Suggestion: Perhaps if it was slaughtered l'Shem any Korban, it becomes that Korban!

Answer #1 (R. Avin): When a Korban that is eaten (e.g. Pesach) is Nidcheh (gets the law of a different Korban), it is Nidcheh to a Korban that is eaten.

Objection: Also Chatas and Asham are eaten!

Correction: Rather, a Korban that anyone can eat is Nidcheh to a Korban that anyone can eat, but not to Korbanos that only Kohanim may eat.

Answer #2 (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Avin): Kodshim Kalim are Nidchim to Kodshim Kalim, not to Kodshei Kodoshim.

Question (R. Yitzchak b'Rebbi Savrin): (According to both answers), if it was slaughtered l'Shem Ma'aser, it should become Ma'aser!

Question: What laws would result from this?

Answer: It would not require Nesachim, and one who sells it would be lashed for "Lo Yiga'el".

Answer: "Ha'Asiri Yihyeh Kodesh" - the only way an animal can become Ma'aser is if it is the tenth (to leave the pen).

Question: (According to Answer #2), if it was slaughtered l'Shem Bechor, it should become Bechor!!

Question: What laws would result from this?

Answer: It would not require Nesachim, and one would have to give it to a Kohen.

Answer: We learn a Gezerah Shavah "Evrah-Evrah" from Ma'aser (just like it cannot become Ma'aser (even if slaughtered l'Shem Ma'aser, so to it cannot become a Bechor).

Question: If it was slaughtered l'Shem Temurah (to be in place of another animal (Korban)), it should become a Temurah!

Question: What laws would result from this?

Answer: One would be lashed for doing this (and it would be forbidden to sell or redeem it - Shitah Mekubetzes deletes this from the text).

Answer (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Nachman): "V'Hayah Hu u'Smuraso" - Temurah takes effect only when a Chulin animal is designated to be in place of a Korban.

Question: If it was slaughtered l'Shem Todah, it should become a Todah!

Question: What law would result from this?

Answer: One would have to bring bread with it.

Answer: A Pesach itself does not require bread, so all the more so a Mosar Pesach does not!

Objection: A Pesach itself does not require Nesachim, but (you yourself say that) a Mosar Pesach is a Shelamim and requires Nesachim!

Correction: Rather, even a Mosar Todah does not require bread, so all the more so a Mosar of another Korban (e.g. Pesach) does not!

Question (Rav Yemar brei d'Rav Hillel): How do we know that "v'Im Min ha'Tzon Korbano" discusses a Mosar Pesach? Perhaps it discusses a Mosar Asham!

Answer (Rava): "V'Im Min ha'Tzon" connotes a Korban that comes from all Tzon, i.e. sheep and goats (but an Asham is always a sheep).

Question (R. Avin bar Chiya): 'Min (from)' always excludes. How can Rava expound it to include (that the Korban must apply to all Tzon)?

Answer (R. Mani): Also here, it excludes females and animals above one year old.

Question (Rav Chana Bagdata'ah): You cannot say that the verse discusses Mosar Pesach!

It says "Im Kesev", and later "v'Im Ez." We already know that Pesach (and hence Mosar Pesach) comes from sheep and goats!

Answer: That teaches like the following.

(Beraisa): "Kesev" includes the tail of a lamb that is a Pesach. (It is included with the Eimurim, i.e. it is burned on the Mizbeach).

"Im Kesev" includes a Pesach above one year and a Shelamim that comes with Pesach (Rashi, it is brought on Erev Pesach, for satiation before eating the Pesach; Tosfos - that results from a Pesach, e.g. Mosar Pesach within its first year);

These are like Shelamim in all respects, i.e. the owner does Semichah, brings Nesachim with them, and waves the chest and foreleg.

"V'Im Ez" separates, to teach that the tail of a goat is not part of the Eimurim.

Question: We learn this from different verses!

(Shmuel's father): "V'Im Min ha'Tzon Korbano l'Zevach Shelamim" teaches that a Korban brought from Tzon (i.e. a Pesach) is a Shelamim!

We learn this from Rav Nachman!

(Rav Nachman): Mosar Pesach is offered like a Shelamim - "v'Zavachta Pesach... Tzon u'Vakar";

Question: Korban Pesach cannot be Bakar. It is only from Tzon!

Answer: Rather, it teaches that Mosar Pesach becomes a Korban that can be (any, i.e. male or female) cattle or flock, i.e. Shelamim.

Answer: The three verses teach about three kinds of Mosar Pesach (all become Shelamim):

It is after its first year, and after Pesach passed (the same applies before Pesach);

It is within its first year, and after Pesach passed;

It is within its first year, before Pesach came. (E.g. a Pesach was lost, a second animal was Hukdash for Pesach, and the first Pesach was found. One is used for Pesach, and the other can be slaughtered like Shelamim even before the time to slaughter the Pesach.)

The Torah must teach all three cases.

Had it taught only the first, one might have thought that only then it is a Shelamim, for it cannot be used for Pesach at all; but not within its first year after Pesach, for it is still usable for Pesach Sheni;

Had it taught only the first two cases, one might have thought that only then it is Shelamim, because it is unusable for Pesach Rishon; but not within its first year before Pesach, for then it is still usable for Pesach Rishon.

Version #1 (Rav): If a Chatas was slaughtered l'Shem the Chatas of Nachshon (in the inauguration of the Mishkan), it is Kosher - "Zos Toras ha'Chatas" - all Chata'os are considered the same.

Objection (Rav Mesharshiya - Beraisa - R. Shimon): If any Minchah was Nikmetzes (a handful was taken to be burned on the Mizbeach) l'Shem a different Minchah, it is Kosher, and the owner was Yotzei;

This is because Menachos are unlike Zevachim

A Minchah made in a Machavas (a shallow pan) is recognizably different (it is drier) than one made in a Marcheshes (a deep pan). A Chareivah (a Minchah without oil) is clearly different than one that is Belulah (kneaded with oil, therefore, intent for a different Minchah is nonsense, so it has no effect);

Shechitah, Kabalah and Zerikah are the same for all Zevachim. (Therefore, l'Shem a different Zevach is Shinuy Kodesh.)

Inference: If Menachos were not recognizably different from each other, R. Shimon would agree (with Chachamim) that l'Shem a different Minchah disqualifies. They do not expound "Zos Toras ha'Minchah" to equate all Menachos!

Version #2 (Rav): If a Chatas was slaughtered to atone for Nachshon, it is Kosher, because the dead do not need Kaparah.

Question: Why did he specify Nachshon (among all dead people)?

Answer: He teaches (by implication) that it would be Pasul if it were slaughtered for a living person similar to Nachshon, i.e. the Chatas he brings is not due to a transgression, e.g. a Nazir or Metzora.

Objection: Those Chata'os do not atone (rather, they permit him to eat Kodshim). They are like Olos! (If a Chatas was slaughtered to atone for someone who must bring an Olah, it is Kosher.)

Version #3 (Rav): If a Chatas was slaughtered to atone for someone liable to bring a Chatas like Nachshon, it is Kosher, because that is like an Olah.

Version #4 (Rav): If a Chatas was slaughtered l'Shem the Chatas of Nachshon, it is Pasul, because that is like an Olah.

Question: Why didn't Rav discuss Shechitah l'Shem Chatas Nazir or Metzora?

Answer: He gave the first example of an individual's Chatas (that did not atone).

(Rav): If a Chatas separated for eating Chelev was slaughtered to atone for eating blood or serving idolatry, it is Kosher;

If it was slaughtered l'Shem Chatas Nazir or Metzora, it is Pasul, for these are like Olos.

Question (Rava): If a Chatas separated for eating Chelev was slaughtered to atone for entering the Mikdash b'Tum'ah or eating Kodshim b'Tum'ah, what is the law?

Since there is Kares for Tum'as Mikdash (just like for eating Chelev), it is Kosher?

Or, since a poor person can bring birds for Tum'as Mikdash (but not for Chelev), it is Pasul?

(Rav Acha brei d'Rava): Rava taught that in all cases (even if it was to atone for eating blood), it is Pasul.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: "V'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" - it must be slaughtered l'Shem the proper Chatas.

Question (Rav Ashi): According to you, what was Rava's question?

Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): He asked about Shinuy Ba'alim;

(Rava): If Reuven ate Chelev and his Chatas was slaughtered to atone for someone who ate blood or served idolatry, it is Pasul;

If it was slaughtered l'Shem a Nazir or Metzora who must bring a Chatas, it is Kosher.

Question (Rava): If his Chatas was slaughtered to atone for a Tamei person who entered the Mikdash or ate Kodshim, what is the law?

Since there is Kares for Tum'as Mikdash, it is Pasul;

Or, since a poor person can bring birds for Tum'as Mikdash, it is Kosher!

This question is not resolved.