Zevachim 228:1

מילקי נמי לילקי אלמה אמר רבי זירא הכתוב נתקו לעשה

one should even be flagellated too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹</span> Why did R'Zera say: Scripture transmuted it into a positive command?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Hul. 80b. If, however, 'Ye shall not do' applies to such, we have a negative command.');">²</span>

הני מילי לרבנן לרבי שמעון הכי נמי

- Perhaps that is only according to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they do not relate 'Ye shall not do' to premature slaughtering.');">³</span> but in the view of R'Simeon, that indeed is so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One would be flagellated.');">⁴</span>

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר פנים דגלגל לגבי שילה כחוץ דמי

R'Nahman B'Isaac said: Within, at Gilgal, was like without in comparison with Shiloh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁵</span> 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?

רבה אמר טעמיה דרבי שמעון כדתניא רבי שמעון אומר מנין לזובח פסח בבמת יחיד בשעת איסור הבמות שהוא בלא תעשה ת"ל (דברים טז, ה) לא תוכל לזבוח את הפסח

Because it is said, 'Thou mayest not sacrifice the Passover-offering [within one of thy gates]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVI, 5.');">⁶</span> You might think that it is also thus when bamoth were permitted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁷</span>

יכול אף בשעת היתר הבמות כן ת"ל באחד שעריך לא אמרתי לך אלא בשעה שכל ישראל נכנסין בשער אחד

therefore it is stated, 'within one of th gates': I have told you [that he violates a negative injunction] only when all Israel enter through one gate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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'.');">⁸</span> Now when is this thus?

אימת אי נימא אחר חצות כרת נמי מחייב אלא לאו קודם חצות

If we say, after midday,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the fourteenth of Nisan.');">⁹</span> let him even incur kareth too!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not merely flagellation, (v. n. 1.) , since it can then be received within.');">¹⁰</span>

לעולם לאחר חצות ובשעת היתר הבמות קאי

Hence It must surely mean before midday!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it is premature. Thus a sacrifice slaughtered prematurely without, under its correct designation, entails the violation of a negative prohibition.');">¹¹</span> - No: in truth it means after midday, but it means when bamoth were permitted.

והא בשעת איסור הבמות קאמר איסור במה לו היתר במה לחבירו:

But surely he says, 'When bamoth were prohibited'? - He means when the bamah was forbidden for that [sacrifice], but permitted for another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹²</span> BEFORE TIME etc. Are these then subject to guilt-offerings? - Said Ze'iri: Include a leper amongst them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'guilt-offering' is mentioned only in connection with the leper, who is also enumerated. Rashi, in the Mishnah, deletes 'leper'.');">¹³</span>

מחוסר זמן כו': והני בני אשמות נינהו אמר זעירי תני מצורע בהדייהו:

THEIR BURNT-OFFERINGS AND THEIR PEACE-OFFERINGS. And are these subject to peace-offerings? - Said R'Shesheth: Learn a nazirite [in the Mishnah].

עולותיהן ושלמיהן: והני בני שלמים נינהו אמר רב ששת תני נזיר דזעירי קבעוה תנאי דרב ששת לא קבעוה תנאי

According to Ze'iri, the Tannaim [explicitly] included it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. leper, in the MISHNAH:');">¹⁴</span> according to R'Shesheth, the Tannaim did not include it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' '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.');">¹⁵</span>

א"ר חלקיה (דבי) רב טובי לא שנו אלא לשמו אבל שלא לשמו חייב הואיל וראוי לשלא לשמו בפנים

R'Hilkiah B'Tobi said: They learnt it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That when a leper prematurely sacrifices his guilt-offering without he is not culpable.');">¹⁶</span> only [when he sacrifices it] for its own sake.

אי הכי לשמו נמי ניחייב הואיל וראוי לשלא לשמו בפנים בעי עקירה

But [if he sacrifices under a different designation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., as a burnt-offering.');">¹⁷</span> he is culpable, since it is eligible, under a different designation, within.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For all sacrifices slaughtered under a different designation are fit, except the Passover-offering and the sin-offering.');">¹⁸</span>

מתקיף לה רב הונא וכי יש לך דבר שאינו כשר לשמו וכשר שלא לשמו ולא והרי

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it can be eligible, its name as a guilt-offering must be abrogated, and as long as this was not done it is not eligible.');">¹⁹</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁰</span> - Is there not? Surely