Opinion #1 (R. Yochanan): If an animal was slaughtered with intent to be Zorek (to throw its blood) or to be Maktir (burn its Chelev) for idolatry, it is forbidden;

Such improper intent in a Korban (Shechitah with intent to be Zorek or to be Maktir after the allowed time) disqualifies the Korban; we learn Chulin from Kodshim;

Opinion #2 (Reish Lakish): The animal is permitted;

Such improper intent in a Korban does not disqualify the Korban. We do not learn Chulin from Kodshim.

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are consistent with what they said elsewhere.

R. Yochanan: If a Chatas was slaughtered Lishmah (to be a Chatas), but with intent to throw its blood Lo Lishmah (for the sake of a different Korban), the Korban is Pasul;

(Reish Lakish): The Korban is valid.

R. Yochanan disqualifies. The corresponding case of Pigul (Shechitah with intent to be Zorek or to be Maktir after the allowed time) disqualifies the Korban. We learn Lo Lishmah from Pigul;

Reish Lakish is Machshir. The corresponding case of Pigul does not disqualify the Korban. We do not learn Lo Lishmah from Pigul.

It was necessary to teach that R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue in both cases;

Had we taught only about Shechitah for idolatry, one might have thought that only there Reish Lakish argues, because we do not learn Chulin from Kodshim, but he agrees with R. Yochanan that we learn Lo Lishmah from Pigul, since both are Kodshim;

Had we taught only about Lo Lishmah, one might have thought that only there R. Yochanan argues, but he agrees with Reish Lakish about idolatry, for we do not learn Chulin from Kodshim.

Question (against both of them - Rav Sheshes - Mishnah - R. Yosi): A Kal va'Chomer teaches that the Shechitah is valid.

In Kodshim, (improper) intention disqualifies a Korban, yet we are concerned only for the intention of the Oved. In Chulin, intention does not disqualify Shechitah, all the more so we are concerned only for the intention of the Shochet!

Question: What is the meaning of 'in Chulin, intention does not disqualify Shechitah'?

Suggestion: Any intent at all does not forbid Chulin.

Rejection: If so, how does an animal offered to idolatry become forbidden?!

Answer: Rather, it means that Chulin are not disqualified if one Avodah (e.g. Shechitah) was done with intent to do another Avodah for idolatry.

In Kodshim, one Avodah done with intention to do another Avodah with improper intention disqualifies a Korban, and still, we are concerned only for the intention of the Oved (the one who serves);

In Chulin, such intention does not Posel the Korban. All the more so we should be concerned only for the intention of the Shochet!

(Summation of question): The Beraisa says that in Kodshim, one Avodah done with intention to do another Avodah with improper intention disqualifies a Korban. This opposes Reish Lakish;

It says that in Chulin, such intention does not Posel the Korban. This opposes R. Yochanan!

Answer - part 1 (for Reish Lakish): Reish Lakish gave his opinion before R. Yochanan taught him (the Mishnah, or R. Yochanan's own opinion).

Answer - part 2 (for R. Yochanan - Rav Sheshes): R. Yochanan explains the Mishnah as follows:

In Kodshim, (improper) intention in any of the four Avodos involving the blood disqualifies the Korban, yet we are concerned only about the intention of the Oved;

In Chulin, there are only two Avodos in which intent forbids the animal. All the more so we should be concerned only for the intention of the Shochet!

A Beraisa supports R. Yochanan.

(Beraisa): If one slaughters an animal intending to be Zorek or to be Maktir to idolatry, this is Takroves (an animal offered to idolatry). It is forbidden;

A case occurred in which someone slaughtered and then intended to throw or be Maktir to idolatry. Chachamim did not rule to permit or forbid it.

Opinion #1 (Rav Chisda): They did not forbid, due to respect for Chachamim's opinion. They did not rule to permit, out of respect for R. Eliezer's opinion.

Objection: We need not say that Chachamim would permit this, nor that R. Eliezer would forbid it!

Chachamim permit (in the Mishnah) because we did not hear that he intends for idolatry. Here, we know that now he intends for idolatry. This proves that also the Shechitah was for idolatry!

R. Eliezer forbids only regarding an idolater, for (presumably) all his deeds are for idolatry. He would not say so about a Yisrael!

Opinion #2 (Rav Shizbi): Rather, they did not rule to permit due to respect for R. Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion.

Question: To which teaching of R. Shimon ben Gamliel does he refer?

Answer #1: He refers to his teaching about a Get.

(Mishnah): If a healthy man said 'write a Get to my wife', he is only teasing her (since he did not say to give it).

A case occurred in which a healthy man said 'write a Get to my wife', went up to the roof and fell to his death;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if he intentionally jumped off, the Get is valid. If the wind blew him off, it is invalid.

Question: The case brought contradicts the law just taught!

Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated. It should say 'if his later actions prove that he really wanted to give the Get, it is valid;

A case occurred in which a healthy man said 'write a Get to my wife', went up to the roof and fell to his death. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if he intentionally jumped, the Get is valid. If the wind blew him, it is invalid.'

Rejection: That case is different, since he initially told them to write a Get. Here, when he slaughtered, there was no indication that this was for idolatry.

Answer #2 (Ravina): He refers to his teaching about a gift.

(Beraisa): If Reuven wrote a document giving all his property (which included slaves) to Shimon, and Shimon said 'I do not want the property', if Shimon is a Kohen, the slaves may eat Terumah. (They are his slaves);

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, once he says 'I do not want the property', Reuven's heirs acquire it.

Question: Does the first Tana hold that Shimon acquires the property in spite of his protests?!

Answer (Rabah): If Shimon protested from the beginning, all agree that he does not acquire. If he was quiet, and later protested, all agree that he acquired;

They argue when Levi received the document on behalf of Shimon, and Shimon was initially silent and then protested.

The first Tana holds that his initial silence shows that he consented to acquire. He later reconsidered and protested. This has no effect;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that his later protest reveals that from the beginning, he did not want to acquire. At first, he felt no need to protest, since he did not take the document.

(Rav Yehudah): The Halachah follows R. Yosi.

Some Nochrim gave rams to Yisrael Shochtim. They said 'you can keep the meat and skin, just give us the blood and Chelev.'

Question (Rav Tuvi bar Rav Masnah): Are the animals forbidden?

Answer (Rav Yosef): No, because the Halachah follows R. Yosi.

Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): According to R. Eliezer, if a Nochri gave money to a Yisrael Shochet for some meat from an animal, what is the law?

Answer (Rav Ashi): If the Nochri is powerful (and the Yisrael cannot avoid giving the meat to him), the animal is forbidden. If he is not, the meat is permitted. (The Yisrael need not give the meat to him. This shows that he slaughters for himself.)