Mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 4:19

אלא מהא

'in the name of the Passover-offering and in the name of a peace-offering' but, [if he slaughtered it] in the name of the Passover-offering and [sprinkled its blood] with undefined purpose, it is fit; which proves that with purpose undefined it is as in its own name!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that where the purpose is undefined the sacrifice is valid.');">¹³</span> - Perhaps it is different there, because one may argue: Whoever does anything, does it with the original [expressed] intention! - Rather, it follows from the second clause: [How is] 'not in its own name and in its own name' [meant]? In the name of a peace-offering [first] and [then] in the name of the Passover-offering. Thus it is [invalid] only because he stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not necessarily, as mere wrongful intention is effective.');">¹²</span> 'In the name of a peace-offering and in the name of the Passover-offering'; but [if he slaughtered it] without a defined purpose [and sprinkled the blood] in the name of the Passover-offering,it is valid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that where the purpose is undefined the sacrifice is valid.');">¹³</span> - Perhaps it is different there, because we say: the end illumines the beginning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence since the end (sprinkling) was in the name of the Passover-offering, we assume the beginning (the slaughtering) to have been likewise.');">¹⁴</span> Alternatively, [perhaps] because he teaches 'in its own name and not in its own name' [in the first clause], he also teaches 'not in its own name and in its own name' [in the second clause]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sake of parallelism.Yet actually if he slaughters it without a defined purpose, it may be invalid.');">¹⁵</span> Rather, it follows from this: A sacrifice is slaughtered for the sake of six things: F the sake of the sacrifice, for the sake of the sacrificer, for the sake of the Divine Name, for the sake of fire-offerings, for the sake of a savour, for the sake of pleasing, and a sin-offering and a guilt-offering for sake of sin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He who offers the sacrifice must have these in mind (or express them) : (i) the particular sacrifice it is intended to be; (ii) the person for whom it is sacrificed; (iii) that it is sacrificed in honour of the Divine Name; (iv) with the intention of burning the emurim on the altar, not merely roasting it; (v) and (vi) with the intention that it shall provide a pleasing savour to God (v.e.g., Lev.III, 5 - nihoah, translated there 'sweet', is rendered 'pleasing') .');">¹⁶</span> R'Jose said: Even if one did not have any of these purposes in his heart,it is valid, because it a regulation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'stipulation'.');">¹⁷</span> of the Beth din.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one should not define its purpose-the name of the sacrifice for which it is offered, infra 46b.');">¹⁸</span> Thus the Beth din made a regulation that one should not state its purpose, lest he come to state a different purpose. Now if you think that an undefined purpose [renders] it invalid, would the Beth din arise and make a regulation which would invalidate it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. This then proves Raba's first point.');">¹⁹</span> Now how do we know in the case of a Get that an undefined purpose [renders] it invalid? Shall we say from what we learned: If one was passing through the street and heard the voice of scribes dictating: 'So-and-so divorced So-and-so of such a place,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They were teaching pupils to write a Get, and had selected the names at random.');">²⁰</span> whereupon he exclaimed , 'That is my name and my wife's name,' it [the Get so written] is invalid for divorcing therewith!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 24a.');">²¹</span> - Yet perhaps that is [to be explained] as [did] R'Papa. For R'Papa said: We are discussing scribes engaged in practising, So that it was not written for the purpose of divorcement at all!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if a scribe writes a Get for the purpose of divorce, selecting names at random, perhaps it is valid.');">²²</span> - Rather [it follows] from this:

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 4:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.