(Mishnah): A Pesach offering is invalid if his intent was Lo Lishmah (wrongly intending it to be a Shelamim offering) whilst performing any of these key stages of the sacrifice -

Slaughtering (Shechitah)

Receiving the blood (Kabalah)

Taking the blood to the altar (Holachah)

Throwing the blood on the altar (Zerikah)

Question (Gemara): What it is the source of the requirement that it be slaughtered Lishmah (intending it to be the Pesach offering)?

Answer (R' Ba quoting Rav): The pasuk states (Shemos 12, 27), "And you shall say that it is a Pesach offering'' - this teaches that if one slaughtered it as the Pesach offering, it is a Pesach; if not, it is not a Pesach.

Question: What it is the source of the requirement that the other stages of the sacrifice be performed Lishmah?

Answer: The pasuk states (Devarim 16, 1), "And you shall make the Pesach offering'' - that all of its stages be performed Lishmah.

Question: Surely this should even include the burning of its limbs?

Answer: The pasuk states (Shemos ibid), "...a sacrifice'' - Sacrificing is crucial to the atonement; this excludes burning the limbs that are not crucial to the atonement.

Question: What it is the source of the requirement that the sin offering (Chatas) be performed Lishmah?

Answer: The pasuk states (Vayikra 4, 33), "...and you shall slaughter it as a Chatas''.

Question: What it is the source of the requirement that the other stages of the sacrifice be performed Lishmah?

Answer: The pasuk states (Vayikra 15, 30), "And the Kohen shall make one of them a sin offering''.

Question: Perhaps burning the limbs should also be included?

Answer: The pasuk states (Vayikra 4,33), "...and he shall slaughter it'' - The slaughtering is crucial to receive atonement; this excludes burning the limbs that are not crucial to receive atonement.

Question: What it is the source of the requirement that the Chatas be performed for the sake of the owner?

Answer (R' Yirmiyah): The pasuk states (Vayikra 15,30), "And the Kohen shall perform the Chatas and the owner shall be purified from his Tum'ah.''

Question (R' Yosi to R' Yirmiyah): Perhaps burning the limbs should also be included?

Answer: The pasuk states (Vayikra 14,19), "...and he shall atone'' - Throwing the blood is crucial to receive atonement; this excludes burning the limbs that are not crucial to receive atonement.

Question: What it is the source of the requirement that the Pesach be performed for the sake of the owner?

Answer: It is a Kal Vechomer - If a Chatas, that intent that it be eaten by Arelim (the uncircumcised) and Tameyim (the impure) does not invalidate it, but nevertheless it must be performed for the sake of the owner; the Korban Pesach, that intent that it be eaten by Arelim and Tameyim invalidates it, certainly it must be performed for the sake of the owner!

Rejection: Chatas is different as it is Kodesh Kodshim, whereas Pesach is Kodoshim Kalim!

Reinstatement (R' Yosa): The comparison between these Korbanos was only for the law of intention where Pesach is in fact more stringent than Chatas (as stated in (b)).

Question (R' Chananya to R' Mana): Are we learning from the Chatas brought by a Metzora? Was it not singled out by the Torah in order to teach that it requires Nesachim (libations) for the sake of the owner; and we cannot learn from something that was singled out to teach a specific law?!

Answer (R' Mana): From where do we learn that the Chatas of a Metzora is invalid if brought Lo Lishmah? Is it not learned from the pasuk that states (Vayikra 4, 33), "...and you shall slaughter it as a Chatas''; and another pasuk states (Vayikra 6, 18), "This is the law of the Chatas'' - there is one law for all Chatas offerings. If so, the source of the law pertaining to not having brought it Lishmah is also the source for the law pertaining to having intended it for the wrong owner (see Pnei Moshe).

If he slaughtered it Lishmah with intent to throw its blood Lo Lishmah -

R' Yochanan - Wrong intent from one stage of a sacrifice to another can invalidate.

R''SBL - Wrong intent from one stage of a sacrifice to another cannot invalidate.

(R' Ila): R' Yochanan learned this law from the case of having an intent of Pigul - if he slaughtered it with intent to throw the blood the following day, would it not be Pigul? (Note: This explanation follows the text of the Korban HaEidah.)

Rejection (R' Yosi): In two ways these cases are incomparable.

If he slaughtered it Lishmah intending to receive its blood Lo Lishmah would it not be valid? But if he slaughtered it Lo Lishmah intending to receive it Lishmah it is valid.

If he slaughtered it Lo Lishmah intending to burn its limbs Lishmah, is it not Pigul? But if he slaughtered it Lishmah intending to burn its limbs Lo Lishmah it is valid.

(R' Yosa): I saw R' Yirmiyah grab R' Ba and ask him the reason that R' Yochanan held his opinion (earlier in 4(a)1.). R' Ba responded that it is as if at the time of slaughtering he had intent of both Lishmah and Lo Lishmah. In such a case, all agree that it is invalid.

Response: If so, even if he slaughtered it for (those other than) the intended consumer ([Lo] L'Ochlav) and in order to throw its blood for someone other than the intended consumer (Lo L'Ochlav), it should be viewed as if it was originally slaughtered with both intents and it is valid. (Note: The parentheses follow the text of the Korban HaEidah.)

Rejection: This cannot be said, as R' Ila quoted R' Yochanan saying that if he slaughtered it L'Ochlav in order to throw its blood Lo L'Ochlav it is invalid. (Note: This also follows the text of the Korban HaEidah.)

Answer: However, R' Yaakov bar Acha quoted R' Yochanan saying that if he slaughtered it L'Ochlav in order to throw its blood Lo L'Ochlav it is valid.

Reasoning of R' Yochanan #1 (R' Yosa): Why if he slaughtered it Lishmah in order to throw its blood Lo Lishmah is it invalid? It is as if he originally slaughtered it with both intents, which is invalid. Why if he slaughtered it L'Ochlav and in order to throw its blood Lo L'Ochlav is it valid? It is as if he originally slaughtered it with both intents and it is valid.

Reasoning of R' Yochanan #2 (Chananya quoting R' Yudan): Whenever having the wrong intent at a certain stage of the sacrifice invalidates it, it can invalidate a different stage as well. If he slaughtered it Lishmah in order to throw its blood Lo Lishmah is it not invalid (like Pigul)? If he slaughtered it Lishmah in order to throw its blood Lo Lishmah, it is [like] Pigul. If he slaughtered it in order to receive its blood Lo Lishmah, is it not valid?

Question: Does his intent at the time of receiving the blood to complete it Lo Lishmah invalidate? If he would have come to that stage of the service (receiving) and intented it Lo Lishmah, it would not have invalidated it; therefore to have intended the receiving to be Lo Lishmah whilst slaughtering should also not invalidate it.

Question: If he slaughtered it Lishmah, in order to burn the limbs Lo Lishmah, is it not [like] Pigul? However, if at the time of burning he intended it for past the time, it is not Pigul, so too if he intended it during the slaughtering it should not invalidate it.

Response: You cannot ask from the case of Pigul to the case of being invalid, as R' Yosa said that for two reasons these cases are not comparable.