Question: How is it possible to establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, when the Seifa says 'la'Tem'im ve'la'Tehorim Kasher? Why should that be, seeing as, bearing in mind that the Machshavah of Teme'im is confined to the Shechitah, it can only be talking about one Avodah. So why should we not say 'T'fos Lashon Rishon'?

Answer: The Mishnah is speaking in a case where Teme'im and Tehorim are standing in front of him, and he declares that he is Shechting on behalf of these ...

Answer (cont.): Under any other circumstances there would be no way of explaining Miktzas Orlah, that is not Pasul according to Rebbi, according to Rava, who holds 'Einah li'Shechitah Ela li'be'Sof'.

Question: Why do we not establish the Reisha where he Shechted S'tam, which is why when he Shechted she'Lo li'Shemo, it says 'that his final words reflect his opening ones.

Question (cont.): But has he specifically said that he was going to Shecht li'Shemo, we would have thought that, even by two Avodos, the 'she'Lo li'Shemo' does not uproot it. And that is why we need the Seifa?

Answer: It is a S'vara that by two Avodos, what he says explicitly will not be any more effective than what he says S'tam.

Refutation of Rashi: Rashi's explanation is forced, in that it mentions Rav Papa and not Rebbi Yochanan, who specifically says there that a Machshavah from one Avodah to another is effective.

Explanation #2: The Riva therefore inserts the text earlier 'Ba'i Rav Papa, ba'Avodah Achas T'nan ... '? And the Gemara therefore concludes here that this is the She'eilah of Rav Papa - meaning this is now to establish it, and that one cannot therefore resolve it from the Mishnah.

Support: The Ri too, discovered this text in an old Seifer, and it is also the text of Rabeinu Chananel.

Explanation #3: Whereas the Rashba explains 'And this is the She'eilah of Rav Papa' - what he asked whether it is talking about one Avodah or two Avodos'.

Conclusion: 'Two Avodos' means that one Shechted it li'Shemo, having in mind to sprinkle the blood she'Lo li'Shemo (See Maharsha).

Question: Why can we not ask the same question even if it would be speaking by one Avodah - Now that li'Shemo and she'Lo li'Shemo is Pasul, how much more so she'lo li'Shemo ve'li'Shemo?

Question (cont.): Since even Rebbi Meir, who argues by li'Shemo and she'Lo li'Shemo, will concede by she'Lo li'Shemo ve'li'Shemo, since everybody agrees 'T'fos Lashon Rishon'?

Answer #1: If it is speaking by one Avodah, it is coming to teach us that we do not go exclusively after the last Lashon, to preclude the opinion of ben Nannes, who holds in Perek Beis Kur (Bava Basra Daf 105.) 'T'fos Lashon Acharon', to the point of nullifying the first Lashon.

Answer #2: Whereas the Ri explains that by one Avodah it goes well to mention she'Lo li'Shemo ve'li'Shemo on account of li'Shemo ve'she'Lo li'Shemo

Answer #2 (concl.): By two Avodos on the other hand, where the P'sul in the Reisha is by the Zerikah and the P'sul in the Seifa, by the Shechitah, since they are not similar, the Tana will not learn the Seifa on account of the Reisha.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to a sick or an old person, and that there are no other appointees on the Korban Pesach.

Question: In that case, why doe it need to speak About 'she'Lo le'Ochlav', even S'tam ought to be Pasul as well, seeing as there is nobody to eat it.

Explanation #2: It must therefore speak where there are also other appointees on the Korban.

Clarification: The Ri explains that this speaks according to Rabah, who says later (on Daf 61:) that if one Shechted the Korban Pesach on behalf of Mulin, having in mind that Areilim should be atoned for, it is Kasher.

Reason: Since, according to Rav Chisda, who maintains that it is Pasul, it cannot be speaking about two Avodos.

Conclusion: Later however, it is implied from the Gemara's conclusion that it is Pasul according to Rabah, too.

Clarification: The Ri explains that the question goes even according to Rebbi Meir, who normally holds 'T'fos Lashon Rishon'. Perhaps here the Pesul of li'Shemo, which does not apply to all Korbanos, is not significant enough to take effect, in which case 'she'Lo li'Shemo uproots it.

Clarification (cont.): Or perhaps he nevertheless holds 'T'fos Lashon Rishon'.

Conclusion: In fact, according to Rebbi Yossi, the Gemara could have asked the She'eilah even by 'she'Lo li'Shemo ve'li'Shemo', and the reason why it asked it 'li'Shemo' ve'she'Lo li'Shemo is because the She'eilah goes even according to Rebbi Meir.

Clarification: This is speaking before Pesach arrives, as Rashi explains ...

Clarification: And the reason that it requires Akirah is because it stands to be brought on Pesach when it arrives, and the entire Sugya holds that it it is automatically designated li'Shemo.

Clarification: Whereas after Pesach it seems later (Daf 64.) that this is a Safek, as we say there 'Sowe see that Pesach the whole year round requires Akirah!'

Question: But 'li'Shemo ve'she'Lo li'Shemo' is Kasher according to Rebbi Meir, and we don't say that she'Lo li'Shemo overrides li'Shemo, whereas she'Lo li'Shemo on its own is Pasul, even though it stands to be brought li'Shemo?

Answer: The Ri explains that the reason there is because the Hechsher of li'Shemo applies to all Kodshim. Consequently, when he says li'Shemo, it renders it even more strong to take effect, and she'Lo li'Shemo cannot override it.

Answer (cont.): Whereas the current P'sul of li'Shemo does not apply to all Korbanos, and that is why the Gemara only asks from 'le'Ochlav and she'Lo le'Ochlav', which is confined to the Korban Pesach.

Question #1: The Riva asks why, seeing as in any event, it stands to be eaten by people who can eat it, either these or those, and not by sick or old people, yet she'Lo le'Ochlav overrides le'Ochlav ...

Question #2: If so, why does 'she'Lo le'Ochlav in the Reisha not override le'Ochlav?

Answer: The Ri answers that when one Shechts for 'le'Ochlav and she'Lo le'Ochlav', it is only Kasher via the eaters whom one had specifically in mind. And since in a case of S'tam, one does not have in mind any specific Ochlin, it is as if it does not stand for Ochlin at all.