QUESTION: The Mishnah (59b) states that if the Korban Pesach was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah, or if any of the other three Avodos of the Korban were performed she'Lo Lishmah, the Korban is Pasul. The Mishnah also states that if "it was done Lishmah and she'Lo Lishmah" it is Pasul.

The Gemara asks what the Mishnah means when it mentions a Korban Pesach that was done "Lishmah and she'Lo Lishmah." Does it mean that the Korban is Pasul if one has these two thoughts ("Machshavos") while he performs a single Avodah (such as Shechitah), and the Korban is Pasul because of the rule that we take into account all of the person's thoughts, both the first thought and last one (which was she'Lo Lishmah), as Rebbi Yosi rules? Or does the Mishnah mean that when one has two Machshavos during two Avodos -- such as a Machshavah of Lishmah during Shechitah, and a Machshavah of she'Lo Lishmah during Zerikah -- the Korban is Pasul, but when he thinks both Machshavos during one Avodah, the Korban is not disqualified (if the first thought was "Lishmah"), because we accept only the first thought and ignore the second one, as Rebbi Meir rules?

The Gemara attempts to prove from the following Mishnah (61a) that the Mishnah here refers to two Machshavos during one Avodah. The Mishnah later says that a Korban that was slaughtered l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav (for those who were fit to eat it and for those who were unfit to eat it) is valid. The Gemara proves that the Mishnah refers to two Machshavos that occur during the same Avodah. Accordingly, the Mishnah here, which also discusses two Machshavos (Lishmah and she'Lo Lishmah), also refers to two Machshavos that occur during the same Avodah.

How does the Gemara prove that the Mishnah later (61a) refers to two Machshavos in a single Avodah? The logic of the Gemara is as follows. The Gemara (61a) teaches that the Machshavah of she'Lo l'Ochlav invalidates the Korban only if one had that thought during Shechitah (61a). Accordingly, the Mishnah there is not discussing two Machshavos of l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav in two different Avodos (such as a Machshavah of l'Ochlav during Shechitah, and a Machshavah of she'Lo l'Ochlav during Zerikah), because in such a case it is obvious that the Korban is valid -- a Machshavah of she'Lo l'Ochlav invalidates the Korban only when done during Shechitah. If, on the other hand, the Mishnah is simply teaching that a Machshavah of she'Lo l'Ochlav does not affect the Korban in any Avodah other than Shechitah, then why does it mention that the person first had a Machshavah of l'Ochlav during Shechitah? What difference does that first Machshavah make?

If the Mishnah indeed is discussing two Avodos, then it must have mentioned the Machshavah of l'Ochlav in order to teach, through inference, that if both Machshavos occur during one Avodah (Shechitah), then the Korban is Pasul. That, however, is not true. As long as one has in mind at least one person who is fit to eat the Korban, the Korban is valid!

Therefore, the Mishnah there cannot be referring to two Avodos, but it must be referring to two Machshavos during a single Avodah. The Mishnah is teaching that a Korban that was slaughtered l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav is valid.

RASHI (DH Heichi Dami) explains the Gemara's initial assumption when it said that the Mishnah that discusses l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav refers to two Avodos. Rashi says, "He slaughtered it [with a Machshavah of] l'Ochlav, with intention to perform Zerikah [with a Machshavah of] she'Lo l'Ochlav."

Why does Rashi explain that the two Avodos to which the Mishnah refers are "Shechitah" and "Shechitah with intention to perform Zerikah"? He should explain simply that the two Avodos are Shechitah and Zerikah! Indeed, this is how Rashi explains the case of Lishmah and she'Lo Lishmah in the Mishnah earlier (59b, DH O Lishmo). Rashi there explains that one performed Shechitah Lishmah, and then he performed Zerikah she'Lo Lishmah. Why does Rashi give a different explanation with regard to l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav?

ANSWER: The MAHARSHA (to TOSFOS DH Ileima) explains that Rashi, and Tosfos as well, explain that the Mishnah later (61a) refers to Shechitah and to Shechitah with intention to perform Zerikah, because the Mishnah states, "If one slaughtered it... l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav... it is valid." The wording of the Mishnah clearly implies that it is discussing only Shechitah. If, however, the Mishnah mentions only Shechitah, then why does the Gemara assume that the Mishnah refers to two Avodos? In order to resolve this problem, Rashi explains that the Gemara assumes that the Mishnah refers to two Avodos that are both part of Shechitah -- performing the Shechitah l'Ochlav, and performing the Shechitah with intention to do the Zerikah she'Lo l'Ochlav.

However, the DEVAR SHMUEL asks that this answer does not seem to be consistent with the words of Rashi later (60b, DH Ela Lav b'Avodah Achas). When the Gemara concludes that the Mishnah (on 61a) refers to two Machshavos in either one Avodah or in two Avodos, Rashi explains that the two Avodos are Shechitah and Zerikah, unlike what he writes here (DH Heichi Dami)! Rashi there seems to be content with explaining that the Mishnah indeed refers to an Avodah other than Shechitah, despite the fact that the Mishnah mentions only Shechitah. Why, then, does Rashi explain the Gemara's initial assumption differently?

The answer to this question may be that when the Mishnah (61a) says, "If one slaughtered it...," it means that both Machshavos occur during Shechitah, as the Maharsha explains. When the Gemara initially assumed that the two Machshavos occur during two Avodos and not during one Avodah, it must be that the "second" Avodah refers to Shechitah with intention to do Zerikah she'Lo Lishmah, because no other Avodah is included in the phrase, "if one slaughtered it." However, the Gemara concludes that the Mishnah refers to two Machshavos that occur either during one Avodah or during two Avodos. According to the Gemara's conclusion the words of the Mishnah, "if one slaughtered* it," indeed refer only to Shechitah; the Mishnah's intention is to teach that the Halachah (of Machshavos of l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav) also applies when the two Machshavos occur during one Avodah (Shechitah). It is understood that the Mishnah's Halachah also applies when the Machshavos occur during two Avodos. Since the Mishnah does not address specifically how the two Machshavos occur during two Avodos, Rashi explains that the second Avodah is the Zerikah itself. (M. KORNFELD)

One question remains. Why does Rashi prefer to explain, in the Gemara's conclusion, that the second Avodah is the actual Zerikah? There are two possible explanations.

1. The Gemara later (61b) seems to conclude that when one slaughters a Korban with intention to perform the Zerikah of its blood for the sake of Arelim (uncircumcised men), the Korban is Pasul. Such intention is worse than actually doing the Zerikah itself for Arelim, because the invalidating Machshavah occurs during the Shechitah.

The same logic may apply to the case of l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav. When one thinks, during the Shechitah, that he is doing the Shechitah in order to do the Zerikah she'Lo l'Ochlav, the Korban may be Pasul. Therefore, Rashi prefers to explain that the Korban is valid only when the Machshavah of she'Lo Lishmah occurs during the actual Zerikah. (With this explanation, Rashi effectively answers the question of Tosfos on 60a, DH Ileima.)

Only in the Gemara's original assumption was Rashi forced to explain that the Korban is valid even if the second Machshavah was "Shechitah with intention to perform Zerikah she'Lo l'Ochlav," because the Mishnah specifically says, "If one slaughtered it... l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav... it is valid," as the Maharsha points out.

2. Alternatively, perhaps Rashi does not differentiate between a Machshavah that occurs during Shechitah on condition to do the Zerikah she'Lo Lishmah and a Machshavah during the actual Zerikah. The Halachah that applies in a case of a Machshavah during Zerikah also applies to a Machshavah on condition to do the Zerikah. (See also Insights to Pesachim 61:2.) Since the two are equivalent, Rashi prefers to give the simpler case when he explains the Gemara's conclusion.