Question: Also Zerikah should disqualify from a Kal v'Chomer. Shechitah disqualifies through Shinuy Ba'alim only with intent to throw [for a different owner], and it disqualifies with intent for people who cannot eat it;

All the more so Zerikah, which disqualifies when he throws not for the owner, should disqualify with intent for people who cannot eat it!

Answer #1: We can challenge this. You cannot learn from Shechitah, for it requires the north (for Kodshei Kodoshim), and it applies to inner Chata'os [unlike Zerikah]!

Objection: We did not know this challenge until below!

Answer #2 (R. Baruch): Here we ask [that we cannot learn] from Shechitah only Kabalah and Holachah. (Indeed, now we think that we learn Zerikah from the Kal v'Chomer.)

Answer #3: In Pesachim (61a) it excludes other Avodos in which intent for people who cannot eat does not disqualify.

Note: I.e. our Sugya is like Rabah, who expounds there (61b) that she'Lo l'Ochlav does not disqualify Zerikah. Perhaps a Kal v'Chomer teaches that it does not disqualify Kabalah and Holachah. Rav Chisda argues there about Zerikah.

Question: We should learn from Kabalah and Holachah from Shechitah and Zerikah!

Answer: We cannot learn [from Shechitah and Zerikah], for one is liable for them outside the Mikdash, like below (4b) in our Sugya.

Observation: We cannot learn Zerikah from all of them, since [the other three] apply to inner Chata'os.

Question: Below (36a) we expound from this "what is the source to include Shalmei Nazir and Shalmei Pesach? It says Shelamav." I.e. [we learn that] they are eaten for one day and a night!

Answer: There we expound from that it was written regarding eating.

Question: We should say that [the verse] comes only for this, that Shechitah must be l'Shem Todah!

Answer: We include Chatas and Asham, since it was written regarding eating.

Distinction: However, Shinuy Ba'alim is not after death.

Question (Rabbeinu, in Pesachim 61a DH v'Yeshno): According to the opinion that Shibud is not mid'Oraisa, likewise Shinuy Kodesh does not apply after death!

What is the relevance [of Shinuy Kodesh] - that the owner did not fulfill his obligation? The heirs are not obligated to bring another [Korban]!

This is an argument in Kidushin (13b) regarding a woman who brought her Chatas and died. Her heirs bring her Olah;

Shmuel said that this is only if she separated it in her lifetime. Rav Ashi said that it is even if she did not separate it in her lifetime;

Summation of question: [The Gemara] should have said her "according to the opinion that Shibud is not mid'Oraisa, there is no Shinuy Kodesh after death! However, two [stringencies of Shinuy Kodesh over Shinuy Ba'alim] always apply."

Answer #1: It is relevant if he separated two Shelamim or two Olos for Achrayus, and stipulated that if one dies or is lost, the other will be offered for an Olah, like the law of the first, and if the first is offered properly, the second will be Chulin;

When the owner died and the heir offered one Lo Lishmah, it is as if it was lost, and the other is offered in place of it. If [the heir] offered the first properly, then the second is Chulin.

Distinction: However, if he did not specify anything, just Stam he separated two for Achrayus, then even if the first was offered properly, the second is Ro'eh (grazes until it becomes blemished. We sell it,) and its [redemption] money is offered for an Olah;

This is like one who separated two Chata'os for Achrayus, like it says below (11b) that Mosar (leftover) Chatas is offered for an Olah. The same applies to one who separates two Shelamim or two Olos for Achrayus.

Answer #2: After death there is an Isur of Shinuy Kodesh when he changes it, but there is no Isur of Shinuy Ba'alim, since there is no owner.

Question: However, [the Gemara] did not yet know the Drashah of "Motza Sefasecha", from which we derive the Isur of Shinuy Kodesh, since we bring it below (4b). This is a comment.

Distinction: This does not apply to Shinuy Ba'alim. If he slaughtered [a Korban Tzibur] for an individual, he is the owner;

And even l'Shem a Nochri it is not disqualified, for we require a colleague like himself, who needs a Kaparah like himself. This is from R. Baruch.

Explanation: Even if speech is required, since there is no action, it is like mere thought.

Question: Here we equate them, and in Pesachim (62b) it connotes that there is a difference!

It explains there "what is the difference between Lishmah and Lo Lishmah (both intents in one Korban Pesach, which is Pasul), and l'Ochlav and Lo l'Ochlav (he intended that it will be eaten by people permitted to eat it, and also people forbidden to eat it)? [The former] is a Pesul in the Korban itself. [The latter] is not a Pesul in the Korban itself;

Answer: Since [Lo l'Ochlav] disqualifies only because he cannot eat a k'Zayis, e.g. [intent] for a sick or old person, it is considered more Pesulo b'Kodesh due to another matter, since if he was able to eat it, it would be Kosher.

Question: You are forced to say that "Lo li'Mnuyav (for people who do not own a share), for Arelim and for Temei'im" is not considered a Pesul in the Korban itself, lest it be difficult "what is the difference between Lishmah v'Lo Lishmah, and li'Mnuyav v'Lo li'Mnuyav, for Mulim and Arelim, or for Temei'im and Tehorim?"

Answer #1: Shinuy Ba'alim is considered a Pesul in the Korban itself because it depends on Zerikah;

However, Lo l'Ochlav and Lo li'Mnuyav depends on Shechitah, and the name of the owner is not on the Shechitah.

Answer #2: Lo l'Ochlav, he can fulfill his intent b'Heter if will be appointed on it people who are not sick or old. (One may slaughter for a group even if some of them cannot eat. This shows that even though one may not slaughter just for those who cannot eat, this is not a Pesul in the Korban itself);

However, Lo Lishmah he cannot fulfill. Therefore it is called a Pesul in the Korban itself.

Reference: The text in Megilah (8a) is "how is this implied? Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi said..."

Question: Why do we need a verse for Shinuy Ba'alim in Zerikah? Even other Avodos, [Shinuy Ba'alim] disqualifies only if he slaughters (or does Kabalah or Holachah) with intent to throw (with Shinuy Ba'alim). All the more so in [Zerikah] itself not l'Shem Ba'alim [disqualifies]!

Explanation: It is Avodah for which one is liable outside.

Observation: Even though here there are two (Avodos. We learn from Holachah with Kabalah), and here there is one, he considers them equal.

Question (R. Chayim): Now it connotes that when we do not know which to include, we include both;

Similarly in Bava Kama (3a), we include, from v'Shilach, Shen and Regel (damage through an animal eating or walking), for they are equal, and likewise in Erchin (4b) regarding Nefashos (we include a woman who was Ma'arich a man, and a Menuval and Mukas Shechin).

Whereas in Temurah (28b) and in Bava Kama (40b), we expound "Min ha'Behemah" to exclude Rove'a (an animal that had Bi'ah with a person), and "Min ha'Tzon" to exclude Noge'ach (an animal that killed a person);

[The Gemara] says that because there is [a stringency] in Rove'a not found in Noge'ach, and there is in Noge'ach [a stringency] not found in Rove'a, the Torah needed to write [Min ha'Behemah to exclude] Rove'a and [Min ha'Tzon to exclude] Noge'ach. (Had the Torah written one, we do not know which to include, and we would include both!)

Answer (R. Chayim): When there is a connotation for an inclusion, we include all matters that are equal, like here, that "Zevach" connotes to include like Shechitah everything that is an Avodah, and Shen and Regel are connoted in v'Shilach, and also Nefashos connotes everything;

However, "Min" does not connote to exclude both [Rove'a and Noge'ach].

Question: Everywhere, in Kodshim we require that something is written twice to teach that it is Me'akev. Here, it was not repeated!

Answer #1: [The Makshan] asks from Shinuy Kodesh, for which there are two verses, and we said above "since we do not need this to teach about Shinuy Kodesh, we use it to teach about Shinuy Ba'alim";

Now he asks that we should say that both teach about Shinuy Kodesh, and to be Me'akev.

Question: What was the answer 'the verse says "Motza Sefasecha..."?' Perhaps that verse comes for Shinuy Ba'alim, for we do not find that [Shinuy Ba'alim] was repeated!

Answer: This is not difficult at all. "Motza Sefasecha" does not connote Shinuy Ba'alim.

Answer #2: It seems that [the Makshan] asked based on reasoning, like Reish Lakish's question below (5a) "they should be Pasul, since you say that he did not fulfill his obligation, or we should say that they count [for his obligation], for if they are Kosher, they should be Meratzeh. If they are not Meratzeh, why do they come?!"

Retraction: However, it is different. Reish Lakish asked that they should be totally Kosher, like other Kodshim for which [the Torah] did not repeat [the Isur] to make it be Me'akev, and to be Pasul. (Reish Lakish had no source to disqualify. He only said that since there is no source to disqualify, they should be totally Kosher. And if you have a source that he is not Yotzei through them, they should be Pasul.)

And here, [if the Makshan held like Reish Lakish] he should not have asked that Lo Lishmah should be Pasul. Rather, he should have said "they should be Kosher and count for his obligation, like other Kodshim for which [the Torah] did not repeat [the Isur] to make it be Me'akev, as long as he did not know [the Drashah from] the verse Motza Sefasecha.