Answer #4 (Rava): The case is, the full Shi'ur was put in a Kli Shares;

R. Elazar holds that this is Kove'a (fixes; anything less than this is not Haktarah). Chachamim hold that it is not Kove'a (a k'Zayis is still considered Haktarah).

(Rava): According to Chachamim, who hold that a Kli Shares is not Kove'a, if six Lugim of wine were put in a Kli (for the Nisuch of a Par) and four of them were offered outside, he is liable, for this is the Nisuch for a ram;

If four Lugim were put in a Kli (for a ram) and three were offered outside, he is liable, for this is the Nisuch for a lamb. (The words connote that if six were put in a Kli for Nisuch Par, and only three were offered outside, he is exempt. However, I did not see anyone say so. Chidushei Basra (Yesh Makshim 1192) says in the name of the Griz that in every case he is liable for three outside.)

If less than three were offered outside, he is exempt.

Defense (of Answer #3 - Rav Ashi): Chachamim do not learn Nisuch from Haktarah, even though both of them are Chutz;

Chachamim do learn Haktarah from Haktarah, even Panim from Chutz.

(Mishnah): If any of them became Chaser (before Haktarah, he is exempt for Ha'alas Chutz).

Question: If the full Shi'ur was taken outside and became Chaser there, what is the law?

Since taking it outside disqualified (yet one is liable), an additional Pesul of Chaser does not change anything;

Or, perhaps Ha'alas Chutz applies only when the full Shi'ur is intact?

Answer #1 (Abaye - Mishnah - R. Eliezer): He is exempt, unless he offered all of it.

Objection (Rabah bar Rav Chanan): (R. Eliezer surely exempts. The question is according to Chachamim.) How can you learn from R. Elazar to Chachamim?!

Answer (Abaye): Rabah explicitly said that Chachamim argue only when the Kodesh is intact. If it is Chaser, also they exempt.

Suggestion: This is true even if it became Chaser outside.

Rejection: No, it is only if it became Chaser inside.

Answer #2 (Mishnah): If it became Chaser and the rest was offered outside, he is exempt.

Suggestion: This is even if it became Chaser outside.

Rejection: No, it is only if it became Chaser inside.

(Mishnah): If one offered Kodshim with the Eimurim attached, he is liable.

Question: Why is he liable? The meat is a Chatzizah (between the Eimurim and the Ma'arachah!)

Answer #1 (Shmuel): The case is, he turned the meat over (so that the Eimurim touch the wood).

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): Our Mishnah is like R. Shimon, who obligates for Ha'alas Chutz even on a rock. (He does not learn from Avodas ha'Mikdash that a Mizbe'ach is required. Likewise, he does not learn that the Kodesh must touch the wood.)

Answer #3 (Rav): Min b'Mino (the Eimurim are also meat) is not a Chatzizah.

(Mishnah): If a Minchah was offered outside and Kemitzah was never done, he is exempt (for it was not Kosher to offer inside);

If a Kometz was taken and it returned to the Shirayim and they were offered outside, he is liable.

(Gemara) Question: Why is he liable? The Kometz should be Batel to the Shirayim. One is exempt for offering Shirayim (since they are not offered inside)!

Answer (R. Zeira): It says "Haktarah" regarding the Kometz and regarding Shirayim. Just like Komtzim are not Mevatel Komtzim (we learn from the blood of the Par and Sa'ir that Olim are not Mevatel each other), also Shirayim are not Mevatel Komtzim.

(Mishnah): If either the Kometz or Levonah of a Minchah was offered outside, he is liable;

R. Elazar exempts, unless he offers both;

If he offered one of them inside and the other outside, he is liable.

If one of the two spoons of Levonah (of Lechem ha'Panim) was offered outside, he is liable;

R. Elazar exempts, unless he offers both.

If he offered one inside and the other outside, he is liable.

(Gemara) Question (R. Yitzchak Nafcha): Does offering a Kometz permit half of the Shirayim (since it is one of the two Matirim)?

Does it permit half? (Rashi - does it permit eating half? Tosfos - even if it permits half, one may not eat half, for we do not know which half! However, if it permits half, the other half remains fully forbidden, so one who eats all the Shirayim is lashed for eating Kodshim before its Matirim);

Or, does it weaken the Isur on all the Shirayim (and one is not lashed for eating them)?

Question: According to which opinion does R. Yitzchak ask?

He does not ask according to R. Meir, who says that intent in one of the Matirim is Mefagel. Surely he holds that it permits half!

He does not ask according to Chachamim (who argue with R. Meir). They say that intent in one Matir is not Mefagel. Perhaps offering it neither permits nor weakens the Isur!

Answer #1: It is according to R. Elazar;

Rejection: He exempts for partial Haktarah. Surely he holds like the Chachamim of R. Meir (perhaps it neither permits nor weakens!)

Answer #2: It is according to Chachamim of R. Elazar. Does offering a Kometz permit half of the Shirayim, or weaken the Isur on all them?

This question is not resolved.

(Mishnah): If one threw some of the blood b'Chutz, he is liable;

R. Elazar says, even one who is Menasech (b'Chutz) Mei ha'Chag (Nisuch ha'Mayim) on Sukos is liable.

R. Nechemyah says, one who offers Shirayim of blood b'Chutz is liable.

(Gemara - Rava): R. Elazar agrees about blood (that one is liable for partial Zerikah outside, for partial Zerikah inside in valid);

(Mishnah - R. Elazar and R. Shimon): (If the blood of an inner Chatas spilled in the middle of the Haza'os, those that were done are valid.) We slaughter another Chatas, and use its blood for the remaining Haza'os.

(Mishnah - R. Elazar): Even one who is Menasech Mei ha'Chag on Sukos is liable.

(R. Yochanan citing R. Menachem Yudfa'ah): R. Elazar holds like his Rebbi, R. Akiva, who says that Nisuch ha'Mayim is mid'Oraisa;

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): "U'Nsacheha" (plural) discusses two Nesachim, of water and wine. (Since water is offered in the Mikdash on Sukos, one is liable for it outside on Sukos.)

Questions (Reish Lakish): If R. Elazar learns like R. Akiva, since the Torah teaches both Nesachim together, they should be the same!

Nisuch of water should be three Lugim, just like Nisuch of wine. R. Elazar said (Stam) Nisuch ha'Mayim (he did not fix a Shi'ur; presumably, he obligates b'Chutz like for the Mitzvah,) and one opinion says that this is one Log!

The Chiyuv for water b'Chutz should be every day of the year, just like that of wine (since Nisuch of wine applies every day). R. Elazar said (only) 'b'Chag'!

Answer: He (Rashi - R. Menachem; Tosfos - Reish Lakish) did not know R. Asi''s teaching;

(R. Asi): The following are traditions from Moshe from Sinai:

Ten saplings (even though mid'Oraisa, one must add to Shemitah and cease working the land before Shemitah, if 10 saplings are evenly spaced over a square of 50 Amos by 50 Amos, the entire field may be plowed in Erev Shemitah until Rosh Hashanah);

Taking an Aravah (in the Mikdash on Sukos, aside from the four species);

Nisuch ha'Mayim. (Tosfos - R. Menachem meant that R. Elazar holds like R. Akiva that Nisuch ha'Mayim is mid'Oraisa, but R. Elazar knows this from tradition (unlike R. Akiva who expounded it), therefore it need not resemble Nisuch of wine. Rashi - R. Menachem erred. R. Elazar relies on the tradition, therefore it need not resemble Nisuch of wine.)

(Beraisa): One who is Menasech three Lugim of water outside on Sukos is liable;

R. Elazar says, if the Kli was filled with water for the sake of Nisuch ha'Mayim, he is liable. (Rashi - 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.)

Question: What is the source of the argument?

Answer #1 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): They argue about whether there is a Shi'ur for Nisuch ha'Mayim.