1)

(a)When Rav Dimi arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Rebbi Yirmiyah's support of Rebbi Yochanan (Mecheshvin me'Avodah la'Avodah) on the one hand, and Rebbi Ila's support of Resh Lakish (Ein Mechashvin ... ) on the other. In support of Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yirmiyah initially learned a Kal-va'Chomer - that if Shechitah Chutz li'Zemano, which does not invalidate the Korban, yet Shachto al-M'nas Liz'rok Damo Chutz li'Zemano does, then she'Lo li'Shemo which does invalidate the Korban, should certainly invalidate it if one Shechted the Korban al-M'nas Liz'rok she'Lo li'Shemo!

(b)Rava bar Ahila'i queries this Kal va'Chomer however - in that one is Chayav Kareis for eating she'Lo bi'Zemano (Pigul [even if one eats it immediately]), which one is not if one eats it she'Lo li'Shemo.

(c)So Rava bar Ahila'i amends the Kal-va'Chomer to Chutz li'Mekomo (instead of Chutz li'Zemano), and Chutz li'Mekomo is precluded from the Kareis of Chutz li'Zemano (as we will learn in the second Perek).

(d)Rav Ashi still asks on the Kal-va'Chomer however - in that Chutz li'Mekomo applies to all Korbanos, in which case one cannot learn she'Lo li'Shemo (which is confined to Pesach and Chatas) from it.

2)

(a)Rav Ashi finally cites Rebbi Yirmiyah's proof for Rebbi Yochanan from a 'Kal va'Chomer' based on the distinction between Hareini Shochet she'Lo le'Shem P'loni (which is Kasher) and Hareini Zorek she'Lo le'Shem P'loni (which is Pasul) - because the P'sul of Shinuy Ba'alim is confined to the Kaparah (and does therefore not pertain to the Shechitah).

(b)And Rebbi Yirmiyah proves Rebbi Yochanan's ruling from there - because bearing in mind that, if someone says Hareini Shochet she'Lo li'Shemo, the Korban is Pasul, how much more so will it be Pasul, if he Shechts li'Shemo in order to sprinkle it she'Lo li'Shemo.

(c)Rebbi Ila on the other hand, proves Resh Lakish's opinion from the fact that the Torah requires a Pasuk to teach us Shinuy Kodesh by Zerikah (as we learned earlier). We can otherwise learn it from a Mah ha'Tzad from Shechitah and Kabalah.

(d)The Torah therefore writes it, Rebbi Ila concludes - to teach us that only if one actually sprinkles the blood she'Lo li'Shemo is the Korban Pasul, but not if one Shechts having in mind to sprinkle the blood she'Lo li'Shemo (like Resh Lakish).

3)

(a)Rav Papa asks why we cannot say the exact opposite - the Torah writes Shinuy Kodesh by Zerikah to teach us that the Korban is even Pasul if he had in mind to sprinkle the blood she'Lo li'Shemo at the time of Shechitah (which would then be a proof for Rebbi Yochanan).

(b)We answer that - if it was not to preclude Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah, the Torah should have omitted Zerikah altogether, and we would have learned it from the combination of Shechitah and Kabalah (as we just explained).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan will counter this proof however, with a Pircha on the Kal va'Chomer, from the fact that (as opposed to Zerikah) Shechitah and Kabalah require 'Tzafon' - and that they also pertain to Chata'os ha'Penimiyos (which are not sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon).

(d)Resh Lakish is not perturbed by these Kashyos however - because the Machshavah of she'Lo li'Shemo is written by Shelamim (to which neither Chumra applies).

4)

(a)In an independent Machlokes, in a case where the Shochet Shechted li'Shemo having in mind to sprinkle the blood she'Lo li'Shemo, Rav Nachman invalidated the Korban (like Rebbi Yochanan). Rabah validated it (like Resh Lakish).

(b)Rabah retracted however - due to the Kal va'Chomer of Rav Ashi that we just cited (which follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan.

5)

(a)The Chut ha'Sikra - was the red thread that surrounded the Mizbe'ach, to mark the halfway point.

(b)When Rebbi Eliezer ...

1. ... tried to learn that an Asham should be Pasul she'Lo li'Shemah from a Mah Matzinu from a Chatas - Rebbi Yehoshua countered that a Chatas is more stringent, because its blood is sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra (whereas that of an Asham is sprinkled below it).

2. ... replied Pesach Yochi'ach (whose blood is sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra, yet it is Pasul she'Lo li'Shemo) - he asked that Pesach is more stringent, inasmuch as it has a fixed date (which an Asham has not).

(c)The only other Korban, besides a Chatas Beheimah, whose blood is sprinkled above the red thread is - an Olas ha'Of.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer then tried to learn from the fact that the Torah writes the word "Hi/Hu" by the Chatas, the Pesach and the Asham - that all three are Pasul she'Lo li'Shemo.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua rejected Rebbi Eliezer's proof, due to the fact - that "Hu" by the Asham is written - after the Haktaras Eimurin ...

(b)... which refutes Rebbi Eliezer's proof - because even if the Eimurin are not burned at all, the Korban is Kasher (so how can the fact that it is burned she'Lo li'Shemo render the Korban Pasul [as we already learned above]).

(c)Rebbi Eliezer's final proof is from the Pasuk "ka'Chatas ka'Asham" - comparing an Asham to a Chatas ...

(d)... which is extremely difficult to refute - on the basis of the principle Ein Mashivin al ha'Hekesh.

7)

(a)When Rebbi Yehoshua dismissed Rebbi Eliezer's proofs from Chatas and from Pesach, Rebbi Eliezer declined to learn Asham from a Mah ha'Tzad from the two of them combined - because of the obvious Pircha that they are both somehow connected with a Chiyuv Kareis (the former comes to atone for a Chiyuv Kareis be'Shogeg, whilst the latter obligates someone who fails to bring it, Kareis), which an Asham is not.

(b)Whereas Rebbi Yehoshua did not query Rebbi Eliezer's Mah Matzinu from Chatas, in that a Chatas is different, since ...

1. ... its blood enters the Kodesh Kodshim on Yom Kipur - because Rebbi Eliezer is talking about Chata'os ha'Chitzonos (regular Chata'os, whilst that of Yom Kipur is a Chatas P'nimi.

2. ... it is rendered Pasul by the blood entering the Kodesh - because he holds that an Asham whose blood enters the Kodesh is Pasul, too.

3. ... it atones for Chayvei K'risus - because he is talking about a Chatas of Shemi'as Kol, which atones for a plain La'av.

(c)Neither does he query him from the fact that the Chatas requires four Nesinos Damim (one on each corner of the Mizbe'ach), whereas the Asham requires only two on the two diagonally opposite corners, because he concurs with Rebbi Yishmael, who holds that - when placing the blood on the two corners, the Kohen actually has to sprinkle the blood twice on each Keren (one on each of the outer sides).

8)

(a)We conclude however, that a Chatas requires three things that other Korbanos do not; sprinkling with the finger (as opposed to sprinkling from the bowl), sprinkling on the 'K'ranos' - and placing the blood on the tip of each Keren.

(b)This distinction also applies to the Olas ha'Of - whose blood has to be sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, yet does not need to be placed on the K'ranos.

(c)Nevertheless, Rebbi Yehoshua did not query Rebbi Eliezer from Olas ha'Of - because he asked one Kashya out of two or three possible Kashyos (all of which he might have asked, had he so wished).

9)

(a)In reply to the Kashya why, when Rebbi Yehoshua asked Rebbi Eliezer from the Chatas, which is sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra (which an Asham is not), the latter did not reply that the Asham too, is sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra (from the same Mah Matzinu), Abaye explained that Rebbi Eliezer could not have answered that - due to a Kal-va'Chomer from an Olah, which is all burned, yet it is sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra, how much more so an Asham, which is not.

(b)In answer to the Pircha that an Olah does not come to atone like an Asham does, we answer - Chatas ha'Of Tochi'ach (which comes to atone, yet it is sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra).

(c)We end up by learning Asham from a Mah Matzinu from Olas Beheimah and Chatas ha'Of (which have in common with the Asham that they are both Kodshei Kodshim). We cannot learn it from Chatas ha'Of alone - since (as opposed to an Asham) Chatas ha'Of (which is killed by means of Melikah) is not a species of Zevach (killed by means of Shechitah), like an Asham is.

(d)Rava from Parzika however, refutes the Mah Matzinu - inasmuch as an Asham has a fixed minimum price-tag (two Shekel), which neither an Olas Beheimah nor a Chatas ha'Of do.

10)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer learns from the Pasuk "ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah" - 'Osah Lema'alah, ve'Ein Damah shel acher Lema'alah'.

(b)We do not also Darshen "Osah" 'li'Shemah Kesheirah ... , ha Sha'ar Zevachim bein li'Sheman bein she'Lo li'Sheman, Kesheirin' - because we know that Pesach she'Lo li'Shemo is Pasul (so "Osah" in that regard must be La'av Davka).

(c)We do not, by the same token, also say that "Osah" is La'av Davka with regard to above the Chut ha'Sikra, seeing as, by the same token, the Torah would have had to preclude Olas ha'Of from the Limud - since Olas ha'Of is not a Zevach, in which case we can learn that "Osah" precludes all Zevachim from being sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra.

(d)Alternatively, the Tana who does not consider Olas ha'Of a Shiyur is Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who holds that - a Chatas Beheimah is sprinkled on the Keren (as we learned above), in which case "Osah" precludes even an Olas ha'Of as well ...

(e)... whereas the Rabbanan hold that - both a Chatas Beheimah and an Olas ha'Of are sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, and not necessarily on the Keren.

11)

(a)The Torah writes "ve'Chol Chatas asher Yuva es Damah el ha'Kodesh Penimah Lo Se'achel". Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa learns that this extends to all Korbanos - from the word "ve'Chol".

(b)According to the Chachamim, it is confined to a Chatas. Rebbi Eliezer incorporates an Asham (from the Hekesh "ka'Chatas ka'Asham").

(c)The Chachamim argue with Rebbi Eliezer - from the Kal va'Chomer from Olah, as we explained above (which overrides the Hekesh).

12)

(a)In fact, the Chachamim learn that an Asham whose blood entered the Kodesh is Kasher from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from Olah and Minchas Chotei (along the lines that we learned that an Asham cannot be sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra from Olah and Chatas ha'Of). We ask why they Chachamim learn from Minchas Chotei and not from Olas ha'Of, which would have been preferable - because it is mi'Miyn ha'Damim (a bird is more similar to a Zevach than a Minchah, inasmuch as it involves Avodas ha'Dam).

(b)And we answer that - whether or not one is Chayav for taking the blood of the Olas ha'Of into the Kodesh (even according to the Chachamim) is subject to a She'eilah of Ravin in Perek Dam Chatas.

(c)Ravin's She'eilah is - based on the fact that the blood of an Olas ha'Of is different than of a Zevach inasmuch as it does not require Kabalah, and is taken there whilst it is still on the neck of the bird.