Clarification: Whereas Shinuy Ba'alim does not apply after death.

Suggested Reason: Perhaps this is because the Pasuk writes "to atone for him" - 'and not for his fellow-Jew.

Clarification: This Sugya goes specifically according to the opinion that holds 'Shibuda d'Oraysa' (a person's property is mortgaged min ha'Torah), like Rav Asi Amar Rav in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 13:), who establishes the Mishnah there which obligates the heirs of a woman who died to bring her burnt-offering, even though she did not designate it before she died.

Clarification (cont.): But according to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - who says there that they are only Chayav if she designated it whilst she was still alive', but not if she did not, because 'Shibuda La'av d'Oraysa' ...

Clarification (cont.): It would seem that there is no difference between Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim, in that Shinuy Kodesh as well, the heirs are not obligated to designate another Korban in place of the first one.

Refutation: One can also explain the difference however (even according to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel) where the owner designated two burnt-offerings 'le'Acharayus', that if one of them becomes Pasul,he will bring the other, and if not, the second one will be Chulin.

Alternatively, it is forbidden to change Shinuy Kodesh after death, as the Gemara says at the beginning of Zevachim (2:) 'Since when is one permitted to change a Nedavah?'

Conclusion: Regarding Shinuy Ba'alim, on the other hand, there i not even an Isur, since it does not apply after death.

Question: The Ri asks why Rava finds it necessary to say 'Na'aseh', seeing as two of the Pirchos are Davka, why do we not say that it is Pasul, since there has been no Akirah?

Question (cont.): If on the other hand, those Pirchos don't bother him, and he holds that, seeing as it is Pasul in its time, it is similar to Shinuy Kodesh and is considered an Akirah ...

Question (concl.): If so, why is it considered as if it did not have owners in its time, bearing in mind that we do not even consider Shinuy Kodesh a Shinuy to render Pasul like in its time.

Answer: The Ri therefore explains Rava like this - even if we are not bothered by those Pirchos, it is nevertheless not considered Akirah, since it becomes like a Pesach in its time whose owner has died, about which the Gemara at the end of 'Eilu Devarim' (Daf 73:) says that it requires Akirah, and which, if one Shechts S'tam, is Pasul. Even if he explicitly states that it is not for the sake of the owner', who died.

Answer (cont.): In our case too, by she'Lo bi'Zemano, Shinuy Ba'alim is not considered Akirah.

Proof: And this is also evident from the Lashon, since Rava said 'she'Ein Lo Ba'alim', and not 'ke'Mi she'Shachto be'Shinuy Ba'alim'.

Clarification: The Ri explains that Rebbi is not coming to argue with the Tana Kama. He concedes that Ochlav and Menuyav are crucial to the Mitzvah, and he is merely explaining his words, to teach us that Ochlav and Menuyav only invalidate the Korban by the Shechitah.

Support: And this is also implied in 'Keitzad Tzolin' (Daf 78:) where Rav concludes that Achilah is not crucial, like Rebbi Nasan, not like Rebbi - and this is because he (Rebbi is coming to explain, as we just explained).

Clarification: The Ri explains we learn both Areilim and Teme'im from the Pasuk "Ish L'fi Ochlo"; because since they cannot eat it, it is considered she'Lo le'Ochlav.

Support: And so is implied in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf22:) where it says that 'The Elders of the south hold that a Tamei person may send his Korbanos, i.e. his Pesach.

Support (cont.): But does the Beraisa not learn from "be'Michsas Nefashos" that the Pesach can only be Shechted for its designees (Menuyav), 'and Ochlav is compared to Menuyav?'

Support (cont.): Clearly indicating that we learn Tamei from "Ish l'fi Ochlo".

Question #1: The Ri asks that in that case, just as Menuyav, which is synonymous with Shinuy Ba'alim, renders Pasul by all four Avodos, so too, should Ochlav.

Question #2: And by other Korbanos too, Menuyav ought to invalidate?

Answer: 'she'Lo li'Menuyav is not synonymous with Shinuy Ba'alim at all, since Shinuy Ba'alim is only Pasul by the sprinkling (i.e. where one Shechts the Korban receives its blood or takes it to the Mizbe'ach with the intention of sprinkling on behalf of others, or where one sprinkles directly on behalf of others); whereas if one Shechts a Korban, receives its blood or takes it to the Mizbe'ach on behalf of others, it is Kasher, since we learn it (Shinuy Ba'alim) from "ve'Chiper alav".

Answer (cont.): Whereas she'Lo li'Menuyav is specifically where one 'Shechts she'Lo li'Menuyav, and it invalidates by Shechitah exclusively, as the Torah writes "Tachosu (al ha'Seh)", and applies exclusively to the Korban Pesach.

Question: Why do we not say that, since the Torah reveals she'Lo le'Ochlav by Shechitah, the same should also apply to the other Avodos, as the Gemara says in the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 7:) 'Pesach she'Lo li'Shemo is Pasul from "Zevach Pesach". And it concludes that this extends to other Avodos, because 'ho'il ve'Gali Gali' (once it is revealed, it is revealed!')?

Answer: The Ri answers that our case is not comparable to the case there. Because there, since the Torah teaches us that by all other Korbanos that they do not render the owner Yotzei his obligation, and by the Pesach we find a P'sul by one of the Avodos, we cannot differentiate between it and the other Avodos.

Clarification #1: If it is Shechted for those who are designated to eat it, but on condition that it is those are not designated who will be atoned for, it is obvious that the Korban is unanimously Pasul, since that is Shinuy Ba'alim, which is Pasul both by Pesach and by Chatas.

Clarification #2: However it seems to the Ri that the same Machlokes applies where they Shechted le'Ochlav in order that those who cannot eat it (Such as a sick or an old person) should be atoned for ...

Reason: Which Rav Chisda declares Pasul just like Areilim.

Implied Question: Even though the Pesukim that he cites refer to Areil ...

Answer: Seeing as we learn them both from the same Pasuk - "L'fi Ochlo", and we therefore learn one from the other regarding all matters.

Example: Because 'le'Ochlav ve'she'Lo le'Ochlav' is Kasher only because we learn it from 'le'Mulim ve'la'Areilim'.

Explanation #1: And it is specifically if one Shechted on behalf of Mulim in order that Areilim should be atoned for that Rav Chisda rules Pasul; But a Pesach that is sprinkled on behalf of Areilim, even Rav Chisda concedes is Kasher ...

Reason: Seeing as there is no Din of Machsheves Ochlin by Zerikah, as is clear to the Mesader ha'Shas throughout the Sugya.

Proof #1: And at the beginning of Zevachim (Daf 4.) where the Gemara states 'We have now clarified Shechitah; from where do we know the other Avodos? And if you want say that we learn them from Shechitah - (Shechitah is different, in that) whereas Shechitah is Pasul she'Lo le'Shem Ochlin on Pesach!'

Proof #1 (cont.): It implies that there is nobody who argues with the fact that there is no Machsheves Ochlin by Zerikah.

Proof #2: And what's more, Rav Ashi concludes that Rabah does not argue with Rav Chisda over this point.

Clarification of Text: And in 'Keitzad Tzolin' (Daf 78.) we learned in a Beraisa 'Shachto le'Ochlin Liz'rok Damo she'Lo le'Ochlin, the Pesach is Kasher, and the owner is Yotzei his obligation', the text does not read 'Liz'rok Damo', but 'Venizrak Damo', to avoid a Kashya on Rav Chisda. And this is the text in some Sefarim.

Explanation #2: Whereas according to the Riva, the Gemara explicitly mentions 'al-M'nas she'Yiskapru ... ', that he had in mind for the Areilim to be atoned for; but if he had in mind (not that they should be atoned for, but) to feed the meat to Areilim, even Rav Chisda will agree that it is Kasher.

Reason: Because the P'sul of Achilah is not applicable by Zerikah, only that of Kaparah.

Reason (cont.): And it is specifically by Shechitah that if one has in mind to feed it to people who cannot eat it or to Areilim that itis Pasul, since it is clear that the Shechitah needs to be performed on behalf of owners are fit to eat it ...

Source: As the Torah writes "Ish L'fi Ochlav Tachosu".

Conclusion: Which teaches us that there is no Machsheves Ochlin by Zerikah.

Question: How does this differ from a case where one Shechted the Pesach on behalf of Mulim and Areilim?

Answer: In the case there, at least there is a Machshavah of Mulim by the Shechitah, whereas here Mulim are not included in the Zerikah.

Question: The Ri asks why we do not learn from a Kal va'Chomer that it is Pasul, from Shinuy Ba'alim - because if, whereas on the one hand, 'Hareini Shochet le'Shem P'loni' is Kasher, on the other, 'Liz'rok Damo le'Shem P'loni' is Pasul; Then where 'Shochet le'Shem Areilim', which is Pasul, 'Liz'rok le'Shem la'Areilim' should certainly be Pasul?

Precedent: In fact, the Gemara makes a similar Kal va'Chomer in Zevachim (Daf 10.) with regard to 'she'Lo li'Shemo'.

Answer #1: The Ri answers that it is different here, since Rabah will shortly learn it from a Pasuk.

Answer #2: Furthermore, says the Ri, one can ask (on the Kal va'Chomer) that Shinuy Ba'alim is Pasul because Zerikah le'Shem P'loni is Pasul, whereas Shochet Liz'rok la'Areilim is Kasher, since Zoreik le'Shem Areilim is Kasher. This is because, according to all opinions, there is no Machsheves Ochlin by Zerikah, as Tosfos explained earlier.

Question: Why do we not learn that Zoreik le'Shem Areilim is Pasul from Shinuy Ba'alim?

Answer #1: Perhaps there is a Miy'ut to preclude Ochlim from Zerikah.

Answer #1 (concl.): Not from "Tachosu", which does not imply a Miy'ut, but from elsewhere.

Answer #2: Moreover, one can ask that whereas Shinuy Ba'alim applies to all Kodshim, Areilim does not.

Precedent: Rav Ashi too, says a little further on that 'One cannot draw a distinction between Shechitah and Zerikah.

Question: The Riva asks that, since Zerikah is more lenient than Shechitah, inasmuch as it is not subject to Machsheves Ochlin, how can we possibly learn from Shechitah, and why does the Torah now need to write "Zos"?

Implied Question: Even though there is a Machlokes Tana'im in Sanhedrin (Daf 78.) regarding the case often men who beat a man with ten sticks (and killed him) - as to whether "Kol Nefesh" means that he took his whole life or that he took part of his life?

Precedent: And similarly in Bechoros, in connection with "Kol B'chor"?

Answer #1: Rav Ashi is coming to refute Rabah's proof and to establish the Beraisa according to the opinion that interprets "Kol" as Kold'hu.

Answer #2: Moreover, we can answer like Rashi, who explains that from the Beraisa itself it is evident that "Zos" comes to permit a partial Arlus, which is why the Gemara asks.

Question #1: Let the Pasuk omit "Kol"?

Question #2: Furthermore, why do we not say the other way round - that "Zos" implies the entire Orlah; therefore the Torah writes "Kol" to teach us even a Kold'hu?

Answer: The Gemara knew that "Kol" is needed for some other D'rashah, and the Torah needed to write "Zos" to indicate that one should not Darshen from "Kol" Kold'hu.

Answer (cont.): Whereas if we had Darshened the other way round, we woud not have been able to explain why the Torah writes "Zos".