Clarification: Resh Lakish nevertheless concedes that the perpetrator is Chayav Misah, like the Gemara says in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin 61b) ...

Precedent: ... like a case where somebody prostrates himself to a mountain, where the mountain is permitted, even though the worshipper is Chayav Hereg (by the sword.

Refuted Question: Why can one not ask how it is possible for the perpetrator to be sentenced to death, how do we know that he would not have relented and not sprinkled the blood in the name of Avodas-Kochavim ...

Source: ... like we say in Perek Arba Misos (Ibid.) - that a Nisas (one who is incited) who says that he will go and worship ... is Patur, since he will probably retract and not worship?

Refutation #1: Because here he will definitely not retract, seeing as he performed an act (when he Shechted the animal having in mind to sprinkle the blood).

Refutation #2: Moreover, even if we would know for sure that he will not sprinkle the blood, he is Chayav, because the mere fact that he is Shechting having in mind to sprinkle to Avodah-Zarah renders it Avodah-Zarah.

Question: If thought alone is considered Pigul even without actually verbalizing one's thoughts, then we will have a case where Shechting Avodah-Zarah becomes forbidden with mere words - there where one specifically states that he is Shechting to Avodas-Kochavim?

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he could not have learned his Kal-va'Chomer from Pigul, since he ought then to have said (not 'Poseles' but) 'Mefageles'.

Implied Question: Even though we do find that the Gemara refers to Pigul as 'Pasul', as we learned in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 28a) with regard to Chutz li'Mekomo - 'Pasul ve'Ein Chayavin alav Kareis' ...

Answer (Part 1): Here where one might have misconstrued the Gemara's meaning, it ought to have said 'Mefageles' ...

Precedent (Part 1): ... like we say in the second Perek of Zevachim (Ibid.) regarding the Mishnah which declares a Korban Pasul in any one of four ways ...

Precedent (Part 2): ... and the Gemara proves the point that it is making there from the fact that, since the Tana uses the expression 'became Pasul' rather than 'became Pigul'.

Question: The question remains however, why we do not establish the case by Shinuy Ba'alim, where Resh Lakish concedes that 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah - there where one said 'I am going to Shecht having in mind to sprinkle the blood in the name of P'loni, it is Pasul ...

Precedent: ... like the Gemara states in Zevachim (Ibid.)?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): We must therefore conclude that it is not possible to establish the 'Kal va'Chomer either by Machsheves Pigul or by Shinuy Ba'alim, seeing as neither of them are applicable by the same Avodah ...

Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... because if one were to say 'I am going to Shecht having in mind Chutz li'Zemano, Chutz li'Mekomo or in the name of P'loni, it would be Kasher', as we learned in the first Perek of Zevachim (10.).

Alternative Text: Rabeinu Chananel has the text 'P'nim is not a Kashya according to Resh Lakish', since he establishes it by a Machshavah of Pigul..

Question (Part 1): Why do we not answer that Rebbi Yochanan holds like the Rabbanan, inasmuch as just as they learn Chutz from P'nim with regard to 'Zeh Mechashev ve'Zeh Oveid', so too, will they make the same D'rashah with regard to 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah'?

Question (Part 2): And by the same token, according to the second Lashon, why can we not answer that they hold like Rebbi Eliezer?

Answer (Part 1): Regarding 'Zeh Mechashev ve'Zeh Oveid' it makes sense to learn Chutz from P'nim, because seeing as the Torah reveals by P'nim that the owner is called 'the Makriv', the same will apply to Chutz ...

Reason: ... since the Torah writes in Tehilim (106) "Zivchei Meisim" insinuating that if the owner thinks a wrong thought it is considered 'Zivchei Meisim'; Since the owner is called the 'Makriv' by P'nim, any Limud that the same applies to Chutz is no more than a 'Giluy Milsa' (a revelation - since a real Limud is not required) ...

Answer (Part 2): ... but regarding 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah', we do find any such Limud at all ...

Conclusion: ... and that what Mechashvin by P'nim is simply a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv.

Question: What sort of answer is this - to tell us what Resh Lakish said before he learned the Mishnah?

Clarification: Rashi establishes this by Shechitah and Zerikah, both of which are written specifically (in connection with Avodas-Kochavim).

Question #1 (Part 1): The Riva queries this however, in that if one sprinkles the blood to Avodas-Kochavim, the Basar does not become forbidden ...

Source: ... as is evident later with regard to the case where certain Arab merchants gave rams to Yisrael butchers, and stipulated that the blood and the fat should belong to them, and the Basar, to the butchers, and where the Gemara concludes that the Basar was Kasher, since the Halachah is like Rebbi Yossi, who holds that we do not say 'Zeh Mechashev ve'Zeh Oveid'.

Question #2 (Part 1): Moreover, the Tosefta specifically rules in a case that took place in Caesaria, where, after Shechting the animal, they sprinkled the blood to Avodas-Kochavim and burned the Cheilev to Avodas-Kochavim, the Chachamim said neither that it was Asur nor that it was Mutar ...

Question #2 (Part 2): That was, because the end revealed on the beginning, as the Gemara will explain shortly.

Question #2 (Part 3): In any event, it did not become forbidden due to the Zerikah?

Answer: We therefore need to say that even though the animal does not become forbidden, the blood does.

Clarification: And according to the second Lashon earlier (see end of 38b) until now the Rabbanan only permitted where Reuven thinks and Shimon performs the Avodah, whereas here it is the same person who Shechted who then sprinkles the blood to Avodas-Kochavim.

Clarification: In Perek ha'Meivi Asham Taluy (Kerisus 24b) the Gemara explains that this is because the Rabbanan hold that if someone declares his Eved Hefker he (the Eved) goes free, but he requires a Get Shichrur, and that an Eved belonging to a Kohen who requires a Get Shichrur is allowed to eat Terumah'.

Clarification (Part 1): When the Gemara in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 5a) asks what the Din will be if someone grabs the article in front of Beis-Din, and establishes the case where the owner is initially silent before beginning to protest (seemingly encroaching on the Gemara here) ...

Clarification (Part 2): The Question could go both according to Rebbi Shimon (ben Gamliel) and according to the Rabbanan ...

Reason: ... because the reason 'If it did not reach his hand why should I object?' does not apply there; and the reason there is why he finds it necessary to object, since the Rabbanan saw what happened.

Implied Question: Even according to the opinion (in Bechoros 13a) that money acquires by a Nochri (so why does it not acquire here?) ...

Answer (Part 1): Here the Nochri does not relay on the transaction, since he is able to push him off (as the Gemara explains) ...

Answer (Part Answer (Part 2): .... and if he is a tough guy it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, even according to the opinion in the second Perek of Bechoros (13a) that Meshichah acquires by a Nochri, and not money.