Zevachim 4

נדר הוא אלא אם כמה שנדרת עשית יהא נדר ואם לא נדבה יהא

surely it is a vow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As thou hast vowed implies that we are treating of a vow; while a freewill-offering applies to a nedabah (a freewill-offering) . When one vows, 'Behold, I undertake to bring a sacrifice, ' it is technically called a vow; if one declares, 'Behold, this animal be for a sacrifice,' it is a freewill-offering. In the first case, if he subsequently dedicates an animal in pursuance of his vow, and it is lost before it is sacrificed, he must bring another. In the latter case, should the animal be lost or become unfit, his obligation is at an end.');">¹</span>

ונדבה מי שרי לשנויי בה

The meaning however is this: if you have acted in accordance with your vow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., you have slaughtered it in the name of the sacrifice which you actually vowed.');">²</span>

אמר ליה רבינא לרב פפא לא הוית גבן באורתא בתחומא בי חרמך דרמי רבא מילי מעלייתא אהדדי ושני להו

let it be the fulfilment of your vow; but if not, let it count as a freewill-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Additional to the vow originally made.');">³</span>

מאי מילי מעלייתא תנן כל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמן כו' טעמא דשלא לשמן הא סתמא עלו נמי לבעלים לשם חובה אלמא סתמא נמי כלשמן דמי

Now as a freewill-offering is it permitted to make a change in it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course not. Hence, though it was slaughtered for a different purpose, its other rites must still be performed for the right purpose.');">⁴</span>

ורמינהי כל הגט שנכתב שלא לשם אשה פסול וסתמא נמי פסול

Rabina said to R'Papa: You were not with us in the evening within the Sabbath limit of Be Harmack,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To he able to visit us at the schoolhouse. - He was referring to the Sabbath. Be Harmack is in the vicinity of Pumbeditha; Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonian p. 124.');">⁵</span>

ושני זבחים בסתם לשמן עומדין אשה בסתמא לאו לגירושין עומדת

when Raba pointed out a contradiction in two important laws, and then reconciled them.

וזבחים בסתמא כשירין מנלן אילימא מהא דתנן כל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמן כו' ולא קתני שלא נזבחו לשמן גבי גט נמי הקתני כל הגט שנכתב שלא לשם אשה פסול ולא קתני שלא נכתב לשם אשה פסול

What are these important laws? - We learnt: ALL SACRIFICES SLAUGHTERED NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME etc. Thus it is only when they are slaughtered for another purpose; but if no purpose is defined, they even acquit their owners of their obligation, which proves that an undefined purpose is the same as its own purpose [defined].

אלא מהא דתנן כיצד לשמן ושלא לשמן לשם פסח ולשם שלמים טעמא דאמר לשם פסח ולשם שלמים הא לשם פסח וסתמא כשר אלמא סתמן כלשמן דמי

But the following contradicts it: 'Every Get<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deed of Divorce.');">⁶</span>

דילמא שאני התם דאמר כל העושה על דעת ראשונה הוא עושה

which was written not in the name of the woman [for whom it is intended]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course a name must be written in the Get; but even if this particular woman's name is written, yet without having her in mind, so that the fact of the name being identical is a pure coincidence, the Get is unfit.');">⁷</span>

אלא מסיפא שלא לשמן ולשמן לשם שלמים ולשם פסח טעמא דאמר לשם שלמים ולשם פסח הא סתמא ולשם פסח כשר

is invalid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 24a.');">⁸</span>

דילמא שאני התם דאמר יוכיח סופו על תחילתו

and [in point of fact if it is written with] an undefined purpose it is also invalid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence an undefined purpose is the same as a wrongful purpose.');">⁹</span>

אי נמי איידי דתנא לשמן ושלא לשמן תנא נמי שלא לשמן ולשמן

And he answered it: Sacrifices, where no purpose is defined, stand [to be slaughtered] for their own purpose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This may be assumed.');">¹⁰</span>

אלא מהא לשם ששה דברים הזבח נזבח לשם זבח לשם זובח לשם שם לשם אשים לשם ריח לשם ניחוח והחטאת ואשם לשם חטא

whereas a woman, if nothing is defined, does not stand to be divorced.

א"ר יוסי אף מי שלא היה בלבו לשם אחת מכל אלו כשר שתנאי בית דין הוא אתנו בית דין דלא לימא לשמו דילמא אתי למימר שלא לשמו

Now, how do we know that sacrifices slaughtered with undefined purpose are valid?

אי סלקא דעתך סתמא פסול קיימי בית דין ומתני מילתא דמיפסיל ביה

Shall we say, because we learned: ALL SACRIFICES SLAUGHTERED NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME etc. , while he [the Tanna] does not teach, 'which were not slaughtered under their own designation'.

וגבי גט דסתמא פסול מנלן

But surely in the case of the Get too, he also teaches: Every Get which was written not in the name of the woman, is invalid , and does not teach , 'which was not written in the name of the woman is invalid'! - Rather, it follows from what we learned: How is 'in its own name and not in its own name' meant?

אילימא מהא דתנן היה עובר בשוק ושמע סופרים מקרין איש פלוני גירש פלונית ממקום פלוני ואמר זה שמי וזה שם אשתי פסול לגרש בו

In the name of the Passover-offering and in the name of a peace-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. he slaughtered the paschal sacrifice in the name of a Passover-offering as required but sprinkled the blood in the name of a peace-offering. V. infra 13a.');">¹¹</span>

דילמא כדרב פפא דאמר רב פפא הכא בסופרים העשויין להתלמד עסקינן ולא איכתוב לשום כריתות כלל

Thus it is [invalid] only because he stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not necessarily, as mere wrongful intention is effective.');">¹²</span>

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: