I was looking at the Rambam (in Invalid Sacrifices chapter 15) and noticed that he says that when we talk about slaughtering a sacrifice not for the purpose it was meant for as in the first Mishna in Zevachim that means he did it on purpose. and it occurred to me that the reason the Rambam decided this is because he holds in another place that the law is like Rabah that holds uprooting by accident is not uprooting. that implies that if one slaughtered a sacrifice not for its own name by accident, that is not even considered to have an effect. So when we talk about slaughtering a sacrifice not for its own name (and that the sacrifice is valid but does not fulfill the obligation except for the sin offering and the Passover), this has to mean on purpose. [Rav Hisda is the amora who disagrees with Rabah and he holds uprooting by accident is uprooting]-------------------------I was looking at the רמב’’ם (in Invalid Sacrifices chapter ט''ו) and noticed that he says that when we talk about slaughtering a sacrifice not for the purpose it was meant for as in the first משנה in זבחים that means he did it בכוונה. It occurred to me that the reason the רמב’’ם decided this is because he holds in another place that the law is like רבה that holds uprooting by accident is not uprooting. That implies that if one slaughtered a sacrifice not for its own name by accident, that is not even considered to have an effect. So when we talk about slaughtering a sacrifice not for its own name (and that the sacrifice is valid but does not fulfill the obligation except for the sin offering and the פסח), this has to mean on purpose. [רב חיסדא is the אמורא who disagrees with רבה and he holds uprooting by accident is uprooting