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. (Menachot page 49 side A) 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. Tosphot however disagree with the Rambam and hold that not for its name includes doing so by accident or by mistake. So, they explaining not for its sake includes by mistake or by accident[[[ תוספות however disagree with the רמב''ם and hold that “not for its name” includes doing so by accident or by mistake. So, they explaining the subject “not for its name” according to חיסדא רב and that it includes by mistake or by accident]]]This disagrees with Reb Aaron Kotler who holds that the argument between Raba and Rav Hisda are not relevant to the argument between the Tosphot and the Rambam.=======------------------- Also I want to add here on a slightly different note that the Rambam does say slaughtering a burnt offering for the sake of someone who is not obligated to bring a burnt offering still does not fulfill the obligation of bringing burnt offering because the person for who it was slaughtered had still at some time transgressed a positive command.[So this case is considered as a change of ownership] Rav Shach asks on this why should it make any difference if the person for whom it was slaughtered had transgressed a command? For a burnt offering can be brought for no otherers than the fact that a person just decided to bring it as a free present. So for that reason alone he is considered in the category of bringing a burnt offering and you do not need the criterion of being obligated to do so in order for there ro be change of owner. Rav Shach answers this based on a ruling by Rava (and Rav Acha bar Rava) that if one slaughters a sin offering that was separated for the sin of eating blood to be for the sin of eating forbidden fat is considered change of kodesh; and that the teaching about change of owner comes to include more things. Therefore, change from fat to fat (by the same person) also would be included. (That is the the teaching about change from blood to fat would not include from fat to fat, and therefore that last case would have to be learning from a different teaching, and the only teaching left is that of change of owner.) However that teaching that Rav Shach is referring to is Rava as opposed to Rav Hiya bar Rava. While I can see the teaching from blood to fat is also considered change in kodesh, I have trouble seeing change from fat to fat as being included by the law of change in owner. After all it is the same person! If anything at all it also has to be change of kodesh