1)

(a)Our Mishnah informs us that all Korbanos that are Shechted she'Lo li'Sheman are Kasher. The snag is that - the owner is not Yotzei, and is therefore obligated to bring another one (though this will not apply to a Nedavah [where he undertook to bring a specific animal as an Olah or a Shelamim], for which he is not responsible and is not therefore required to re-place it) ...

(b)... and the ramifications of Kasher are that - a. the Kohen may go ahead and sprinkle the blood and sacrifice the animal and b. the animal may be eaten in the prescribed manner.

(c)she'Lo li'Sheman means that - it is Shechted as a different Korban that what it really is (an Olah having in mind a Shelamim [see Tosfos DH 'Kol']).

(d)The two exceptions are - a Pesach in its time (bi'Zemano) and a Chatas any time.

(e)A Pesach she'Lo bi'Zemano (either before midday of the fourteenth of Nisan or after sunset, when it may no longer be Shechted) - has the status of a regular Shelamim.

2)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer adds - an Asham to the list of exceptions ...

(b)... because he learns it from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Chatas, since both come to atone for a sin.

(c)Yossi ben Choni renders Pasul even an Olah and a Shelamim which are brought she'Lo li'Sheman - in the event that they are brought as a Pesach (on Erev Pesach) or as a Chatas.

3)

(a)Shimon Achi Azaryah presents a different principle. He is called by that name - because it was thanks to his brother Azaryah, who supported him fully (under contract), that he was able to learn full-time.

(b)When he refers to ...

1. ... Namuch le'Shem Gavohah, he means - Kodshim Kalim as Kodshei Kodshim.

2. ... Gavohah le'Shem Namuch, he means - Kodshei Kodshim as Kodshim Kalim.

(c)In a case where one Shechts ...

1. ... Namuch le'Shem Gavohah, he rules that - the Korban is Kasher.

2. ... Gavohah le'Shem Namuch that - it is Pasul.

(d)And he adds that if one Shechts a B'chor or Ma'aser Beheimah as a Shelamim it is Kasher, but not vice-versa - because a Shelamim requires the blood to be placed on all four corners of the Mizbei'ach, Nesachim (a flour-offering) and Tenufah (the waving of the chest and the right fore-leg), all of which the other two do not.

4)

(a)We ask why the Tana adds the word Ela she'Lo Alu le'Shem le'Ba'alim ... ', and not simply ve'Lo Alu le'Ba'alim ... - since we have a principle that 'a Rebbe should always teach his Talmidim as briefly as possible.

(b)We answer with a statement of Rava, who says that if an Olah is Shechted she'Lo Lishmah - the Zerikah must still be performed li'Shemah, because the Korban has not lost its Kedushah.

(c)Consequently our Mishnah uses the word 'Ela' - to restrict the Halachic irregularity to the owner not being Yotzei, without impinging on the animal's Kedushah.

5)

(a)We ascribe Rava's statement to both a S'vara and a Pasuk. The S'vara is the principle that - two wrongs don't make a right.

(b)And he derives it from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Motza Sefasecha Tishmor ve'Asisa Ka'asher Nadarta ... Nedavah". Seeing as the Pasuk is talking about a Neder (to bring a non-specified animal [for which one bears responsibility]) - why does the Torah refer to it as a Nedavah (which refers to a specific animal, for which one is not responsible)?

(c)Rava therefore explains that - as long as one treats is as a Neder (by bringing it li'Shemah), it remains a Neder. However, once one brings it she'Lo li'Shemah, it becomes a Nedavah (which is Kasher, but which leaves the owner with his original obligation intact).

(d)Despite the fact that one is not responsible to replace a Nedavah, one is forbidden to bring it she'Lo li'Shemah - we learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Lo Yechashev" - an intrinsic prohibition to have wrong thoughts when bringing a Korban).

6)

(a)Ravina thought it a pity that Rav Papa was not present in bei Charmach, when Rava asked a good Kashya one Shabbos and answered it. The reason that he was not there was - because he was outside the T'chum when Shabbos arrived.

(b)When Rava interprets the Mishnah in Gitin 'Kol ha'Get she'Nichtav she'Lo le'Shem Ishah, Pasul' to incorporate 'Stam', he is referring to a case where - a Sofer writes a Get for Le'ah (with nobody specific in mind), so that in the event that a woman by the name of Le'ah comes for a Get, he will have one ready.

(c)That Mishnah appears to clash with our Mishnah - in that it holds S'tama ke'she'Lo li'Shemah, whereas our Mishnah holds S'tama ke'li'Shemah' (as we will see shortly).

(d)To explain the difference between Get and Kodshim - Rava points out that whereas Kodshim are meant to be brought li'Sheman, a woman is not meant to be divorced.

7)

(a)Initially, we try to infer from the Lashon of our Mishnah 'Kol ha'Zevachim she'Nizb'chu she'Lo li'Sheman ... ' that - S'tama ke'li'Sheman; otherwise. the Tana ought to have said - Kol ha'Zevachim she'Lo Nizb'chu li'Sheman ... .

(b)We reject this suggestion however - seeing as the Mishnah in Gitin uses the same Lashon, yet the Tana holds S'tama ke'she'Lo li'She'mah Dami (as we will see shortly).

(c)So we cite the Mishnah later 'Keitzad li'Sheman ve'she'Lo li'Sheman; le'Shem Pesach u'le'Shem Shelamim', from which we initially infer S'taman ke'li'Sheman Dami - since otherwise, there would be no difference between 'le'Shem Pesach u'le'Shem Shelamim' and le'Shem Pesach u'S'tam'.

(d)We reject ...

1. ... this proof however - due to the fact that a person usually persists with the same thought with which he began (so S'tama follows 'le'Shem Pesach'), but S'tama on its own might well be like she'Lo li'Shemah.

2. ... a similar proof from the Seifa of that Mishnah, where we make the same inference from 'Keitzad she'Lo li'Sheman ve'Lisheman; le'Shem Shelamim u'le'Shem Pesach' as we did from the Reisha (Ha S'tama u'le'Shem Pesach Kasher) - bearing in mind that one's final words generally reflect one's initial intentions. Alternatively, the Tana only inserted this case to balance the Reisha (and not for its implication), since really S'tama is also Pasul.

8)

(a)We finally prove our point from a Mishnah later (in Beis Shamai, where the Tana Kama lists six things that the Kohen must have in mind when bringing a Korban ('le'Shem Zevach, le'Shem Zove'ach, le'Shem Hash-m ... '). According to Rebbi Yossi however - even if the Kohen did not have any of these specifically in mind, the Korban is nevertheless Kasher.

(b)In fact, he says, based on a T'nai Beis-Din - one should actually not have in mind li'Shemah, in case one comes to think she'Lo li'Shemah.

(c)We prove from here that S'tama ke'Lishmah Dami - because if S'tama was Pasul, why would Beis-Din need to initiate a condition that renders the Korban Pasul?