Zevachim 212

שהרי עונשן אמור (ויקרא יז, ד) ואל פתח אהל מועד אזהרה דכתיב (דברים יב, יג) השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך

since their penalty is stated, [vis.] 'and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting' [etc.]. wh whence do we know the interdict? 'Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings [etc.].'

מכאן ואילך בזבחים שהקדישן בשעת היתר הבמות והקריבן בשעת איסור הבמות

From here onward<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Lev. XVII, 7.');">¹</span> 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 the sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., 5.');">²</span>

שנא' (ויקרא יז, ה) למען אשר יביאו בני ישראל את זבחיהם אשר הם זובחים זבחים שהתרתי לך כבר על פני השדה לומר לך הזובח בשעת איסור הבמות מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו הקריב על פני השדה

[viz. ,] sacrifices which I formerly permitted - in the open field:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., 5.');">²</span> 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.'

(ויקרא יז, ה) והביאום לה' זו מצות עשה לא תעשה מניין ת"ל (ויקרא יז, ז) ולא יזבחו עוד

Even that they may bring them unto the Lord':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., 5.');">²</span> this is a positive injunction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the inference is obviously that they may not bring them to the bamoth but only 'unto the Lord' (i.e. at the Tabernacle) , yet since it is expressed affirmatively, the implied interdict counts as a positive injunction.');">³</span>

יכול יהא ענוש כרת ת"ל (ויקרא יז, ז) חוקת עולם תהיה זאת להם לדורותם זאת להם ולא אחרת להם

Whence have we a negative injunction? From the text, 'And they shall no more sacrifice [etc.]'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'No more' implies that hitherto it was permitted, but from now onwards it is forbidden.');">⁴</span>

אלא אמר (ר' אבין) ק"ו ומה במקום שלא ענש הזהיר מקום שענש אינו דין שהזהיר

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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Lev. XVII, 7.');">¹</span> 'this' is their [statute].

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי א"כ לא יאמר לאו בחלב ותיתי ק"ו מנבילה מה נבילה שלא ענש הזהיר חלב. שענש אינו דין שהזהיר

but nought else is theirs!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is subject only to an affirmative and a negative precept, but not to kareth. - Thus the negative injunction applies 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.');">⁵</span> - Rather said R'Abin:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh.M. and Bah emend: Abaye.');">⁶</span>

אתא לקמיה דרבא א"ל מנבלה נמי לא אתיא דאיכא למיפרך מה לנבלה שכן מטמא

[We learn it] a minori: if [Scripture] interdicted where it did not punish [with kareth];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. where the sacrifice was consecrated when bamoth were permitted. As just stated, we have a negative injunction covering that case, but kareth is not involved.');">⁷</span> is it not logical that it interdicted where i punished [with kareth]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. where the sacrifice was consecrated when bamoth were already forbidden.');">⁸</span>

משרצים טמאין מה לשרצים טמאין שמטמאין במשהו

Rabina observed to R'Ashi: If so, let a negative injunction not be stated in connection with heleb,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos.');">⁹</span> and it could be inferred a minori from nebelah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos.');">⁹</span>

משרצים טהורים מה לשרצים טהורים שאיסורן במשהו

if [Scripture] interdicted nebelah, where it did not punish [with kareth]; is it not logical that it interdicted heleb, seeing that it did punish [w kareth]. Then he came before Raba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabina and R. Ashi were later than Raba. For that reason the text is amended to Abaye (v. n. 6.) . Raba's contemporary.');">¹⁰</span>

מערלה וכלאי הכרם מה לערלה וכלאי הכרם שכן אסורין בהנאה

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas heleb does not defile.');">¹¹</span> [Nor can it be deduced] from unclean sherazim [reptiles], [because,] As for unclean sherazim, the reason is because a small portion defiles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As much as a lentil defiles.');">¹²</span>

משביעית מה לשביעית שכן תופסת דמיה

[Nor] from clean sherazim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those which do not defile, e.g., a frog or an ant, but which are forbidden as food by a negative interdict,');">¹³</span> [because,] As for clean sherazim, the reason is because [the standard of] their interdict is very small.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He who eats as much as a lentil is culpable; whereas no penalty is incurred for eating less than an olive size of heleb.');">¹⁴</span>

מתרומה שכן לא הותר מכללה מכולהו נמי שכן לא הותרו מכללן

[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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas heleb is only forbidden as food.');">¹⁵</span> [Nor] from shebi'ith,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For all these words v. Glos.');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רבא אי קשיא לי הא קשיא לי הא דתנן פסח ומילה מצות עשה

[because,] As for shebi'ith, that is because it imposes its own status upon the money received for it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it seizes its money.' - If shebi'ith is sold, the money is forbidden in the same way as itself. That does not apply to heleb, however.');">¹⁷</span> [Nor] from terumah, [because,] As for terumah, that is because it is never exceptionally permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is not permitted out of its general (interdict) .' Terumah is always forbidden to unclean priests, whereas some heleb is permitted, viz., the heleb of a hayyah (non-domesticated animal, e.g.. deer) .');">¹⁸</span>

תיתי בק"ו ממותיר מה מותיר שלא ענש הזהיר פסח ומילה שענש אינו דין שהזהיר

[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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is stated in Ker. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר רב אשי אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב כהנא ואמר לי ממותיר לא אתיא דאיכא למיפרך מה למותיר שכן אין לו תקנה תאמר פסח יש לו תקנה

let us infer [a negative injunction in their case] from one who leaves [anything] over [of the Passover-offering]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is forbidden by a negative injunction: And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning (Ex. XII, 10) .');">²⁰</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, if such an argument is permissible, they should rank as subject to a negative injunction too. viz., not to neglect them.');">²¹</span>

וכי מזהירין מן הדין אפילו למ"ד עונשין מן הדין אין מזהירין מן הדין

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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Once the flesh is left over, nothing can be done.');">²²</span>

אלא כדרבי יוחנן דאמר אתיא הבאה הבאה

will you say [that there is a negative injunction] in the case of a Passover-offer, which can be repaired [if neglected]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By bringing an offering on the Second Passover (v. Num. IX, 9 seq.) . Circumcision should be done on the eighth 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.');">²³</span> But can you assume an interdict by inferring a minori?

מה להלן לא ענש אא"כ הזהיר אף כאן לא ענש אא"כ הזהיר

[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':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A gezerah shawah between slaughtering and offering up is deduced, based on the fact that 'bringing' is written in 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.');">²⁴</span> 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.