Question: We have an indication (from his teaching regarding a Korban Pesach during the year) that R. Chisda does not employ the perspective of Ho'il, contrary to what we learned regarding Shechutei Chutz!?

Answer: R. Chisda taught that a Korban Pesach during the year does not incur the Chiyuv of Shechutei Chutz if the Shechitah is le'Shem Pesach (since it could not be brought then).

If the Korban Pesach was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo (i.e. as a Shelamim), he would incur the Chiyuv (since it could be brought as a Shelamim).

We may infer that if he slaughtered the Korban Pesach with no special intention that he would be Patur.

Question: Why is that so; Ho'il should give it a status of Shechutei Chutz since it could have been brought she'Lo li'Sh'mo as a Shelamim!?

Answer: There is no comparison, since the Korban Pesach needs to be removed from its Lishmo state (Akirah) whereas the Sa'ir of Yom Kipur needs no Akirah to be used as a Sa'ir for Musafin.

Rabah b. Simi taught that the contradiction above was not in R. Chisda but in Rabah (the answer remains the same).

R. Dimi cites R. Yirmiyah as saying that he is Patur even if he does the Shechitah she'Lo li'Sh'mo.

When asked for a rationale, R. Yirmiyah explained that Akirah only works in the Azarah (such that this Korban remains a Pesach she'Lo bi'Z'mano and is hence Patur from Shechutei Chutz).

Ravin cites R. Yochanan as teaching that in all instances he is Chayav.

Question: Could this mean that he is Chayav even if the Shechitah is li'Shmo!?

But we learned that a Korban she'Lo bi'Z'mano is Patur.

The Mishnah lists those Korbanos which are Mechusar Z'man and Patur (whose owners are not yet ready to bring such a Korban) and which cannot convert into Nedavos.

Those Korbanos which can convert to Nedavos are Chayav if, qualifies R. Chilkiyah b. Tuvi, the Shechitah was li'Shmo, but Shelo Lishmo is Patur.

Question: But li'Sh'mo by Ashamos should be Chayav on account of Ho'il!, as by the Korban Pesach?

Answer: An Asham requires Akirah while a Pesach does not require Akirah as it automatically converts to a Shelamim.

R. Ashi cites Ravin/R. Yochanan as saying Chayav (like our text) while;

R. Yosef mi'Difti cites them as saying Patur, as he holds that a Pesach does require an Akirah to become a Shelamim, and he is Patur because Akirah outside of the Azarah is not an Akirah (and he argues with R. Chilkiyah b. Tuvi who holds that Akiras Chutz is an Akirah (as in d.3. above).

As taught above, after the Hagralah he is only Chayav on the Sa'ir la'Shem.

The Beraisa cites the Pasuk dealing with Shechutei Chutz and (says that the word "Korban" teaches that the Isur is only Kodshim ba'Chutz, not Chulin bi'Fenim and then) asks:

Question: Perhaps the word "Korban" comes to add Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis to those Kodshim for which one would be Chayav for Shechutei Chutz?

Answer: The words "ve'El Pesach Ohel Moed... " restrict the Isur to those Korbanos which could be brought there, and that which could not be brought to the Pesach Ohel Mo'ed is Patur.

Question: But we should then not exclude the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach which is brought to the Ohel Moed for Hagralah, and one should be Chayav for it!?

Answer: "la'Hashem" restricts the Isur to Korbanos whose Avodah is only la'Shem (and not the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach).

Question: But we find that "la'Hashem" is used to include the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach!?

Answer (Rava): Each instance of "la'Hashem" must be understood in its context.

Where "El Pesach" (by Shechutei Chutz) includes; "la'Hashem" excludes;

Where "Isheh" (by Mechusar Z'man) excludes; "la'Hashem" includes.

Question: Are we to infer that a Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach would be Kadosh even as Mechusar Z'man, had the Pasuk not taught otherwise?

But that would mean that one of the animals in the Goral was not be fit to be brought la'Shem.

We know that both must be fit la'Shem!?

Answer (R. Yosef): The Beraisa which employs "la'Hashem" to include the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach in Mechusar Z'man is Chanan ha'Mitzri (who holds that a replacement Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach is brought without Hagralah).

Question: While it is true that Chanan ha'Mitzri allows the use of Dam which was Dechuyah (temporarily unusable), but who says that he allows the Sa'ir to come into service without Hagralah!?

Answer: Rather, the Beraisa is R. Shimon who teaches that the replacement can be brought without Hagralah.

Alternate Answer (Ravina): The Beraisa speaks of a case where the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach contracted a Mum after the Hagralah and its substitute does not then require Hagralah.

Question: Whence that a Mum invalidates the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach?

Answer: The Beraisa analyzes the words in the Pasuk dealing with Mumin and finds two words combining to teach that both Mechusar Z'man and Ba'al Mum will invalidate the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.