WHY EACH DID NOT LEARN LIKE THE OTHERS
Rabah and Rava disagreed about whether the clarity of Lo Lishmah is reason to disqualify or be Machshir. R. Hoshaya was unsure about this.
Question (R. Hoshaya): What does R. Shimon say about Kemitzah of a Minchah l'Shem a Zevach?
Perhaps an evident Lo Lishmah is Kosher (like Rabah). If so, surely this is Kosher!
Or, perhaps he learns from "v'Zos Toras ha'Minchah" (like Rava). The verse does not mention Zevachim, therefore, this is Pasul!
R. Asi: We are unsure of R. Shimon's reason.
R. Asi and R. Hoshaya did not answer like Rabah, due to Abaye's question (4:c Daf 2b, that Shinuy Ba'alim and Shinuy Kodesh should have the same law.) (We cannot answer like before, there is more reason to disqualify when the Lo Lishmah is evident, for R. Hoshaya and R. Asi were unsure about this.)
They did not answer like Rava, for if so, R. Shimon should similarly expound "v'Zos Toras ha'Chatas";
They did not answer like Rav Ashi, due to Rav Acha's question.
WHEN DOES SHE'LO LISHMAH INVALIDATE THE OFFERING?
(Mishnah): ...Except for Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os (Avodah Lo Lishmah in either of them is Posel).
Question: Granted, if a Minchas Chotei was Lo Lishmah is Pasul, for the Torah calls it Chatas - "Lo Yasim Aleha Shemen... Ki Chatas Hi";
However, if a Minchas Kena'os was Lo Lishmah, why is it Pasul?
Answer #1: (a reciter of Beraisos - Beraisa): Mosar (the leftover of money Hukdash to buy) Minchas Kena'os is used to buy (Rashi - Olos; Rambam - Menachos) Nedavah.
Support (Rav Nachman): We learn from a Gezerah Shavah. Regarding Minchas Kena'os it says "Mazkeres Avon." Rgarding Chatas it says "Lases Es Avon ha'Edah";
Just like Mosar Chatas is Nedavah, also Mosar Minchas Kena'os.
Summation of answer: Similarly, the Gezeirah Shavah teaches that just like Chatas Lo Lishmah is Pasul, also Minchas Kena'os!
Question #1: If so, also Asham Lo Lishmah should be Pasul. We should learn "Avon-Avon" from Chatas!
Answer #1: We learn Minchas Kena'os "Avon-Avon" from Chatas. We do not learn Asham, for there it says "Avono".
Objection: We can learn from a Gezerah Shavah, even if the words are not the same!
(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "V'Shav ha'Kohen" - "u'Va ha'Kohen" - this (Gezeirah Shavah) equates the law (of a house with Tzara'as) when the Kohen (first) returns with when he comes (another week later).
Question #2 (against answer (c)): We should learn Asham "Avono-Avono" from Shevu'as ha'Edus - "Im Lo Yagid v'Nasa Avono"!
Answer (to Questions 1 and 2, and Rejection of answer (c)): The Gezerah Shavah teaches only t the Mosar goes to Nedavah (to buy Olos for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach, i.e. to offer when the Mizbe'ach is idle).
Suggestion: Since we learn from a Gezerah Shavah, we should learn all laws from it!
Rejection: "V'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" - only Chatas (must be Lishmah, and) if it is not Lishmah, it is Pasul. Other Kodshim are Kosher even Lo Lishmah.
Question (b), broadened: Since we cannot learn (even Minchas Chotei) from Chatas, what is the source that Lo Lishmah disqualifies Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os?
Answer #2: We learned that Chatas Lo Lishmah is Pasul from "(Chatas) Hi." Similarly, it says "Hi" regarding these Menachos.
Question: We should say that Asham Lo Lishmah is Pasul, for it says "Hu" regarding Asham!
Answer: It says "Hu" regarding Asham after Haktaras ha'Eimurim;
(Beraisa): It says "Hu" regarding Asham after Haktaras ha'Eimurim. Lo Lishmah in Haktarah is no worse than omitting Haktarah. It does not disqualify. (Once Zerikah was done, the Korban is Kosher).
Question: What do we learn from "Hu"?
Answer: This teaches Rav Huna's law.
(Rav Huna): If an Asham was Nitak (given to a shepherd) to graze (until it becomes blemished, it will then be redeemed and an Olas Nedavah will be bought with the money) and was slaughtered (in the Mikdash) Stam (without intent for Asham, Olah or any other particular Korban), it is Kosher.
Inference: If it was not Nitak (and was slaughtered Stam), it is Pasul.
We learn from "Hu" - it is still an Asham (until it is Nitak or Ne'ekar (slaughtered l'Shem a different Korban).)
A MACHSHIR THAT DID NOT PERMIT
(Rav): If Minchas ha'Omer was Nikmatz Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul, since it comes to permit (Chodosh, i.e. grain that took root after last Pesach ), and (since Lo Alah l'Shem Chovah,) it did not permit;
Similarly, if Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul, since it comes to permit (drinking wine or eating Kodshim), and it did not.
Question (Mishnah): If Kemitzah of any Minchah was Lo Lishmah, it is Kosher, but Lo Alu l'Shem Chovah, except for Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os.
According to Rav, also Minchas ha'Omer Lo Lishmah is Pasul!
Answer #1: The Mishnah lists only Menachos of individuals, but not of the Tzibur.
Answer #2: The Mishnah lists only Menachos brought by themselves, but not those accompanied by a Zevach. (A lamb is brought with the Omer.)
Answer #3: The Mishnah lists only Menachos without a fixed time.
(Rav): Similarly, if Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul, since it comes to permit and it did not.
Question (Mishnah): Any Zevach that was slaughtered Lo Lishmah is Kosher, but Lo Alu l'Shem Chovah, except for Pesach or Chatas.
According to Rav, also Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora Lo Lishmah is Pasul!
Answer: The Tana could not say decisively that (any) Asham Lo Lishmah is Pasul, for some come to atone (not to permit), e.g. Asham Gezeilos and Asham Me'ilos (and they are Kosher Lo Lishmah), therefore he did not teach them at all.
Question: Rav says that if a Korban comes to permit and does not permit, it is Pasul. Likewise, he should say that if a Korban comes to atone and does not atone, it is Pasul!
Answer (R. Yirmeyah): We find that the Torah distinguishes between Mechaprim (Korbanos that atone) and Machshirim (Korbanos that permit). Mechaprim sometimes come after death, but Machshirim never do!
(Mishnah): If a Yoledes brought her Chatas (which permits her to Kodshim) and died (before bringing her Olah, which is Mechaper), her heirs bring her Olah;
If she brought her Olah and died, her heirs do not bring her Chatas.
Question (Rav Yehudah brei d'R. Shimon ben Pazi): Sometimes also Machshirim come after death!
(Mishnah): If a man was Makdish coins Stam for his Korbanos Nezirus (he did not specify how much for each Korban), one may not benefit from them. (If one benefited) there is no Me'ilah, because all the coins may be used for Shelamim (in which there is no Me'ilah until after Zerikah);
If he died and left Stam coins, it goes to Nedavah;
If he died leaving Mefurash coins (he designated how much is for each Korban), the coins for the Chatas are thrown in the Dead Sea. One may not benefit from them; there is no Me'ilah (for nothing can be offered with these coins);
The money for the Olah is used to bring an Olah. Me'ilah applies to it;
The money for the Shelamim is used to bring a Shelamim. It is eaten for one day and a night (like Shalmei Nazir), but it is not accompanied by bread.
Summation of question: Olah and Shelamim of a Nazir are Machshirim, yet they come after death!
Answer (Rav Papa): R. Yirmeyah meant that a fixed Machshir (it permits something that nothing else permits) never comes after death;
Korbanos Nazir are not fixed, for if a Nazir shaved after bringing any one of them, he was Yotzei.
Question (against Rav - Beraisa): If an Asham Metzora was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, or if the blood was not put on the (ear and) Behonos (thumb and toe), it is offered on the Mizbe'ach, it is accompanied by Nesachim, and another Asham is required (to permit him to Kodshim).
Rav is refuted.