Reish Lakish asked the following question while lying on his stomach in the Beis Medrash:

Question (Reish Lakish): Either way you say, this is difficult!

If a Korban offered Lo Lishmah is Kosher, it should atone (the owner should be Yotzei);

If it does not atone, the Korban should be Pasul!

Answer #1 (R. Elazar): Korbanos are brought after the owner died, and they are Kosher, even though they do not atone!

(Mishnah): If a woman (who gave birth) brought her Chatas and died (before bringing her Olah), her heirs bring her Olah;

If she brought her Olah and died, her heirs do not bring her Chatas.

Rejection (Reish Lakish): I agree regarding an Olah, since it is brought after death;

An Asham is not brought after death. Since it does not atone (Lo Lishmah), it should be Pasul!

R. Elazar: Indeed, R. Eliezer in our Mishnah holds like you. He disqualifies an Asham Lo Lishmah!

Reish Lakish: I ask why Chachamim say that it is Kosher. Do not answer me from R. Eliezer!

Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): "Motza Sefasecha... Nadarta... Nedavah";

Question: Why does the Torah call a Neder 'Nedavah'?

Answer: As was explained earlier (If you did like you vowed, it is a Neder. If not, it is a Nedavah - it is Kosher, but you did not fulfill your vow).

Question (R. Zeira and R. Yitzchak bar Aba): Reish Lakish was bothered, because an Asham is not brought after death. He learned from "Motza Sefasecha..." that (Lo Lishmah) it is Kosher, but it does not atone;

He should learn from the verse only Korbanos due to vows (which the verse discusses). Asham (Lo Lishmah) should be totally Pasul!

Answer (Abaye): Really, Reish Lakish learned that it is Kosher from "v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" - only a Chatas is Pasul if slaughtered Lo Lishmah, but other Korbanos are Kosher;

One might have thought that the Asham atones. He learned from "Motza Sefasecha..." that it does not.

Question: "Motza Sefasecha" discusses Korbanos brought for vows. It should only teach that such Korbanos (Lo Lishmah) are Kosher but do not atone, but an Asham is Kosher and atones!

Answer #1 (Abaye): A Kal va'Chomer teaches that Asham does not atone:

An Olah (even Lishmah) is not brought for Kaparah (atonement. It is merely a gift.) Even so, if it was offered Lo Lishmah one was not Yotzei;

An Asham (Lishmah) atones for a transgression. All the more so (if it was Lo Lishmah) one was not Yotzei!

Question: We cannot learn from Olah, because it is totally burned.

Answer: We learn from Shelamim. It is not brought for Kaparah, and if it was offered Lo Lishmah one was not Yotzei.

Question: We cannot learn from Shelamim, because it requires Nesachim, and Tenufah of the chest and foreleg.

Answer: We learn from Olah that these are not essential criteria;

Conclusion: Each has its own stringencies. The Tzad ha'Shavah (common side) of them is that they are Kodshim, and if offered Lo Lishmah they are Kosher, and one was not Yotzei. We learn the same about Asham.

Objection: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, because Olah and Shelamim are both brought for Korbanos Tzibur, but Asham is not!

Answer: We learn from Todah that this is not an essential criterion;

Question: We cannot learn from Todah, because bread must be brought with it!

Answer: We learn from Olah and Shelamim that this is not an essential criteria;

We learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of all three. They are Kodshim, and if offered Lo Lishmah they are Kosher, but one was not Yotzei. We learn the same about Asham.

Objection: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, because all of them are brought for vows, but Asham is not!

Answer #2 (Rava): "Zos ha'Torah... vela'Asham... ul'Zevach ha'Shelamim" equates Asham to Shelamim. If it was offered Lo Lishmah it is Kosher, but one was not Yotzei.

Question: Why equate it to Shelamim? Perhaps we equate it to Chatas (which is also in the verse) to teach that if it was offered Lo Lishmah it is Pasul!

Answer: "V'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" - only a Chatas is Pasul if slaughtered Lo Lishmah. Other Korbanos are Kosher.

Question (Rav Huna and Rav Nachman): Reish Lakish asked about Asham because it is not brought after the owner died. R. Elazar should have said that it is!

Version #1 (our text) Objection (Rav Sheshes): You refer to Mosar Asham (if the owner died, it grazes until it becomes blemished. We redeem it, and use the money to buy Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach (Olah offerings of the Tzibur to bring when the Mizbeach is idle);

There is also a case of Mosar Chatas. (If two animals were separated for Acharayus (in case one will become Pasul, the other will be the Chatas).) If the first animal was offered properly, the other can be offered after death! (Just like Chatas (Lo Lishmah) is Pasul, even though it is sometimes brought after the owner died, also Asham!)

Answer: "(Chatas) Hu" - a Chatas Lo Lishmah is Pasul, even though Chatas is sometimes brought after the owner died. (There is no such verse regarding Asham.)

Question: Also regarding Asham it says "(Asham) Hu"!

Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer (Rav Sheshes): You refer to Mosar Asham;

There is also a case of Mosar Chatas. If the first animal was offered properly, the other can be offered after death;

"(Chatas) Hu" - only Chatas Lo Lishmah is Pasul, and even though Chatas is sometimes brought after death.

Question: Regarding Asham it says "(Asham) Hu." What does this teach (if not that Asham Lo Lishmah is Pasul)? (end of Version #2)

Answer: That applies to after burning the Eimurim (Chelev, i.e. intestinal fats) on the Mizbeach;

Proof (Beraisa): A Korban is not Pasul if the Eimurim are burned Lo Lishmah. Even if they are not burned at all, the Korban is Kosher!

Question: (Granted, "Hu" does not teach that Asham Lo Lishmah is Pasul.) What does "Hu" teach?

Answer: It teaches Rav Huna's law.

(Rav Huna): If an Asham (which cannot be offered, e.g. the owner offered a different animal for his Asham) was Nitak (given to a shepherd) to graze (until it becomes blemished, and to buy Olos Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach with its redemption money) and slaughtered Stam (without special intent), it is (an Olah, it is) Kosher.

Inference: Before Nituk, it may not be slaughtered! (R. Tam deletes this from the text.)

Question: What is the reason?

Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: "Hu" - it is in its original status (an Asham (until Nituk). An Asham that is not needed is Pasul.)

Version #2 (Tosfos): Answer: "Hu" - (mid'Oraisa) it is in its original status (Asham, until the owner offers a different Asham in its stead. Chachamim enacted not to slaughter it before Nituk, lest one slaughter it before a different Asham was offered).

Version #3 (R. Tam): Answer: "Hu" - it is (immediately) in its (ultimate) status (an Olah, mid'Oraisa. Mid'Rabanan, we do not offer it itself, rather it grazes...)

Question (Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshes): R. Elazar said that Korbanos brought after death do not atone. Reish Lakish should have said that they do atone!

Answer (Rav Ada bar Masnah): They do not atone. If a woman gave birth and died before bringing her Olah, the heirs bring it. It does not fulfill an obligation of theirs!

Question (Rav Asi): Perhaps her Olah (even though it was brought for a birth) atones for Bitul (failure to fulfill a Mitzvas) Aseh. Just like it would have atoned for her, it atones for her heirs when they bring it!

Inference: The heirs acquire the Korban regarding Kaparah.

Question: R. Yochanan taught that if two brothers inherited a Minchah, they offer it, and it is not considered a Minchah of partners;

If heirs acquire a Korban regarding Kaparah, they are partners in it. It says "Nefesh" (one must bring a Minchah by himself)!

Counter-question: Can we say that heirs do not acquire a Korban regarding Kaparah?!

R. Yochanan taught that if two brothers inherited an animal Korban, they offer it. Neither can make Temurah. (If he tries to transfer the Kedushah to a Chulin animal, it remains Chulin.)

We understand this if heirs acquire the Korban regarding Kaparah. It is like a jointly owned Korban, therefore they cannot make Temurah;

If they do not acquire it, Temurah should apply to it!

Answer: "V'Im Hamer Yamir" - the double expression teaches that an heir can make Temurah. The singular conjugation teaches that two heirs cannot.