R' Simlai came to R' Yonasan and said, "Teach me Agada!''

Response: I have a tradition from my forefathers not to teach Agada to someone from Bavel or someone from the South as they are haughty and unknowledgeable in Torah - and you are from Nehardai (in Bavel) and live in the South!

(R' Simlai to R' Yonasan): Just tell me one thing - What is the difference between Lishmah and Lo Lishmah and L'Ochlav and Lo L'Ochav?

Response: Lishmah and Lo Lishmah is an internal disqualification; L'Ochlav and Lo L'Ochlav is an external disqualification.

A second difference: Lishmah and Lo Lishmah - one could not separate the invalid part from the valid part of the sacrifice. L'Ochlav and Lo L'Ochlav - one could separate the invalid part from the valid part.

A third difference: Lishmah and Lo Lishmah applies to all sacrifices (that ideally one must sacrifice it Lishmah). L'Ochlav and Lo L'Ochlav only applies to the Pesach sacrifice.

(R' Yosi): From the following statement of R' Elazar one can learn that he does not agree with two of the differences just stated by R' Yonasan -

The Mishnah refers to when it was slaughtered L'Ochlav and Lo L'Ochlav. But if it was originally slaughtered and atonement achieved L'Ochlav and Lo L'Ochlav, it is invalid. (Note: The words in parentheses were taken out by Rav Chaim Kanievski.)

Question: Its disqualification is external and one is able to separate its invalid part from its valid part, and nevertheless R' Elazar ruled that it is invalid. (This proves the he does not agree with these two differences of R' Yonasan.)

Conclusion: Rather, R' Elazar's only difference is that Lishmah and Lo Lishmah applies to all sacrifices (that ideally one must sacrifice it Lishmah); L'Ochlav and Lo L'Ochlav only applies to the Pesach sacrifice.

(R' Avin): There is another difference - Lishmah and Lo Lishmah applies to all stages of the sacrifice; L'Ochlav and Lo L'Ochlav only applies to the slaughtering.

If one intended it L'Ochlav, that they should eat a kzayis or one intended it Lo L'Ochlav that they should eat a kzayis, it is valid. If one intended it L'Ochlav, that they should eat a kzayis or one intended it Lo L'Ochlav that they should eat half a kzayis, it is certainly valid. What is the law though, if one intended it L'Ochlav, that they should eat half a kzayis or one intended it Lo L'Ochlav that they should eat half a kzayis?

Question: What is the case? If intention for someone to eat half a kzayis is insignificant, do we view it as if one intended it Lo L'Ochlav or not? (Note: This follows the second explanation of the Korban HaEidah.)

Answer (R' Yosi): From the Mishnah it is clear that intentions do not combine, as the Mishnah (in Zevachim) teaches - "to eat half a Kzayis and burn half a Kzayis, it is valid, as eating and burning do not combine.

If he slaughtered it for half of the group -

R' Yona says it is invalid - it is as if he has suspended the atonement of these (that he had intended) on those (that he had not intended); since those cannot fulfill their obligation, neither can these.

R' Yosi says that it is valid.

When R' Yosi reviewed his learning, he decided to retract.

R' Pinchas to R' Yosi: Did you not teach us that it is valid?

R' Yosi: (I commend you that) Your learning is fixed inside you like an nail - (however, I retracted).

If he slaughtered it before midday (of the 14th) it is invalid; immediately after midday it is valid; before the Tamid offering it is valid.

Support (Beraisa): I might have thought that if the Pesach preceded the Tamid, the Tamid should not be brought - the pasuk teaches "you shall perform'', (even if the Pesach preceded it).

R' Avin: One may learn from this Beraisa that a Pesach is valid if slaughtered before the Tamid - as if it would be invalid, it should be viewed as if it does not exist.

Question: There you said that the blood of the Tamid and its limbs precede the Pesach, the Pesach precedes the Ketores and the Ketores precedes cleaning out the candles; but here you taught this (in the Mishnah that it is valid as long as someone mixes its blood until the Tamid blood is thrown - but there is no mention of burning the limbs)?!

Answer (R' Ila): As long as the Pesach is still alive, one first sacrifices the limbs of the Tamid; once the Pesach has been slaughtered, we only wait to throw the blood until after the blood of the Tamid is thrown.

(Mishnah): One who slaughters the Pesach offering with Chametz in his possession transgresses a negative prohibition (of the pasuk in Shemos 34, 25).

R' Yehudah says that he transgresses this prohibition even when slaughtering the [afternoon] Tamid offering [of Erev Pesach].

R' Shimon says that if he slaughters the Pesach offering on the 14th Lishmah, he is liable, but if he slaughters it Lo Lishmah, he is exempt. Other sacrifices that he slaughtered (on the afternoon of the 14th), whether Lishmah or Lo Lishmah, he is exempt. A "Pesach offering'' brought during the Moed - Lishmah, he is exempt, Lo Lishmah he is liable.

Question: What is the source for the law that if one slaughters the Pesach offering with Chametz in his possession, he has transgressed a negative commandment?

Answer: The pasuk states (Shemos 34, 25), "You shall not slaughter upon Chametz the blood of My sacrifices''.

Question: What is the source for this law to also apply to throwing the blood?

Answer: The (same) pasuk states, "You shall not slaughter upon Chametz the blood''.

(R' Shmuel bar Rav Yitschak): The fact that he is liable for throwing the blood (even though he had already become liable for the slaughtering) shows that the Pesach offering itself is valid (and his earlier transgression did not invalidate the Korban).

Rejection (R' Yosa): One could explain that he acquired Chametz between the slaughtering and the throwing. Alternatively, there were two different people, one slaughtered and the other throwed the blood (and the second one owned Chametz).

(Beraisa-Chezkiya): "You shall not slaughter upon Chametz the blood of My sacrifices'' - the Torah refers to it as "My sacrifice'', even after it was slaughtered upon Chametz.

(R' Mana): If not for the Beraisa of Chezkiya, we would learn that one could be liable a Chatas offering even for a Korban which is invalid.

One who caused an invalid Minchah offering to become Chametz - one Beraisa teaches that he is liable and one Beraisa teaches that he is exempt.

(Rav Chisda) - The Beraisa that teaches that he is liable refers to when it became invalid because it was leaven.

The Beraisa that teaches that he is exempt refers to when it did not become invalid because it was leaven (but rather for a different reason).

One who burned the limbs of the Pesach upon Chametz - one Beraisa teaches that he is liable and one Beraisa teaches that he is exempt.

One Beraisa teaches that he is liable, as the pasuk states "You shall not slaughter...and you shall not leave overnight...'' - since one could be liable for "you shall not leave overnight'' with the limbs of the Korban, one could be liable for "you shall not slaughter''. (Note: This understanding follows the text of the Korban HaEidah.)

One Beraisa teaches that he exempt as it is referred to as "(My) sacrifice''. Its sacrificing is unique in that it is crucial for gaining atonement. This excludes the burning of the limbs, which is not crucial for gaining atonement.