WAS HE INTENTIONALLY OKER?
(Gemara) Question: What is the case [of Pesach Lo Lishmah]?
Suggestion: He erred (he thought that it is a different Korban).
Rejection If so, our Mishnah would teach that a mistaken Akirah (changing to a different Korban) takes effect (this cannot be, for Amora'im argue about this (Menachos 49A)!)
Answer: He was [intentionally] Oker [but he thought that this is permitted on Shabbos, therefore he brings a Chatas].
Question (Seifa): If he slaughtered any other Korban l'Shem Pesach - if it was unfit for Pesach, he is Chayav; if it was fit for Pesach, R. Eliezer is Mechayev Chatas, and R. Yehoshua exempts.
If he was Oker, in either case he is liable!
Answer: In the Seifa he erred.
Question: Does the Reisha discuss Oker, and the Seifa discusses a mistake?!
Answer (R. Avin): Yes!
R. Yitzchak bar Yosef asked R. Avahu how we establish the Mishnah, and received this answer; R. Yitzchak learned this from him 40 times, until it was solidly ingrained in him.
Question (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): One may slaughter Pesach Lishmah - nevertheless, if he slaughtered it l'Shem anything else he is Chayav - all the more so, he is liable for other Korbanos Lo Lishmah!
If the Reisha discusses Oker and the Seifa discusses a mistake, we cannot learn from the Reisha!
Answer: R. Eliezer does not distinguish Oker from a mistake; R. Yehoshua does.
Question: R. Yehoshua should have answered that he distinguishes them!
Answer: Indeed, he responds 'I distinguish - the Reisha discusses Oker and the Seifa discusses a mistake - even if you do not distinguish, you cannot learn from Pesach slaughtered l'Shem something forbidden to slaughtering other Korbanos l'Shem something permitted!'
(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Korbanos Tzibur disprove this - they are permitted Lishmah, yet if one slaughtered another Korban l'Shem them, he is liable!
R. Yehoshua: Those are different, for there is a limit how many are offered, but everyone offers Pesach!
ONE WHO WANTED TO DO A MITZVAH AND ERRED
Question: This implies that R. Yehoshua is Mechayev whenever there is a limit - but this is not true, e.g. regarding babies!
(Mishnah): If Reuven had two babies to circumcise, one on Shabbos and one the next day, and he mistakenly circumcised the latter on Shabbos, he is Chayav [Chatas - he erred about a Mitzvah and did not do a Mitzvah, for he circumcised too early];
R. Eliezer says, if one baby should have been circumcised on Erev Shabbos and the other on Shabbos, and he mistakenly circumcised the former on Shabbos, he is liable;
R. Yehoshua exempts [even though there was only one baby to circumcise]!
Answer (R. Ami): The case is, he circumcised the nine day old baby first - he was obsessed with a Mitzvah [that is Docheh Shabbos, i.e. the eight day baby, therefore he is exempt];
Here, the Korbanos Tzibur were offered before he slaughtered [therefore he is liable].
Question (Mishnah - R. Meir): Even one who slaughters l'Shem Korbanos Tzibur is exempt.
He would not exempt if the Korbanos Tzibur were already offered!
(Beraisa - R. Chiya of Evel Arev): R. Meir taught that R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua agree that if one mistakenly circumcised on Shabbos a nine day old instead of the eight day old, he is liable;
They argue about one who mistakenly circumcised a seven day old instead of the eight day old - R. Eliezer is Mechayev, R. Yehoshua exempts.
Question: If R. Yehoshua exempts in the Seifa, when he did not do a Mitzvah, all the more so he should exempt in the Reisha, when he did a Mitzvah!
Answer (D'vei R. Yanai): The case [in the Reisha] is, he circumcised the baby due to be circumcised on Shabbos on Erev Shabbos - he had no Heter to circumcise on Shabbos;
In the Seifa, he had a Heter to circumcise on Shabbos.
Likewise, there was a Heter to slaughter Korbanos Tzibur!
Question (Rav Ashi): Also in the Reisha, there is a Heter to circumcise other eight day babies in the world!
Answer (Rav Kahana): [They are not the responsibility of this man,] he has no Heter to override Shabbos.
(Mishnah): If he slaughtered any other Korban l'Shem Pesach - if the animal was unfit for Pesach, he is Chayav;
If it was fit for Pesach, R. Eliezer is Mechayev Chatas, and R. Yehoshua exempts.
Question: Who is our Tana, who distinguishes whether or not they are fitting?
Answer: It is R. Shimon:
(Beraisa - R. Meir): [If one slaughtered another Korban l'Shem Pesach on Shabbos] he is exempt whether or not it is fitting;
The same applies to slaughter l'Shem Korbanos Tzibur.
R. Shimon says, R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua agree that one is liable for a Korban that is not fitting;
They argue about a Korban that is fitting - R. Eliezer is Mechayev, R. Yehoshua exempts.
(Rav Bivi): R. Meir exempts even if a Shelamim calf was slaughtered l'Shem Pesach.
Question (R. Zeira): But R. Yochanan taught that R. Meir agrees about a Ba'al Mum [that he is liable]!
Answer (Rav Bivi): One is not obsessed with a Ba'al Mum (it is Pasul for any Korban) - one is obsessed with a calf.
Question (Rava): What would R. Meir say about Chulin slaughtered l'Shem Pesach?
Answer (Rav Nachman): He exempts even for Chulin.
Question: But R. Yochanan taught that R. Meir agrees about a Ba'al Mum!
Answer: A Ba'al Mum cannot be confused [with a Kosher Pesach] - Chulin can be confused.
Question: R. Meir's reason is not because it could be confused!
(Rav Bivi): R. Meir exempts even if a Shelamim calf was slaughtered l'Shem Pesach.
This shows that he exempt on account of obsession with a Mitzvah, even if it cannot be confused!
Answer: R. Meir exempts one obsessed with a Mitzvah even if it cannot be confused, and also when one can get confused, even if he is not obsessed with a Mitzvah.
ONE WHO WANTED TO DO A MITZVAH AND ERRED (cont.)
(R. Zeira and R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): Reish Lakish taught that if one mixed up a spit holding Nosar and a spit holding roasted meat [of permitted Kodshim] and ate the Nosar, he is liable;
R. Yochanan taught that if one had relations with his wife [and she was found to be] Nidah, he is liable; if one had relations with his Yevamah and she was Nidah, he is exempt.
Version #1: All the more so, R. Yochanan would Mechayev regarding Nosar, for he did not do a Mitzvah;
Version #2: R. Yochanan would exempt regarding Nosar.
Question: What is the reason?
Answer: He should have asked his wife [if she is Tehorah], but he did not need to ask regarding Nosar [he did not suspect that it might be Nosar].
Question: Presumably, R. Yochanan exempts for a Yevamah because he did a Mitzvah - relations with one's wife is also a Mitzvah (Peru u'Rvu)!
Answer [#1]: The case is, she was already pregnant.
Question: Still, there is a Mitzvah of Onah (having relations with one's wife regularly - the frequency depends on one's occupation).
Answer: The case is, it was not the time of Onah.
Question: But Rava taught that one must have relations with his wife even not at the time of Onah [if he sees that she desires it - R. Yochanan did not distinguish]!
Answer [#2]: The case is, it was just before her Veses (the time when she normally becomes Nidah - one must refrain from relations then. Rashba - this applies even during pregnancy, during the first three months; Rosh (Nidah 1:64) - Vestos do not apply during pregnancy - we retract from answer (h).)
Question: If so, also his Yevamah was just before her Veses, so he should be liable!
Answer: He is exempt because he is ashamed to ask her about this; one is not ashamed to ask his wife. (Surely, one must be concerned that his Yevamah is Nidah! Perhaps he knew that she was Tehorah from her clothing, or from her neighbors, or saw her engaging in Taharos, or asked her about this but not about her Veses.)
LIKE WHOM DOES R. YOCHANAN HOLD?
Question: Like which Tana does R. Yochanan hold?
Answer #1: He holds like R. Yosi:
(Mishnah - R. Yosi): If the first day of Sukos was on Shabbos and someone took a Lulav into Reshus ha'Rabim he is exempt, for he had permission (he was obsessed with the Mitzvah).
Rejection: Perhaps R. Yosi exempts regarding Lulav because there is a limited time (it must be taken that day - but there is no rush to do Yibum)!
Answer #2: He holds like R. Yehoshua, who exempts for slaughtering the wrong Korban for Korbanos Tzibur on Shabbos.
Rejection: Perhaps there also he exempts because there is a limited time (the Korban must be brought that day)!
Answer #3: He holds like R. Yehoshua, who exempts for circumcising the wrong baby on Shabbos.
Rejection: Perhaps he exempts because there is a limited time (he is commanded to circumcise on day eight)!
Answer #4: He holds like R. Yehoshua regarding Terumah:
(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If a Kohen was eating Terumah, and found out that his mother was divorced or did Chalitzah (i.e. he is a Chalal, an invalid Kohen), he pays Keren v'Chomesh;
R. Yehoshua exempts.
Rejection #1: Perhaps the case is like Rav Bivi bar Abaye said:
(Rav Bibi Bar Abaye): The case is, it was [Chametz on] Erev Pesach - there is limited time to eat it.
Rejection #2: Eating Terumah is called Avodah - b'Di'eved, Avodah of a Chalal is Kosher:
(Mishnah): If a Kohen was offering Korbanos, and it became known that he was a Chalal, what he offered is Pasul;
R. Yehoshua is Machshir.
Question: What is R. Yehoshua's source?
Answer: "Barech Hash-m Cheilo u'Fo'al Yadav Tirtzeh" (even the Avodah of Chalalim is acceptable. The Gemara did not find a solid source for R. Yochanan.)
Question: What is the source that eating Terumah is called Avodah?
Answer (Beraisa): Once, R. Gamliel asked R. Tarfon why he wasn't in the Beis Medrash the previous night.
R. Tarfon: I was doing Avodah.
Question (R. Gamliel): What Avodah is there after the Churban?!
Answer (R. Tarfon): "Avodas Matanah (gifts to a Kohen) Eten Es Kehunaschem veha'Zar ha'Karev Yumas" - eating Terumah outside the Mikdash is like Avodah in the Mikdash (if a Chalal ate, he was not Mechalel it).