1)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Lo Yasim alehah Shemen ... ki Chatas Hi" that - a Minchas Chotei has the Din of a Chatas, and is therefore Pasul she'Lo li'Shemah.

(b)The problem with our Mishnah, which declares Pasul a Minchas Chotei and a Minchas Kena'os she'Lo Lishman is - having cited the source for the former, from where do we know the latter?

(c)To solve the problem, we cite a Beraisa, cited by a Beraisa-expert in the presence of Rav Nachman who ruled that the leftovers (Mosar) of the Minchas Kena'os (of a Sotah) - go to Nedavah.

(d)The definition of ...

1. ... Mosar is - the leftover money after purchasing the barley for a Sotah's Minchah.

2. ... Nedavah is - one of the thirteen boxes in the Beis-Hamikdash marked Nedavah, which is for the purpose of purchasing Olos Kayitz Mizbe'ach (communal Olos Nedavah, which are sacrificed during the long summer months, when the Mizbe'ach is often not in use).

2)

(a)In response, Rav Nachman cited a Gezeirah-Shavah "Avon" ("Mazkeres Avon" [Naso, in connection with Sotah]) "Avon ("Laseis es Avon ha'Eidah" [Shemini, in connection with the Chatas]), from which we learn that the Mosar ha'Chatas - goes to Nedavah.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Melachim "Kesef Asham ve'Kesef Chatas la'Kohanim Yih'yu" that - the Mosar ha'Chatas goes to Nedavah, to purchase Olos for the Mizbe'ach, and the skin goes to the Kohanim.

(c)He also learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Avon" "Avon" that - a Minchas Kena'os she'Lo li'Shemah is Pasul (like a Chatas), thereby corroborating the Beraisa cited by the Beraisa expert.

3)

(a)We ask why, in that case, we do not invalidate an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo as well, from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Ve'nasa "*Avono*" (in Vayikra in connection with the Asham) from "Laseis es *Avon* ha'Eidah", which we initially try to answer - by dismissing the Gezeirah-Shavah, by differentiating between "Avon" and "Avono".

(b)We refute this answer however, on two scores; one of them, because we could then learn "Avono" "Avono" from "Im Lo Yagid Ve'nasa Avono" (written in Vayikra in connection with the Chatas of Shemi'as Kol) - the other, based on the principle Zu hi Shivah Zu hi Bi'ah (with regard to Tzara'as Batim [that we can learn a Gezeirah-Shavah between two similar words, such as "Shiyvah" and Bi'ah", even though they are not fully identical])

(c)Initially, we reject the suggestion that the Gezeirah-Shavah was only given (to Moshe at Har Sinai) to learn from it the Din of Mosar Nedavah - by citing the principle Ein Gezeirah-Shavah le'Mechtzah (a Gezeirah-Shavah does not come in halves).

(d)We ultimately resolve the problem by citing the Pasuk (also in Vayikra) "Ve'shachat *Osah* le'Chatas" - from which we extrapolate that a Chatas she'Lo li'Shemah is Pasul, but not other Korbanos (such as an Asham).

4)

(a)The problem the D'rashah of "Osah" now creates is that - it also ought to preclude Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os from the P'sul of she'Lo li'Shemah; So why are they in fact Pasul?

(b)We therefore learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Naso "Chatas Hi" that - a Chatas she'Lo li'Shemah is Pasul.

2. ... "Chatas Hi" (by the Minchas Chotei) and in Naso "Minchas Kena'os Hi" that - a Minchas Chotei and a Minchas Kena'os respectively, too, are Pasul she'Lo li'Shemah.

5)

(a)We do not invalidate an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo, despite the fact that there too, the Torah inserts the word "Hu" ("Vehiktir osam ha'Kohen ... Asham Hu") - because that speaks after the burning of the Emurim ...

(b)... and seeing as the burning of the Emurim is not crucial to begin with, performing it she'Lo li'Shemah can obviously not invalidate it.

(c)And "Hu" teaches us a Halachah regarding Rav Huna Amar Rav's statement (concerning an Asham whose owner brought another Asham in its place, and who then hands it over to a shepherd to graze in the meadow) that - if he then Shechts it S'tam, it is a Kasher Olah.

(d)We now learn from "Hu" that - until it is actually given to the shepherd, it retains its status as a Pasul Asham.

6)

(a)Rav declares Pasul a Minchas ha'Omer whose Kemitzah was taken she'Lo li'Shemah - because it comes to be Machshir (permit Chadash), but fails to do so.

(b)Likewise, in the identical case concerning an Asham Nazir and an Asham Metzora - Rav declares them Pasul, for the same reason.

(c)We ask why, according to Rav - our Mishnah does not add Minchas ha'Omer to Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os, when it precludes them from the Menachos that are Kasher she'Lo li'Sheman.

(d)We answer this Kashya in two ways; one of them, that our Mishnah is only concerned with Korb'nos Yachid, and not with Korb'nos Tzibur; the other, that - the Tana only deals with Menachos that are brought independently, not those (such as the Minchas ha'Omer) that are brought together with other Korbanos.

7)

(a)And we query Rav's second case (Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora) from the Mishnah in Zevachim Kol ha'Zevachim ... Chutz mi'Pesach ve'Chatas - which fails to include Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora from the Seifa Chutz mi'Pesach ve'Chatas.

(b)And we answer that - the Tana omits Ashamos because Asham Gezeilos and Asham Me'ilos are Kasher she'Lo li'Sheman.

(c)The basis to differentiate between Asham Nazir and Metzora on the one hand, and Asham Gezeilos and Me'ilos on the other is the fact that - whereas the latter come to atone, the former only come to be Machshir.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah bases the above distinction on - someone who dies, leaving a Korban that is Machshir and one that is Mechaper, in which case his heirs are obligated to bring the latter, but not the former.

(b)And he cites a Mishnah in Kidushin. which discusses a woman who gave birth and died after bringing either her Chatas or her Olah The status of ...

1. ... her Chatas is - Machshir (since it permits her to eat Kodshim).

2. ... her Olah is - Mechaper.

(c)And the Tana there rules that - in the case where she died after bringing ...

1. ... her Chatas - the heirs must bring her Olah.

2. ... her Olah - they do not bring her Chatas (which must die).

9)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi queries Rebbi Yirmiyah's answer however, from a Mishnah in Nazir. Although the Rabbanan there forbid deriving benefit from money that has been designated for one's Korb'nos Nezirus (Chatas, Olah and Shelamim), the Tana exempts someone who did so from Me'ilah - because all the money is fit to be used to purchase the Shelamim, which is not subject to Me'ilah, since it belongs to the owner, and is not Kodshei Hash-m (except for the Emurim after the Shechitah).

(b)In the event that the Nazir died leaving money S'tam for his Korbanos, it all goes to Nedavah. If he specified the money, then the D'mei Chatas goes to the Yam ha'Melach. The Rabbanan forbid deriving benefit from it, but it is not subject to Me'ilah - because whatever stands to be killed or destroyed is not considered Kodshei Gavohah, and is not therefore subject to Me'ilah.

(c)The D'mei ...

1. ... Olah - goes to Nedavah, and is subject to Me'ilah.

2. ... Shelamim - is used to purchase a Shelamim, which can be eaten for one day (like the Din of Shalmei Nazir) but does not require loaves of bread (because it is not a Todah).

(d)The Tana does not mention D'mei Asham - because it is only a Nazir Tamei who needs to bring an Asham, not a Nazir Tahor.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi now asks from the D'mei Olah and the D'mei Shelamim - which are Machshirin, yet they are brought after the owner's death.

(b)Rav Papa explains that Rebbi Yirmiyah is speaking specifically about a Hechsher Kavu'a (one that is fixed), whereas, based on a statement of Mar, the Olah and the Shelamim of a Nazir are considered a Hechsher she'Eino Kavu'a. Mar said that - someone who shaves on any one of the three Korbanos (Chatas, Olah or Shelamim) has fulfilled his obligation, and is permitted to drink wine, a proof that they are not a permanent fixture (since they are dispensable).