1) “CHIBUREI OLIM”

(a) (R. Yochanan): If one is Ma’aleh a k’Zayis of meat *including* a bone (there is less than a k’Zayis of meat), he is liable;
1. This is because Chiburei Olim (things connected to something offered on the Mizbe’ach) are considered like Olim;
(b) (Reish Lakish): He is exempt;
1. Chiburei Olim are not like Olim.
(c) Question (Rava): If one is Ma’aleh a salted dove’s head that is (in all) a k’Zayis (without the salt it is less than a k’Zayis), what is the law?
(d) Suggestion (Rava of Parzikiya): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this!
(e) Rejection (Rav Ashi): No, it is not clear how either of them would hold in Rava’s case:
1. R. Yochanan only said that a bone can complete the Shi’ur, for it is the same Min (class) as meat, perhaps salt (which is a different Min) does not complete the Shi’ur!
2. Reish Lakish only said that a bone cannot complete the Shi’ur, for if it separated from the meat, there is no Mitzvah to offer it – but perhaps salt (which must be offered in any case) can complete the Shi’ur!
3. Or, perhaps we do not distinguish, the law of salt is like the law of meat!
(f) This question is not resolved.
2) WHY R. YOSI EXEMPTS FOR SOMETHING “PASUL”
(a) (Mishnah – R. Yosi ha’Galili): (If he slaughtered and Ha’alah b’Chutz, he is exempt for Ha’alah, for the Korban was Nifsal on account of Shechutei Chutz. Chachamim objected, even if he slaughtered inside and Ha’alah outside, it was Nifsal once it left the Azarah, yet R. Yosi agrees that he is liable for both in this case!)
(b) Answer #1 (for R. Yosi ha’Galili – Rebbi): The case of slaughter inside and Ha’alah outside is different, for it had Sha’as ha’Kosher (to do Zerikah inside), but Shechutei Chutz did not!
(c) Answer #2 (for R. Yosi ha’Galili – R. Elazar b’Rebbi Shimon): The case of slaughter inside and Ha’alah outside is different, for even after it left the Azarah, Im Alah Lo Yered (if it was brought up the ramp, we would offer it), this does not apply to Shechutei Chutz!
(d) Question: What is the difference between these answers?
(e) Answer #1 (Ze’iri): They argue about (Ha’alas Chutz of) Kodshim slaughtered at night (Rebbi exempts for this, for it never had Sha’as ha’Kosher, R. Elazar is Mechayev, for (he holds like R. Shimon, who says that) Lo Yered).
(f) Answer #2 (Rabah): They argue about (Ha’alas Chutz) when the Kabalah was in a Chulin vessel (Rebbi exempts, R. Elazar is Mechayev, as above.)
(g) (Mishnah): If a Tamei ate Kodesh, (whether it was Tahor or Tamei, he is liable; R. Yosi ha’Galili exempt if he ate Tamei Kodesh, for he ate something Pasul. Chachamim objected, even a Tamei who ate Tahor Kodesh (normally) was Metamei it by touching it!)
(h) Question: The question against is strong, how can he answer it?!
(i) Answer (Rava): All agree that if the person became Tamei (Tum’as ha’Guf) before the Kodesh, he is Chayav Kares;
1. Chachamim Mechayev even when the Kodesh became Tamei first – even though it was already forbidden to him (without Kares), when he later becomes Tamei, Migo (by way of) that Tahor Kodesh becomes forbidden to him (with Kares), all Kodesh becomes forbidden to him with Kares;
2. R. Yosi ha’Galili exempts in this case, he argues with this application of Migo.
(j) Question: Even if R. Yosi argues with this application of Migo, he should agree that the prohibition of Tum’as ha’Guf takes effect on top of (in addition to) the prohibition of Tum’as Basar, for Tum’as ha’Guf (is Kolel, i.e. forbids other things as well) and is more severe (has Kares!)
(k) Answer (Rav Ashi): Even though Tum’as ha’Guf has Kares, perhaps Tum’as Basar is more severe, for it has no Taharah (through a Mikvah or Haza’as Mei Chatas.)
3) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SLAUGHTER AND “HA’ALAH”
(a) (Mishnah): In some ways Shechutei Chutz is more stringent than Ha’alas Chutz, in some ways Ha’alah is more stringent:
1. Slaughter is more stringent – one who slaughters (Kodshim b’Chutz) for the sake of a person (to eat) is liable, whereas one who offers to a person is exempt (Rashi – for Ha’alas Chutz, but he is liable for idolatry);
2. Ha’alah is more stringent – if two people held a knife and slaughtered (Kodshim b’Chutz) together, they are exempt, but if two were Ma’aleh together, they are liable.
(b) R. Shimon says, if someone was Ma’aleh several times, he is liable for each;
(c) R. Yosi says, he is liable only once;
1. He is liable only for offering on a Mizbe’ach;
(d) R. Shimon says, even if he offered on a rock, he is liable.
(e) (Gemara) Question: Presumably, Ha’alah for a person is exempt, because it says “la’Sh-m”;
1. It also says “la’Sh-m” regarding slaughter!
(f) Answer #1: We obligate slaughter for a person, for it says “Ish Ish”.
(g) Question: Also regarding Ha’alah it says “Ish Ish”!
(h) Answer: That teaches that if two were Ma’aleh together, they are liable.
(i) We should similarly expound this regarding slaughter, to teach that if two people held a knife and slaughtered together, they are liable!
(j) Answer: We cannot say this, for it says “V’Nichras ha’Ish *ha’Hu*” – one person who slaughtered, not two.
(k) Question: Also regarding Ha’alah it says “Ha’Hu”!
108b—————————————108b

(l) Answer: That excludes someone who was Shogeg, Anus or Mut’eh (deceived).
(m) Question: Also regarding slaughter, we should expound “Ha’Hu” to exclude Shogeg, Ones or Mut’eh!
(n) Answer: Regarding Ha’alah two verses say “Ha’Hu”.
(o) Question: What does “la’Sh-m” exclude?
(p) Answer: It excludes Se’ir ha’Mishtale’ach (Tosfos – after the lottery determined that it will not be a “Chatas la’Sh-m”; Rambam – after confessing on it, there is no longer a Mitzvah to bring it to Pesach Ohel Mo’ed.)
4) PROHIBITIONS FOR “HA’ALAH BA’CHUTZ”
(a) (Mishnah): Ha’alah is more stringent…
(b) (Beraisa – R. Shimon) Question: What do we learn from “Ish Ish”
1. Answer: This includes two people that held a limb together and offered it (they are liable) – a Kal va’Chomer would have exempted them!
i. One who slaughters for a person is liable, yet two who held a knife and slaughtered are exempt – one who offers to a person is exempt, all the more so two who offer together should be exempt!
ii. “Ish Ish” teaches that they are liable.
(c) R. Yosi says, “Ha’Hu” – only one person gets Kares.
(d) Question: If so, what do we learn from “Ish Ish”
(e) Answer: Dibrah Torah b’Lashon Benei Adam (the Torah speaks as people do, they sometimes double the verb, therefore, we need not expound the extra occurrence.)
(f) R. Shimon expounds that “Ha’Hu” to exclude Shogeg, Anus and Mut’eh.
(g) R. Yosi learn this additional law from the extra ‘Hei’ in “*Ha*’Hu”.
(h) R. Shimon does not expound the extra Hei.
(i) Question: If R. Yosi does not expound this “Ish Ish” (Dibrah Torah…), he should not expound “Ish Ish” regarding slaughter either – what is his source to Mechayev for slaughter for a person?
(j) Answer (and Answer #2 to Question 3:f): “Dam Yechashev *la’Ish ha’Hu*” – even if the slaughter was for a person.
(k) (Mishnah): If someone was Ma’aleh several times…(R. Shimon is Mechayev for each; R. Yosi is Mechayev only once.)
(l) (Reish Lakish): They argue about offering several limbs:
1. All expound “La’asos Oso” – one is liable for a Shalem, not for a Chaser;
i. R. Yosi says, this refers to a complete animal (Rashi – therefore, offering an animal limb by limb is all one Ha’alah; Tosfos – he is liable only when the full animal is here, i.e. for the first limb), R. Shimon says that it refers to a complete limb.
2. All agree that he is liable only once for one limb (offered half at a time, or returned to the fire after it flew off; this must be the last (Rashi; Tosfos – first) limb).
(m) (R. Yochanan): They argue about offering one limb:
1. R. Shimon is Mechayev for (Ha’alas Chutz of) Kodshim slaughtered inside that became Chaser (we return such limbs to the fire – this shows that Chaser limbs are still important, surely “La’asos Oso” only exempts for a Chaser limb of Shechutei Chutz);
2. R. Yosi exempts for Chaser limb, even if slaughtered inside (like R. Yishmael above.)
3. All agree that he is liable for every complete limb (“Oso” refers to a limb):
(n) R. Yochanan argues with Ula.
1. Version #1 (Ula): All are Mechayev for (Ha’alas Chutz of) Kodshim slaughtered inside that became Chaser;
2. They argue about Kodshim slaughtered outside that became Chaser – R. Shimon is Mechayev (“Oso” only exempts less than a k’Zayis), R. Yosi exempts.
3. Version #2 (Ula): All exempt for (Ha’alas Chutz of) Kodshim slaughtered outside that became Chaser;
4. They argue about Kodshim slaughtered inside that became Chaser – R. Shimon is Mechayev, R. Yosi exempts.
(o) Shmuel’s father argues with Ula according to Version #1:
1. (Shmuel’s father): If limbs fly off the fire, we return them – this is unlike R. Yosi. (According to Ula, all agree to this law.)
5) IS A “MIZBE’ACH” NEEDED FOR “HA’ALAS CHUTZ”
(a) (Mishnah – R. Yosi): He is liable only for offering on a Mizbe’ach.
(b) (Rav Huna): R. Yosi learns from “Va’Yiven No’ach Mizbe’ach la’Sh-m” (i.e. even Ha’alas Chutz requires a Mizbe’ach.)
(c) (R. Yochanan): R. Shimon (is Mechayev even for offering on a rock, he) learns from “Va’Yikach Mano’ach…va’Ya’al Al ha’Tzur”.
1. Question: How does R. Yochanan explain why No’ach built a Mizbe’ach?
2. Answer: That was merely to facilitate Ha’alah.
3. Question: How does Rav Huna explain why Mano’ach offered without a Mizbe’ach?
4. Answer: (He heard from the angel that Hash-m permits,) it was a Hora’as Sha’ah (a special temporary ruling).
(d) Alternatively, R. Shimon learns as follows:
1. (Beraisa – R. Shimon): “Mizbach Hash-m Pesach Ohel Mo’ed” – but a Mizbe’ach is not needed on a Bamah;
2. Therefore, if one offered on a rock he is liable.
3. Question: It should say, it (a Korban offered on a rock, when Bamos were permitted) is Kosher!
4. Answer: It means, when Bamos are forbidden, one is liable for offering a Korban on a rock.
(e) Question (R. Yosi b’Rebbi Chanina): Are the following Me’akev on a Bamah – corners, a ramp, a Yesod, and being square?
(f) Answer (R. Yirmeyah – Beraisa): The following are Me’akev on a Bamas Tzibur, not on a Bamas Yachid – it must have Keranos, a ramp, a Yesod, and it must be square.