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?

Suggestion (Rava of Parzikiya): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this!

Rejection (Rav Ashi): No, it is not clear how either of them would hold in Rava's case:

R. Yochanan said only 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!

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. Perhaps salt (which must be offered in any case) can complete the Shi'ur!

Or, perhaps we do not distinguish, and the law of salt is like the law of meat!

This question is not resolved.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi ha'Galili): (If one slaughtered and was Ma'aleh b'Chutz, he is exempt for Ha'alah, for the Korban was Nifsal due to Shechutei Chutz.

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

Answer #1 (for R. Yosi ha'Galili - Rebbi): The case of Shechitah inside and Ha'alah outside is different, for it had Sha'as ha'Kosher (to do Zerikah inside), but Shechutei Chutz did not!

Answer #2 (for R. Yosi ha'Galili - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon): The case of Shechitah 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!

Question: What is the difference between these answers?

Answer #1 (Ze'iri): They argue about (R. Yosi ha'Glili's opinion about Ha'alas Chutz of) Kodshim slaughtered at night. (Rebbi exempts, for it never had Sha'as ha'Kosher. R. Elazar is Mechayev, for (he holds like R. Shimon, who says that) Lo Yered.)

Answer #2 (Rabah): They argue about (Ha'alas Chutz) when the Kabalah was in a Chulin Kli. (Rebbi exempts, and R. Elazar is Mechayev, like above.)

(Mishnah): If a Tamei ate Kodesh, (whether it was Tahor or Tamei, he is liable;

R. Yosi ha'Galili exempts if he ate Tamei Kodesh, for he ate something Pasul.

Chachamim: Even a Tamei who ate Tahor Kodesh (normally) was Metamei it by touching it!)

Question: This is a strong question. How can R. Yosi answer it?!

Answer (Rava): All agree that if the person became Tamei (Tum'as ha'Guf) before the Kodesh, he is Chayav Kares;

Chachamim are Mechayev even when the Kodesh became Tamei first. Even though it was already forbidden to him (without Kares), when he later becomes Tamei, Migo (since) Tahor Kodesh becomes forbidden to him (with Kares), all Kodesh becomes forbidden to him with Kares;

R. Yosi ha'Galili exempts in this case. He argues with this application of Migo.

Question: Even if R. Yosi argues with this application of Migo, he should agree that the Isur of Tum'as ha'Guf takes effect in addition to the exisiting Isur of Tum'as Basar, for Tum'as ha'Guf (is Kolel, i.e. forbids other things as well) and is more severe (has Kares!)

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 sprinkling Mei Chatas).

(Mishnah): In some ways Shechutei Chutz is more stringent than Ha'alas Chutz, and in some ways Ha'alah is more stringent;

Shechitah 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);

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.

R. Shimon says, if someone was Ma'aleh several times, he is liable for each;

R. Yosi says, he is liable only once. Also, he is liable only for offering on a Mizbe'ach;

R. Shimon says, even if he offered on a rock, he is liable.

(Gemara) Question: Presumably, Ha'alah for a person is exempt, because it says "la'Shem";

It says "la'Shem" also regarding Shechitah!

Answer #1: We obligate Shechitah for a person, for it says "Ish Ish."

Question: Also regarding Ha'alah it says "Ish Ish"!

Answer: That teaches that if two were Ma'aleh together, they are liable.

We should expound this similarly regarding Shechitah, to obligate two who held a knife and slaughtered together!

Answer: We cannot say so, for it says "v'Nichras ha'Ish ha'Hu" - one who slaughtered, not two.

Question: Also regarding Ha'alah it says "ha'Hu"!

Answer: That excludes one who was Shogeg, Anus or Mut'eh (deceived).

Question: Also regarding Shechitah, we should expound "ha'Hu" to exclude Shogeg, Ones and Mut'eh!

Answer: Regarding Ha'alah two verses say "ha'Hu".

Question: What does "la'Shem" exclude?

Answer: It excludes Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (Tosfos - after the lottery determined that it will not be a "Chatas la'Shem"; Rambam - after confessing on it, there is no longer a Mitzvah to bring it to Pesach Ohel Mo'ed).

(Mishnah): Ha'alah is more stringent...

(Beraisa - R. Shimon) Question: What do we learn from "Ish Ish"?

Answer: This includes two who held a limb together and offered it (they are liable). A Kal va'Chomer would have exempted them;

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!

"Ish Ish" obligates them.

R. Yosi says, "ha'Hu" teaches that only one gets Kares.

Question: If so, what do we learn from "Ish Ish"?

Answer: Dibrah Torah bi'Leshon Bnei Adam (the Torah speaks like people do. Sometimes people repeat words needlessly. Therefore, we need not expound the extra occurrence.)

R. Shimon expounds that "ha'Hu" to exclude Shogeg, Anus and Mut'eh.

R. Yosi learns this additional law from the extra 'Hei' in "ha'Hu".

R. Shimon does not expound the extra Hei.

Question: If R. Yosi does not expound this "Ish Ish" (because Dibrah Torah...), he should not expound "Ish Ish" regarding Shechitah either! What is his source to obligate for Shechitah for a person?

Answer (and Answer #2 to Question 3:e): "Dam Yechashev la'Ish ha'Hu" - even if the Shechitah was for a person.

(Mishnah): If someone was Ma'aleh several times... (R. Shimon obligates for each, and R. Yosi obligates only once).

(Reish Lakish): They argue about offering several limbs:

All expound "La'asos Oso" - one is liable for a Shalem, but not for a Chaser;

R. Yosi holds that 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 holds that it refers to a complete limb.

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. He is liable only for the last (Rashi; Tosfos - first) limb).

(R. Yochanan): They argue about offering one limb:

R. Shimon obligates 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" exempts only for a Chaser limb of Shechutei Chutz);

R. Yosi exempts for a Chaser limb, even if slaughtered inside (like R. Yishmael above).

All obligate for every complete limb ("Oso" refers to a limb).

R. Yochanan argues with Ula;

Version #1 (Ula): All are Mechayev for (Ha'alas Chutz of) Kodshim slaughtered inside that became Chaser;

They argue about Kodshim slaughtered outside that became Chaser. R. Shimon is Mechayev ("Oso" only exempts less than a k'Zayis), and R. Yosi exempts.

Version #2 (Ula): All exempt for (Ha'alas Chutz of) Kodshim slaughtered outside that became Chaser;

They argue about Kodshim slaughtered inside that became Chaser. R. Shimon is Mechayev, and R. Yosi exempts.

Shmuel's father argues with Ula according to Version #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.)

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): He is liable only for offering on a Mizbe'ach.

(Rav Huna): R. Yosi learns from "va'Yiven No'ach Mizbe'ach la'Shem" (i.e. even Ha'alas Chutz requires a Mizbe'ach).

(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."

Question: How does R. Shimon explain why No'ach built a Mizbe'ach?

Answer: That was merely to facilitate Ha'alah.

Question: How does R. Yosi explain why Mano'ach offered without a Mizbe'ach?

Answer: (The angel (who foretold the birth of Shimshon) told him that Hash-m permits.) It was a Hora'as Sha'ah (a special temporary ruling. We must say so to explain why he offered on a Matzevah (one rock).)

Alternatively, R. Shimon learns as follows;

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): "Mizbach Hash-m (is needed in) Pesach Ohel Mo'ed", but a Mizbe'ach is not needed for a Bamah;

Therefore, if one offered on a rock he is liable.

Question: It should say that one was Yotzei (if he offered a Korban on a rock, when Bamos were permitted)!

Answer: It means that when Bamos are forbidden, one is liable for offering a Korban on a rock.

Question (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): Are the following Me'akev on a Bamah - corners, a ramp, a Yesod, and being square?

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.