DO WE SAY HO'IL?
(Rav Ashi): Rabah and Rav Chisda [agree that intent for Arelim Menuyim in Zerikah is Posel, not like we said above - rather, they] argue about the following verse:
"V'Nirtzah Lo Lechaper Alav" - not to atone (Zorek) for someone else.
Rabah holds that Zerikah for another (not the owner) is Posel only if the latter is like the owner, i.e. he could get atonement [through his own Korban] - this excludes an Arel;
Rav Chisda considers an Arel to be one who could get atonement, Ho'il (since) he is obligated [to circumcise himself and bring Korban Pesach].
Question: Rav Chisda does not say Ho'il!
(Rav Chisda): If one bakes on Yom Tov for the sake of a weekday, he is lashed;
(Rabah): He is not lashed, Ho'il (since) if guests would come he could serve the food to them [therefore, his cooking is potentially for consumption on Yom Tov];
Rav Chisda obligates lashes - he does not say Ho'il.
Rabah does not contradict himself - here he does not say Ho'il, because an action needs to be done (he cannot bring Pesach until he circumcises himself);
But Rav Chisda contradicts himself!
Answer: Rav Chisda says Ho'il to be stringent (to lash), but not to be lenient. (Tosfos - surely, mid'Oraisa we do not distinguish these - mid'Rabanan, we are stringent )
WHAT IS THE CASE OF TUM'AH?
Question (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari): The Beraisa said that Arelus is Posel, just like Tum'ah - partial Tum'ah does not Posel like full Tum'ah, the same should apply to Arelus - what is the case of Tum'ah?
Answer #1: The people are Temei'im - four or five Benei Chaburah are Temei'im and four or five are Tehorim - the Temei'im do not Posel the Korban for the Tehorim.
Objection: Also in the corresponding case of Arelus, some of the Chaburah are Arelim and some are Mulim, the Korban is Kosher:
(Mishnah): If it was slaughtered for Mulim and Arelim, it is Kosher.
Why is the Tana sure regarding Tum'ah, but is unsure regarding Arelus?
Answer #2: The meat is Tamei.
Question: What does it mean 'partial Tum'ah is unlike like full Tum'ah'?
Answer: If one of the limbs became Tamei, it is burned, but the rest are eaten.
Question (Seifa): It is more reasonable to learn Arelus from Tum'ah, for these do not Posel other Zevachim, and not from [intent to eat at the wrong] time, which is Posel all Zevachim.
Question: To which Tum'ah does it refer?
It cannot refer to Tum'ah of the meat - this applies to all Zevachim!
Answer: It refers to Tum'ah of the owners; it [like Arelus] does not Posel other Zevachim, for an Arel or Tamei can send a Korban through a Shali'ach (agent) - it is Posel only Pesach [for it must be eaten].
Summation of question: Will you say that the Reisha discusses Tum'ah of the meat, and the Seifa discusses Tum'ah of the owners?!
Answer #1 (Ravina): Yes - we compare Arelus to various laws of Tum'ah.
Answer #2: Also the Seifa applies to Tum'ah of the meat.
Question: Why does it say that it does not apply to other Zevachim?
Answer: Regarding other Zevachim, whether the Chelev became Tamei and the meat is intact, or the meat became Tamei and the Chelev is intact, we do Zerikah;
Regarding Pesach, if the Chelev became Tamei and the meat is intact, we do Zerikah; if the meat became Tamei and the Chelev is intact, we do not do Zerikah.
Question (Seifa) Question: Perhaps we should rather learn Arelus from time, for neither of these is totally permitted, and not from Tum'ah, which is totally permitted.
This cannot refer to Tum'ah of the meat - it is never permitted!
Answer: We must say that it refers to Tum'ah of the owners - it is totally permitted regarding a Korban Tzibur.
Summation of question: Does the Reisha discuss Tum'ah of the meat, and the Seifa discusses Tum'ah of the owners?!
Answer #1: Yes - we compare Arelus to various laws of Tum'ah.
Answer #2: The entire Beraisa applies to Tum'ah of the meat - it is permitted regarding Pesach:
(Mishnah): When Pesach is brought b'Tum'ah, it is eaten b'Tum'ah - it is brought only in order to be eaten.
Question (against Rav Chisda - Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If a Pesach more than one year old was slaughtered Lishmah in its time (Erev Pesach after midday), or if another Zevach was slaughtered l'Shem Pesach at this time, it is Pasul;
R. Yehoshua is Machshir.
Inference: R. Eliezer is Posel only at this time - at another time even he is Machshir!
We should say, Ho'il (since) it is Pasul in its time, it is also Pasul not in its time! (Tosfos - we ask regarding the morning of Erev Pesach - since its time is later today, it should already be considered its time.)
Answer (Rav Papa): There is different, for it says "Va'Amartem Zevach Pesach Hu" - it is Pesach in its identity (Lishmah), but not when it is l'Shem another Korban, or another Korban l'Shem Pesach;
In its time, Pesach is Pasul l'Shem other Korbanos, other Korbanos are Pasul l'Shem Pesach;
Not in its time, it is Kosher l'Shem other Korbanos, other Korbanos are Kosher l'Shem Pesach.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LO LISHMAH AND LO L'OCHLAV
R. Simlai asked R. Yochanan to teach him Sefer Yuchsin (a Beraisa explaining Divrei ha'Yamim); R. Yochanan asked him where he is originally from and where he currently resides. He said that he is from Lud, and he currently resides in Neharda'a.
R. Yochanan: We do not teach Sefer Yuchsin to people of Lud or Neharda'a - all the more so to you, for you are from Lud and reside in Neharda'a! (Rashi - we only teach to people of proper lineage; alternatively, R. Yochanan merely sought to dispel him.)
R. Simlai insisted; R. Yochanan consented. R. Simlai asked him to teach him in three months.
R. Yirmeyah threw a clump of earth at him and said 'Bruriyah, R. Meir's wife, the daughter of R. Chanina ben Tradyon, who learned 300 teachings in one day from 300 Chachamim, could not learn it in three years - you want to learn it in three months?!''
Question (R. Simlai, as he was leaving): What is the difference between [intent] Lishmah and Lo Lishmah [which is Pasul], and l'Ochlav and Lo l'Ochlav [which is Kosher]?
Answer (R. Yochanan): Since you are a Chacham, I will tell you - Lishmah and Lo Lishmah are Pesulim [of intents] in the Korban itself; l'Ochlav and Lo l'Ochlav are not Pesulim in the Korban itself;
Also, one cannot clarify which part was Lishmah and which Lo Lishmah - one can clarify the Isur (it does not apply to the portion given l'Ochlav, only to what is given Lo l'Ochlav; alternatively - if only Ochlav will eat it, this shows that the intent was meaningless).
Also, Lishmah and Lo Lishmah pertain to all four Avodos; l'Ochlav and Lo l'Ochlav do not (only to slaughter).
Also, Lishmah and Lo Lishmah pertain to a [Korban] Tzibur and Yachid alike - l'Ochlav and Lo l'Ochlav apply only to a Korban Yachid.
(Rav Ashi): Being a Pesul in the Korban itself is the same stringency as being unable to clarify the Isur - because one cannot clarify the Isur (attribute it to particular partners), this shows that the Pesul [is not on account of them, rather, it] is in the Korban itself!
(Rami bar Rav Yuda): From the day Sefer Yuchsin was hidden, the strength and vision of Chachamim waned (many great insights in Torah were lost).
(Mar Zutra): [If one would write] the Drashos between 'Atzel' ("Ul'Atzel Shisha Banim" - Divrei ha'Yamim 1:8:38) and 'Atzel' ("Eleh Benei Atzal" - 1:9:44, they would) fill 400 camels.
(Beraisa - Others): [If one slaughtered Korban Pesach with intent that Mulim and Arelim eat from it -] if the intent for Mulim preceded the intent for Arelim, it is Kosher;
If the intent for Arelim preceded the intent for Mulim, it is Pasul.
Question: Presumably, when intent for Mulim came first it is Kosher because only full Arelus is Posel - the same should apply when intent for Arelim came first!