(a)Why must the She'eilah (whether the dual Machshavah took place in one Avodah or in two) be confined to a case of 'Lishmo v'she'Lo Lishmo', and not to the reverse case?
(a)The She'eilah (whether the dual Machshavah took place in one Avodah or in two) is confined to a case of 'Lishmo v'she'Lo Lishmo', and not to the reverse case - because if he first thought she'Lo Lishmo, then the Pesach would be Pasul in all cases, since even Rebbi Yosi, who says that 'Af bi'Gemar Devarav Adam Nitfas, agrees that we take into account his opening words, too.
(a)What is the problem with the Reisha of our Mishnah 'ha'Pesach she'Shechato she'Lo Lishmo, v'Kibel Damo, v'Halach, v'Zarak Lishmo v'she'Lo Lishmo ... Pasul', if we leave it as it is?
(b)And do how do we resolve the problem?
(c)How do we now initially learn the Seifa 'I Nami Lishmo v'she'Lo Lishmo', and how do we now resolve our original She'eilah?
(d)The Gemara rejects this proof on the grounds that both the Reisha and the Seifa can speak by two Avodos and go like Rebbi Meir. How is this possible? What do we learn from there?
(a)The problem with the Reisha of our Mishnah 'ha'Pesach she'Shechato she'Lo Lishmo, v'Kibel, v'Halach, v'Zarak Lishmo v'she'Lo Lishmo ... Pasul' is - that the moment he Shechted the Pesach she'Lo Lishmo, it already becomes Pasuk. Consequently, why does the Tana need to add the remaining cases?
(b)We therefore establish the Beraisa to mean the following: 'ha'Pesach she'Shechato she'Lo Lishmo, I Nami Shechato,ve'Kibel Damo, v'Halach Lishmo v'Zarak she'Lo Lishmo ... Pasul' (which is a case of two Avodos).
(c)Consequently, the Gemara continues, 'I Nami, Lishmo v'she'Lo Lishmo' in the Seifa can only be referring to one Avodah (otherwise ti will be exactly the same as the Reisha) - thereby proving that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yosi.
(d)The Gemara then goes on to establish both the Reisha and the Seifa by two Avodos even according to Rebbi Meir; the Reisha speaks when he Shechts Lishmo for example and sprinkles she'Lo Lishmo, whereas the Seifa speaks when he Shechts Lishmo, having in mind to sprinkle she'Lo Lishmo. And we learn from here that 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah' (which Rav Papa teaches us in Zevachim).
(a)The Gemara then attempts to prove that the Mishnah must be speaking by one Avodah, from the next section of Mishnah 'O she'Lo Lishmo v'Lishmo'? What is the proof from there?
(b)If both cases are speaking by one Avodah, what will be the Chidush by she'Lo Lishmo v'Lishmo?
(c)This too, the Gemara rejects. Perhaps the entire Mishnah is speaking by two Avodos. Then why is it necessary to mention the case of 'she'Lo Lishmo v'Lishmo' at all?
(a)The Gemara then attempts to prove that the Mishnah must be speaking by one Avodah, from the next section of Mishnah 'O she'Lo Lishmo v'Lishmo' - because, if it were speaking by two Avodos, having already taught us that by Lishmo v'she'Lo Lishmo, what is the Chidush by she'Lo Lishmo v'Lishmo'? Is that not obvious? Consequently, the Mishnah must be speaking by one Avodah, and since the Seifa is speaking by one Avodah, so too is the Reisha, from which we see that the author is Rebbi Yosi.
(b)The Chidush of she'Lo Lishmo v'Lishmo in the Seifa - is that the author is Rebbi Yosi, who says 'Af bi'Gemar Devarav Adam Nitfas'. Otherwise, we might have thought that this Tana holds 'bi'Gemar Devarav Adam Nitfas' (and not bi'Techilas Devarav - since he retracted from his opening words).
(c)Perhaps the entire Mishnah is speaking by two Avodos, counters the Gemara, and even though the case of 'she'Lo Lishmo v'Lishmo' appears superfluous - it mentions it since it mentioned the case of Lishmo v'she'Lo Lishmo (as the Tana sometimes tends to do).
(a)The Mishnah later (on 61a) says 'Shechato she'Lo l'Ochlav, v'she'Lo li'Menuyav, la'Arelim v'li'Teme'im, Pasul'. What is the case of 'she'Lo l'Ochlav', and what is the source for the Pesul?
(b)What does she'Lo li'Menuyav mean?
(c)The Gemara initially thinks that since that Mishnah is speaking by one Avodah, so must ours. How does the Gemara refute this suggestion?
(a)she'Lo l'Ochlav - refers to someone who is too sick or too old to eat roasted meat, and (provided one has only such people in mind) the Korban is Pasul - because the Torah writes (in Bo) "Ish Le'fi Ochlo".
(b)she'Lo l'Ochlav - refers to a group of people who were not designated to eat this Korban Pesach before it was Shechted.
(c)The Gemara refutes the suggestion that since that Mishnah is speaking by one Avodah, so must ours - on the grounds that 'Midi Ayrei; Ha k'de'Isa, v'Ha k'de'Isa'. That Mishnah is speaking by one Avodah, perhaps ours is speaking by two.
(a)The second Mishnah continues, 'l'Ochlav veshe'Lo l'Ochlav Kasher'. The Gemara, following exactly the same pattern as in the previous questions, proves that it must be referring to the case of one Avodah, then suggests that our Mishnah must be referring to the case of one Avodah, too. It concludes as it concluded there. If the Mishnah there would be referring to the case of two Avodos (i.e. Shechitah and Zerikah), why would the Pesach be Kasher?
(b)Why is this explanation unacceptable?
(a)l'Ochlav v'she'Lo l'Ochlav would be Kasher by two Avodos (Shechitah and Zerikah) - because a Machshavah of she'Lo l'Ochlav only invalidates by the Shechitah, not by the Zerikah.
(b)If l'Ochlav v'she'Lo l'Ochlav was Kasher because it was speaking by two Avodos, then we could deduce that, by one Avodah, it would be Pasul. This explanation however, is unacceptable - because of the ruling that 'Miktzas Ochlin Lo Pasla' (only if one Shechts entirely for a group of people who cannot eat the Korban Pesach).
(a)Is a Korban Pesach Kasher if it is Shechted before Pesach ...
1. ... as a Shelamim?
2. ... as a Pesach?
(b)What She'eilah does the Gemara ask regarding a Pesach that was Shechted before Pesach - 'Lishmo v'she'Lo Lishmo'? What does 'she'Lo Lishmo' mean?
(c)How did Rav Dimi attempt to resolve the She'eilah by means of a Binyan Av from 'Lishmo ha'Machshiro bi'Zemano'?
(d)How did Rebbi Yirmeyahu refute Rav Dimi's Binyan Av by differentiating between the she'Lo Lishmo (which preceded the Lishemah - by bi'Zemano) and the Lishmah (which preceded the she'Lo Lishemah - by she'Lo bi'Zemano)?
(a)A Korban Pesach that is Shechted before Pesach ...
1. ... as a Shelamim - is a Kasher Shelamim
2. ... as a Pesach - is Pasul, since it is premature.
(b)The Gemara asks what the Din will be if a Korban Pesach is Shechted before Pesach with a dual Machshavah of Lishmo (as a Pesach - which renders it Pasul) and she'Lo Lishmo (as a Shelamim - which normally renders it Kasher) - whether the she'Lo Lishemah will negate the Pesul of the Lishemah, and render the Korban Kasher or not.
(c)Rebbi Dimi tried to resolve the She'eilah by means of a Binyan Av from 'Lishmo ha'Machshiro bi'Zemano', yet it does not negate the she'Lo Lishemah that preceded it, so too, she'Lo Lishmo ha'Machshiro she'Lo bi'Zemano will not negate the Lishemah that preceded it.
(d)The reason that 'Lishmo ha'Machshiro bi'Zemano' does not negate the she'Lo Lishemah that preceded it, Rebbi Yirmeyahu explain, is because the Pesul of she'Lo Lishmo applies to all Korbanos, whereas that of Lishmo is confined to Pesach, and will therefore perhaps be negated by the Lishmo which follows it.
(a)How does Rava prove that Lishmo v'she'Lo Lishmo is Kasher from the fact that 'Stamo Lishmo Kai' ... ?
(b)Rav Ada Bar Ahavah tries to refute Rava's proof because 'Sha'ni Heicha d'Amar me'Heicha d'Lo Amar'. How does he prove his point from 'le'Ochlav v'she'Lo l'Ochlav'?
(c)And how does Rava differentiate between the Stam of Lishmo and that of l'Ochlav?
(a)Rava proves that Lishmo v'she'Lo Lishmo is Kasher from the fact that a Korban Pesach before Pesach is 'Setamo Lishmo Ka'i' (i.e. it is anyway designated to be brought Lishmo on Pesach), and yet a specific thought of she'Lo Lishmo takes it out of the realm of Lishmo and renders it Kasher. So why should it be any different if he first specifically Shechted it Lishmo.
(b)Rav Ada Bar Ahavah tries to refute Rava's proof because 'Sha'ni Heicha d'Amar me'Heicha d'Lo Amar' - and he proves this from the fact that (a specific Machshavah of) l'Ochlav and she'lo l'Ochlav is Kasher, in spite of the fact that, had he not specifically said l'Ochlav, a thought of she'Lo l'Ochlav would negate the Stam (she'l'Ochlav Ka'i).
(c)The Stam of l'Ochlav (bi'Zemano - which depends on the owners, who can withdraw any time before the Shechitah) is not as strong as that of Lishmo (she'Lo bi'Zemano - which automatically stands to be brought as a Pesach); that is why l'Ochlav Stam is not as good as saying it specifically, whereas Lishmo is.
(a)What She'eilah does the Gemara ask with regard to Shinuy Ba'alim?
(b)How did Rav Papa attempt to prove that it is indeed Kasher?
(c)On what grounds does Rava refute Rav Papa's proof?
(a)The Gemara asks whether Shinuy Ba'alim (Shechting for the wrong owners) will render the Pesach Kasher she'Lo bi'Zemano, just like Shinuy Kodesh does (as we have just seen).
(b)Rav Papa maintained that Shinuy Ba'alim (which invalidates bi'Zemano), should render Kasher she'Lo bi'Zemano, just as Shinuy Kodesh (which also invalidates bi'Zemano) does.
(c)Rava refutes Rav Papa's proof on the grounds that Shinuy Kodesh has the power to validate the Pesach she'Lo bi'Zemano because it has four Chumros over Shinuy Ba'alim (which we will now discuss), and that we cannot therefore learn Shinuy Ba'alim from it.
(a)Shinuy Kodesh has four Chumros over Shinuy Ba'alim:
1. Pesulo b'Gufo;
2. Yeshno b'Arba Avodos;
3. Yeshno b'le'Achar Misah. What does each of these mean?
(b)What is the fourth Chumrah?
(a)The four Chumros of Shinuy Kodesh are ...
1. ... Pesulo b'Gufo - meaning that it is an intrinsic Pesul (on the actual Korban), unlike Pesul Ba'alim, which is an external Pesul;
2. ... Yeshno b'Arba Avodos - meaning that it pertains to all four Avodos, unlike Shinuy Ba'alim, which, by Korbanos other than the Korban Pesach, is confined to the sprinkling.
3. ... Yeshno b'le'Achar Misah - meaning that it applies after death, which Shinuy Ba'alim does not.
(b)The fourth Chumra is 'Yeshno b'Tzibur k'va'Yachid', which does not apply to Shinuy Ba'alim, because the Tzibur (Kelal Yisrael) does not die.