The Nesech of ...

... a bull is - six Lugin (half a Hin).

... a ram - four Lugin (a third of a Hin).

... a lamb - three Lugin (a quarter of a Hin).

Rava therefore rules that, according to the opinion of the Rabbanan (who hold that placing the Ketores inside a K'li Shareis does not render it Kadosh), in a case where someone places ...

... six Lugin into a K'li (for a bull), and then takes out four, which he sacrifices ba'Chutz - he is Chayav, because four is fit for a ram, and, as we just learned, liquids, which are not subject to the Shi'ur Haktarah of a k'Zayis, require a full Shi'ur of Nisuch.

... four Lugin into a K'li (for a ram), and then takes out three, which he sacrifices ba'Chutz ... - he is Chayav, because three is fit for a lamb.

Rav Ashi reinstates Abaye's explanation, establishing our Mishnah by Ketores P'nim. And he accepts his theory that the Rabbanan learn P'nim from Chutz, which he reconciles with the Beraisa, which does not learn even Chutz from Chutz - because, in his opinion, Haktarah from Haktarah (even P'nim mi'Chutz) is stronger than Chutz from Chutz (which is Nisuch from Haktarah).

When we ask whether a Chesaron ba'Chutz is considered a Chesaron or not, we mean - whether, if the Kodshim became Chaser outside the Azarah, it will exempt whoever subsequently sacrifices it from a Chatas or not.

One side of the She'eilah is that seeing as, having left the Azarah, it is Pasul anyway, what difference does it make if it is Chaser, too. The other side is that - perhaps one is only Chayav for sacrificing an entire Korban, but not one that is Chaser (irrespective of where the Chesaron takes place).

Abaye tried to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah - who exempts whoever brings a k'Zayis of Kometz or Levonah ... , unless he brings it all

Rabah bar Rav Chanan objected to this however - on the grounds that one cannot bring a proof le'Halachah from Rebbi Eliezer, when the Rabbanan disagree with him.

Abaye countered Rabah bar Rav Chanan's objection however - by citing Rabah, who specifically told him that the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Eliezer in this point.

We reject Abaye's proof anyway - by establishing the Mishnah where the Korban became Chaser whilst it was still bi'Fenim.

And we reject the proof from the Seifa of the Mishnah 've'Chulan she'Chasru Kol-she'Hu Ve'hikrivan ba'Chutz, Patur' - in the same way.

We learned in our Mishnah that someone who sacrifices Kodshim together with their Emurin ba'Chutz, is Chayav. The problem with that is - why the Basar (which is not subject to burning) is not a Chatzitzah (an interruption) between the Chalavim and the Mizbe'ach, which, we presume, is essential to the Mitzvah.

Shmuel answers she'Hafchan - the Tana is speaking where the Kohen stoked the burning flesh, so that the Chalavim ended up at the bottom.

Rebbi Yochanan answers the Kashya by establishing the Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon - who maintains that Shechutei Chutz do not require a Mizbe'ach, and that even someone who sacrifices them on a rock is Chayav.

Whereas Rav dismisses the problem of Chatzitzah with the principle - Miyn be'Miyno Eino Chotzetz - something does not become Bateil in the same species as itself.

Our Mishnah exempts someone who sacrifices a Minchah from which the Kemitzah has not been taken, from Ha'ala'as Chutz - because it is not fit to be brought bi'Fenim.

The Tana rules that if the Kometz falls into the Shirayim - and someone sacrifices it ba'Chutz, he is Chayav ...

... because, as we learned in Menachos - should the Kohen subsequently burn it on the Mizbe'ach (Bedi'eved), the owner has fulfilled his Mitzvah.

The problem with the Mishnah's previous ruling is - why the Shirayim (which is in the majority) is not Mevatel the Kometz.

To answer the Kashya, Rebbi Zeira cites a Gezeirah-Shavah 'Haktarah' ("Vekamatz Vehiktir" [in Vayikra]) 'Haktarah' ("Lo Saktiru mimenu Isheh la'Hashem" [Ibid.] Haktaras Shirayim from Haktaras Kometz), from which he learns that - just as in the latter case, one Kometz is not Mevatel the other, so too, in the former case, are the Shirayim not Mevatel the Kometz.

The reason that one Kometz is not Mevatel the other is - because of the principle Ein Olin Mevatlin Zeh es Zeh (one Korban cannot be Mevatel another of the same species.

According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, someone who sacrifices either the Kometz or the Levonah ba'Chutz is Chayav. The Tana is referring to - a Minchas Nedavah.

Rebbi Eliezer exempts him, unless he sacrifices both - because he requires the burning of the entire Matir.

He will concede that he is Chayav however - there where he sacrificed the first one bi'Fenim.

The two Bazichei (bowls of) Levonah - accompany the two rows of Lechem ha'Panim that rest on the Shulchan ...

... one Bezech on top of each row.

They are comparable to the Kometz and the Levonah of a Minchah - inasmuch as like them, they are burned on the Mizbe'ach, at which point, they permit the breads to be eaten, in the same way as the latter permit the Minchah.

Consequently, someone who sacrifices one of the Bazichei Levonah ba'Chutz - is Chayav according to the Tana Kama, and Patur according to Rebbi Eliezer (just as they hold with regard to the Kometz and the Levonah).

When Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha asks whether the Kometz will permit part of the Shirayim, he means - whether, if he actually designated half the Shirayim against the Kometz before burning it bi'Fenim, he is permitted to eat what he designated.

The two sides of the She'eilah are - whether each one of the Matirin permits half the Shirayim, or whether it merely weakens the Isur of the entire Minchah.

We can be certain that Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha is not referring to ...

... Rebbi Meir (in Menachos), who holds Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir - because he obviously holds that each half permits half the Shirayim (otherwise he would not be Chayav for Pigul, whose source is Zerikah, which permits the Basar).

... the Rabbanan there, who hold Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir - who might well hold that half the Matir does not even weaken the Isur either.

... Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, who holds that one is not Chayav on one Matir alone ba'Chutz - because he clearly holds like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir.

He must then have presented the She'eilah - according to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, who validates the burning of one of the Matirin bi'Fenim, and his She'eilah is to what extent they validate it.

The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku'.

Our Mishnah rules that someone who performs one Matnas Dam ba'Chutz - is Chayav.

We might we have thought that this does not apply to Chata'os ha'Penimiyos - because there, unlike the Matanos ba'Chutz, all four Matanos are crucial.

The reason for this ruling, according to the Rabbanan is - because they do not require the whole Matir, as we just learned.

Rebbi Elazar rules that someone who pours water designated for Nisuch ha'Mayim ba'Chutz - is Chayav for Ha'ala'as Chutz.

And Rebbi Nechemyah includes someone who pours Sheyarei ha'Dam ba'Chutz in the Din of Ha'ala'as Chutz - because, since he holds Shirayim Me'akvin, it is considered an Avodas P'nim, and one is Chayav for sacrificing it ba'Chutz.

Rava maintains that Rebbi Elazar (who, in the previous Mishnah, required the burning of the entire Matir by Ha'ala'as Chutz), agrees with the Tana Kama in our Mishnah, even with regard to Chata'os ha'Penimiyos - because, according to him (Rebbi Elazar), one Matanah is effective, as we will now see.

And he bases his statement on a Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon say (in connection with the Chata'os ha'Penemiyos) mi'Makom she'Pasak Hu Maschil, by which they mean that - should the blood spill after the Kohen Gadol has performed even one Matanah, they Shecht another bull, and he simply carries on from where he left off.

According to Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Menachem Yudfa'ah, Rebbi Elazar in our Mishnah, who includes the water for Nisuch ha'Mayim, in the Isur of Avodas Chutz, holds like his Rebbe, Rebbi Akiva, in whose opinion - Nisuch ha'Mayim is d'Oraysa.

And he learns it from the Pasuk in Pinchas (written in connection with the Musaf on the sixth day of Succos) "Minchasah u'Nesachehah" - implying two Nisuchim, Nisuch ha'Yayin and Nisuch ha'Mayim.

Resh Lakish queried Rebbi Yochanan based on the (false) premise that one is only Chayav ba'Chutz for pouring three Lugin (and not less) - because it is written together with Nisuch ha'Hayin, the smallest Shi'ur of which is three Lugin.

When we ...

... reply ve'Ha Rebbi Elazar Mei ha'Chag ka'Amar, we mean that - since he referred explicitly to Mei ha'Chag - he may well require one Log (like some opinions in Succah, as we will see shortly).

... say ve'Ha Rebbi Elazar be'Chag ka'Amar - we mean to confine the Chiyuv of Chutz to Succos (in reply to the suggestion that he might have been referring to the whole year).

... Rebbi Yochanan said in the name of bar Nechunyah Ish Baka'as Beis Chorsan that - Eser Neti'os, Aravah and Nisuch ha'Mayim are Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

We say that Menachem Yudfa'a (see Tosfos DH 'Ishtemitseih') must have forgotten this latter statement - because otherwise, he would not have established Rebbi Elazar specifically like Rebbi Akiva, seeing as everyone now agrees that Nisuch ha'Mayim is d'Oraysa (and not de'Rabbanan).

The Beraisa rules that someone who pours out three Lugin of water on Succos ba'Chutz, is Chayav. Rebbi Elazar says - only if he drew the water specifically for the Mitzvah of Nisuch ha'Mayim.

When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Machlokes by whether the water for Nisuch ha'Mayim has a Shi'ur or not, he means that - according to the Tana Kama, there is no maximum Shi'ur for the water, in which case, one will be Chayav for even more than three Lugin, if one pours more into a K'li Shareis. Whereas according to Rebbi Elazar - one is only Chayav if one pours three Lugin into a receptacle, but not more.

The Machlokes is based on the principle that - a K'li Shareis only sanctifies what is fit to go inside it.

In fact, we learned in the Mishnah is Succah - they used to fill a golden flask holding three Lugin with water from the Shilo'ach (though according to Rebbi Yehudah there, it only held one Log).

According to Rav Papa, both Tana'im hold that the water has a Shi'ur (see Tosfos DH 'be'Karvu'), and the Machlokes depends upon whether Yisrael brought Nesachim in the desert or not. Assuming they did (Tana kama) - the Tana Kama will hold that, when the Pasuk states the Pasuk in Sh'lach-L'cha (in connection with the Nesachim) "Ki Savo'u el Eretz Moshvoseichem", it means immediately upon their arrival in Eretz Yisrael, they brought Nesachim on Bamos Yachid - which did not require a K'li Shareis.

According to Rebbi Elazar however - they did not bring Nesachim in the desert, and the Pasuk is therefore referring to after they built the Mishkan in Shiloh (where K'lei Shareis were required).

Consequently ...

... the Tana Kama holds that since in the time of Heter Bamos, Nesachim did not require a K'li Shareis, even when Bamos are forbidden one is Chayav for brining Bamos that were not sanctified in a K'li Shareis ba'Chutz, whereas ...

... according to Rebbi Elazar, who holds that they always required a K'li Shareis, one is Patur.

According to Ravina, even Rebbi Elazar agrees that they brought Nesachim in the desert and that, when they arrived in Eretz Yisrael, they brought Niskei Yayin on a Bamas Yachid, but not Niskei Mayim - because, Nisuch ha'Mayim was an Avodas Tzibur, and only Korb'nos Yachid were brought on a Bamas Yachid, but not Korb'nos Tzibur.

Consequently, the Tana'im are arguing over whether we learn Niskei Mayim from Niskei Yayin (the Tana Kam), or not (Rebbi Elazar).