1) “CHIYUV” FOR “NISUCH B’CHUTZ” (cont.)

(a) (Beraisa): One who is Menasech three Lugim of water outside on Sukos is liable;
(b) R. Elazar says, if the Kli was filled with water for the sake of Nisuch ha’Mayim, he is liable. (Rashi – but the Kli cannot Mekadesh more than the three Lugim needed for the Mitzvah; Chachamim (the first Tana) put no upper limit on the amount of water one is liable for. Tosfos – R. Elazar is Mechayev for Mei ha’Chag, he puts no limit on the amount; Chachamim are Mechayev precisely for three Lugim.)
(c) Question: What is the source of the argument?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): They argue whether or not there is a Shi’ur for Nisuch ha’Mayim.
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): They argue whether or not Benei Yisrael offered Nesachim in the Midbar.
1. (The Torah commands to bring Nesachim upon entering Eretz Yisrael. Chachamim hold that Nesachim were already brought in the Midbar – we must say, upon entering, Nesachim will be brought (also) on private Bamos (which will become permitted), i.e. without Klei Shares; therefore, one is liable for Ha’alas Chutz of water, even without a Kli Shares. R. Elazar holds that Nesachim were not brought in the Midbar, the Torah commands to bring Nesachim in the Mikdash in Eretz Yisrael, i.e. in Klei Shares; therefore, there is no source to Mechayev for water (b’Chutz) unless it was Hukdash in a Kli Shares.)
(f) Answer #3 (Ravina): (All agree that Nesachim (of wine) were brought in the Midbar, and on private Bamos in Eretz Yisrael without Klei Shares; therefore, one is liable for Ha’alas Chutz of *wine*, even without a Kli Shares.) They argue whether or not we learn Nisuch ha’Mayim from Nisuch of wine.
(g) (Beraisa): One who is Menasech three Lugim of water outside is liable;
(h) R. Elazar b’Rebbi Shimon says, this is only if they were Hukdeshu in a Kli Shares.
(i) Question: What do they argue about?
(j) Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Rav Yitzchak): They argue about a heaping measure (above the rim; Chachamim say that the excess is Mekudash, R. Elazar b’Rebbi Shimon says that it is not.)
(k) Answer #2 (Rava brei d’Rabah): They argue whether or not Nesachim are offered on a Bamah, like the following Tana’im argue:
1. (Beraisa – Rebbi): Nesachim are not needed on a private Bamah;
2. Chachamim say, they are required.
(l) These Tana’im argue as the following Tana’im do:
1. (Beraisa – R. Yishmael): “Ki Savo’u (…v’Yayin la’Nesech)” – this teaches that Nesachim must be brought on a Bamas Tzibur;
i. Suggestion: Perhaps it rather teaches that they must be brought on a Bamas Yachid!
ii. Rejection: “El Eretz Moshvoseichem *Asher Ani Nosen Lachem*” – it refers to a Bamah that is for everyone.
2. R. Akiva says, “Ki Savo’u” teaches that Nesachim must be brought on a Bamas Yachid;
i. Suggestion: Perhaps it rather teaches that they must be brought on a Bamas Tzibur!
ii. Rejection: “El Eretz Moshvoseichem” – a Bamah that applies in all your dwellings, i.e. a Bamas Yachid.
3. According to R. Yishmael, Nesachim were not offered in the Midbar, R. Akiva (Sefas Emes – could hold, Panim Me’iros – expounded as he did because he holds) that they were offered in the Midbar.
(m) (Mishnah – R. Nechemyah): One who offers Shirayim of blood b’Chutz is liable.
(n) (R. Yochanan): R. Nechemyah holds like the opinion that Shirayim are Me’akev.
(o) Question (Beraisa – R. Nechemyah): One who offers Shirayim b’Chutz is liable;
1. R. Akiva: But Shirayim are a remnant of the Mitzvah (they are not Me’akev)!
2. R. Nechemyah: One is liable for limbs (of an Olah) and Chelev, even though they are only remnants!
3. R. Akiva: No – no previous Avodah was done with limbs and Chelev, you cannot bring a proof from them to Shirayim of blood!
4. Summation of question: According to R. Yochanan, R. Nechemyah could have answered, Shirayim are Me’akev!
5. (Seemingly,) R. Yochanan is refuted.
(p) Answer: We can answer for R. Yochanan according to Rav Ada:
1. (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): They argue about inner Shirayim (e.g. of inner Chata’os), but all agree that outer Shirayim (of most Korbanos, of the outer Mizbe’ach) are not Me’akev.
2. R. Yochanan teaches that R. Nechemyah holds like the opinion that inner Shirayim are Me’akev, the Beraisa discusses outer Shirayim.
(q) Question: If so, R. Nechemyah should have told R. Akiva, I only Mechayev for inner Shirayim, not for outer Shirayim!
(r) Answer: R. Nechemyah answered R. Akiva according to R. Akiva’s reasoning (that no Shirayim are Me’akev.)
2) SLAUGHTER INSIDE AND “HA’ALAS CHUTZ”
(a) (Mishnah): If Melikah was done inside (the Mikdash) and the bird was offered outside, he is liable (for Ha’alas Chutz);
(b) If Melikah and Ha’alah were b’Chutz, he is exempt (for both of these);
(c) If slaughter was done inside and Ha’alah was b’Chutz, he is exempt for Ha’alas Chutz;
111b—————————————111b

(d) If slaughter and Ha’alah were done outside, he is liable (for both).
(e) It turns out, the method which is Machshir inside (i.e. Melikah), if it was done outside (it is Posel the bird, therefore it) exempts (from Ha’alas Chutz);
1. The method which is Machshir outside (slaughter), if it was done inside, exempts (from Ha’alas Chutz).
(f) R. Shimon says, if one is liable for an act outside, he is liable for Ha’alas Chutz after the same act was done inside;
1. The only exception is Ha’alas Chutz after slaughter inside.
(g) (Gemara) Question: How can we say that slaughter is Machshir outside – it is Posel!
(h) Answer: Here, ‘Machshir’ means, it enables a person to be liable (for Ha’alas Chutz.)
(i) (Mishnah – R. Shimon): (If one is liable…)
(j) Question: Which law does R. Shimon argue with?
(k) Answer #1: He argues with the first law – Chachamim Mechayev (for Ha’alas Chutz) when Melikah was inside, they exempt when Melikah was outside:
1. Answer #1A: R. Shimon says, just like one is liable when Melikah was inside, also when it was outside.
2. Rejection: If so, R. Shimon should not have said ‘If one is liable outside (…he is liable inside)’, rather, ‘If one is liable inside (…he is liable outside’)!
3. Answer #1B: Rather, he says, just like one is exempt when Melikah was outside, also when it was inside.
4. Rejection: If so, R. Shimon should not have said ‘If one is liable outside (…he is liable inside)’, rather, ‘If one is liable inside (…he is liable outside’)!
(l) Answer #2: Rather, he argues with the Seifa – Chachamim exempt (for Ha’alas Chutz) when slaughter was inside and Mechayev when it was outside:
1. Answer #2A: R. Shimon says, just like one is exempt when slaughter was inside, also when it was outside.
2. Rejection: If so, he should have said ‘If one is exempt inside…’!
3. Answer #2B: Rather, he says, just like one is liable when slaughter was outside, also when it was inside.
4. Rejection: R. Shimon concludes, the only exception is Ha’alas Chutz after slaughter inside (he is exempt!)
(m) Answer #3 (Ze’iri): They argue about a Behemah slaughtered at night:
1. The Mishnah means, if a Behemah was slaughtered at night inside and offered outside, he is exempt;
2. If it was slaughtered at night outside and offered outside, he is liable;
3. R. Shimon says, just like one is liable when slaughter was outside, also when it was inside – the only exception is Ha’alas Chutz of a bird.
(n) Answer #4 (Rava): They argue about Kabalah in a Chulin vessel:
1. The Mishnah means, and similarly, if Kabalah was in a Chulin vessel in the Mikdash and the Korban was offered outside, he is exempt;
2. If Kabalah was in a Chulin vessel b’Chutz and it was offered outside, he is liable;
3. R. Shimon says, just like one is liable when it was done outside, also when it was inside – the only exception is Ha’alas Chutz of a bird slaughtered inside.
(o) The following suggests another answer:
1. (Shmuel’s father – Beraisa): If Melikah was done inside and the bird was offered outside, he is liable;
2. If Melikah and Ha’alah were b’Chutz, he is exempt;
3. R. Shimon is Mechayev.
(p) Answer #5: R. Shimon refers to this case, the text should say ‘Whenever one is liable (for Ha’alas Chutz) for an act done inside (e.g. Melikah), he is liable if the act was done outside.’ (This suggests that when one is exempt for an act inside, he is exempt outside – therefore, R. Shimon adds ‘Except for Ha’alas Chutz of a bird slaughtered inside’ – he is exempt, but if it was slaughtered outside he is liable.)
3) “HAKRAVAH” INSIDE AND OUTSIDE
(a) (Mishnah): If the blood of a Chatas was received in one bucket:
1. If some of the blood was thrown outside and then some inside, or vice-versa, he is liable, for all of the blood is Kosher for Zerikah inside;
(b) If the blood was received in two buckets:
1. If both were thrown inside, he is exempt;
2. If both were thrown outside, he is liable (for each one, e.g. if he remembered in between);
3. If one was thrown inside and then the other outside, he is exempt;
4. If one was thrown outside and then the other inside, he is liable for the former, and the latter is Mechaper (the Korban is Kosher, he fulfilled his obligation).
(c) This is similar to one who was Makdish his Chatas, lost it, Hikdish another, then found the first:
1. If he slaughtered both of them inside, he is exempt;
2. If he slaughtered both of them outside, he is liable (for each one);
3. If he slaughtered one inside and then the other outside, he is exempt;
4. If he slaughtered one outside and then the other inside, he is liable for the former, and the latter is Mechaper;
i. (When both were slaughtered inside,) just like Zerikah (of the first) exempts the meat of that animal (from Me’ilah), it exempts the meat of the other animal, too.