Zevachim Daf 111 זבחים דַף 111

Tannaim argue if pouring three לוגין of wine בחוץ is liable, or only if he was first מקדיש the wine in a כלי שרת. In the second interpretation, the Gemara explains they argue whether קרבו נסכים בבמה – they offered libations on a private במה (which is a known machlokes Tannaim). If נסכים were brought on a במת יחיד, which never requires a כלי שרת, one would also be liable for pouring wine בחוץ without sanctifying it first in a כלי שרת. If נסכים were not brought on a במת יחיד, then one is only liable בחוץ if the wine was first placed in a כלי שרת. This machlokes depends on another: Rebbe Yishmael says that when the Torah said "כי תבאו" – when you will come [to the Land] you must bring נסכים, it means to require נסכים henceforth on a במה גדולה (because he holds they did not bring נסכים in the מדבר). Rebbe Akiva says this phrase means to require נסכים henceforth on a במת יחיד, because he holds they already brought נסכים in the מדבר, so this passuk must be requiring נסכים for a במת יחיד.

The next Mishnah states that one who performed מליקה on a bird בפנים, and was then מעלה it בחוץ, he is חייב for the העלאה, since it was fit for burning on the מזבח (having been properly slaughtered). If he did both בחוץ, he is exempt not only for the מליקה (from an earlier derashah excluding מליקה בחוץ), but also for the העלאה (since the מליקה was invalid, the bird is a נבילה, and unfit for the מזבח). If one shechted a bird בפנים and was מעלה it בחוץ, he is פטור for the העלאה since it was improperly shechted inside. If one shechted a bird בחוץ and was מעלה it בחוץ, he is liable for both. A derashah teaches liability for shechting birds בחוץ, and another derashah teaches that anything liable for shechitah בחוץ is likewise liable for its העלאה. The Mishnah concludes: נמצא דרך הכשירו בפנים פטורו בחוץ – it emerges that the method of [a bird’s] validity inside (i.e., מליקה) is its case of exemption when performed outside, whereas דרך הכשירו מבחוץ פטורו בפנים – its method of validity outside is its case of exemption inside. [Since shechitah בחוץ is certainly not “valid,” but חייב, the Mishnah is emended to read "חיובו" –its case of liability.]

In the Mishnah, Rebbe Shimon said: כל שחייבין עליו בחוץ – any case where one is liable for העלאה after its first avodah was done outside, חייבין על כיוצא בו בפנים שהעלה בחוץ – one is likewise liable in a similar case where the avodah was performed inside and he offered it up outside, except for one who shechted a bird בפנים and was מעלה בחוץ, which Rebbe Shimon agrees is פטור. The Gemara struggles to identify the case, and three interpretations are eventually presented: Zeiri says he is arguing with the Tanna Kamma about שחיטת לילה – shechting a korban at night. The Tanna Kamma says that if he shechted it בפנים at night, he is exempt for a subsequent העלאה, but if he shechted it בחוץ, he is liable for the העלאה. To this, Rebbe Shimon says that just like he is liable for העלאה after שחיטה בחוץ, he is also liable for העלאה after שחיטה בפנים. Rava says they are arguing about blood received in כלי חול – an unconsecrated vessel. Again, the Tanna Kamma exempts העלאה after קבלה בפנים, but Rebbe Shimon says that just as he is liable if the קבלה was בחוץ, he is also liable if the קבלה was בפנים. Another interpretation is offered, based on an emended text of the Mishnah.