Objection (Rav Huna): We never find something that is Pasul Lishmah and Kosher Lo Lishmah!

Question: We do find this! Pesach on any day other than Erev Pesach is Pasul Lishmah and Kosher Lo Lishmah!

Answer: Pesach on any other day is a Shelamim. Lo l'Shem Pesach is not (Tosfos - purely) Lo Lishmah.

Suggestion: A Beraisa supports Rav Chilkiyah.

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps Shechutei Chutz does not apply to the following (because they are not fit for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed); an Olah that is Mechusar Zeman, the Asham of a (Tamei) Nazir or Metzora! (Below we explain the Pesul of the Ashamos.)

Rejection: (The verse of Shechutei Chutz did not need to list the three species Kosher for Korbanos.) Each is extra to teach one of these - "Shor, Chesev, Ez."

The Tana omitted Chatas.

Question: What is the case of the Ashamos?

If they are offered (Lishmah) in the proper time, Shechutei Chutz applies even to Chatas!

Answer: Rather, we must say that they are Mechusar Zeman.

Question: Were they Lishmah?

If they were, why is he liable for them?! (It is Kosher only if he was Oker through slaughtering l'Shem a different Korban.)

Answer: We must say that they were Lo Lishmah. (This is a proof for Rav Chilkiyah.)

Rejection: Really, they were offered in the proper time, Lo Lishmah;

The Tana is R. Eliezer, who says that also Asham Lo Lishmah is Pasul. (Nevertheless, he is liable, for if slaughtered Stam in the Mikdash, it would be Lishmah and Kosher.)

He taught Asham, which we learned (that it is Pasul Lo Lishmah) from Chatas, and the same applies to Chatas.

Question (against Rav Huna (and support for Rav Chilkiyah) - Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable for Shechutei Chutz for an Olah which is (itself) Mechusar Zeman or a Chatas that it or its owner is Mechusar Zeman!

Rejection: "V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" - Shechutei Chutz applies only to things proper to be offered Pesach Ohel Mo'ed.

The Tana excludes Asham.

Question: What is the case?

If the Korbanos are Lishmah, even for Asham he should be exempt!

Answer: Rather, we must say that they are Lo Lishmah. (The Tana excludes Asham, for he would be liable for it. This supports Rav Chilkiyah and refutes Rav Huna!)

Answer: Indeed, they are Lo Lishmah, but one may not infer that he would be liable for Asham;

The Tana is R. Eliezer, who disqualifies Asham Lo Lishmah. He taught Chatas, the source, and the same applies to Asham, which we learned from Chatas.

Version #1 (Rashi) Question (against Rav Huna, and support for Rav Chilkiyah - Rav Dimi - Tana d'Vei R. Livai's Beraisa (#1)) Suggestion: Perhaps one is exempt for Shechutei Chutz for an Olah if its owner is Mechusar Zeman, and for Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora...

(The Tana omitted Chatas. We deduce like above that the Ashamos were Mechusar Zeman and Lo Lishmah, and he is liable!)

Question: How does the Tana expound that he is liable?

Version #2 (Shitah Mekubetzes, including bracketed text): The following refutes Rav Huna and supports Rav Chilkiyah.

(Rav Dimi citing Beraisa #1 - the above Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one is exempt for Shechutei Chutz for an Olah if its owner is Mechusar Zeman, and for Asham Metzora or Asham Nazir...

Rav Dimi: The Tana expounded that one is liable. I do not understand! (end of Version #2)

Answer (Ravina): The verse did not need to list the three species. "Shor, Kesev, Ez" are extra, to teach that one is liable in these three cases.

Question: We already asked this (b) and answered it (c) above! (The Beraisa is like R. Eliezer. The Shechitah was Lo Lishmah!)

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Rav Dimi posed a contradiction, therefore, we cannot give the above answer;

Contradiction (with Beraisa #1 - Rav Dimi - Levi's Beraisa (#2)): If Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, it is Kosher, but the owner was not Yotzei.

If the owner was Mechusar Zeman, or the animals were two years old (a first year animal is required), they are Pesulim (and one who slaughters them outside is exempt).

Answer (Rav Dimi): Beraisa #1 is Mechayev for Shechitah Lo Lishmah, and Beraisa #2 exempts for Shechitah Lishmah. (Since he answered the contradiction, this shows that he holds that also Beraisa #1 discusses Mechusar Zeman.)

Rav Ashi asked a similar contradiction between our Mishnah (which exempts for Shechutei Chutz of Asham Mechusar Zeman) and the Beraisa (above (b:1), which is Mechayev);

He answered that the Mishnah exempts when it was Lishmah (for it is Pasul), and the Beraisa is Mechayev for Lo Lishmah (it is Kosher).

Summation of question: This refutes Rav Huna, for he cannot answer like above!

Answer: Beraisa #1 is Mechayev when two Ashamos were separated for Acharayus (in case one will become lost or Pasul, the other will be offered. Since we cannot offer both for Ashamos), from the beginning, it is as if one of them is an Olah.

This is like Rav;

(Rav): If an Asham was Nitak to graze, and it was slaughtered Stam, it is a Kosher Olah.

(Mishnah): If one offers (is Maktir) meat of a Chatas (outside, he is exempt...)

(Beraisa) Question: What is the source to exempt for offering any of the following outside?

Meat of a Chatas, Asham, (other) Kodshei Kodoshim, Kodshim Kalim;

The remains of the Omer or of a Minchah (after Kemitzah), Shtei ha'Lechem, Lechem ha'Panim.

Answer: One is liable for something like "Olah", i.e. it is proper to be offered.

Question: What is the source to exempt for the following Avodos outside?

Pouring oil (on a Minchah), breaking a Minchah into pieces, mixing (the flour with oil), salting, Tenufah, Hagashah, arranging the Lechem ha'Panim on the Shulchan, Dishun ha'Menorah, Kemitzah, and Kabalah.

Answer: "Asher Ya'aleh Olah Oh Zevach" - one is liable only for something resembling Ha'alah (Haktarah), i.e. a final Avodah (there is no Avodah after it).

(Mishnah): Before the Mishkan was erected... (firstborns did the Avodah).

(Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina citing R. Asi): "Vayishlach Es Na'arei Bnei Yisrael" (before Matan Torah) was the last time firstborns did the Avodah.

(Rav Huna citing Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The Olah that Bnei Yisrael offered in the Midbar did require Hefshet and Nitu'ach.

When Rav Chisda heard the first teaching of Rav Huna, he intended to challenge it from our Mishnah. After he heard the second teaching, he rather challenged both teachings from a Beraisa.

Question (against both teachings - Rav Chisda - Beraisa): Before the Mishkan was erected, Bamos were permitted, firstborns did the Avodah, and anything could be offered on a Bamah, i.e. a Behemah, Chayah, Of, male or female, Tam or Ba'al Mum;

Only Tahor species could be offered, but not Teme'im.

All the Korbanos were Olos.

The Olah that Bnei Yisrael offered in the Midbar required Hefshet and Nitu'ach;

Nowadays, Nochrim may do so (offer anything on a Bamah).

Answer (for the first teaching): Tana'im argue about this. Rav Huna holds like Rebbi;

(Beraisa - R. Yehoshua ben Korchah): "V'Gam ha'Kohanim ha'Nigashim El Hash-m Yiskadashu" warns the firstborns (they are the 'Kohanim' who come close for Avodah) to stay far from Har Sinai;

Rebbi says, it warns Nadav and Avihu (for only Bnei Aharon will do Avodah from now on).

Question: According to Rebbi, we understand "Hu Asher Diber Hash-m bi'Krovai Akadesh" - the end of the above verse ("Pen Yifrotz Bahem") foreshadowed the death of Nadav and Avihu (when they entered the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim);

However, according to R. Yehoshua ben Korchah, where had Hash-m alluded to the death of Nadav and Avihu? ("Pen Yifrotz Bahem" discusses the firstborns!)

Answer: We read "v'No'adti Shamah li'Vnei Yisrael v'Nikdash bi'Chvodi" like 'bi'Chvudai' (through my honored ones);

Hash-m told this to Moshe on Sinai. Moshe did not know to whom He referred to until they died. Then, Moshe told Aharon that they were killed (Maharsha - for a minute transgression) in order to be Mekadesh Hash-m.

Aharon realized that their death signified their awesome greatness. He was silent, and was rewarded - "Dom la'Shem v'Hischolel Lo";

We can also learn from "Es Lachashos v'Es Ledaber" - sometimes one is rewarded for silence, and sometimes one is rewarded for speaking.

(R. Chiya bar Avin): We read "Nora Elokim mi'Mikdashecha" like 'mi'Mekudashecha (from Your holy ones).' When Hash-m punishes Tzadikim (for minute transgressions), He is feared, exalted and praised.

Question: We did not defend Rav Huna's teaching about Hefshet and Nitu'ach of the Olah!

Answer: Tana'im argue also about this. He holds like Tana d'vei R. Yishmael;

(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): Hash-m taught to Moshe the essence of the Mitzvos on Sinai. He taught to him the details (during the 40 years in the Midbar) in the Ohel Mo'ed. (Hefshet and Nitu'ach are details. They were taught in the Mishkan. They did not apply before this, e.g. to the Olah of Sinai.)

R. Akiva says, the essence and the details were given on Sinai. They were repeated in the Ohel Mo'ed, and again in Arvos Mo'av (Sefer Devarim, in the 40th year in the Midbar).

Question: From where does the Beraisa know that anything can be brought on a Bamah?

(Rav Huna): "Va'Yikach (No'ach) mi'Kol Behemah ha'Tehorah umi'Kol Of ha'Tahor" - Behemah (and Of) are understood simply, and Chayos are included in "Behemah";

He offered males and females, Tam and blemished animals; but not animals missing a limb.