Question: Below (13a), it asks "does Kabalah disqualify?!..." and answers "this refers to intent Lo Lishmah, and this refers to intent of Pigul";

Why doesn't it answer that both of them refer to intent Lo Lishmah, and Kabalah does not make intent like action, e.g. Shechitah with intent to do Kabalah Lo Lishmah, and Zerikah makes intent like action?

Answer: Below, we discuss when he intended in the Avodah itself - if he received in order to finish the Kabalah Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul. If he received in order to finish Chutz li'Zmano, it is Kosher;

If he did Zerikah in order to finish the Zerikah Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pasul;

Similarly, Haktarah in order to finish the Haktarah tomorrow, it would be Pasul, had a verse not excluded this below, because [Haktarah] is not Me'akev Kaparah.

Implied suggestion: Below it says that intent for Pigul does not disqualify in Kabalah, e.g. Shechitah with intent to receive the blood Chutz li'Zmano, and also Lo Lishmah does not disqualify.

Rejection: We learn from Pigul [that intent disqualifies] from Avodah to Avodah.

Conclusion (R. Baruch): Rather, it is like I explained. He had intent in the Avodah itself.

Question: Even without this, this is astounding. It could have said that for Kabalah, intent is not like action regarding Shinuy Ba'alim!

Explanation: Reish Lakish agrees that he is Chayav Misah, like we say in Sanhedrin (61a), like we find regarding one who bowed to a mountain. The mountain is permitted and the one who served it is killed by the sword [if he is a Nochri. A Yisrael is stoned for idolatry];

[Even so, the meat is permitted. It] is not considered Shechitah of a Mumar, like I explained in Chulin (14a DH ha'Shochet) regarding one who slaughtered on Shabbos (that one does not become a Mumar the first time he transgresses).

Question: How is he killed? Perhaps he will reconsider, and not do Zerikah for idolatry, like it says in Sanhedrin (61a) that if one was enticed [to do idolatry] and said "I will go and serve", he is exempt, for he will reconsider and not serve!

Answer #1: Here surely he will not reconsider, since he did an act and slaughtered with intent to throw.

Answer #2: Here, even if we knew surely that he will not throw, he is considered one who serves idolater through Shechitah, when he slaughtered with intent to throw.

Question: One who slaughtered Pesach she'Lo l'Shem Ochlin disproves this. One who slaughters she'Lo l'Shem Ochlin is Pasul, but Shechitah in order to do Zerikah she'Lo l'Shem Ochlin is Kosher!

Answer: There is different, for one who does Zerikah itself she'Lo l'Shem Ochlin, it is Kosher.

Question #1: The one who does not ask that [Shechitah and Kabalah] require the north, and they apply to inner Chata'os, because we discuss Shelamim, why do we need to learn from both of them?

We should learn from a Kal v'Chomer from Kabalah, for which one is not liable outside [the Mikdash], and even so, intent disqualifies in it!

Question #2: [And according to him,] why do we need a verse for Zerikah with Shinuy Ba'alim, which we expound (4b) from "Lechaper Alav"? We should learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of Shechitah and Kabalah!

Question #3: [And according to him,] why is there no intent of eaters in Pesach in Zerikah? We should learn from a Kal v'Chomer from Shechitah, which is Kosher through a Zar, since we do not ask from the north and inner Chata'os!

Answer: Perhaps the Tana [expounds] an exclusion [to exclude Zerikah].

Implied question: She'Lo li'Mnuyav (for people who do not own a share of it), i.e. Shinuy Ba'alim, is also written in the verse (there is a Hekesh to Lo l'Ochlav), and we do not exclude Zerikah!

Answer: It is different. (Shinuy Ba'alim applies to all Korbanos.)

Explanation: This is according to Rabanan, for according to R. Shimon, there is no Kal v'Chomer;

We can challenge it. You cannot learn from Shinuy Ba'alim, which applies to Menachos, to Shinuy Kodesh, which does not apply to Menachos according to R. Shimon (Menachos 2b).

Observation: In several places, it connotes that since it says "Hi", we learn Ikuva.

Question: Above, we learn from other verses!

Answer: I explained above (5b DH Mi'et. We need additional verses because we cannot learn all Chata'os from each other.)

Implied question: This is written regarding Asham. We could have learned Asham from Chatas from a Gezeirah Shavah "Avon-Avon" from Chatas Shevu'as ha'Edus, for we learn [from this Gezeirah Shavah] that Mosar [of Asham] is Nedavah, and a Gezeirah Shavah is not partial (we learn everything possible from it)!

Answer: If not for this Hekesh, we would have excluded Asham from "Osah".

Implied question: Also Asham Taluy comes for [a Safek about] Kares!

Answer: It does not come to atone, rather to protect [from punishment], and when he finds out [that he truly sinned] he will bring a Chatas.

Observation: We could have said [that we cannot learn from Chatas and Pesach] because they come b'Tzibur.

Implied question: We should ask that we cannot learn from Chatas, for it pertains to Kares!

Answer: When we learn from one source, we do not ask flimsy Pirchos.

Question: Since this Kal v'Chomer overrides the Hekesh, if so an Olah should be Pasul Lo Lishmah, from a Kal v'Chomer from Chatas, which is not Kalil (totally burned).

Suggestion: You cannot learn from Chatas, for it atones!

Rejection: Pesach Yochi'ach (proves that the law does not depend on this).

Answer: Since it says Osah regarding Chatas (this excludes other Korbanos), this is not difficult.

Question: According to [Abaye's] reasoning, that he makes a Kal v'Chomer from Olah, which is Kalil, Lo Lishmah should be Kosher also for Asham!

Answer: [Olah does not atone, so Abaye needed Chatas ha'Of to be Yochi'ach that it does not depend on this. If we seek to be Machshir Lo Lishmah,] now Chatas ha'Of cannot be Yochi'ach [for it is Pasul Lo Lishmah].

Implied question: Why is this unlike what we say (below 63a, Menachos 8a) that a Shelamim slaughtered in the Heichal is Kosher. What is secondary (the Azarah) should not be greater than what is primary (the Heichal)!

Answer: That is only when it says Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, for it attributes the Hechsher to the Heichal.