(Continuation of Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): They are burned in Beis ha'Deshen ("Al Shefech ha'Deshen" teaches that there are already ashes there from before.)

(Rava): R. Eliezer ben Yakov argues with R. Yosi ha'Galili:

(Beraisa): "Al Shefech ha'Deshen Yisaref" - there are already ashes there from before;

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, the place must be sloped (so the ashes pour.)

Objection (Abaye): Perhaps R. Eliezer ben Yakov agrees that there must be ashes there from before, and he also requires that it is sloped!

(Beraisa): The one who burns it is Metamei Begadim, but not the one who lit the fire or arranged the Ma'arachah (the woodpile on the Mizbe'ach).

Question: What is considered one who burns?

Answer: It is anyone who helps while it is burning.

Suggestion: Perhaps even one who helps after it became ashes is Metamei Begadim!

Rejection: "Osam" - while they are Parim and Se'irim, one who burns is Metamei Begadim, not after they are ashes;

R. Shimon says, one who burns "Osam" is Metamei Begadim, but not after the meat melted.

Question: What is the difference between these opinions?

Answer: They argue about when the meat was charred. (R. Shimon is Metaher, and Chachamim are Metamei.)

(Mishnah): If one slaughters (a Korban) and is Ma'aleh (offers on a Bamah) b'Chutz (outside the Mikdash), he is liable for both of these;

R. Yosi ha'Galili says, if he slaughtered inside (the Mikdash) and was Ma'aleh b'Chutz, he is liable for both;

If he slaughtered and was Ma'aleh b'Chutz, he is exempt for Ha'alah, for the Korban was Nifsal (due to Shechutei Chutz).

Chachamim: Even if he slaughtered inside and was Ma'aleh outside, it was Nifsal once it left the Azarah (yet you agree that he is liable for both in this case)!

If a Tamei (person) ate Kodesh, whether the Kodesh was Tahor or Tamei, he is liable;

R. Yosi ha'Galili says, if he ate Tahor Kodesh, he is liable;

If he ate Tamei Kodesh he is exempt, for he ate something Pasul.

Chachamim: Even a Tamei who ate Tahor Kodesh (in a normal way) was Metamei it through touching it (yet you agree that he is liable in this case)!

If a Tahor ate Tamei Kodesh he is exempt. Kares is only for a Tamei who ate.

(Gemara) Question: We understand why one is liable (Rashi - a Korban; Tosfos - lashes, as another Mishnah teaches) for Ha'alas Chutz. The Torah wrote the Onesh (punishment, i.e. Kares, if Mezid) and an Azharah (Lav);

"V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o (...v'Nichras)" teaches the Onesh. "Hishamer Lecha Pen Ta'aleh Olasecha (b'Chol Makom)" is the Azharah (Lav that forbids it);

(R. Avin): Wherever it says 'Hishamer', 'Pen' or 'Al', this is a Lav.

The Onesh for Shechutei Chutz is explicit - "v'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o (...v'Nichras)";

However, what is the Azharah for Shechutei Chutz?

Answer #1: It is "v'Lo Yizbechu Od" (other answers will be given later.)

Question: This verse is needed for R. Elazar's law!

Question (R. Elazar): What is the source that one is Chayav Misah for slaughtering an animal to Markulis (an idolatry normally served by throwing rocks at it, which is disgraceful)?

Answer (R. Elazar): It is "v'Lo Yizbechu Od Es Zivcheihem (la'Se'irim...)";

Since we do not need it to teach about the normal Avodah of Markulis, which we learn from "Eichah Ya'avdu...Es Eloheihem", we use it to teach about Avodas Panim that is not its normal Avodah.

Answer (Rabah): We read the verse as if it said 'v'Lo Yizbechu v'Lo Od', to teach both of these.

Question: We use the verse for a third law!

(Beraisa): The Parshah of Shechutei Chutz first discusses Korbanos Hukdeshu and slaughtered (outside) when one may not offer on a Bamah (e.g. after the Mishkan was built);

The Onesh is "v'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o (...v'Nichras)." The Azharah is "Hishamer Lecha Pen Ta'aleh Olasecha."

"Lema'an Asher Yavi'u... Zivcheihem Asher Hem Zovchim" discusses Korbanos that once were permitted (when they were Hukdeshu) to be offered on a Bamah, but now Bamos are forbidden (they must be brought to the Mishkan);

"Al Penei ha'Sadeh" - Shechitah on a Bamah (when this is forbidden) is like Shechitah Lo l'Shem Shamayim;

"Ve'Hevi'um la'Shem" is an Aseh.

Question: What is the Lav?

Answer: It is "v'Lo Yizbechu Od".

Suggestion: Perhaps one is Chayav Kares!

Rejection: "Chukas Olam Tihyeh Zos Lahem" - this is the Onesh (a Lav and Aseh), but not Kares.

Answer #2 (to Question (2:a) - Abaye): We learn the Azharah from a Kal va'Chomer:

The Torah was Mazhir (forbade with a Lav) even where there is no Kares (Korbanos made Hekdesh when Bamos were permitted). All the more so it is Mazhir where there is Kares (Korbanos made Hekdesh when Bamos were forbidden)!

Question (Ravina): According to this, the Torah did not need to write a Lav forbidding Chelev. We could have learned from a Kal va'Chomer from Neveilah!

A Lav forbids Neveilah, even though there is no Kares. All the more so a Lav forbids Chelev, which has (an Onesh of) Kares!

Answer #1 (Rava): No, that Kal va'Chomer can be refuted. Neveilah is Metamei, but Chelev is not.

Question: We could have learned (a Lav for Chelev from a Kal va'Chomer) from Tamei Sheratzim. A Lav forbids them, even though there is no Kares. All the more so a Lav forbids Chelev, which has Kares!

Answer #1: We cannot learn from Tamei Sheratzim, for Mashehu (any amount of them, i.e. even the size of a lentil, which is less than a k'Zayis) is Metamei, but Chelev is not. (The text of Rashi in Chulin does not say 'b'Mashehu'. The comment in the margin suggests that Rashi here holds that 'b'Mashehu' is an addition of errant scribes.)

Question: We could have learned from Tahor Sheratzim. They are Chayavei Lavin without Kares. All the more so a Lav forbids Chelev, which has Kares!

Answer #1: We cannot learn from Tahor Sheratzim, for one is liable for any amount (Tosfos - a full creation of any size, such as an ant; Rashi - even for a small amount, i.e. a lentil's worth) (but one is exempt for less than a k'Zayis of Chelev).

Question: We could have learned (like above) from Orlah or Kilai ha'Kerem!

Answer #1: We cannot learn from Orlah or Kilai ha'Kerem, for one may not benefit from them (but one may benefit from Chelev.)

Question: We could have learned from Shemitah produce!

Answer #1: We cannot learn from Shemitah, for it forbids anything exchanged for it.

Question: We could have learned from Terumah!

Answer: We cannot learn from Terumah, for it is never wholly permitted (but Chelev of Chayos is totally permitted).

Answer #2 (to Questions (b), (d), (f), (h) and (j)): We cannot learn from those sources, for they are never wholly permitted.

Question (Rava - Mishnah): There is no Korban for (failure to fulfill) Pesach or circumcision, for they are Mitzvos Aseh.

We should learn a Kal va'Chomer from Mosir (not eating Korbanos within the allotted time). A Lav forbids Mosir, even though there is no Kares, all the more so a Lav forbids (neglect of) Pesach and Milah!

Answer (Rav Kahana): We cannot learn from Mosir, for the transgression cannot be fixed, but one who did not fulfill Pesach can fix this by bringing Pesach Sheni! (Tzon Kodoshim - likewise, one who delayed Milah can circumcise himself later.)

Objection (to answer (a)) Can we really derive an Azharah from a Kal va'Chomer?!

Even according to the opinion that we punish due to a Kal va'Chomer, we cannot derive an Azharah from a Kal va'Chomer!