1) THE LAW DERIVED FROM "LO YEVI'ENU LA'ASOS"
OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which teaches, based on the verses in the Torah, what types of Kodshim (even those that are Pasul) are subject to the prohibition against offering Korbanos outside the Beis ha'Mikdash ("Ma'aleh ba'Chutz"). The second part of the Beraisa teaches the source for including in this prohibition items of Kodshim that were improperly left overnight ("Lan"), brought out of the Beis ha'Mikdash ("Yotzei"), and that are Pasul for other reasons. The verse states, "Lo Yevi'enu La'asos" -- "[And to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed] you shall not bring it in order to make [it a Korban] for Hash-m" (Vayikra 17:9). This verse teaches that whatever is accepted by the Ohel Mo'ed as a Korban is subject to the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz, offering it outside the Beis ha'Mikdash. How does the Gemara derive this from the verse?
(a) RASHI (DH Talmud Lomar) explains that the word "La'asos" implies that all things that are fit to be "made" in the Ohel Mo'ed, which is mentioned in the beginning of the verse, are included in the prohibition of the verse. This teaches that even things normally not burned upon the Mizbe'ach are included in the prohibition, since the law is that if they were placed on the Mizbe'ach, they must be left there and the Kohen must ensure that they are burned properly.
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 19:7) understands this teaching differently. He apparently learns that the Gemara derives from the words later in the verse, "La'asos Oso la'Hashem" -- "to make [it a Korban] for Hash-m," that anything which is offered for Hash-m is subject to the prohibition against offering it outside the Beis ha'Mikdash. In contrast to Rashi's explanation, the Rambam is not saying that since the Kohen must ensure that they get burned when they are placed on the Mizbe'ach, they are included in "La'asos." Rather, the Rambam is saying that the reason why they are included in "La'asos" is that they originally were "made" for Hash-m.
The EVEN HA'AZEL (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 16:12) explains how the Rambam's explanation avoids the question of TOSFOS (61a, DH Kodem). The Gemara in Yoma (62b) says that when one slaughters a Korban Shelamim before the doors of the Heichal are opened in the morning, the Korban is Pasul. Rashi earlier in Zevachim (61a, DH u'Shnei) says that this law applies only to a Korban Shelamim. This implies that, according to Rashi, all other Korbanos slaughtered before the doors of the Heichal are opened are valid. Tosfos says that Rashi's opinion is not consistent with another Halachah taught by the Gemara in Yoma. The Gemara says that one who slaughters a Korban Shelamim outside the Beis ha'Mikdash before the doors of the Heichal are opened does not transgress the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Beis ha'Mikdash. Tosfos asks that if other Korbanos are valid when slaughtered inside the Beis ha'Mikdash before the doors of the Heichal are opened, then a Korban Shelamim that is slaughtered outside the Beis ha'Mikdash is included in the category of "Im Alu Lo Yerdu" -- it may not be offered on the Mizbe'ach, but if it is inadvertently placed atop the Mizbe'ach, it may not be removed. This is the law for any Korban that is slaughtered in a way in which other Korbanos would be valid (as Rashi himself says here, DH v'Echad). Consequently, if this Shelamim may not be removed from the Mizbe'ach when inadvertently placed there, why does the Gemara in Yoma say that one is not liable for slaughtering such a Shelamim outside the Beis ha'Mikdash before the opening of the doors of the Heichal? Any Korban which is not removed from the Mizbe'ach is subject to the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Beis ha'Mikdash!
According to the Rambam, this is not a question. Even though the Rambam agrees with Rashi that one does not transgress the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz when he slaughters a Korban Shelamim outside the Beis ha'Mikdash before the doors of the Heichal are opened, and even though other Korbanos are valid when slaughtered inside the Beis ha'Mikdash when the doors have not been opened (which thus gives the Shelamim slaughtered outside a status of "Im Alu Lo Yerdu"), nevertheless one who slaughters a Shelamim in this way is not liable, because it does not qualify as a Korban that was originally "made for Hash-m" -- "La'asos Oso la'Hashem," as explained above. (Y. MONTROSE)
109b----------------------------------------109b
2) OFFERING A KORBAN OUTSIDE THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH WHEN PART OF THE KORBAN IS MISSING
OPINIONS: The Tana Kama of the Mishnah maintains that one who offers a k'Zayis from any one of the various forms of non-animal offerings (Menachos, Ketores, Levonah) outside the Beis ha'Mikdash transgresses the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz, offering Korbanos outside the Beis ha'Mikdash. Rebbi Shimon argues and maintains that one transgresses only when he offers the entire Korban (Minchah, Ketores, Levonah) outside the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Mishnah later states that in each of these cases, if a little part of the offering is missing and the rest is brought outside the Beis ha'Mikdash, the person does not transgress the prohibition. What is the reasoning behind this Halachah?
(a) The MISHNEH L'MELECH (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 19:11) deduces an answer to this question from the words of RASHI (DH v'Chulan). Rashi explains that when a Minchah offering is missing even a little flour because a little flour was destroyed or already burned, it is disqualified from being offered, and thus one does not transgress the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz when one offers such a Minchah outside the Beis ha'Mikdash. However, Rashi continues, when the Mishnah here says "in all of these [cases]," it is not including the case of Levonah. This is apparent from the argument as recorded in Menachos (11b), where Rebbi Shimon says that even though the amount of Levonah is supposed to be that of a Kometz, even one Kort of Levonah is valid, while Rebbi Yehudah says that two Kort are necessary. It is evident from there that if Levonah is missing its proper amount, it is still valid. If it is still valid, then it follows that one who offers it outside the Beis ha'Mikdash transgresses the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz. The Mishneh l'Melech extrapolates from Rashi that the reason behind this Halachah is that only items which are valid Korbanos are subject to the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz.
(b) However, the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 19:9-11) does not seem to rule this way. The Rambam does include Levonah as one of the things that is not included in the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz when only part of it exists. The Rambam (19:9) writes that this Halachah is derived from the verse of "La'asos Oso" (Vayikra 17:9). The word "Oso," the Rambam explains, implies a whole item as opposed to a partial item. The Mishneh l'Melech says that according to the Rambam, whether or not the Korban is large enough to be a valid Korban is not relevant. The determining factor is whether or not it fulfills the criterion of "Oso," being part of a whole Korban.
This is also expressed by the Rambam with regard to Eimurin. The Rambam (19:11) cites the same verse as the reason for why one who offers a limb which is not complete ("Ever Chaser") does transgress this prohibition. The RA'AVAD comments that the Rambam's statement conflicts with an explicit Mishnah (109a) that states that one is liable for Ma'aleh ba'Chutz for offering just a k'Zayis. The Mishneh l'Melech explains that the Rambam obviously does not disagree with the Mishnah, as he quotes it himself as the Halachah (19:8). Rather, the Rambam refers to a case in which the whole limb is present, and the person offers a k'Zayis from it, thereby transgressing the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz. The Mishnah here (109b) says that when part of a Korban has been destroyed or burned, one cannot be liable for offering the remaining part outside the Beis ha'Mikdash, since it no longer is part of a whole limb and does not fulfill the prerequisite of "Oso."
(c) The ZEVACH TODAH quotes the approach of the Mishneh l'Melech and offers an alternative explanation. When the Rambam (19:8) says that one transgresses this prohibition with a k'Zayis, the Rambam is referring to a case in which the Korban was offered already inside the Beis ha'Mikdash, and a k'Zayis of the otherwise intact Korban subsequently was brought outside the Beis ha'Mikdash to be offered. This is implied by the verse which the Rambam quotes, "v'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Yevi'enu La'asos Oso la'Hashem" -- "And to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed you shall not bring it in order to make [it a Korban] for Hash-m" (Vayikra 17:9). The verse implies that this Korban never saw the opening of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Zevach Todah understands that since the verse -- which excludes a partially-destroyed limb -- refers to a case in which the Korban never saw the opening of the Beis ha'Mikdash, one cannot derive from the verse that a Korban that did enter the Beis ha'Mikdash must also be whole in order to be subject to the prohibition.
This is the reasoning behind the Rambam's statement that even offering a k'Zayis outside the Beis ha'Mikdash is a transgression. In a case where the k'Zayis of a Korban was never brought inside the Beis ha'Mikdash, this verse does not apply. The Rambam learns from the Gemara earlier (107a) that when the Korban was brought inside but became partially destroyed inside the Beis ha'Mikdash (see Rambam there, 19:9), it also is excluded from the verse. This is why he rules that Levonah which is partially destroyed is not subject to the prohibition of Ma'aleh ba'Chutz. (See the Mishneh l'Melech, Zevach Todah, and SEFAS EMES (110a) who explain at length the view of TOSFOS to 108b, DH k'Man.) (Y. MONTROSE)