Comentario citado sobre Deuteronómio 12:13

בארץ מצרים, “in the land of Egypt.” Outside of the capital. If a conversation with G–d concerning a minor matter required Moses to leave the capital, as we know from Exodus 9,29, when something of major importance was to be discussed this required him to leave the capital of Egypt even more so.[This is all based on the extraneous words “in the land,” in our verse. It would have otherwise sufficed to simply write: “in Egypt.” Ed.] The reason why outside the capital of Egypt G–d would address Moses was that the land of Israel had not yet been chosen as the only area from which prophecy would be received. [When the first Temple was destroyed the prophet Ezekiel did receive prophetic visions as we know from Ezekiel 3,22. So did the prophet Jonah (Jonah 1,3) who had fled from the Holy Land. At any rate, as long as Jerusalem had not become the capital of Israel, G–d sometimes addressed prophets outside its boundaries. During those years sacrificial offerings were also acceptable outside Jerusalem. Moses’ warning in Deuteronomy 12,13, not to offer such offerings any place the owner of the animal chose to do so, was also not effective before the Temple stood in Jerusalem. The town itself was potentially on a spiritual level where prophetic visions could be received. As long as Aaron had not been appointed as High Priest, any area was potentially fit to serve as sovereign soil for the Jewish people under a king. These rules are derived from verses in Kings I 8,16, as well as from Chronicles II 13,5.

[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.

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.