(Gemara): (We are thinking that the skin of the tail has the same law as the tail, i.e. it is part of the Eimurim).

Inference: Intent to eat something that should go on the Mizbe'ach is intent (to make Pigul).

(Shmuel): Yes. The Mishnah is R. Eliezer, who says that intent to 'eat' something proper for the Mizbe'ach, or intent for the Mizbe'ach to 'eat' something proper for people, is intent.

(Mishnah): If one slaughtered a Korban with intent to eat (Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo) something that is not normally eaten, or to burn (Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo) something that is normally eaten burned, it is Kosher;

R. Eliezer says, it is Pasul.

Question: Our Mishnah cannot be R. Eliezer. The Seifa is unlike him!

The general rule is, if one slaughtered, did Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah with intent (Chutz) to eat something that is normally eaten, or burn something that is normally burned, (it is Pasul or Pigul).

Inference: (In the Reisha) if it is not normally eaten, it is Kosher.

This is like Chachamim! The Reisha is R. Eliezer, and the Seifa is Chachamim!

Answer (Shmuel): Indeed(, the Reisha is R. Eliezer, and the Seifa is Chachamim).

(Rav Huna): The skin of the tail is unlike the tail.

(Rava): He learns from "Chelbo ha'Alyah", but not the skin of the tail.

(Rav Chisda): Really, the skin of the tail is like the tail;

The Mishnah discusses a goat (its tail is not part of the Eimurim).

Rav Huna and Rav Chisda did not explain like Shmuel, for they did not want to establish the Reisha and Seifa according to different Tana'im;

Shmuel and Rav Chisda did not explain like Rav Huna, for they hold that the skin of the tail is like the tail;

Question: Why didn't Shmuel and Rav Huna explain like Rav Chisda?

Answer: If so, the Mishnah teaches that the skin of the tail is like the tail. We already learn this from another Mishnah!

(Mishnah): The skins of the following are like the flesh: the skin under the tail...

Rav Chisda holds that one might have thought that that applies only to Tum'ah. Since it is soft, it joins with flesh for the required quantity for Tum'ah;

One should eat Kodshim "l'Mashchah" (in grandeur), like kings eat. Kings do not normally eat skin of the tail;

Therefore, the Mishnah must teach this.

Question (Beraisa): If one slaughtered an Olah with intent to burn the skin under the tail Chutz li'Mkomo, it is Pasul, and there is no Kares. If he intended Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pigul, and one who eats the meat is Chayav Kares.

Eliezer ben Yehudah says, the same applies to the skin of the feet (below the knees) of small animals, the skin of the head of a yearling calf, the skin under the tail, and the skins that Chachamim said have the same Tum'ah as the flesh;

This comes to include the skin of the Ervah of a female. If he intended to burn it Chutz li'Mkomo, it is Pasul and there is no Kares. If he intended Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pigul, and one who eats the meat is Chayav Kares.

Inference: The Beraisa specifies an Olah (since all the meat is burned), but the skin under the tail could not make Pigul in other Zevachim (for it is not burned with the Eimurim)!

This is like Rav Huna. It is difficult for Rav Chisda!

Answer #1: The Beraisa refers to a goat (the tail itself is not part of the Eimurim).

Answer #2: Indeed, the Beraisa should say 'if one slaughtered a Zevach...' (not only an Olah).

(Mishnah): It is Pasul, and there is no Kares.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Shmuel): Two verses teach about Pasul and Pigul.

Question: What are these verses?

Answer (Rabah): "Shelishi" refers to (intent of) Chutz li'Zmano;

"Pigul" refers to Chutz li'Mkomo;

"Veha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles Mimenu (from it, Avonah Tisa)". Only one of them has Kares, i.e. Chutz li'Zmano, but not Chutz li'Mkomo.

Question: Perhaps 'Mimenu' obligates Kares for Chutz li'Mkomo, but Chutz li'Zmano has no Kares!

Answer #1: Presumably, Chutz li'Zmano is Chayav Kares, for this was expounded earlier in the verse.

Rejection: Just the contrary! Chutz li'Mkomo should be Chayav Kares, for this was expounded closer to "Mimenu"!

Answer #2 (Abaye - Beraisa): In Parshas Kedoshim, it says "(v'Im He'achel Ye'achel ba'Yom) ha'Shelishi (Lo Yeratzeh)." (The verse seems to discuss eating Nosar. However, this cannot retroactively invalidate a Korban! Rather, it must discuss improper intent);

Question: We already know Chutz li'Zmano from the longer verse (above, in Tzav) "v'Im He'achel..."

Answer: The shorter verse (in Kedoshim) is used to teach about Chutz li'Mkomo.

Regarding Nosar, it says "v'Ochlav Avono Yisa (...v'Nichresa)" - one who eat Nosar gets Kares, but not one who eats (a Korban slaughtered) Chutz li'Mkomo.

Question: Why not say oppositely, that this is Mechayev Kares for Chutz li'Zmano, and exempts Nosar from Kares! (Note - no verse about Chutz li'Zmano mentions Kares. There is a Gezerah Shavah "Avon-Avon" to learn Chutz li'Zmano either from the short verse (which is Mechayev Kares), or from eating Tamei Kodshim (which is only a Lav). It is preferable to learn the former.)

Version #1 - Rashi - Answer #1: It is preferable to explain that the short verse is Mechayev Kares for Nosar, for then we can learn the Gezerah Shavah from Nosar, for they are similar regarding ZaV (an acronym for Zeman (both depend on time, and both apply to a) Bamah), but these do not apply to eating Tamei Kodshim. (Nor do they apply to Chutz li'Mkomo. If our verse taught about Chutz li'Mkomo, we would learn the Gezerah Shavah from eating Tamei Kodshim!)

Rejection: Just the contrary, it is preferable to expound it to teach about Chutz li'Mkomo, then we can learn "Avon-Avon" to Chutz li'Zmano, for they are similar regarding MiKDaSH (both depend on Machshavah (intent), intent for Ketzas (part of the Korban) disqualifies the whole Korban, both apply to the Avodos with the Dam, and regarding both of them it says SHelishi. (These do not apply to eating Tamei Kodshim, nor to Nosar.)

Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer #1: (NOTE: the tradition from Sinai for the Gezerah Shavah specified to equate the short and long verses regarding Kares.) It is preferable to explain that the Gezerah Shavah equates similar things, i.e. the short verse refers to Nosar, for this resembles Chutz li'Zmano regarding ZaV.

Rejection: Just the contrary, it is better if it refers to Chutz li'Mkomo, which resembles Chutz li'Zmano regarding MiKDaSH! (end of Version #2)

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Kodesh-Kodesh" (that eating Nosar is Chayav Kares). It says here "Es Kodesh Hash-m Chilel v'Nichrasah", and it says "v'Sarafta Es ha'Nosar (... Ki Kodesh Hu)";

Therefore, "v'Ochlav Avono Yisa (...v'Nichresa)" surely refers to Nosar, and excludes Chutz li'Mkomo.

Objection: How do we know that the long verse (which is Mechayev Kares) refers to Chutz li'Zmano, and the short verse excludes Chutz li'Mkomo from Kares? Perhaps it is just the contrary!

Answer #1: Presumably, the long verse refers to Chutz li'Zmano, for this resembles Nosar regarding ZaV (Rashi - and therefore, we can learn a Gezerah Shavah to it from Nosar to obligate Kares; Tosfos - presumably, the Gezerah Shavah equates similar things).

Rejection: Just the contrary, we should say that it refers to Chutz li'Mkomo, and the short verse refers to Chutz li'Zmano;

Since Chutz li'Zmano resembles Nosar, one might have thought to say that also Kares applies to it, therefore the Torah had to exclude it! ("V'Ochlav" refers to one who eats it (Nosar), but not Chutz li'Zmano!)

Answer #2 (Rava): The long verse obligates Kares for Chutz li'Zmano, and exempts Chutz li'Mkomo (like Rabah taught above):

"He'achel Ye'achel" refers to two eatings, of people and the Mizbe'ach (Pigul applies to both);

"Mi'Bsar Zevach Shelamav" - Pigul applies only to things like Shelamim, in which part (the blood) can (permit the rest, and through improper intent can) be Mefagel (forbid the rest) and part (the meat and Eimurim) can become Pigul (forbidden. This excludes those Menachos from which we do not take a Kometz, for one part does not permit or forbid the other.)

"Ha'Shelishi" refers to Chutz li'Zmano;

"Lo Yeratzeh" - becoming Pigul is like becoming acceptable;

A Korban does not become Pigul until finishing all the Avodos needed for a Kosher Korban to bring Kaparah.

"Ha'Makriv" - it becomes Pigul while it is being offered (with improper intent), not (like the simple understanding of the verse,) through eating it on the third day.

"Oso" - the Korban becomes Pasul, but the Kohen who offered it does not.

"Lo Yechashev" - it becomes Pigul only if all the Pasul intents were Chutz li'Zmano.

"Pigul" refers to Chutz li'Mkomo;

"Yihyeh" - improper intents join together. (If he intended to eat half a k'Zayis of meat Chutz li'Zmano and half a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo, this disqualifies like intent for a k'Zayis);

"Veha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles Mimenu" - only one of these intents has Kares;

Question: Which has Kares?

Answer: It is Chutz li'Zmano. We learn "Avon-Avon" from Nosar, which resembles it regarding ZaV.