one likewise be liable when it is slaughtered for its sake? Since it is fit

to be offered by slaughtering it with the intention

that it be not for its sake inside.

The Gemara answers:

It lacks the act of uprooting

its original designation. As long as its designation has not been uprooted through an intention that it be not for its sake, it is not considered fit to be offered, because an ordinary guilt offering is not presumed to be intended for such a change of designation.

Rav Huna raises an objection: Do you have something that is unfit

when it is slaughtered

for its sake,

as in the case of this guilt offering, which is brought before its time and is therefore unfit to be offered,

but is fit

when it is slaughtered

not for its sake?

This is not comparable to what we learned: “All offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake are valid,” because that applies specifically to offerings that are fit to be offered for their sake; we have not found that slaughtering an offering not for its sake should be preferable to slaughtering it for its sake.