Explanation: We conclude that [Rav discusses when] they became Chaser inside.

Question: What is [Rav's] Chidush? The Mishnah taught this above - all of them that became Chaser any amount... and [even if Rabanan do not exempt when they became Chaser outside, they exempt] at least they became Chaser inside!

Implied question: [If so] what is the Chidush?

Answer: One might have thought that this is not the way of Haktarah.

Implied question: We say above (15b) regarding [if a Kohen served while standing on] another's foot, it is Pasul! (We should say that Min b'Mino is not a Chatzitzah!)

Answer: This is not the way to serve.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He was Maktir the Kometz by itself in order to permit half the Shirayim, and he selects to divide them - may he eat them?

[Does offering one Matir] permit half totally, or does it weaken the Isur of all the Shirayim, and the Kometz and Levonah, both affect all the Shirayim, and when he is Maktir one, their Isur is weakened. However, none of them are permitted. Until here is from Rashi.

Implied question: A Mishnah (Menachos 27a) teaches that Kometz and Levonah are Me'akev each other (i.e. neither permits anything by itself)!

Answer: This means that both are required. One may not bring a Minchah without Levonah, and Kemitzah must be done. (We need not say that one alone does not permit anything.)

Question: In any case it is difficult. Even according to the opinion that it is permitted, how does he select the portion [that the Kometz permitted]?!

Explanation #2: He does not ask to permit eating. Rather, if it permits half, the other half retains its Isur, and if it he eats it, he is lashed like one who eats meat of Chatas or Asham before Zerikah.

Note: Even for a minimal Minchah of one Isaron, the Shirayim are about 42 k'Beitzim, and we do not know which half is forbidden. To be lashed, we must know that he ate a k'Zayis of Isur within the time (Kedei Achilas Pras), e.g. he ate all the Shirayim, each time two k'Zeisim within the time. (Or, nine times he ate three k'Beitzim within the time. At least about six Beitzim was Isur. This is more than nine k'Zeisim, so at least once he ate a k'Zayis of Isur within the time.) However, no one knows when he ate Isur. This is Hasra'as Safek! B'Chatzros Kodshi says that Tosfos discusses according to the opinion that Hasra'as Safek is Hasra'ah. (He did not say that we discuss a Chaver, who need not be warned. When he eats the first half, he is unsure if he is transgressing, and likewise when he eats the second half.) Yad Binyamin says that half of every piece is Isur, so if he eats two k'Zeisim at a time, it is Hasra'as Vadai. Ayeles ha'Shachar prefers to say that Tosfos means an Isur worthy of lashes.

If [the Isur of] the entire Minchah is weakened, he is not lashed at all.

Explanation #3: [He asks just like this] regarding Me'ilah. (If it is permitted, if he benefits from all of it, he brings Asham Me'ilos.)

Support: Similarly, in Nedarim (68a, the Gemara asks about an Arus who annulled his Arusah's vow. Also her father needs to annul it.) Does a husband cut (permit half the vow), or weaken it, e.g. she vowed [to forbid two olives] and her Arus heard and annulled her, and she ate them;

If you will say that he cuts, she is lashed. If you will say that he weakens, there is a mere Isur [to eat it].

Observation: This Sugya is unlike Reish Lakish, who said above (41b) that R. Meir's reason is because everyone who does, does according to his initial intent.

Question: This requires investigation, if one slaughtered one Siman, and received the blood and did Zerikah, since this is considered half a Matir, if we say that he permitted [half]!

Remark: However, obviously if he did not finish his Shechitah afterwards, it is not permitted.

Question: What is Rava's Chidush? Our Mishnah teaches this! R. Elazar says, even one who is Menasech... this shows that he agrees in the Reisha [about blood]!

Answer #1: One might have thought that R. Elazar refers to those [Avodos taught in the Mishnayos] above, and not to some of the blood.

Answer #2: We can establish our Mishnah to discuss outer blood, for which one Matanah atones, and Rava teaches even for inner blood, for which all the Matanos are Me'akev. Even so, R. Elazar agrees that he is liable for part outside;

A Mishnah teaches that R. Elazar says that [if the blood of an inner Chatas spilled in the middle of the Haza'os, we slaughter another, and sprinkle its blood.] Where he stopped [Haza'os from the first], he begins (with the latter, for even though only some of the Haza'os were done, they are valid);

Support: Also above (42a), that Rava said that R. Elazar agrees about blood, it is brought regarding inner Chata'os. (Meleches Yom Tov - i.e. also above, to prove that R. Eliezer agrees that one is liable for offering outside part of the blood of inner Chata'os, the Gemara needed to bring Rava's teaching. It did not suffice to cite our Mishnah, for one might have thought that it discusses only outer Chata'os.)

Question: R. Akiva agrees that Nisuch ha'Mayim is only during Sukos!

Version #2: Some texts say "Hasech Nesech" discusses two Nisuchim. That verse is written regarding the Tamid.

Rejection: This is wrong. R. Nasan's text says so in Ta'anis (3a), and even according to R. Nasan, why do we do not find any Tana who teaches that Nisuch ha'Mayim applies the entire year?!

Version #3 (R. Tam): It says in old Seforim "just like there it does not apply on the rest of Sukos", for according to R. Akiva the Torah hinted [to Nisuch ha'Mayim] only on the sixth day;

And we say in Ta'anis (3a) this that the Mishnah taught that Nisuch ha'Mayim applies to all seven days - like whom is it? If it is R. Akiva - he says that one mentions [rain in Shemoneh Esre starting] on the sixth day. [Nisuch ha'Mayim] is only two days!

"R. Elazar says during Sukos" connotes all the days of Sukos.

Defense (of the text of Seforim): Even though Nisuch ha'Mayim is only during Sukos, in any case one is liable for it outside the entire year.

Support #1: This is like we find in our Sugya according to the opinion that Nesachim were offered in the Midbar, one is liable without a Kli Shares, even though it is not accepted inside, since when Bamos are permitted we may offer without Kedushas Kli.

Support #2: This is like we find above (108b) regarding one who offers on a rock. Because it is Haktarah on a Bamas Yachid, he is liable for it outside when Bamos are forbidden.

Question: [Nisuch ha'Mayim] is different. This is the ultimate Mechusar Zman! Since now it is not proper inside, how is one liable [outside]?

We say in Yoma (62b) that Shelamim slaughtered outside before the doors of the Heichal were opened, he is exempt. What is the reason? Mechusar Pesichah (opening) is like Mechusar Ma'aseh.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Menachem Yudfa'ah [did not know R. Asi's teaching].

Question: This is astounding. R. Yochanan taught both of them! (Why did he say in the name of R. Menachem that R. Elazar holds like R. Akiva, and it is difficult why the Chiyuv for water is unlike that for wine? He should have answered like Rav Asi, that it is a tradition from Sinai!)

Answer: Perhaps R. Yochanan heard later [that it is a tradition].

Note: Still, if they are contradictory, the Gemara should have asked this, and answered so, or "he said this in the name of his Rebbi (Menachem), but he himself disagrees.")

Explanation #2: Reish Lakish did not know [R. Asi's teaching], for if he knew it, he would not ask at all, for one could explain that [R. Elazar] said according to his Rebbi, R. Akiva, who says that Nisuch ha'Mayim is mid'Oraisa, but not for his reason. (I.e. R. Elazar could hold that it is a tradition from Sinai.)

Consequence: This implies that there is an opinion that Nisuch ha'Mayim is mid'Rabanan.

Objection: This is astounding! Even according to the opinion that Chulin b'Azarah is not mid'Oraisa, [it is astounding] that they enacted to be Menasech Chulin b'Azarah!

Answer: Perhaps because then is the time of rain, [they enacted a Mitzvah on the Mizbe'ach with water] so they will be recalled in front of Hash-m to be blessed with rain.

Note: A Mishnah (Sukah 4:9) teaches that there are two conduits on the Mizbe'ach, for Niskei Yayin and Nisuch ha'Mayim. How could they make a hole for a Mitzvah mid'Rabanan? One may not even be Mevatel sand on the Mizbe'ach for Kisuy ha'Dam, for this deviates from its structure, which was given through prophecy (Chulin 83b)! Perhaps Hash-m commanded that there be two conduits, and when Chachamim enacted Nisuch ha'Mayim, they designated one of them for water.

Question: In Sukah (44a) it connotes somewhat that Reish Lakish knew R. Yochanan's teaching of ten saplings (evenly spaced over a square 50 Amos by 50 Amos, that they permit plowing the entire field in Erev Shemitah until Rosh Hashanah), taking an Aravah (in the Mikdash on Sukos, aside from the four species) and Nisuch ha'Mayim!

Reish Lakish taught that Kohanim Ba'alei Mumim would enter between the Ulam and Mizbe'ach in order to be Yotzei with the Aravah!

Answer: Perhaps granted, he hard about Aravah, but he had not heard about Nisuch ha'Mayim.

Question: This Perush cannot be according to what Rashi explained in Me'ilah (13b). A Mishnah says that if [water for Nisuch ha'Mayim] was put in a flask, Me'ilah applies to it. Reish Lakish said, Me'ilah applies only to three Lugim. R. Yochanan said, Me'ilah applies to all of it;

[The Gemara] asks "does Reish Lakish hold that there is a Shi'ur for the water? In a Mishnah, R. Elazar taught that even one who is Menasech Mei ha'Chag (the water for Nisuch ha'Mayim) outside during Sukos is liable...

And R. Yochanan said in the name of R. Menachem Yudfa'ah that R. Elazar taught like R. Akiva, who expounds "u'Nsacheha" - one is Nesachim of wine, and one is Nesachim of water...

And Reish Lakish said, if [so, you should say that] just like Nisuch of wine is three Lugim, and Nisuch of water should be three Lugim. This implies that Reish Lakish [himself] holds that there is no Shi'ur for the water! It answers "he said according to Menachem Yudfa'ah's reason."

Explanation (Rashi): Reish Lakish, who says that there is a Shi'ur for the water, said so according to Menachem, who said that R. Elazar holds like R. Akiva...

However, [Reish Lakish himself] holds like his Rebbi, R. Yochanan, who says that there is no Shi'ur for the water!

Answer: [Rashi's] Perush in Me'ilah cannot be. Why should Reish Lakish say "according to Menachem Yudfa'ah"? He should say according to R. Akiva and R. Elazar and R. Nasan (who expound Nisuch ha'Mayim from the Torah)!

It seems that we should explain that "according to Menachem Yudfa'ah", i.e. what he asked - if [so, you should say that] just like there [the Shi'ur of wine is] three Lugim, for according to R. Akiva there is a Shi'ur, yet R. Elazar said "Mei ha'Chag." This connotes that he holds that there is no Shi'ur!

It is not because Reish Lakish holds like R. Elazar, for Reish Lakish holds that there is a Shi'ur. Rather, he comes to teach unlike R. Menachem Yudfa'ah, [who said] that R. Elazar said like R. Akiva.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The first Tana said that one who is Menasech three Lugim is liable, and the same applies to more than three Lugim, for 100 is included in 200 (three Lugim is included in a larger amount);

Even though he filled them in a big Kli, the Kli was Mekadesh them, for there is no upper Shi'ur for Mei ha'Chag;

R. Elazar comes to teach that this is when he filled them for the sake of the Chag, the way he fills them, i.e. three Lugim and no more, like the Mishnah says "a gold flask that holds three Lugim, he fills it from ha'Shilu'ach (a spring near Yerushalayim)";

However, if more [was inside], the Kli was not Mekadesh it, for it is not proper for [the Mitzvah], for there is a Shi'ur for Mei ha'Chag, and a Kli Shares is Mekadesh only what is proper for it. Until here is from Rashi.

Question: Above, R. Elazar said Mei ha'Chag, that there is no Shi'ur for the water at all, not above and not below, like is proven from the case in Me'ilah (13b)!

Explanation #2: R. Chaim explained oppositely. The first Tana holds that there is a Shi'ur. He said three Lugim - no more and no less;

R. Elazar comes to say that this is if he filled them for the sake of the Chag, the Kli was Kove'a them. This is like R. Elazar taught above (110a), that Kevi'us of a Kli takes effect;

However, if a Kli was not Kove'a them, he is liable for less than three Lugim, for there is no Shi'ur for the water. This is like R. Elazar taught in our Mishnah "Mei ha'Chag."