[Wenn] man außerhalb [des Tempelbezirks] ein Tier anbot, das Beziehungen zu einer Frau hatte oder zu dem ein Mann Beziehungen hatte oder das für den Götzendienst bestimmt war oder das angebetet wurde oder das zur Bezahlung einer Prostituierten verwendet wurde, oder das gegen einen Hund ausgetauscht wurde oder eine gemischte Rasse war oder ein Terefah [ein Tier mit einer tödlichen Krankheit, so dass es innerhalb eines Jahres sterben wird] oder ein Tier, das durch einen Kaiserschnitt geboren wurde, ist davon befreit, wie es heißt (Leviticus 17: 4) "Vor dem Mischkan [Tabernakel]" haftet man nicht für etwas, das nicht geeignet ist, in den Mischkan gebracht zu werden . [Wenn man draußen fehlerhafte Tiere anbietet], ist er befreit, unabhängig davon, ob sie einen dauerhaften oder einen vorübergehenden Fehler hatten. Rabbi Shimon sagt: Man ist befreit, dauerhaft fehlerhafte Tiere anzubieten, aber er verstößt gegen ein negatives Gebot, indem man einem Tier vorübergehend einen vorübergehenden Fehler anbietet. Man ist davon ausgenommen, außerhalb Turteltauben anzubieten, die noch nicht alt genug sind, um geopfert zu werden, oder Tauben, die zu alt sind, um geopfert zu werden. Rabbi Shimon sagt: Einer ist für zu alte Tauben befreit, aber er verstößt gegen ein negatives Gebot, indem er Turteltauben anbietet, die noch nicht alt genug sind. Man ist befreit, ein Tier und seine Jungen [am selben Tag] draußen anzubieten oder ein Tier anzubieten, das nicht alt genug ist [noch keine acht Tage alt ist]. Rabbi Shimon sagt: Dies sind [Verstöße] gegen negative Gebote, denn Rabbi Shimon pflegte zu sagen: Man [verletzt] ein negatives Gebot für alles, was nach einer bestimmten Zeit gebracht werden kann, aber man [wird nicht mit] Karet [Exzision bestraft] durch die Hände des Himmels]; aber die Weisen sagen, alles, wofür man nicht Karet unterliegt , man [auch nicht als verletzt angesehen] ein negatives Gebot.
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
בלא תעשה – since they are worthy to come [before the altar of God] at another time, they do not suffer extirpation, but rather it is a mere negative commandment of (Deuteronomy 12:8): “You shall not act at all as we now act here, [every man as he pleases.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
[As for an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or a terefah; or an animal born through caesarean section, if one offered any of these outside, he is not liable, because it says, “Before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4): whatever is not eligible to come before the Tabernacle of the Lord, one is not liable on its account. All of the animals on this list were explained in 8:1, so for a more detailed explanation, look there. None of these animals can be sacrificed and they all became unfit to be put onto the altar outside the Temple. Since none of these can be sacrificed, one who offers one of them up outside the Temple is not liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
תורים שלא הגיע זמנן – [as it is taught in the Mishnah (note: but it is NOT a Mishnah, but rather a Baraita; the Mishnah is found in Tractate Hullin, Chapter 1, Mishnah 5 on 22a) of Tractate Hullin (22b): when their plumage is glittering, they are kosher, but before this they are invalid], for we require large turtle-doves and not small ones.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
[As for] blemished animals, whether with permanent blemishes or with passing blemishes, if one offers them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] animals with permanent blemishes, he is exempt; [if one offers] animals with passing blemishes, he violates a negative commandment. Blemished animals cannot be offered as sacrifices. Animals that have permanent blemishes will never be able to be used as sacrifices whereas animals that have passing blemishes are only temporarily disqualified. According to the sages (the first opinion in the mishnah), since the animal cannot now be sacrificed in the Temple, one is not liable if one offers it outside the Temple. Rabbi Shimon says that if one offers up outside the Temple an animal that is only temporarily disqualified from being used as a sacrifice on the Temple’s altar, he has transgressed the negative commandment found in Deuteronomy 12:13, “Take care not to sacrifice your burnt offerings in any place” but he has not transgressed the commandment found in Leviticus 17:8-9, which is punished with karet. This seems to be Rabbi Shimon’s way of answering why the Torah repeats the same prohibition, once in Leviticus 17 and once in Deuteronomy 12. The case in Deuteronomy refers to a person who sacrifices outside the Temple an animal that is only temporarily disqualified from being put on the altar inside the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
ובני יונה שעבר זמנן – small pigeons and not large ones, and they are invalid from the incipient stage of brightening plumage and onward (see Tractate Hullin, Chapter 1, Mishnah 5).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
[As for] turtledoves before their time and young pigeons after their time, if one offered them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] young pigeons after their time, he is exempt; turtledoves before their time, he violates a negative commandment. Turtledoves are valid as sacrifices only when they are older (about three months) whereas pigeons are valid as sacrifices when they are younger (before three months). According to the sages, if one sacrifices either of these outside the Temple at a time when it cannot be sacrificed in the Temple, he is not liable. Rabbi Shimon holds that since a turtledove that is not yet three months will eventually become fit for the altar, if one sacrifices it outside the Temple, he is liable for transgressing a negative commandment although he is exempt from karet.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
בלא תעשה – since for they are worthy after the time [for the offering of he sacrifice] there is for them a negative commandment to slaughtered them outside [the Temple courtyard].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
[One who offers] an animal together with its young [on the same day], and [one who offers] an animal before its time, is not liable. Rabbi Shimon says: he violates a negative commandment. Leviticus 22:28 prohibits one from slaughtering a mother animal and her offspring on the same day. If one already slaughtered one of these animals, he can’t then slaughter the other and the other animal would not be fit on that day to be a sacrifice. Thus, according to the sages, if one offers up the other animal outside the Temple he is liable. Rabbi Shimon says that since the animal can be offered on the next day, if he offers it on the day its mother/offspring was already slaughtered, he has transgressed a negative commandment. It is also forbidden to sacrifice an animal before it is eight days old (Leviticus 22:27). The same rules apply here: the sages hold that he is exempt if he sacrifices it outside the Temple whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that he has transgressed a negative commandment, since the animal can be sacrificed after it is eight days old.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
אותו ואת בנו – that he slaughtered one of them (either the parent-bird or the offspring) and he came to offer up the second on the second day, but it is prohibited because of (Leviticus 22:28): “[However, no animal from the herd or from the flock] shall be slaughtered on the same day with its young.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
For Rabbi Shimon would say: whatever is eligible to come [onto the altar] later entails a negative commandment, but does not entail karet. But the sages say: whatever does not entail karet also does not entail a negative commandment. In this section we see the debate that serves as the basis for the particular debates in sections 2-4. Rabbi Shimon holds that Deuteronomy 12:13 applies to one who sacrifices an animal outside the Temple that cannot currently be sacrificed on the altar, but that will be fit later on. The other sages disagree and hold that if karet (Leviticus 17) doesn’t apply, then he doesn’t transgress the negative commandment found in Deuteronomy either.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
מחוסר זמן (an offering that cannot be offered because the time for it be offered has not yet arrived (i.e., for an animal not yet eight days old, or a peace-offering is offered before the Temple gates were opened.) – whether it is because it is lacking time in its body that it was not seven days with its mother, or whether the owners are lacking time, as will be explained further (see the next Mishnah). And it is necessary to teach the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis in all of these [three segments of the Mishnah], for it if (i.e., the Mishnah) only mentioned to us regarding animals with a blemish, in that, the Rabbis state because they are repulsive, but turtle-doves and pigeons are not repulsive. I would say that they agree [on this] with Rabbi Shimon. But if it (i.e., the Mishnah) mentioned only turtle-doves and pigeons, because they were not appropriate/eligible and superseded, I would say that Rabbi Shimon agrees with the Rabbis. But if it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches these two, because of the invalid (i.e., intrinsic) nature of its body, but the parent animal and its offspring which is invalid eternally (i.e., as a result of an accident of time), they would bring them, I would say that the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Shimon, hence it is necessary, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon (see Tractate Zevakhim 114a).
