(R. Yochanan): If a Korban was slaughtered Lishmah with intent to do Zerikah Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul;

(Reish Lakish): It is Kosher.

R. Yochanan says that it is Pasul. We consider it as if this Avodah (Shechitah) was done with the (Lo Lishmah) intent for the later Avodah (Zerikah);

We learn from Pigul. (If one of the four Avodos was done with intent Chutz li'Zmano (to eat the meat, do Zerikah, or burn the Eimurim after the proper time), the Korban is Pasul, as if this Avodah was done improperly.)

Reish Lakish says that it is Kosher. Intent for a later Avodah does not affect this Avodah;

We do not learn from Pigul.

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argued similarly elsewhere.

(R. Yochanan): If one slaughtered a (Chulin) animal in order to pour the blood or burn the Chelev to idolatry, the animal is forbidden;

He holds that since he later intends to serve idolatry with this animal, we consider the current Avodah (Shechitah) to be l'Shem idolatry;

We learn from Avodah in the Mikdash (Pigul) to Chulin outside the Mikdash.

(Reish Lakish): The animal is permitted;

We do not consider the current Avodah to be l'Shem idolatry, because we do not learn from Avodah in the Mikdash to outside the Mikdash.

We needed to teach their argument in both cases.

Had we taught only regarding idolatry, one might have thought that Reish Lakish agrees about Lo Lishmah. It applies in the Mikdash, so we learn from Pigul in the Mikdash;

Had we taught only regarding Lo Lishmah, one might have thought that R. Yochanan agrees about idolatry. It applies outside the Mikdash, so we do not learn from Pigul in the Mikdash.

When Rav Dimi came he said: R. Yirmiyah asked in support of Rebbi Yochanan, and R. Eila in support of Reish Lakish.

(R. Yirmeyah): Presumably, R. Yochanan is correct!

Regarding Pigul, if one says 'I (will) slaughter Chutz li'Zmano' (but he slaughtered in the proper time, his intent is meaningless), it is Kosher, but if he slaughters with intent to do Zerikah Chutz li'Zmano, the Korban is Pasul;

Regarding Lo Lishmah, if one slaughters Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul. All the more so, if he slaughters with intent to do Zerikah Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul!

Objection (Rava bar Ahilai): You cannot learn from Pigul (it is more stringent), one who eats it is Chayav Kares!

(Rava bar Ahilai): We can support R. Yochanan from intent (in one of the four Avodos) Chutz li'Mkomo (to eat the meat, do Zerikah, or burn the Eimurim outside the permitted place. This forbids the meat, but there is no Kares for it. Sometimes the Gemara calls this Pigul; this is imprecise.)

If one says 'I slaughter Chutz li'Mkomo' (but slaughters in the proper place), it is Kosher, but if he slaughters with intent to do Zerikah Chutz li'Mkomo, the Korban is Pasul;

Regarding Lo Lishmah, if one slaughters Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul. All the more so, if he slaughters with intent to do Zerikah Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul!

Objection (Rav Ashi): You cannot learn from intent Chutz li'Mkomo, which totally disqualifies all Zevachim. Lo Lishmah (totally) disqualifies only Chatas and Pesach!

(Rav Ashi): We can support R. Yochanan from Shinuy Ba'alim.

If one says 'I slaughter l'Shem Ploni (not the owner)', it is Kosher. If he slaughters with intent to do Zerikah l'Shem Ploni, the Korban is Pasul;

Regarding Shinuy Kodesh, if one slaughters l'Shem a different Zevach, it is Pasul. All the more so, if he slaughters with intent to do Zerikah l'Shem a different Zevach, it is Pasul!

(R. Ila): Presumably Reish Lakish is correct!

There was no need for the Torah to teach that Zerikah Lo Lishmah disqualifies a Korban. We could have learned from a Tzad ha'Shavah of Shechitah and Kabalah;

The Torah taught about Lo Lishmah in Zerikah to teach that we do not consider the current Avodah as if it were done with the intent for the later Avodah.

Question (Rav Papa): Perhaps the Torah wrote it to teach that we do consider the current Avodah as if it were done with the intent for the later Avodah!

Answer: Without a verse we would know this from the Kal va'Chomer of Rav Ashi.

R. Yochanan disagrees. He says that we cannot learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah of Shechitah and Kabalah, because both of them must be done in the north half of the Azarah (regarding Kodshei Kodoshim), and they apply to inner Chata'os. These stringencies do not apply to Zerikah.

R. Ila learns from the Tzad ha'Shavah, since we learn from a verse discussing Shelamim (Kodshim Kalim), in which these stringencies of Shechitah and Kabalah do not apply.

(Rav Nachman): If a Korban was slaughtered Lishmah with intent to do Zerikah Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul;

(Rabah): It is Kosher.

Rabah later retracted and agreed with Rav Nachman, due to the Kal va'Chomer of Rav Ashi.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Also Asham (is Pasul if slaughtered Lo Lishmah).

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Chatas and Asham both come for transgression. Just like Chatas Lo Lishmah is (totally) Pasul, also Asham.

R. Yehoshua: You cannot learn from Chatas, for its blood is put on the top of the Mizbeach (but an Asham's blood is thrown on the bottom half of the Mizbeach)!

R. Eliezer: Pesach proves that this is not the essential reason. Its blood is thrown on the bottom half of the Mizbeach, and Pesach Lo Lishmah is Pasul!

R. Yehoshua: You cannot learn from Pesach, for it is offered at a fixed time of the year.

R. Eliezer: Chatas proves that this is not the essential reason. (There is no fixed time to offer it, and it is Pasul Lo Lishmah!)

R. Yehoshua: Again I say that you cannot learn from Chatas (for its blood is put on the top of the Mizbeach)!

R. Eliezer: I can learn from verses:

We learn from "Chatas Hi" and "Pesach Hu" that Lo Lishmah disqualifies Chatas and Pesach. we learn similarly from "Asham Hu"!

R. Yehoshua: No. Regarding Chatas and Pesach, it says "Hi" and "Hu" regarding Shechitah, to teach that these are Kosher only if slaughtered Lishmah;

Regarding Asham, it says "Hu" only after the Eimurim are burned. This cannot disqualify if the Eimurim are burned Lo Lishmah, for even if they are not burned at all, the Korban is Kosher!

R. Eliezer: It says "ka'Chatas ka'Asham" - just like Chatas Lo Lishmah is Pasul, also Asham.

Question: R. Yehoshua said 'again I say that you cannot learn from Chatas.' Why can't R. Eliezer learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of Chatas and Pesach?

Answer: Both pertain to Kares (Chatas atones for Chayavei Kerisus, and one who does not offer Korban Pesach is Chayav Kares). We cannot learn to Asham, which does not pertain to Kares.

Question: R. Yehoshua said 'you cannot learn from Chatas, for its blood is put on the top of the Mizbeach';

Why didn't he say that we cannot learn from Chatas, because the blood of (inner) Chata'os is brought in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim?

Answer #1: R. Eliezer learns from outer Chata'os.

Question: Why didn't he say that we cannot learn from outer Chata'os, because if their blood enters the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, they are Pasul?

Answer: R. Eliezer holds that the same applies to Asham.

Question: Why didn't he say that we cannot learn from Chatas, because it atones for Chayavei Kerisus?

Answer #1: R. Eliezer learns from the Chatas brought for Shevu'as ha'Edus (which has no Kares).

Question: Why didn't he say that we cannot learn from Chatas, because its blood is thrown four times?

Answer #1: R. Eliezer holds like R. Yishmael, who says that also Asham requires four Zerikos.

Objection: Even so, blood of Chata'os is put with the finger, and it is put either on the Keranos (top corners of the Mizbeach) or on the edge. These do not apply to Asham!

Answer #2 (to questions (e), (i) and (k)): R. Yehoshua could have asked other questions. He asked only one.

Question: R. Yehoshua said 'you cannot learn from Chatas, for its blood is put on the top of the Mizbeach.' Why didn't R. Eliezer answer that also an Asham's blood is put on the top of the Mizbeach (because the Torah equates it to Chatas)?

Answer #1 (Abaye): A Kal va'Chomer teaches that an Asham's blood is not put on the top of the Mizbeach.

An Olah is entirely burned on the Mizbeach, yet its blood is put on the bottom of the Mizbeach - an Asham is (less Kodesh, it is) not entirely burned, all the more so its blood is put on the bottom of the Mizbeach!

Question: An Olah does not atone. We cannot learn from it to an Asham, which atones!

Answer: Chatas ha'Of (a bird) proves that this is not the reason. (It atones, yet its blood is put on the bottom of the Mizbeach!)

Question: We cannot learn from Chatas ha'Of, for it is not a Zevach. (It is not killed through Shechitah, rather, through Melikah (using the thumbnail to cut the Simanim)!)

Answer: Olah proves that this is not the reason! (It is a Zevach, and its blood is put on the bottom.)

Conclusion: Each has its own stringency. The Tzad ha'Shavah of them is that they are Kodshei Kodoshim and their blood is put on the bottom. The same applies to Asham.

Objection (Rava of Parzakiya): We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, because there is no minimal price of an Olah or Chatas ha'Of, but one must pay at least two Shekalim for an Asham!

Answer #2 (Rava of Parzakiya): R. Eliezer learns from "ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah" - a Chatas' blood goes above, but blood of other Korbanos does not.

Question: If so, we should likewise expound "v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" - a Chatas Lo Lishmah is Pasul, but any other Korban is not!

Answer: We cannot expound that "Osah" that way, for (verses prove that) Pesach Lo Lishmah is Pasul.

Question: Likewise, the other "Osah" cannot teach that blood of all other Korbanos does not go above, for blood of Olas ha'Of goes above!

Answer #1: It teaches that Chatas is the only Zevach (i.e. animal Korban) whose blood goes above.

Answer #2: R. Eliezer holds like R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who says that the blood of Olas ha'Of is not put in the same place as that of Chatas.

(Beraisa): Blood that is thrown on the bottom (part of the Mizbeach) must be thrown on the Chut ha'Sikra (a red string separating the top and bottom halves of the Mizbe'ach) or below. Blood that is thrown on top must be thrown on the Chut ha'Sikra or above;

R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, that applies to Olas ha'Of, but the blood of Chatas Behemah must be put on the Keranos.