Rabbi Shimon says that the cases include an animal that had relations with a person, or that a person had relations with it; an animal that was designated as an offering to an idol, or that was worshipped as Avodah Zarah (idolatry); an animal that was given to a prostitute as payment, or that was given in exchange, as a trade for a dog; a kilayim, a mixed breed animal; a terefa, an animal that has a blemish and that will pass away within the year; or an animal born by C-section. If somebody offered up one of these animals, even if it was designated as a korban (offering), he is not liable for offering it outside. The Pasuk (verse) says that a person is only liable if he offers an animal designated as a korban before the Mishkan (Tabernacle) of Hashem, which implies that the Torah is speaking about an animal that was fit to be brought into the Mishkan as a korban. But anything that is not fit as a korban in the Mishkan is not subject to liability if a person offers it outside. Since these animals are not fit to be brought as korbanot, a person is likewise not liable for offering them outside.
But blemished animals that were consecrated as korbanot. Whether we are talking about permanent blemishes or temporary blemishes, if someone offers them up outside, he is not liable because these animals were not fit to be offered inside the Mishkan. Rabbi Shimon says that in the case of permanent blemishes, a person is not liable for bringing them outside because the animal will never become fit to be offered inside the Mishkan. But when we are talking about temporary blemishes, although a person is not liable for a chatat (sin offering) right now because the animals are not fit to be offered in the Mishkan right now, he does transgress by offering them up outside, and he would receive lashes because the animals will eventually become fit to be offered when the blemishes improve, when things heal. So, according to Rabbi Shimon, the person may not be violating the karet (penalty) prohibition against offering an animal outside, but he is violating a different prohibition. Since the animal is eventually going to get better, a person is doing something wrong to it. He should wait it out until the animal is worthy of being offered on the Mizbeach (altar); offering it before then is improper. So, he violates a different lav, and he should receive lashes for that.
Another machloket (dispute) is similar. If there were turtle doves designated for a korban, but the time had not yet arrived for them to be offered as a korban because they were too young, and pigeons whose time had passed because they were too old to be offered as a korban, there are certain time periods. Doves can only be used once they are older, and pigeons are only allowed to be used while they are young. If someone offered them up outside, he would not be liable because they are not fit to be offered inside. When talking about young pigeons whose time has passed, that means they grew up and now cannot be offered. The person is patur (not liable), because they can never become fit to be offered inside; they are too old, and they are not going to get younger. But when we are talking about doves whose time has not arrived yet, even though a person may not be liable for the chatat that we spoke about because they are not fit to be offered inside right now, as in the last case, he is guilty of another lav, another prohibition, and he would receive lashes because they will eventually become fit to be offered when they get older. Therefore, he should have waited it out. By offering them outside, he violated a different prohibition.
Another machloket is similar: Oto ve'et beno, a korban that was not allowed to be offered that day as a korban, because there is a prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its child on the same day. This does not apply only to korbanot; it applies even to regular animals. We do not kill the mother and the child on the same day. So, in this case, let’s say the mother was killed: you are not allowed to kill the child, and therefore it is not fit to be offered on the Mizbeach that day. Or another case: u'mechusar zeman, it was premature. This could be talking about two different types of premature: the korban was a baby, an infant. A korban has to be at least eight days old in order to be offered as a korban. Or the second type of premature is when it cannot yet be offered because the time for doing so has not arrived. We will elaborate in the next Mishnah about that. One is not liable for offering it outside because on that day these two korbanot were not fit to be offered inside. Rabbi Shimon says that for this type of offering done outside, even though a person is not chayav (liable) chatat in this type of case, he is guilty of violating that separate prohibition and would receive malkot (lashes), because these korbanot will eventually become fit at a later date. When that time arrives, it would be okay, so he is doing something improper to a future korban, and therefore he would receive malkot.
We will now explain the machloket between Tanna Kamma (first tanna) and Rabbi Shimon in all of these cases. Rabbi Shimon says that even though something is not fit to be offered right now inside the Beit HaMikdash (Holy Temple), if it will become fit at a future time, it is a lav, it is a lo ta'aseh against offering it now outside, and a person will receive malkot. Ve'ein bo karet: there is no penalty of karet for offering it up outside because these offerings were not fit on that day to be offered up inside. And the Chachamim (Sages) say, “Kol she'ein bo karet, ein bo b'lo ta'aseh.” The Chachamim disagree and say that if there is no karet for offering it up outside because it is not fit right now to be offered up inside, it is also not subject to the lo ta'aseh for offering it up outside. Therefore, the person is completely exempt from punishment in all of these cases.