Zevachim

since their penalty is stated, [vis..] ‘and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting’ [etc.]. whilst whence do we know the interdict? ‘Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings [etc.].’ From here onward1 it speaks of sacrifices which one consecrated when bamoth were permitted but offered when they were forbidden, for it is said, To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they sacrifice2 [viz.,] sacrifices which I formerly permitted — in the open field:2 this teaches you [that] he who sacrifices [slaughters] [at bamoth] when bamoth are forbidden, the Writ regards him as though he offered in the open field. ‘Even that they may bring them unto the Lord’:2 this is a positive injunction.3 Whence have we a negative injunction? From the text, ‘And they shall no more sacrifice [etc.]’4 You might think that one is punished for it by kareth; therefore it states, This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations:1 ‘this’ is their [statute]. but nought else is theirs!5 — Rather said R. Abin:6 [We learn it] a minori: if [Scripture] interdicted where it did not punish [with kareth];7 is it not logical that it interdicted where it punished [with kareth]?8 Rabina observed to R. Ashi: If so, let a negative injunction not be stated in connection with heleb,9 and it could be inferred a minori from nebelah:9 if [Scripture] interdicted nebelah, where it did not punish [with kareth]; is it not logical that it interdicted heleb, seeing that it did punish [with kareth]. Then he came before Raba.10 Said he to him: It could not be inferred from nebelah, because [the argument] can be refuted: As for nebelah, the reason is because it defiles.11 [Nor can it be deduced] from unclean sherazim [reptiles], [because,] As for unclean sherazim, the reason is because a small portion defiles.12 [Nor] from clean sherazim,13 [because,] As for clean sherazim, the reason is because [the standard of] their interdict is very small.14 [Nor] from ‘orlah and kilayim of the vineyard, [because,] As for ‘orlah and kilayim of the vineyard, that is because all benefit from them is forbidden.15 [Nor] from shebi'ith,16 [because,] As for shebi'ith, that is because it imposes its own status upon the money received for it.17 [Nor] from terumah, [because,] As for terumah, that is because it is never exceptionally permitted.18 [Nor can you deduce it] from all these because they are never permitted exceptionally. Raba said: If I have a difficulty, it is this: When we learnt, The Passover-offering and circumcision are positive commands,19 let us infer [a negative injunction in their case] from one who leaves [anything] over [of the Passover-offering]:20 If Scripture interdicted in the case of one who leaves over, though it did not prescribe a penalty, is it not logical that it interdicted in the case of the Passover-offering and circumcision, where it did prescribe a penalty?21 R. Ashi said: I reported this discussion in R. Kahana's presence. and he told me: [A negative injunction] cannot be inferred from leaving over, because [the argument] can be refuted: as for leaving over, that is because it cannot be repaired;22 will you say [that there is a negative injunction] in the case of a Passover-offer, which can be repaired [if neglected]?23 But can you assume an interdict by inferring a minori? [For] even on the view that you can punish through inferring a minori, you cannot assume a formal prohibition by inferring a minori! — Rather, it is as R. Johanan said [elsewhere]. For R. Johanan said: ‘Bringing’ is inferred from ‘bringing’:24 as in the latter case [Scripture] did not prescribe a penalty without formally interdicting, so in the former case [Scripture] did not prescribe a penalty without formally interdicting. Tabernacle), yet since it is expressed affirmatively, the implied interdict counts as a positive injunction. to sacrifices which were consecrated when bamoth were permitted, but we have no explicit negative injunction in respect of those consecrated when bamoth were forbidden. covering that case, but kareth is not involved. contemporary. heleb. apply to heleb, however. heleb is permitted, viz., the heleb of a hayyah (non-domesticated animal, e.g.. deer). which if deliberately violated involve kareth. These two however, though entailing kareth, are positive precepts, and so their neglect does not necessitate a sin-offering. neglect them. day; yet if not done then, it can be performed at any time subsequently. — Thus so far all the arguments against the assumption of an interdict a minori have been rebutted. connection with both: Slaughtering: What man soever . . . that killeth an ox . . . and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting; offering up: Whatsoever man . . . that offereth up a burnt-offering or sacrifice, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meeting. — R. Johanan stated this exegesis with respect to another question (v. infra 107a), but the same applies here.