Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of Tosfos instead of that of Rashi, since the latter is purported to have written by someone other than Rashi. Also, our notes and comments do not necessarily have a bearing on the practical Halachah.

1)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that Menachos whose Kometz was taken she'Ko li'Shemah - are Kasher, only the owner has not fulfilled his Neder.

(b) An example of she'Lo li'Shemah - is if the Kohen brought a Minchas Marcheshes (to be prepared in a deep bowl) and the Kohen performed the Kemitzah having in mind that it is a Minchah al ha'Machavas (to be prepared in a flat pan).

(c) Despite the fact that the owner is obligated to bring another Korban, the ramifications of declaring them Kasher are - that the Kometz is burned on the Mizbe'ach, and the Shirayim may be eaten by the Kohanim.

(d) The two exceptions to this rule are - a Minchas Ke'na'os (of s Sotah) and a Minchas Chotei (of a poor man who is Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored).

(a) Besides the Kemitzah and the Haktarah - whilst placing the Minchah in a K'li Shareis or taking the Minchah to the south-western corner she'Lo ki'Shemah will also render a Minchas Kena'os and a Minchas Chotei, Pasul.

(b) The Tana defines she'Lo li'Shemah in connection with a Minchas Chotei as - performing one of the above four Avodos having in mind a Minchas Nedavah.

(c) If the Kohen performed the Kemitzah li'Shemah and she'Lo li'Shemah or vice-versa - it is Pasul, too.

(d) Having taught us that li'Shemah and she'Lo li'Shemah is Pasul, the Tana nevertheless needs to add 'or vice-versa' - to teach us that, not only do we take into account the final words of the Kohen, but we take his opening words into account, too.

(a) The problem with the Lashon of the Mishnah 'Kol ha'Menachos ... Ela she'Lo Alu le'Ba'alim le'Shem Chovah' is - the word 'Ela'. Why did it not just say '*ve'Lo* Alu le'Ba'alim le'Shem Chovah' ('Ela implies that in every regard other than this one, it is Kasher, so what is the Tana coming to teach us?).

(b) And we answer that it teaches us a ruling of Rava, who says - that the fact an Olah has been Shechted she'Lo li'Shemah, does not permit the Kohen to then sprinkle its blood she'Lo li'Shemah.

(c) Rava's source is either a S'vara or a Pasuk. The S'vara is - because 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

(d) And we also derive it from the Pasuk "Motzei Sefasecha Tishmor ... Ka'asher Nadarta Nedavah" - which begins by calling the Korban a Neder but ends by calling it a Nedavah. This is to teach us that if one Shechted the animal li'Shemah, then it remains a Neder, as it was originally (and he has fulfilled his duty); whereas if he Shechts it she'Lo li'Shemah, then it has the status of a Nedavah, leaving the owner's Neder unfulfilled.

5)

(a) We suggest that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Shimon, who says that all Menachos whose Kemitzos are performed she'Lo li'Shemah are Kasher - including a Minchas Chotei.

(b) The reason that he gives for this is the fact - that unlike the Shechitah, Zerikah or Kabalah of a Chatas or an Olah are identical, a Minchas Machavas or Marcheshes (whose Kometz one changes for the other) are easily distinguishable, in which case, the Machshavah is merely a farce, and is overridden by the action).

(c) The Kometz of a Minchas Chotei is clearly distinguishable from that of a regular Minchah - inasmuch as it is performed on a dry one, whereas the latter Minchah is mixed with oil.

(d) This goes well with Rav Ashi, who will later establish this ruling of Rebbi Shimon by 'Hareini Kometz Machavas le'Shem Marcheshes' (empty words, since he did not mention of the Minchah), but not with Rabah and Rava, who will establish this ruling differently. According to ...

1. ... Rav Ashi, Rebbi Shimon will agree in the case of our Mishnah, where he brought the Minchas Machavas as a Minchas Marcheshes, that 'Lo Alu'.
2. ... Rabah and Rava - the author of our Mishnah is indeed not Rebbi Shimon.

(a) We ask on Rebbi Shimon from his own statement in another Beraisa, where he explains the Pasuk (in connection with a Minchah) "Kodesh Kodashim Hi ka'Chatas ve'cha'Asham". The basic difference between a Chatas and an Asham (to which the Torah is now comparing a Minchah) is - that whereas a Chatas she'Lo li'Shemah is Pasul, an Asham she'Lo li'Shemah (like most other Korbanos) is Kasher.

(b) Rebbi now applies this difference to a Minchah - by comparing a Minchas Chotei to a Chatas, and a Minchas Nedavah to an Asham (with regard to 'Kamtzan she'Lo li'Sheman').

(c) Rabah answers 'Ka'an be'Shinuy Kodesh, Ka'an be'Shinuy Ba'alim', by which he means - that the first ruling of Rebbi Shimon refers to Shinuy Kodesh (where the different Menachos are distinguishable, as we explained), whilst his second ruling speaks with reference to Shinuy Ba'alim (where the Kohen performs the Kemitzah in the name of the wrong owner), in which case the Minchah remains unchanged.

(d) Based on the fact that the P'sul by a Minchah she'Lo li'Shemah is learned from a Shelamim, Abaye queries Rabah's distinction, to which Rabah replies - that the fact that the Menachos are readily distinguishable is a S'vara, which Rebbi Shimon, who Darshens the Torah's reasons, will apply.

(a) We ask on Rabah from an Olas ha'Of that the Kohen performed Melikah on above the Chut ha'Sikra, as a Chatas ha'Of - which ought to be Kasher, according to his interpretation of Rebbi Shimon, since the fact that it was performed on the upper half of the Mizbe'ach clearly indicates that it is an Olas ha'Of (and not a Chatas, whose Melikah is performed on the lower half).

(b) We answer with a statement of Mar who stated - that (Bedieved) Melikah that is performed anywhere on the Mizbe'ach is Kasher (negating the above distinction).

(c) We then ask the same Kashya on Rabah from an Olas ha'Of, on which the Kohen performed Mitzuy ha'Dam above the Chut ha'Sikra, having in mind that it is a Chatas ha'Of. We cannot give the same answer as we just gave in the case of Haza'ah - because the first Mitzuy of the Olas ha'Of must take place on the top half of the Mizbe'ach.

(d) And we answer that for all the onlooker knows, it might just as well be the Mitzuy that comes after the Haza'ah - whose location Mar gave as anywhere on the Mizbe'ach (like he did, the Haza'ah), rendering the two indistinguishable.

(a) Finally, we ask the same Kashya on a Chatas ha'Of, on which the Kohen performed Mitzuy ha'Dam below the Chut ha'Sikra, having in mind that it is an Olas ha'Of, which ought it to be Kasher according to Rebbi Shimon - because if is was an Olas ha'Of, then it would have taken place above the Chut ha'Sikra.

(b) And we answer - that in such a case, the Korban will indeed be Kasher, according to Rabah ...

(c) ... which explains why Rebbi Shimon said 'she'Ein ha'Menachos Domos *li'Zevachim*', and not '*le'Ofos*' (seeing as there is this one case where Ofos has the same Din as Menachos).