Question (Rav Papa against Rava): What do you learn from 'Shelishi' in the short verse?

Answer (Rava): This teaches that improper intent takes effect only if it is in a place Meshulash with blood, meat and Eimurim (Rashi - all are offered or consumed there; R. Yom Tov - a place is Meshulash if all of these become Pasul there).

Question: We already know this from Shelishi in the long verse (which comes first)!

Answer (Rav Masnah): From there, one might have thought that "Shelishi" is a Perat (specific term) and "Pigul" is a Klal (general term), and from a Perat u'Chlal we include everything (all places);

Therefore, it must say Shelishi in the short verse to teach that the place must be Meshulash.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): "V'Im He'achel Ye'achel mi'Bsar Zevach Shelamav" discusses one who plans to eat on the third day.

Suggestion: Perhaps it discusses one who eats on the third day!

Rejection: If it was already Kosher (at the time of Zerikah), it cannot become Pasul later!

R. Akiva: We find that a Zav (or Zavah or Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom) who is Muchzak to be Tahor, if he (or she) sees an emission (or blood), (s)he retroactively becomes Tamei;

Similarly, a Korban that was Kosher can become Pasul later!

R. Eliezer: "Ha'Makriv" - it becomes Pasul at the time it is offered, and not on the third day.

Suggestion: Perhaps "ha'Makriv" disqualifies the Kohen who offered it!

Rejection: "Oso"- only the Zevach becomes Pasul.

(Beraisa - Ben Azai) Suggestion: Since it says "Lo Se'acher Leshalmo", if one delayed bringing the Korban he vowed (and transgressed Lo Se'acher), it is Pasul!

Rejection: "Oso" - Pigul is not Meratzeh, but a late Korban is accepted.

Others say, "Lo Yechashev" teaches that it becomes Pasul through intent, but not (through being eaten) on the third day.

Question: What is Ben Azai's source that the Korban becomes Pasul, but the Kohen does not?

Answer #1: He agrees with 'Others'. (The Torah needed to teach that eating on the third day does not disqualify. One would never think that this could disqualify the Kohen who offered it! Rather, it must refer to the Korban.)

Answer #2: "Lo Yeratzeh" refers to the Korban.

Question: Ben Azai should learn that a late Korban is acceptable like Others! (Why does he need "Oso"?)

(Beraisa - Others) Suggestion: A Bechor (a firstborn male Kosher animal, which is automatically a Korban) that was not offered in its first year should be Pasul like a blemished Korban!

Rejection: "V'Achalta... Ma'aser Degancha... u'Vchoros Bekarcha" equates Bechor and Ma'aser (of produce). Just like Ma'aser is not disqualified if it is not eaten within the year, also Bechor.

Answer: One might have thought that Bechor is not disqualified because it does not atone for anything, but one who must bring a Korban is not Yotzei if he brought it late;

"Oso" teaches that this is not so.

Question: He should learn from the following verse!

"V'Hayah Becha Chet" - (if you delay fulfilling your vow, there is sin in you, but) there is no sin in your Korban (it is Kosher).

Answer: Ben Azai expounds "v'Hayah Becha Chet", but there is no sin in your wife (she will not die for this).

(R. Elazar): A woman dies if her husband does not pay the theft (Rashi; Tosfos - never brings the vows) that he owes - "Im Ein Lecha Leshalem Lamah Yikach Mishkavcha mi'Tachtecha";

One might have thought that she dies also if he delays offering vows. Ben Azai teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa - Others): "Lo Yechashev" - it becomes Pasul through intent, but not on the third day.

Question: How does R. Eliezer expound "Lo Yechashev"?

Answer: He expounds like R. Yanai;

Version #1 (R. Yanai): An intent (of Chutz li'Mkomo) that accompanies an intent (of Chutz li'Zmano) prevents Kares - "Lo Yechashev", different intents will not be mixed.

Version #2 - Rav Mari - (R. Yanai): One who offers Kodshim with improper intent is lashed - "Lo Yechashev".

Question (Rav Ashi): One is not lashed for a Lav without an action!

Answer (Rav Mari): He holds like R. Yehudah, who says that one is lashed for such a Lav.

(Mishnah): The general rule about Shechitah, Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah done with (improper) intent to eat something that is normally eaten, or Lehaktir (to burn on the Mizbe'ach) something that is normally burned there:

If he intended for a k'Zayis (e.g. of meat) Chutz li'Mkomo, the Korban is Pasul, and there is no Kares;

If he intended for a k'Zayis Chutz li'Zmano, the Korban is Pigul, and one who eats it is Chayav Kares, if the Matir (the blood, which permits the meat and Eimurim) was offered properly (except for intents of Chutz li'Zmano).

Question: When do we say that the Matir was offered properly?

Answer: He slaughtered properly, and did Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah (with intent) Chutz li'Zmano;

Or, he slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano, and did the other three Avodos properly;

Or, he did all four Avodos Chutz li'Zmano.

Question: When do we say that the Matir was not offered properly?

Answer: He slaughtered Chutz li'Mkomo, and did Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah Chutz li'Zmano;

Or, he slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano, and did one of the other three Avodos Chutz li'Mkomo;

Or, he did all four Avodos Chutz li'Mkomo;

Or, regarding a Chatas or Pesach, he slaughtered Lo Lishmah (this disqualifies these Korbanos), and did Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah Chutz li'Zmano;

Or, he slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano, and did one of the other three Avodos Lo Lishmah.

Or, he did all four Avodos Lo Lishmah.

If he intended to eat a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo, and (later intended to eat) a k'Zayis Chutz li'Zmano, or vice-versa, or half a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo, and half a k'Zayis Chutz li'Zmano, or vice-versa, it is Pasul, and there is no Kares;

R. Yehudah says, the general rule is, if intent Chutz li'Zmano came first, it is Pigul, and there is Kares. If intent Chutz li'Mkomo came first, it is Pasul, and there is no Kares.

Chachamim say, whichever came first, it is Pasul, and there is no Kares;

If he intended to eat half a k'Zayis (Chutz li'Mkomo or Chutz li'Zmano) and Lehaktir half a k'Zayis, it is Kosher, because eating and burning do not join.

(Gemara - Ilfa): Chachamim and R. Yehudah argue about intents in two different Avodos, but if he had both intents in one Avodah, all agree that it is Pasul, and there is no Kares;

(R. Yochanan): They argue even about intents in one Avodah.

Question: According to Ilfa, the entire Mishnah discusses (intents in) different Avodos. According to R. Yochanan, the Reisha discusses two Avodos, and the Seifa discusses one Avodah!

Answer: Indeed, that is how R. Yochanan explains the Mishnah.