QUESTION: Rabah and Rav Chisda argue about a case in which one slaughtered the Korban Pesach for circumcised men, who are fit to eat the Korban, with intention to perform the Zerikah for uncircumcised men (Arelim), who are unfit to eat the Korban. RASHI (DH Shechato) writes that Arelim are unfit to eat the Korban Pesach regardless of whether or not they are Menuyin (appointed to eat from this Korban).

What does Rashi mean? If the Arelim are not appointed to eat from this Korban, then there is an additional problem other than the Shochet's intention to do the Zerikah for Arelim: the Shochet had intention to do the Zerikah for people who are not the owners of the Korban (a Machshavah of Shinuy Ba'alim). In such a case, even Rabah agrees that the Korban is invalid (61a, Rashi DH Aval and DH k'Mi she'Ein). A Machshavah of Shinuy Ba'alim cannot be the subject of the dispute between Rabah and Rav Chisda. (TOSFOS 61a, DH Shechato)

ANSWER: The DEVAR SHMUEL answers that the Pesul of Shinuy Ba'alim does not apply in this case, because the Arelim for whom the Korban was slaughtered are not people for whom the Korban could be brought in the first place ("Bnei Kaparah"). The Gemara (62a; see Rashi to 61a, DH v'Eino b'Tzibur) teaches that the Pesul of Shinuy Ba'alim applies only when one intends to bring the Korban for another person for whom the Korban may be brought. The Pesul does not apply when one intends to bring the Korban for a person for whom the Korban may not be brought in the first place. In fact, the Gemara later (62a; see Rashi DH b'Hai Kra) quotes Rav Ashi who concludes that this is the reasoning behind the dispute between Rabah and Rav Chisda who argue whether the Korban Pesach is valid when it is slaughtered with intention to perform the Zerikah for Arelim.

Although this answer explains the words of Rashi here, it raises a different question. Why does Rashi mention the conclusion of the Gemara at this point? The Gemara introduces that principle later because it rejects the first explanation of the dispute between Rabah and Rav Chisda. At this stage in the Gemara, though, why does Rashi need to mention that Rabah and Rav Chisda also argue about a case of Zerikah for Arelim who are not appointed to eat from the Korban? (The Devar Shmuel leaves this question unanswered.)

The answer may be that when Rav Ashi introduces his understanding of the dispute between Rabah and Rav Chisda, he does not preface his words with the statement, "Ela Hacha b'Mai Askinan," which would show that the Gemara changes the circumstances of the case in which Rabah and Rav Chisda argue. It must be that Rav Ashi does not introduce any new circumstances for the case. The case in which Rabah and Rav Chisda argue remains a case of Zerikah for Arelim who are not appointed to eat from this Korban. However, in the earlier stage of the Gemara, the Gemara assumed that their dispute also applies to Arelim who are appointed to eat from this Korban. (M. KORNFELD)

QUESTION: The Gemara says that a Machshavah to perform Zerikah for Arelim is less of a reason to invalidate the Korban than the same Machshavah during Shechitah. The Gemara explains that this is because "Ein Machshavas Ochlin Posel b'Zerikah" -- a Machshavah that the Avodah is being done for someone who is unfit to eat the Korban does not invalidate the Korban when it occurs during Zerikah.

This explanation is difficult to understand. The Gemara asks why a Machshavah to perform Zerikah for Arelim, who are unfit to eat the Korban, does not invalidate the Korban, and it answers that a Machshavah to perform Zerikah for people who are unfit to eat the Korban does not invalidate the Korban. This is circular reasoning!

Furthermore, the general rule of "Ein Machshavas Ochlin Posel b'Zerikah" is derived from a different verse ("Tachosu Al ha'Seh" (Shemos 12:4); see 61a and Rashi to 61b, DH Ho'il), and not from the verse "Zos" (Shemos 12:43) that the Gemara here cites as the source that a Machshavah to perform Zerikah for Arelim does not invalidate the Korban.

(a) TOSFOS (61a, DH Shechato) seems to understand the Gemara as follows. It is true that a Machshavah for Arelim and a Machshavah for those who are unfit to eat the Korban (she'Lo l'Ochlav) are identical (see also Tosfos to 61a, DH l'Ochlav, and 62a, DH Mai Shena). However, there is a difference between doing the Shechitah with intention to do the Zerikah ("Shechitah Al Menas Lizrok") for either Arelim or she'Lo l'Ochlav, and doing the actual Zerikah for Arelim or she'Lo l'Ochlav. The Gemara's question is what logic is there to say that Shechitah with intention to do Zerikah for Arelim should not invalidate the Korban? Why is it any less severe than doing the Zerikah itself with intent that it is for Arelim?

The Gemara answers that we know that if one performs the actual Zerikah for Arelim, he does not invalidate the Korban, and thus even if he performs the Shechitah with intention to do Zerikah for Arelim, there is reason to suggest that he does not invalidate the Korban.

(b) RASHI (DH Mai Zos, DH Talmud Lomar, and DH v'Chi Teima) and the RAMBAM (Hilchos Korban Pesach 2:6-7) explain differently. They seem to maintain that Shechitah performed with intention to do Zerikah for Arelim, and Zerikah itself performed for Arelim, are equivalent. Only a thought that invalidates the Korban during Zerikah itself can invalidate the Korban when it is slaughtered with intention to do Zerikah in that particular manner. (This seems evident from the words of the Rambam in Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 15:11, as RABEINU CHAIM HA'LEVI points out in Hilchos Korban Pesach 2:6.)

According to Rashi and the Rambam, the Gemara means to differentiate between a Machshavah for Arelim and a Machshavah of she'Lo l'Ochlav. We derive that a Machshavah of she'Lo l'Ochlav invalidates the Pesach from the verse, "l'Fi Ochlo" (Shemos 12:4), as the Gemara says earlier (61a). The law that a Machshavah for Arelim invalidates the Korban is learned from a different verse -- "v'Chol Arel" (Shemos 12:48; 61b, and Rashi there, DH Mai Zos). The verse of she'Lo l'Ochlav specifies that the Pesul applies only when the Machshavah occurs during Shechitah, and not during Zerikah (or during Shechitah Al Menas Lizrok); there is no doubt about that. The Gemara's question is what the Halachah is in a case of Machshavah for Arelim that occurs during Zerikah or during Shechitah Al Menas Lizrok. Is it the same as a Machshavah of she'Lo l'Ochlav, which does not invalidate the Korban unless it occurs during Shechitah, or is it different? The Gemara concludes (according to Rabah) that since a Machshavah for she'Lo l'Ochlav cannot invalidate a Korban when it occurs during Zerikah, there is reason to assume that even a Machshavah for Arelim does not invalidate the Korban when it occurs during Zerikah (or during Shechitah Al Menas Lizrok).