Bring It To The House

The Rambam counts mitzvah 84 to bring korbanot to the Beis Hamikdash, היא שצונו להקריב כל הקרבנות בבית הבחירה. והוא אמרו יתעלה שם תעלה עולותיך ושם תעשה,.  Mitzvah 85 is even if the korbanot are outside of Eretz Yisroel one must still bring them to the Beis Hamikdash, ואע"פ שהם בחוצה לארץ כלומר שנתחייב בהם בחוצה לארץ הנה נצטוינו להביא לבית הבחירה, והוא אמרו רק קדשיך אשר יהיו וגו'.  The Ramban holds that these two are only counted as one mitzah.  The Achronim mostly understand that the additional mitzvah of bringing from outside Eretz Yisroel is that even though it is hard to bring the animals, still one is obligated (see the Chinuch.)  It is difficult to understand the הוא אמינא that difficulty would be a פטור.

Rav Avrohom Gurovitz wants to suggest a different interpretation.  He says that the chiddush is specifically from outside Eretz Yisroel.  I would have said just as korbanot can only be offered in Eretz Yisroel, so too only animals from Eretz Yisroel assume the obligation to be offered in the Mikdash.  However, animals from outside Eretz Yisroel don't assume the obligation ot be offered in the Mikdash, for its not a place of korbanot.  Hence, we need an addition mitzvah to tell us even outside Eretz Yisroel there is an obligation to bring the korban to the Mikdash.

He also questions why there is a need for an asseh to bring one’s korban to the Mikdash, one should be obligated because of his vow?  He understands that really there isn’t a need for the asseh and the main point is that it’s a negative commandment not to sacrifice outside the Mikdash.

Rashi Meilah (19a,) Tosfos Chullin (22b) that say that the obligation to bring a korban only requires one to bring the korban into the azarah, but doesn't require one to actually bring it on the altar.  According to this, we can argue on the whole premise of the question.  One's neder doesn't require him to actually offer the korban on the alter.  However, the Turay Even Megillah (8b) asks many questions on this idea.  The Roshei Yeshiva explain the Rashi that there are two obligations to a korban.  There is a monetary obligation, that one owes the value of the korban to hekdesh.  It is regarding this obligation that Rashi says bringing it to the Mikdash and handing it to the gizbur suffices for the korban is now in propery of hekdesh.  However, there is another obligation upon the individual to bring the korban as an obligation of nidrei mitzvah and thar obligation still hangs over his head.  According to this, the question still stands.

The Chinuch says (#440) אבל אין הכונה לומר, שיהיה עליה חיוב להקריב קרבן בבית המקדש עכשו שהוא חרב, זה דבר ברור הוא.  The Achronim ask why, מקריבין אע"פ שאין בית?  The Steipler (Zevachim #32) says we see from the Chinuch that מקריבין אע"פ שאין בית means one can bring the korban, however there is no obligation to offer the korban.  Why this would be isn't very clear, the Steipler struggles for an explanation.