one should even be flagellated too? (1) Why did R. Zera say: Scripture transmuted it into a positive command? (2) — Perhaps that is only according to the Rabbis, (3) but in the view of R. Simeon, that indeed is so. (4) R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Within, at Gilgal, was like without in comparison with Shiloh. (5) Rabbah said: R. Simeon's reason is as it was taught: R. Simeon said: How do we know that one who sacrifices his Passover-offering at a private Bamah when Bamoth were prohibited, violates a negative command? Because it is said, ‘Thou mayest not sacrifice the Passoveroffering [within one of thy gates]’. (6) You might think that it is also thus when Bamoth were permitted; (7) therefore it is stated, ‘within one of thy gates’: I have told you [that he violates a negative injunction] only when all Israel enter through one gate. (8) Now when is this thus? If we say, after midday, (9) let him even incur kareth too! (10) Hence It must surely mean before midday! (11) — No: in truth it means after midday, but it means when Bamoth were permitted. But surely he says, ‘When Bamoth were prohibited’? — He means when the Bamah was forbidden for that [sacrifice], but permitted for another. (12) BEFORE TIME, etc. Are these then subject to guilt-offerings? — Said Ze'iri: Include a leper amongst them. (13) THEIR BURNT-OFFERINGS AND THEIR PEACE-OFFERINGS. And are these subject to peace-offerings? — Said R. Shesheth: Learn a Nazirite [in the Mishnah]. According to Ze'iri, the Tannaim [explicitly] included it: (14) according to R. Shesheth, the Tannaim did not include it. (15) R. Hilkiah b. Tobi said: They learnt it (16) only [when he sacrifices it] for its own sake. But [if he sacrifices it] under a different designation (17) he is culpable, since it is eligible, under a different designation, within. (18) If so, let him also be culpable [when he slaughters it] for its own sake, since it was eligible, under a different designation, within? — It lacks abrogation. (19) To this R. Huna demurred: Is there anything which [when slaughtered] for its own sake is not fit, yet [when slaughtered] under a different designation is fit? (20) — Is there not? Surely

---

(1). ↑ Sc. one who slaughters an animal prematurely within. For the public Bamah at the Tabernacle of Gilgal, which was the Tent of Meeting of the wilderness, naturally ranked as within, yet Scripture said ‘Ye shall not do’. — The transgression of a negative injunction is punished by flagellation.
(2). ↑ V. Hul. 80b. If, however, ‘Ye shall not do’ applies to such, we have a negative command.
(3). ↑ As they do not relate ‘Ye shall not do’ to premature slaughtering.
(4). ↑ One would be flagellated.
(5). ↑ It counts as without since obligatory sacrifices might not be offered there. Thus even R. Simeon admits that he is not flagellated, for now we find the negative injunction only in connection with slaughtering without, but not in connection with slaughtering within.
(6). ↑ Deut. XVI, 5.
(7). ↑ For even then private Bamoth were permitted only for votive sacrifices, but not for obligatory sacrifices like the Passover-offering, which were sacrificed at the public Bamoth.
(8). ↑ I.e., when there is a central sanctuary; but when Bamoth were permitted there was no central sanctuary. The verse is understood thus: ‘Thou mayest not sacrifice the Passover-offering’ at a private Bamah when all Israel enter through ‘one of the gates’.
(9). ↑ On the fourteenth of Nisan.
(10). ↑ And not merely flagellation, (v. n. 1.), since it can then be received within.
(11). ↑ When it is premature. Thus a sacrifice slaughtered prematurely without, under its correct designation, entails the violation of a negative prohibition.
(12). ↑ It was forbidden for the Passover-offering, but permitted for a burnt-offering and peace-offering (i.e., votive offerings). This then is what he means: You might think that this is so even when it (the Passover-offering) may be sacrificed at a Bamah, viz., before midday, when it can be offered as a peace-offering; therefore it says, ‘in one of thy gates’. I have told... ‘at one gate ,viz., at the public Bamah, to slaughter their Passover-offerings, which is after midday.
(13). ↑ I.e., ‘guilt-offering’ is mentioned only in connection with the leper, who is also enumerated. Rashi, in the Mishnah, deletes ‘leper’.
(14). ↑ Sc. leper, in the Mishnah.
(15). ↑ ‘Leper’ is absent in the version of the Mishnah, nevertheless it must be added, on the assumption that the text of the Mishnah is defective.
(16). ↑ That when a leper prematurely sacrifices his guilt-offering without he is not culpable.
(17). ↑ E.g., as a burnt-offering.
(18). ↑ For all sacrifices slaughtered under a different designation are fit, except the Passover-offering and the sin-offering.
(19). ↑ Before it can be eligible, its name as a guiltoffering must be abrogated, and as long as this was not done it is not eligible.
(20). ↑ For although all sacrifices slaughtered under a different designation are fit, that is surely only when they are fit if slaughtered for their own sake.