Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of Rashi. Consequently, our notes and comments do not necessarily have any bearing on the practical Halachah.

1)

(a) Our Mishnah informs us that all Korbanos that are Shechted 'she'Lo li'Sheman' are Kasher. The snag is - that the owner is not Yotze, and is therefore obligated to bring another one (though this will not apply to a Nedavah [where he undertook to bring a specific animal as an Olah or a Shelamim], for which he is not responsible).

(b) The ramifications of 'Kasher' are - that a. the Kohen may go ahead and sprinkle the blood and sacrifice the animal and b. the animal may be eaten in the prescribed manner.

(c) 'she'Lo Lisheman' means - that he Shechts it as a different Korban that what it really is (e.g. an Olah having in mind a Shelamim [see Tosfos DH 'Kol']).

(d) The two exceptions are - a Pesach in its time and a Chatas any time.

(e) A Pesach she'Lo bi'Zemano (either before midday of the fourteenth of Nisan or after sunset, when it may no longer be Shechted) - has the status of a regular Shelamim.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer - adds an Asham to the list of exceptions ...

(b) ... because he learns it from a 'Mah Matzinu', seeing as both come to atone for a sin.

(c) Yossi ben Choni renders Pasul even an Olah and a Shelamim which are brought she'Lo li'Sheman during the year is - in the event that they are brought as a Pesach or a Chatas.

(a) Shimon Achi Azaryah presents a different principle. He was called by that name - because it was thanks to his brother Azaryah, who supported him fully (under contract), that he was able to learn full-time.

(b) When he refers to ...

1. ... 'Namuch le'Shem Gavohah', he means - Kodshim Kalim as Kodshei Kodshim.
2. ... 'Gavohah le'Shem Namuch', he means - Kodshei Kodshim as Kodshim Kalim.

(c) In a case where they Shechted ...

1. ... 'Namuch le'Shem Gavohah', he rules - that the Korban is Kasher.
2. ... 'Gavohah le'Shem Namuch' - that it is completely Pasul.

(d) And he adds that if one Shechted a Bechor or Ma'aser Beheimah as a Shelamim it is Kasher, but not vice-versa - because a Shelamim, which requires the blood to be placed on all four corners of the Mizbei'ach, Nesachim (wine and flour) and the waving of the chest and the right fore-leg (all of which the other two do not).

(a) We ask why the Tana adds the word 'Ela'; why he did not simply say 've'Lo Alu le'Ba'alim le'Shem Chovah'. The basis of this Kashya is - the principle that 'a Rebbe should always teach his Talmidim as briefly as possible.

(b) We answer with a statement of Rava, who says - that if an Olah is Shechted she'Lo Lishmah - the Zerikah must still be performed li'Shemah, because the Korban has not lost its Kedushah.

(c) Consequently our Mishnah uses the word 'Ela' - to stress that the Halachic irregularity is restricted to the owner not being Yotze, but does not effect the Kedushah of the animal.

(a) We ascribe Rava's statement to both a S'vara and a Pasuk. The S'vara is the principle - that two wrongs don't make a right.

(b) And he derives it from the Pasuk "Motza Sefasecha Tishmor ve'Asisa Ka'asher Nadarta ... Nedavah". Seeing as the Pasuk is talking about a Neder (to bring a non-specified animal [for which one bears responsibility]) - why does the Torah refer to it as a 'Nedavah' (which refers to a specific animal, and which one does not)?

(c) Rava therefore explains - that as long as one treats is as a Neder (i.e. by bringing it Lishemah), it remains a Neder. However, once one brings it she'Lo li'Shemah, it becomes a Nedavah (which is perfectly Kasher, but which leaves the owner with his original obligation to fulfill his Neder).

(d) Despite the fact that one is not responsible to replace a Nedavah, one is forbidden to bring it she'Lo li'Shemah - from the Pasuk in Tzav "Lo'Yechashev" (which constitutes an intrinsic prohibition to have wrong thoughts when bringing a Korban).

6)

(a) Ravina thought it a pity that Rav Papa was not present in Bei Charmach, when Rava asked a good Kashya one Shabbos and answered it. The reason that he was he not there was - because he was outside the T'chum when Shabbos entered.

(b) When Rava interprets the Mishnah in Gitin 'Kol ha'Get she'Nichtav she'Lo le'Shem Ishah Pasul' to incorporate 'Stam', by which he means - that if the Sofer wrote a Get for Le'ah (with nobody specific in mind), so that when a woman by the name of Le'ah came for a Get, he would have the Get ready.

(c) That Mishnah appears to clash with our Mishnah - in that it holds 'S'tama ke'she'Lo li'Shemah, whereas our Mishnah holds that S'tam is considered like li'Shemah (as we shall see).

(d) To explain the difference between Get and Kodshim - he points out that whereas Kodshim are meant to be brought li'Sheman, a woman is not meant to be divorced.

(a) Initially, we try to infer from the Lashon of our Mishnah 'Kol ha'Zevachim she'Nizbechu she'Lo li'Sheman ... ' - that 'S'tama ke'li'Sheman'; otherwise. the Tana ought to have said - 'Kol ha'Zevachim she'Lo Nizbechu li'Sheman ... '.

(b) We reject this suggestion however - seeing as the Mishnah in Gitin uses the same Lashon, yet the Tana holds 'S'tama ke'she'Lo li'She'mah Dami' (as we shall see).

(c) So we cite the Mishnah later 'Keitzad li'Sheman ve'she'Lo li'Sheman; le'Shem Pesach u'le'Shem Shelamim', from which we initially deduce that 'S'taman ke'li'Sheman Dami' - since otherwise, there would be no difference between 'le'Shem Pesach u'le'Shem Shelamim' and le'Shem Pesach u'S'tam'.

(d) We reject ...

1. ... this proof however - on the basis of the S'vara that a person usually persists with the same thought with which he began (so S'tama follows 'le'Shem Pesach'), but S'tama on its own might well be ke'she'Lo li'Shemah.
2. ... a similar proof from the Seifa of that Mishnah, where we infer the same from 'Keitzad she'Lo li'Sheman ve'Lisheman; le'Shem Shelamim u'le'Shem Pesach' as we did from the Reisha ('Ha S'tama u'she'Shem Pesach Kasher') - on the basis of the S'vara that one's final words generally reflect one's initial intentions. Alternatively, the Tana only inserted this case to balance the Reisha (and not for its implication), since really S'tama ve'she'Lo li'Shemo is also Pasul.

(a) We finally prove our point from a Mishnah later (in Beis Shamai). The Tana Kama lists six things that the Kohen must have in mind when bringing a Korban ('le'Shem Zevach, le'Shem Zove'ach, le'Shem Hashem ... '). According to Rebbi Yossi however - even if the Kohen did not have any oyf these specifically in mind, the Korban is nevertheless Kasher.

(b) In fact, he says, based on a T'nai Beis-Din, one should actually not have in mind Lishmah, in case one comes to think she'Lo li'Shemah.

(c) We prove from here that 'S'tama ke'Lishmah Dami' - because if S'tama was Pasul, how could Beis-Din initiate a condition that renders the Korban Pasul?