Zevachim 114b (קיד:) — the Talmud in English

It would seemingly follow that anyone who sacrifices a korban that is premature, even if he sacrificed it inside,

should also receive lashes

for violating this prohibition, for the prohibition “You shall not do” was stated concerning Gilgal even with regard to the public bamah that was there in the Tent of Meeting—and the Tent of Meeting is considered “inside”—and from this it may be derived that there is a prohibition against anyone who sacrifices a premature korban inside.

Why, then, did Rabbi Zeira say:

that one does not receive lashes for a premature korban sacrificed inside? Because

the verse detached it

from the other disqualified offerings that one violates by sacrificing them, through the prohibition “It shall not be accepted,” stated with regard to offerings having blemishes, from which all disqualified offerings were included. The verse detached the prohibition concerning a premature korban

to a positive mitzva

that is superfluous, which was written with regard to a premature animal that had not remained seven days with its mother, in order to teach concerning a premature offering that it is not included among all the disqualified offerings and that it is not subject to the prohibition “It shall not be accepted,” but only to this positive mitzva. However, according to Reish Lakish, one should still receive lashes for a premature offering by virtue of the prohibition “You shall not do,” which teaches that there is a prohibition concerning a premature offering sacrificed inside?

And we answer:

Perhaps this matter

that Rabbi Zeira said—that one does not receive lashes for a premature offering

applies to the Rabbis,

who disagreed with Rabbi Shimon in our Mishna and do not expound “You shall not do” with regard to a premature offering sacrificed outside [and their view is that this prohibition was stated only with regard to sacrificing obligatory offerings at Gilgal]. But

according to Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that one receives lashes for a premature offering by virtue of “You shall not do,”

it is likewise the case

that one who sacrifices a premature korban inside violates this prohibition and receives lashes!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Rabbi Shimon agrees that one does not receive lashes for sacrificing a premature offering inside. For although the prohibition “You shall not do” was stated with regard to Gilgal also concerning one who sacrifices inside on a public bamah, it cannot be derived from there that there is a prohibition concerning everyone who sacrifices a premature offering inside, because only

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

This is because the bamah at Gilgal was not a site fit for sacrificing the obligatory offerings of an individual, and it is unlike other premature offerings, where the disqualification is in the korban, while the site inside is fit, and the prohibition “You shall not do” is not relevant. Rather, it applies only to a premature offering slaughtered outside; we have not found a prohibition concerning a premature offering inside.

Rabba said: The reason for Rabbi Shimon

that one who slaughters outside a korban that is presently disqualified violates a prohibition, since it will be fit later, is

as it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: From where is it derived that one who sacrifices a Paschal offering on a private bamah during the time when bamot are prohibited

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

violates a prohibition, the verse states: “You may not sacrifice the Paschal offering

in one of your gates,” that is, on a bamah, which may be anywhere.

One might have thought that this is also so during the time when bamot are permitted,

and that one violates a prohibition if he sacrifices the Paschal offering on a private bamah?

The verse states: “In one of your gates.” I said this to you only with regard to a time when all Israel enters through one gate.

That is, at a time when bamot are prohibited and offerings may be sacrificed only in one place.

And we raise a difficulty:

When

does one who sacrifices the Paschal offering on a private bamah violate this prohibition?

If we say after midday,

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

should he not also be liable for karet?

For he slaughtered outside a korban that is fit inside.

Rather, is it not

that he slaughtered the Paschal offering

before midday,

when the time designated for its sacrifice had not yet arrived? Therefore there is no liability for karet, since it is not fit inside, but nevertheless he violates a prohibition, since it will be fit to be sacrificed after midday. From here Rabbi Shimon derived that one who slaughters a premature offering outside likewise 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 karet because

it is referring to a time when bamot were permitted—

that is, at Gilgal or at Nob and Gibeon, where bamot were permitted for any individual to sacrifice vow or freewill offerings. But the Paschal offering, which is obligatory, could be sacrificed only on a public bamah. [The Paschal offering is considered a public offering because all Israel sacrifices it together; therefore it is sacrificed on a public bamah, unlike the obligatory offerings of an individual, which may not be sacrificed at all during the time when bamot are permitted.]

And “You may not sacrifice” was stated concerning the time when bamot were permitted, to teach that one may not sacrifice a Paschal offering or any obligatory offering on a private bamah [but there is no liability for karet, since it is a time when bamot are permitted]. This Paschal offering is not premature, since it is presently fit to be sacrificed on a public bamah; and Rabbi Shimon cannot derive from here that one violates a prohibition by sacrificing every premature offering outside.

And we ask:

But the

beraita

said: “During the time when bamot are prohibited”!

And we answer: The beraita refers to a time when there is

a prohibition of the bamah for it,

for the Paschal offering, meaning that it is prohibited to sacrifice it on a private bamah, but it is a time when there is

permission for the bamah for its fellow,

for vow and freewill burnt offerings and peace offerings, which may be sacrificed on a private bamah during the time when bamot are permitted.

Accordingly, the meaning of the conclusion of the beraita—“One might have thought that this is also so during the time when bamot are permitted”—is as follows: One might have thought that it is prohibited to sacrifice the Paschal offering before midday on a private bamah, since at that time it is a peace offering, for a Paschal offering sacrificed outside its proper time is a peace offering, and peace offerings are permitted on a private bamah. The verse therefore states: “In one of your gates”: I said this to you only at a time when all Israel enters through one gate—that is, after midday, when they all come to the public bamah to sacrifice their Paschal offerings.

We learned in the Mishna: Which is a

premature offering

with regard to its owner? A man with a discharge, a woman with a discharge, a woman after childbirth, and a leper who sacrificed their sin offerings or guilt offerings outside.

And we ask:

And

does

these

men with discharges, women with discharges, and women after childbirth

bring guilt offerings?

Why, then, did we learn that they sacrificed “their guilt offerings” outside? [The questioner’s version did not contain the wording “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 in the continuation of the Mishna:

Their burnt offerings and peace offerings

outside.

And we ask:

And

do

these people bring peace offerings?

For even a leper does not bring a peace offering.

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said: Teach

in the Mishna also

“a nazirite”!

And he is obligated to bring a peace offering.

And we conclude:

As for Zeiri,

the addition of “a leper” that Zeira added,

the tannaim established it

in the Mishna, and they taught there also “and a leper” . But

as for Rav Sheshet,

that is, the addition of “a nazirite,”

the tannaim did not establish it

within the Mishna. Rather, we explain the Mishna in this way in the Gemara, as with every instance of an incomplete Mishna stated in the Talmud.

Rabbi Ḥilkiya bar Tovi said:

The Mishna’s statement that a man with a discharge and a woman with a discharge who sacrificed their guilt offerings outside before the proper time, when the owners are obligated to bring them, are exempt from karet 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 be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,

was taught

in this form

only

when he slaughtered the guilt offering outside

for its sake,

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

But if he slaughtered the guilt offering outside

for it

not for its sake,

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

he is liable

on account of an offering slaughtered outside,

since it is fit

to be accepted under this designation inside. Conversely, changing the designation of the korban from a guilt offering to a burnt offering does not disqualify it, so it is fit to be sacrificed with the thought of

not for its sake inside!

This applies specifically to a guilt offering, which is valid when sacrificed not for its sake, although it does not fulfill the owners’ obligation. But in the case of a sin offering, which becomes disqualified 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 Ḥilkiya did not discuss it.

We raised an objection to this:

If so,

when one slaughtered the guilt-offering 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

of not slaughtering it for its sake inside.

And we answer:

It lacks the uprooting

status! As long as its status has not been uprooted by the intention of slaughtering it not for its sake, it is not considered fit to be offered, since an ordinary guilt-offering is not designated to have its status uprooted.

Rav Huna raised an objection to this: Do you have something that is unfit

when it is slaughtered

for its sake,

such as this guilt-offering, which is premature and unfit to be offered,

yet fit

when it is slaughtered

not for its sake?

This is unlike what we learned: “All offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake are fit,” for that applies specifically to offerings that are fit to be offered for their sake; but we have never found that slaughtering an offering not for its sake is preferable to slaughtering it for its sake.