1) THE “AZHARAH” FOR “SHECHITAH” AND “HA’ALAH” DONE “BA’CHUTZ”

(a) Answer #3 (to Question 2:a 106A – R. Yochanan): We learn the Azharah for Shechutei Chutz from a Gezerah Shavah “Hava’ah-Hava’ah” from Ha’alas Chutz:
1. Just like there the Torah did not give an Onesh of Kares without an Azharah, also here (Shechutei Chutz.)
(b) Answer #4 (Rava citing R. Yonah): We learn from a Hekesh to Ha’alas Chutz:
1. It says “Sham Ta’aleh Olosecha v’Sham Ta’aseh” (Devarim 12:14) – just like there the Torah did not give an Onesh of Kares without an Azharah, also here.
(c) Question: We brought a Lav for Ha’alas Chutz of Korbanos that (were slaughtered inside the Mikdash, hence) could have been offered inside and were offered outside;
1. What is the Lav for Korbanos that were slaughtered (outside, in order) to be offered outside, and were offered outside?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): (The Parshah of Ha’alas Chutz begins) “Va’Aleihem Tomar…” – we read this like ‘Va’Aleihem’ with an Ayin, i.e. it is a continuation of the previous Parshah, which discusses Shechutei Chutz.
(e) Objection (Rabah): “Va’Aleihem” is written (Shitah Mekubetzes – and read) with an Aleph (to them (Benei Yisrael) tell…), it is not a continuation of the previous Parshah!
(f) Answer #2: We learn like Tana d’vei R. Yishmael.
1. (Beraisa – Tana d’vei R. Yishmael): “Va’Aleihem Tomar…” – the ‘Vov’ connects the Parshiyos (the latter is a continuation of the former.)
(g) Answer #3 (R. Yochanan): We learn from a Gezerah Shavah “Hava’ah-Hava’ah” from Shechutei Chutz, that the Lav of Ha’alas Chutz also applies to Korbanos slaughtered outside.
(h) Objection (to all these answers – Rav Bivi – Mishnah): There are 36 Chayavei Kerisus (and if all were done in one Helam, one is liable for all of them);
1. If we learn from a Hekesh or Gezerah Shavah, this is like a second Lav, the two cases of Ha’alas Chutz should be counted separately (for one is liable for each of them), making 37 in all!
2. This is left difficult.
2) THE “CHIYUV” FOR “ZERIKAH”
(a) (Mishnah): One who throws some of the blood outside is liable.
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answers (Beraisa – R. Yishmael): “Dam Yechashev (…Dam Shofach)” – this includes ha’Zorek..
1. R. Akiva says, “*O* Zovach” includes ha’Zorek.
2. Question: What does R. Yishmael learn from “(Olah) *O* Zovach”
3. Answer: The Torah had to say “O (or)”, had it connected them with a ‘Vov’, one might have thought that one is not liable unless he slaughters two Korbanos outside, a bird *and* an animal.
4. R. Akiva says, “Lo *Yevi’enu*” (singular) teaches that one is liable for one slaughter.
5. R. Yishmael says, that exempts for a Chaser (incomplete Korban or Haktarah).
6. R. Akiva learns this from “La’asos Oso”.
7. R. Yishmael says, these two exemptions are for Chaser, when the slaughter was inside and when it was outside.
i. Support (Beraisa – R. Yishmael) Suggestion: If a Korban was slaughtered inside, perhaps one who is Ma’aleh b’Chutz is liable even if it is Chaser!
ii. Rejection: “La’asos Oso” – one is liable for complete Ha’alah, not for Chaser.
8. R. Akiva holds that if a Korban was slaughtered inside, one who is Ma’aleh b’Chutz is liable even if it is Chaser.
(d) Question: What does R. Akiva learn from “Dam Yechashev”
(e) Answer: This includes Shechutei Chutz of birds.
1. R. Yishmael learn this from “O *Asher Yishchat*”.
2. R. Akiva uses this to teach that one is liable for slaughter, not for Melikah b’Chutz.
3. R. Yishmael learn this from “Zeh ha’Davar”:
i. (Beraisa) Question: What is the source to obligate for Shechutei Chutz of birds?
ii. Answer: “O Asher Yishchat”.
iii. Suggestion: A Kal va’Chomer should teach that one is liable for Melikah b’Chutz! Slaughter is not the way birds are offered inside, yet one is liable for it b’Chutz – birds are offered inside through Melikah, all the more so one should be for it b’Chutz!
iv. Rejection: “Zeh ha’Davar” (this (slaughter) is the only way one is liable.)
4. R. Akiva uses “Zeh ha’Davar” for a Gezerah Shavah.
(f) (Mishnah (112B)): If one did Kemitzah or Kabalah b’Chutz, he is exempt.
(g) Question: What is the source of this?
1. Question: Why would we think that he is liable?
2. Answer #1: We learn from slaughter.
3. Rejection: We cannot learn from slaughter, for slaughter of Pesach for the sake of people that cannot eat it is Pasul.
4. Answer #2: We learn from Zerikah.
5. Rejection: We cannot learn from Zerikah, for a Zar who does Zerikah is Chayav Misah (but a Zar is not Chayav for Kemitzah or Kabalah, for they are not final Avodos.)
107b—————————————107b

6. Answer #1: We learn from a Tzad ha’Shavah of slaughter and Zerikah.
7. Rejection: If the Torah lets us learn Chiyuvim for Avodah b’Chutz in this way, it would not have taught the Chiyuv for Zerikah, for it could be learned from a Tzad ha’Shavah of slaughter and Ha’alah:
i. Question: We should be able to learn (Zerikah) from slaughter (alone)!
ii. Answer: We cannot learn from slaughter, for slaughter of Pesach for people that cannot eat it is Pasul.
iii. Question: We should be able to learn from Ha’alah!
iv. Answer: We cannot learn from Ha’alah, for it applies to a Minchah.
v. Question: We should be able to learn from the Tzad ha’Shavah of slaughter and Ha’alah!
vi. Answer: Indeed, there is no refutation of the Tzad ha’Shavah – the fact that the Torah taught Zerikah anyway shows that we do not learn Chiyuvim for Avodah b’Chutz in this way.
(h) (R. Avahu): If someone slaughtered and Zorak (outside, b’Shogeg):
1. R. Yishmael is Mechayev one (Chatas, since he learns Zerikah from “Dam Yechashev”, in the Parshah of Shechutei Chutz, it is as if he transgressed Shechutei Chutz twice), R. Akiva is Mechayev two (he learns Zerikah from “O Zevach” in the Parshah of Ha’alas Chutz, it is a different transgression);
(i) (Abaye): Even R. Akiva is Mechayev only one – “(Sham Ta’aleh Olosecha) v’Sham Ta’aseh”, the Torah considers all Avodos (other than Ha’alah) like one.
(j) (R. Avahu): If someone Zorak and Ha’alah:
1. R. Yishmael is Mechayev two (it is as if he slaughtered and Ha’alah), R. Akiva is Mechayev one (it is as if he was Ma’aleh twice);
(k) (Abaye): Even R. Akiva is Mechayev two – “Sham Ta’aleh…v’Sham Ta’aseh”, the Torah considers Ha’alah independently of all other Avodos.
(l) If someone slaughtered, Zorak and Ha’alah, all agree that he is liable two.
3) WHERE DOES THE “CHIYUV” APPLY?
(a) (Beraisa) Question: “O Asher Yishchat mi’Chutz la’Machaneh” – perhaps this means, outside of three Machanos (like it does regarding Parim ha’Nisrafim);
1. What is the source that one is liable even in Machaneh Levi?
2. Answer: “(O Ez – Shitah Mekubetzes deletes this) ba’Machaneh”.
3. Suggestion: “Ba’Machaneh” suggests even in Machaneh Shechinah, i.e. an Olah slaughtered in Darom (the south half of the Azarah, for it must be slaughtered in Tzafon!)
4. Rejection: “O…mi’Chutz la’Machaneh” – one transgresses outside Machaneh Shechinah, for no Korban may be slaughtered there, but not in Darom, for Kodshim Kalim may be slaughtered there.
(b) (Ula): One who slaughters on the roof of the Heichal is liable, since no Korban may be slaughtered there.
(c) Objection (Rava): If so, the Torah should have said “mi’Chutz la’Machaneh”, there would be no need to say “El Pesach Ohel Mo’ed”;
1. Rather, “El Pesach Ohel Mo’ed (Lo Hevi’o)” excludes the roof of the Heichal (for it was brought to the Azarah!)
(d) Question: According to Rava, the Torah should have said just “El Pesach Ohel Mo’ed”, there was no need to say “mi’Chutz la’Machaneh” and “ba’Machaneh”;
1. Suggestion: “Ba’Machaneh” comes to include the roof of the Heichal (and “Mi’Chutz la’Machaneh” excludes Darom.)
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Mari): No, it includes (slaughter of) an animal totally in the Azarah except for its neck.
(f) Objection: The prohibition is slaughtering outside, slaughter is at the neck (no extra verse is needed for this case!)
(g) Answer #2: Rather, it includes an animal outside the Azarah except for its neck.
4) “HA’ALAS CHUTZ” NOWADAYS
(a) (R. Yochanan): If one is Ma’aleh b’Chutz nowadays, he is liable – the first Kedushah (of Yerushalayim and the Beis ha’Mikdash) was permanent;
(b) (Reish Lakish): He is exempt – the first Kedushah was temporary (it ended after the Churban)
(c) Suggestion: Tana’im argue as R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue:
1. (Mishnah – R. Eliezer): I have a tradition that when building the Heichal and the walls of the Azaros, they set up curtains;
i. The builders of the Heichal were outside the curtains (of the Heichal), the builders of the Azaros were inside the curtains (of the Azaros).
2. R. Yehoshua: I have a tradition that we may bring sacrifices even though the Mikdash is not standing; Kodshei Kodoshim may be eaten (where the Azarah should be) even though there are no curtains, Kodshim Kalim and Ma’aser Sheni may be eaten (in Yerushalayim) even though the wall is not standing.
3. This is because Shlomo’s Kedushah was permanent.
4. Suggestion: R. Eliezer argues, he holds that Shlomo’s Kedushah ceased (therefore, curtains were needed in order to offer sacrifices until the building was finished)!
(d) Rejection (Ravina): Perhaps all agree that Shlomo’s Kedushah was permanent; each Tana said what he received!
(e) Question: If so, why did they need curtains?
(f) Answer: The curtains were to prevent workers from deriving pleasure by looking at the Heichal, and to prevent people from seeing the Azarah.