(Mishnah): (In most Menachos (offerings made from fine flour), the Kohen inserts his middle three fingers into the Minchah and curls them back to his palm. What is within his hand is called a Kometz; it is burned on the Mizbe'ach.) If Kemitzah (taking a Kometz) of any Minchah was Lo Lishmah (with intent for a different Minchah, e.g. the Kohen said 'I take the Kometz l'Shem (for the sake of) Minchas Machavas (one cooked on a flat pan)', and it was really Marcheshes (cooked in a deep pan)), it is Kosher (we offer the Kometz, and the rest of the Minchah is eaten), but Lo Alu l'Shem Chovah (the owner was not Yotzei, i.e. he did not fulfill his obligation);

The only exceptions are Minchas Chotei (a very poor person brings this is for a Chatas for certain transgressions) and Minchas Kena'os (that a Sotah brings). If any of the following Avodos were done Lo Lishmah in either of them, it is Pasul;

Kemitzah, Nesinah (putting the Kometz in a second Kli Shares (a Kodesh vessel used for Avodah), Holachah (bringing the Kometz to the top of the Mizbe'ach) or Haktarah (burning it on the Mizbe'ach).

It is Pasul whether all of these Avodos were Lo Lishmah, or some Avodos were Lishmah and later Avodos were Lo Lishmah, or vice-versa.

The case of Lishmah followed by Lo Lishmah is when Kemitzah (of a Minchas Chotei) was l'Shem Minchas Chotei, and a later Avodah was l'Shem Minchas Nedavah (a voluntary offering);

The case of Lo Lishmah followed by Lishmah is when- Kemitzah was l'Shem Minchas Nedavah, and a later Avodah was l'Shem Minchas Chotei.

(Gemara) Question: Why did the Tana say but Lo Alu (l'Shem Chovah)? (He could have omitted this word!)

Answer: He teaches that even though Lo Alu, the Minchah is still Kosher. One may not do another Avodah (Nesinah, Holachah or Haktarah) Lo Lishmah.

(Rava): If an Olah was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, one may not do Zerikah Lo Lishmah. We can learn from reasoning or a verse:

Reasoning - because it was (improperly) slaughtered Lo Lishmah, should we do another Avodah Lo Lishmah?!

A verse - "...v'Asisa Ka'asher Nadarta... Nedavah."

Question: Why does the Torah call a Neder (a vow to bring a Korban with Acharayus, i.e. if the animal becomes lost or disqualified, he must bring another) 'Nedavah' (a Korban without Acharayus)?

Answer: If you did like your Neder (i.e. the Korban was offered Lishmah), it is a Neder (you fulfilled your vow). If not, it is only a Nedavah.

The Torah calls a Zevach slaughtered Lo Lishmah a Nedavah. One may not offer a Nedavah Lo Lishmah!

Suggestion: The Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon;

(Beraisa #1 - R. Shimon): If Kemitzah of any Minchah (even Minchas Chotei) was Lo Lishmah, it is Kosher and Alah (l'Shem Chovah);

Menachos are unlike Zevachim;

If Kemitzah was l'Shem Marcheshes and it was really (cooked in a) Machavas (such a Minchah is drier), this is evident (therefore, the intent has no effect);

If he did Kemitzah l'Shem Blulah (a Minchah mixed with oil) and it was really Charevah (without oil, i.e. Minchas Chotei), this is evident;

Zevachim are different. Shechitah and Zerikah are the same for all of them (therefore, Lo Lishmah is not Meratzeh (it is not Oleh l'Shem Chovah), and it is even Posel some Zevachim (Chatas and Pesach)).

Question: This is not difficult for Rav Ashi, who says that R. Shimon is (fully) Machshir only when one said (about a Minchas Machavas) 'l'Shem Marcheshes' (without saying 'Minchah'). Our Mishnah is even like R. Shimon. The case is, he said 'l'Shem Minchas Marcheshes', all agree that Lo Alah;

However, Rabah and Rava say that R. Shimon argues in both cases. Must they say that the Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon?

Suggestion: Perhaps they answer like Rabah says (below), that R. Shimon is Machshir only regarding Shinuy Kodesh (l'Shem the wrong Korban), but he admits about Shinuy Ba'alim (l'Shem the wrong owner. Since the Lo Lishmah is not evident, Lo Alah. This is the case in our Mishnah!)

Rejection: Our Mishnah discusses Shinuy Kodesh!

(Mishnah): Lishmah followed by Lo Lishmah - (Kemitzah of Minchas Chotei was) l'Shem Minchas Chotei, and a later Avodah was l'Shem Minchas Nedavah.

Suggestion: Perhaps they answer like Rava says (below), that R. Shimon is Machshir only regarding a Minchah l'Shem a different Minchah, but he admits regarding a Minchah l'Shem a Zevach that Lo Alu (and our Mishnah discusses this).

Rejection: Our Mishnah discusses a Minchah l'Shem a different Minchah!

(Mishnah): Lo Lishmah followed by Lishmah - Kemitzah was l'Shem Minchas Nedavah, and a later Avodah was l'Shem Minchas Chotei.

Conclusion: Indeed, Rabah and Rava must say that the Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon.

Question: R. Shimon contradicts what he said elsewhere!

(Beraisa #2 - R. Shimon): "Kodesh Kodoshim Hi ka'Chatas vecha'Asham" - some Menachos are like Chatas, and some Menachos are like Asham:

Minchas Chotei is like Chatas. Therefore, if Kemitzah was Lo Lishmah it is Pasul, like Chatas Lo Lishmah;

Minchas Nedavah is like Asham. Therefore, if Kemitzah was Lo Lishmah it is Kosher, like Asham Lo Lishmah;

However, if an Asham was Lo Lishmah, Lo Alah. The same applies to a Minchah Lo Lishmah.

Answer #1 (Rabah): In Beraisa #1, R. Shimon discusses Shinuy Kodesh, he says 'Teratzeh'; in Beraisa #2, he discusses Shinuy Ba'alim. (Other answers to this question will be given on Daf 3b.)

Question (Abaye): A Hekesh teaches that Menachos are like Zevachim. Improper intent is Posel This applies to Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim!

Answer (Rabah): R. Shimon says that it depends on whether or not the improper intent is evident. He expounds according to reasoning:

Shinuy Ba'alim is not evident, so it is Posel. Shinuy Kodesh is evident (i.e. that this was not cooked in a Machavas) therefore the intent is Batel.

Question #1: If so, if Melikah of Olas ha'Of was done above (on the top half of the Mizbe'ach) l'Shem Chatas ha'Of, Teratzeh (it should be Kosher and Oleh l'Shem Chovah), for the Lo Lishmah is evident, since Chatas is done below!

Answer: Melikah of Chatas ha'Of may also be done above. (Therefore, it is not evident. This could be a Chatas);

Melikah anywhere on the Mizbe'ach is Kosher.

Question #2: If Mitzuy (squeezing out the blood) of Olas ha'Of was done above l'Shem Chatas ha'Of, Teratzeh, for the Lo Lishmah is evident;

Chatas ha'Of is done below, and Haza'ah (sprinkling) is done with its blood!

Answer: This is not evident. Also in Chatas ha'Of, Mitzuy is done (after Haza'ah), and Mitzuy anywhere on the Mizbe'ach is Kosher.