כִּ֣י אִם־בַּמָּק֞וֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַ֤ר יְהוָה֙ בְּאַחַ֣ד שְׁבָטֶ֔יךָ שָׁ֖ם תַּעֲלֶ֣ה עֹלֹתֶ֑יךָ וְשָׁ֣ם תַּעֲשֶׂ֔ה כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָנֹכִ֖י מְצַוֶּֽךָּ׃
Mas en el lugar que SEÑOR escogiere, en una de tus tribus, allí ofrecerás tus holocaustos, <span class="x" onmousemove="Show('perush','Este es el <b>84to Precepto Positivo</b> enumerado por el Rambam en el Prefacio a Mishné Torá, su “Compendio de la Ley Hebrea” para todo el Pueblo de Israel.',event);" onmouseout="Close();">y allí harás todo lo que yo te mando</span>.
Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim
A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar29The baraita is preserved in Sifry Deut. 70–71, on the verses (Deut. 12–13): “Guard yourself not to present your burnt offerings at every place you see. Only at the place which the Eternal will choose from one of your tribes, there you should present your burnt offerings and there you should perform all that I am commanding you.” The first verse contains a prohibition, the second a positive commandment and because of this difference, the verses cannot be taken together in the way R. Eleazar interpreted a similar situation regarding the Sabbatical year. Hence, R. Eleazar seems to contradict tannaïtic attitudes. Since in our sources R. Eleazar’s interpretation of the verses Lev. 25:2–5 is found in Sifra, one may take this as an indication that Sifra was unknown to the compilers of the Yerushalmi, and that Sifra is a Babylonian compilation of tannaïtic material as is traditionally asserted.. “ ‘Guard yourself’ means a prohibition. And it is written: There you should present, there you should perform.” Because that is written, otherwise I would have said it is a positive commandment30Verses 13–14 show that sacrificing outside the precincts of the Tabernacle or the Temple is a criminal offense (v. 13) and a disregard of a positive injunction (v. 14). The two verses are parallel, not logically consecutive as R. Eleazar would require.. But that you should not say as you say regarding the Sabbath that if somebody dug a hole, made a ditch, and dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense, so similarly, if somebody slaughtered, sprinkled the blood, and presented he should be guilty only of one offense31An argument is given that R. Eleazar could justify the different treatment of an apparently similar situation.
The Sabbath prohibitions are classified under 39 categories of “main works”. An action similar to one of the main works is called a derivative. For example, ploughing as a preparation for sowing and digging a hole for the planting of a tree are main work and derivative respectively. If somebody performed both a main work and one of its derivatives in error, he has to bring one sacrifice of atonement. But if he transgressed prohibitions belonging to two distinct categories, he has to bring two sacrifices. In the case of sacrifices outside the Temple, presenting the sacrifice on the altar is really the last action; it is preceded first by the slaughter of the sacrificial animal and second by the sprinkling of its blood on the walls of the altar. These actions are classified as “performing”. Since the order of the actions is inverted, first “presenting” then “acting”, it follows that they are distinct and that slaughter and sprinkling are not legally derivatives of presenting. {In the Sifry, the interpretation is that the prohibition covers only those actions that are simultaneously a criminal offense and a disregard of a positive injunction.}. Therefore, it is necessary to say that he is guilty for each action separately.
The Sabbath prohibitions are classified under 39 categories of “main works”. An action similar to one of the main works is called a derivative. For example, ploughing as a preparation for sowing and digging a hole for the planting of a tree are main work and derivative respectively. If somebody performed both a main work and one of its derivatives in error, he has to bring one sacrifice of atonement. But if he transgressed prohibitions belonging to two distinct categories, he has to bring two sacrifices. In the case of sacrifices outside the Temple, presenting the sacrifice on the altar is really the last action; it is preceded first by the slaughter of the sacrificial animal and second by the sprinkling of its blood on the walls of the altar. These actions are classified as “performing”. Since the order of the actions is inverted, first “presenting” then “acting”, it follows that they are distinct and that slaughter and sprinkling are not legally derivatives of presenting. {In the Sifry, the interpretation is that the prohibition covers only those actions that are simultaneously a criminal offense and a disregard of a positive injunction.}. Therefore, it is necessary to say that he is guilty for each action separately.