Explanation: [The Mishnah] mentioned the first Avodah, and the same applies to Kabalah (receiving the blood in a Kli Shares), Holachah (taking it to the Mizbe'ach) and Zerikah (throwing it on the Mizbe'ach), like the Seifa teaches (13a);

Shinuy Kodesh applies to these four Avodos, e.g. an Olah l'Shem Shelamim.

Distinction: However, Shinuy Ba'alim applies only to Zerikah, e.g. Shechitah, Kabalah, or Holachah of Reuven's Korban with intent to do Zerikas Dam for Shimon, like is proven below (10a).

Question: How did the Gemara know that Shinuy Ba'alim [disqualifies], that it asks below (4a) what is the source that we require Shechitah Lishmah... and later it says "we find Shinuy Kodesh. What is the source for Shinuy Ba'alim?"

This implies that [the Gemara] refers to our Mishnah. Our Mishnah does not connote at all Shinuy Ba'alim, for the expression "Lishman" connotes to exclude Shinuy Kodesh!

Our entire Mishnah mentions only Shinuy Kodesh! Also the Seifa (13a) teaches "what is the case of Lishmah and [later] Lo Lishmah? L'Shem Pesach and [later] l'Shem Shelamim."

Answer #1: [The Gemara] relies on the Mishnah below (26b), which teaches "Shechitah of a Korban is l'Shem six matters - l'Shem Zevach, l'Shem Zove'ach..." Also Rashi explained like this in the Gemara.

Question: If it refers to that [Mishnah], if so, it should have explained also what is the source [to require] l'Shem Hash-m, l'Shem the fire, l'Shem a scent, and l'Shem pleasantness?

Answer: It comes to explain only those that are Kosher, but [the owner] did not fulfill his obligation. These are Kosher, and he fulfilled his obligation, like I will explain.

Answer #2: Lo Lishmah of our Mishnah connotes both Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim, like the Beraisa of R. Shimon "if he did Kemitzah Lo Lishmah...", which we establish in Menachos (2b) to discuss Shinuy Ba'alim.

Support: This is why we did not ask in our Perek what is the source for the [other] four matters (that it must be l'Shem), for our Mishnah does not discuss them.

Disclaimer: However, [in Menachos] only Rabah establishes [the Beraisa] to discuss Shinuy Ba'alim, but Rava and Rav Ashi do not establish it so there.

Question: Below (46b), we expound these [matters that must be l'Shem] from "Olah Isheh Rei'ach Nicho'ach la'Shem." "Olah" teaches that it must be l'Shem Olah, i.e. [it forbids] Shinuy Kodesh;

Below (4a) we expound Shinuy Kodesh from a different verse!

Answer: The verse there (46b) discusses Haktaras Eimurim (burning what the Torah specified on the Mizbe'ach). Here we discuss Avodos of the blood.

Implied question: It teaches there six matters l'Shem which the Korban is slaughtered! (It does not discuss Haktarah.)

Answer: Likewise, Haktarah of the Korban [is l'Shem these six matters], for the verse brought there discusses Haktarah.

Implied question: [If so,] how do we expound from the verse there Shechitah l'Shem six matters?

Answer: [It properly expounds this,] since [Shechitah and Haktarah] are equated for "Shem Zevach", and l'Shem Zevach is Shinuy Kodesh, both regarding Avodas Dam like we learn from verses in our Perek, and for Haktarah, like we learn from verses there. The other five matters apply to Shechitah just like to Haktarah.

Observation: However, we cannot learn from the Hekesh to say that [the owner] did not fulfill his obligation, and it is not mrz (accepted, if there was a Shinuy) in any of these six matters;

Source: That verse discusses Haktaras Eimurim, and the Korban is Kosher if the Emurim were not burned at all [and all the more so if Haktarah was not l'Shem one of the matters]!

Implied question: Below, we bring the verse [to teach about] l'Shem Zevach, i.e. Shinuy Kodesh. Why don't we bring also the verse about l'Shem Zove'ach, i.e. Shinuy Ba'alim?

Answer: This is because we cannot explain Shinuy Ba'alim at the time of Haktarah, for at the time of Haktarah we do not find l'Shem Zove'ach;

This is because Shinuy Ba'alim is only Shechitah with intent to throw [l'Shem someone else], or Kabalah or Holachah with intent to throw, like is proven below (8a);

At the time of Haktarah, Zerikah was already done. If so, how could we learn Haktarah l'Shem Zove'ach? It is not written in the verse "Olah Isheh Rei'ach Nicho'ach";

And we cannot learn from Avodas Dam, for Avodas Dam itself is only with intent to throw, like I explained.

Explanation #1: Now, Shechitah is l'Shem six matters, and Haktarah is l'Shem five matters.

Explanation #2: This that it says that a Korban is slaughtered l'Shem six matters does not mean that he thinks at the time of Shechitah l'Shem six matters;

Rather, it means that the Korban is done (offered) l'Shem six matters, and each is in its time.

Reference: In Bava Metzi'a (43b DH ha'Choshev), I explained this that intent disqualifies Kodshim, whether [only] through speech the Korban becomes Lo Lishmah, or even through [mere] intent. (Tosfos says there that it is only through speech.)

Inference: However, not at the time [of Pesach], no (Shinuy Kodesh does not disqualify).

This is even if he slaughters l'Shem Olah, and even according to the opinion that requires Akirah (declaring it to be a different Korban), in any case it is a Shelamim, like we expound from "v'Im Min ha'Tzon Korbano l'Zevach Shelamim" - however he slaughters it, it is a Shelamim (below 8b).

Implied question: There are also Chatas and Asham that do not come due to transgression, e.g. Chatas Yoledes (one who give birth) and Asham Metzora!

Answer: Because most [Chata'os and Ashamos] come due to transgression, [R. Eliezer] equates them to each other.

Reference: In the Gemara [11b], we ask whether this means that they are Kosher and they are Meratzeh, and [Shimon Achi Azaryah and Chachamim] argue about two matters (Chachamim hold that Lo Lishmah is never Meratzeh, and they do not distinguish between l'Shem a higher Kedushah and l'Shem a lower Kedushah);

Inference: [The Gemara] is unsure only about one of these, e.g. l'Shem a higher Kedushah, but [l'Shem] a lower [Kedushah], it is obvious that [Shimon] says that it is totally Pasul.

Question: What is [the Gemara's] source? Perhaps [Shimon] says that it is Pasul and they do not count (for the owner's obligation)! We find like this in a Beraisa!

A Beraisa below (4a) teaches that if a Shelamim was slaughtered l'Shem Todah, it is Pasul. I.e. it is Pasul and it does not count. It is not totally Pasul!

Answer #1: We expound Shimon's reason in the Gemara (11b) because it is written "v'Lo Yechalelu Es Kodshei Bnei Yisrael Asher Yarimu" - when they are Muram (offered l'Shem a higher Kedushah) they are not Mechulalin (profaned), but [l'Shem] a lower [Kedushah], they are Mischalelin. Chilul connotes a total Pesul.

Implied question: We expound in the Gemara "Kodshim are Mechalel Kodshim, but Chulin are not Mechalel Kodshim", and we do not [say that Chilul connotes a total Pesul, and totally] disqualify other Kodshim Lo Lishmah!

Answer: In any case Chilul applies due to Pesach and Chatas, which are [totally] disqualified. (Therefore it says "Mechalel" even though it is not always totally Pasul.)

Answer #2: We can infer also from our Mishnah itself! It says that if Bechor or Ma'aser was slaughtered l'Shem Shelamim, it is Kosher, for it is l'Shem a higher Kedushah;

Inference: If it were l'Shem a lower Kedushah, it would be Pasul, i.e. totally Pasul, for regarding Bechor and Ma'aser there is no concept of the owner fulfilling his obligation. (One is allowed to offer them and eat the meat. If they became blemished or died, there is no Achrayus to offer anything to compensate for them.)

Note: Even though there is no lower Kedushah than Bechor and Ma'aser, Tosfos properly infers that because Shelamim is a higher Kedushah, they are Kosher.

Observation: In some places the Tana is not concerned to teach this Chidush;

In Menachos (48b), regarding other Shalmei Nazir, and regarding Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora, it teaches "they are Kosher, and they do not count [for his obligation", and it did not teach "but" (to forbid doing other Avodos Lo Lishmah).

Inference: Here it connotes that whenever [the Torah] writes "Neder", it is specifically a Neder, and "Nedavah" is specifically a Nedavah;

Also in Rosh Hashanah (6a) regarding Bal Te'acher [it connotes like this];

Question: (It connotes unlike this in Chulin!) And even according to R. Meir, who expounds in Chulin (2a) "Tov Asher Lo Sidor" - better than both of these is that he is not Noder at all. This shows that [he holds that the Torah] calls a Nedavah "Neder"!

Answer #1: Here is different, for he expounds that the verse deviated from the way [the Torah] normally speaks.

Answer #2: In Chulin he expounds that since the verse is concerned for ruin (transgressing a vow), there is no difference between a Neder and a Nedavah. There is concern regarding both of them.

Answer #3: Because we learn a Neder from the verse "Ki Sechdal Lindor", this shows that "Tov Asher Lo Sidor" comes to teach [even] a Nedavah.

Implied question: In Rosh Hashanah (6a) we expound this regarding Bal Te'acher, that it does not apply after Shechitah!

Answer: Here we expound the simple meaning of the verse. It connotes that a Neder is called a Nedavah.

Explanation: It is Pasul only if he intends Lo Lishmah.

Question: In Chulin (12b), R. Yochanan asked whether or not intent applies to a minor. Rashi explained it is in a case like Shechitas Kodshim, which we learn in Zevachim that it requires Lishmah, and a minor slaughtered an Olah Lishmah. Is this considered intent, or not?

It connotes here that also Stam is Kosher. It is Pasul only if he intends Lo Lishmah!

Answer: Stam of a minor is worse, for he lacks Da'as to understand that it is Kodshim. He thinks that it is Chulin. He is like Mis'asek (engaged in something else), which is Pasul;

Source: It says below (46b) that l'Shem Chulin is Kosher. Mishum Chulin (he thought that it was Chulin and slaughtered l'Shem Chulin), it is Pasul.

A minor, even if he says "I know that it is Kodshim and I intend Lishmah", we are unsure whether his intent is considered intent. Or, perhaps it does not help, unless his actions prove (that he intended for Kodshim, e.g. he was holding Kodshei Kodoshim in the south, and went to the north to slaughter it).

Explanation: Even if she was Mezanah while married [so her husband must divorce her], she is not destined to be divorced through this Get.

Also, if her husband wants, he need not divorce her, just he may not have Bi'ah with her.

Support: This answers what people ask in Gitin (23a). It says that a Nochri does based on his own will, and he is not qualified to write a Get...

Question: And in Avodah Zarah (26b) we say that a Nochri may circumcise [a Yisrael], but not a Kusi, for a Kusi intends for Har Grizim (his idolatry);

Also there we require Lishmah, like we expound there (27a) from "la'Shem Yimol", and even so we are Machshir a Nochri!

Answer: We can distinguish between Get and Milah, just like we distinguish here between Zevachim and Get;

There, a Stam Get is Pasul, for a Stam wife is not destined to be divorced. Therefore also through a Nochri it is Pasul, even though he does Stam (without a Pasul intent);

However, Stam Milah is Lishmah, just like Zevachim. Therefore, a Nochri is Kosher, even though he does Stam.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): At the end of Shechitah he slaughtered Stam.

Question: Since he said at the beginning of Shechitah "l'Shem Pesach", must he speak until he finishes his Shechitah?!

Explanation #2: We discuss two Avodos, e.g. he slaughtered l'Shem Pesach and was Mekabel Stam.

Question: In Pesachim (59b) we asked whether the Mishnah teaches in one Avodah or in two Avodos. One Avodah is like Rashi explained!

Answer: Even if you will say that l'Shem Pesach and Stam is Pasul, even so he need not speak the entire time. Rather, at the beginning of Shechitah he says that he does the entire Shechitah for the sake of Shechitas Pesach.

Implied question: In Gitin (3a) it explains that they did not enact to say 'it was written in front of me Lishmah', according to the opinion that [the enactment was also because] people are not expert about the law of Lishmah, because if you obligate him to say too much, he will come to truncate;

Why couldn't we say that [if he must say Lishmah,] perhaps he will come to say Lo Lishmah?

Answer: No one is so crazy, that he will give a Get to this woman, that was written for her, and he will say that it was written for another [woman];

However, one who slaughters a Korban, sometimes he errs and thinks that it is a different Korban. The same applies to one who does Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah.

Question: Why does [the Gemara] say all this? [R. Yosi] explicitly said that Stam is Kosher!

Answer: We can explain [R. Yosi to say] "one who did not have in his heart", i.e. he did not explicitly say l'Shem one of all of these, but he thought in his heart for what it should be. [This implies that] Stam is Pasul;

Therefore, we infer from Tenai Beis Din. Would Beis Din enact not to say explicitly, and intent suffices? Perhaps it will come to be Pasul, for he will not intend at all, and he will slaughter Stam, and it will be Pasul!

Implied question: According to the opinion that in Eruvin (13a) regarding Megilas Sotah, that one may erase it from the Torah, even though we require Lishmah, and even though Torah is [written] in order to learn, like it says there (we should similarly be Machshir a Get, even if the scribe wrote it to learn)!