נֵדֶר הוּא! אֶלָּא, אִם כְּמָה שֶׁנָּדַרְתָּ עָשִׂיתָ – יְהֵא נֵדֶר, וְאִם לֹא – נְדָבָה יְהֵא,

It is already referred to as a vow offering [ neder ]. Rather, the verse indicates that if you did what you vowed to do, i.e., you sacrificed your vow offering properly, it shall be a satisfactory vow offering; and if you did not sacrifice it properly, it shall be rendered a voluntary gift offering

וּנְדָבָה מִי שָׁרֵי לְשַׁנּוּיֵי בָּהּ?

The Gemara concludes: And is it permitted to deviate from protocol in the sacrifice of a gift offering ab initio ? Clearly it is not. Evidently, even if one of the sacrificial rites was performed for the sake of sacrificing a different offering, it is still prohibited to perform any of the other sacrificial rites in the incorrect manner.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב פַּפָּא: לָא הֲוֵית גַּבָּן בְּאוֹרְתָא בִּתְחוּמָא בֵּי חַרְמָךְ, דְּרָמֵי רָבָא מִילֵּי מְעַלְּיָיתָא אַהֲדָדֵי וְשַׁנֵּי לְהוּ.

§ Ravina said to Rav Pappa: Since you were not with us last night within the Shabbat limit of Bei Ḥarmakh, you did not hear that Rava raises a contradiction between two superior mishnaic statements and teaches their resolution.

מַאי מִילֵּי מְעַלְּיָיתָא? תְּנַן: כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן כו׳; טַעְמָא דְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, הָא סְתָמָא – עָלוּ נַמִי לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה, אַלְמָא סְתָמָא נַמִי כְּלִשְׁמָן דָּמֵי;

What are these superior statements? We learned in the mishna: All slaughtered offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake are fit, but they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner. Rava infers: The reason they do not satisfy the obligation of the owner is specifically that they were slaughtered not for their sake. But if offerings were slaughtered without specification of intent, they, as well, satisfied the obligation of the owner. Apparently, if one performs any action without specification of intent, it is also considered as if he performed it expressly for its sake.

וּרְמִינְהִי: כָּל הַגֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִשָּׁה – פָּסוּל, וּסְתָמָא נַמִי פָּסוּל!

And Rava raises a contradiction from another mishna ( Gittin 24a): Any bill of divorce that was written not for the sake of the woman in question is not valid. And it is derived from the continuation of that mishna that if a bill of divorce was written without specification as to which woman it is referring, it is also not valid.

וְשַׁנֵּי: זְבָחִים בִּסְתָם לִשְׁמָן עוֹמְדִין, אִשָּׁה בִּסְתָמָא לָאו לְגֵירוּשִׁין עוֹמֶדֶת.

And Rava resolves the contradiction: Ordinary slaughtered offerings stand designated for their own sake. From the time that the offering is consecrated, its presumed end is that it will be slaughtered for the type of offering for which is was consecrated. Therefore, even if the one slaughtering it has no particular intention, it is in effect considered slaughtered for its own sake. By contrast, an ordinary wife does not stand designated for divorce. Therefore, a bill of divorce is never presumed to be referring to a given woman unless it is specified explicitly.

וּזְבָחִים בִּסְתָמָא כְּשֵׁירִין, מְנָלַן? אִילֵימָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן כו׳, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״שֶׁלֹּא נִזְבְּחוּ לִשְׁמָן״; גַּבֵּי גֵּט נַמִי הָקָתָנֵי: כָּל הַגֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִשָּׁה – פָּסוּל, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״שֶׁלֹּא נִכְתַּב לְשֵׁם אִשָּׁה – פָּסוּל״!

§ The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that slaughtered offerings are fit and even satisfy the obligation of the owner if slaughtered without specification? If we say it is from that which we learned in the mishna: All slaughtered offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake are fit, but these offerings did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, and it does not teach this using the language: All slaughtered offerings that were not slaughtered for their sake are fit, but these offerings did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, this cannot be. One cannot infer from this language that slaughter without specification is valid, since the Mishna also teaches with regard to a bill of divorce: Any bill of divorce that was written not for the sake of the woman is not valid, and it does not teach: That was not written for the sake of the woman is not valid, and it is a given that a bill of divorce written without specification is not valid.

אֶלָּא מֵהָא, דִּתְנַן: כֵּיצַד לִשְׁמָן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח וּלְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים; טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח וּלְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים, הָא לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח וּסְתָמָא – כָּשֵׁר, אַלְמָא סְתָמָן כְּלִשְׁמָן דָּמֵי;

Rather, perhaps it is derived from that which we learned in a mishna (13a): How are offerings slaughtered for their sake and then not for their sake? For example, one might slaughter the Paschal offering for the sake of a Paschal offering and then for the sake of a peace offering. The Gemara infers: The reason such an offering is unfit is that he says that he is slaughtering it for the sake of a Paschal offering and then he says that he is slaughtering it for the sake of a peace offering. But if he says that he is slaughtering it for the sake of a Paschal offering, and then slaughters it without specification, it is fit. Apparently, slaughtering an offering without specification is considered as if one slaughtered it for its sake.

דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר: כָּל הָעוֹשֶׂה – עַל דַּעַת רִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה!

The Gemara responds: Perhaps there it is different, as the mishna is saying that anyone who performs an action performs it with his original intent in mind. Therefore, since he specified initially that he was slaughtering the offering for the sake of a Paschal offering, there are no grounds to assume that he then changed his mind. Here, by contrast, he pronounced no initial statement of proper intent.

אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא: שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְלִשְׁמָן – לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים וּלְשֵׁם פֶּסַח; טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים וּלְשֵׁם פֶּסַח, הָא סְתָמָא וּלְשֵׁם פֶּסַח – כָּשֵׁר;

Rather, perhaps this halakha is derived from the latter clause of that mishna: How are offerings slaughtered not for their sake and then for their sake? For example, one might slaughter the Paschal offering for the sake of a peace offering and then for the sake of a Paschal offering. The Gemara infers: The reason it is unfit is that he says he is slaughtering it for the sake of a peace offering and then he says he is slaughtering it for the sake of a Paschal offering. But if he started slaughtering it without specification and then slaughtered it for the sake of a Paschal offering, it is fit. Apparently, if one slaughters an offering without specification it still satisfies the obligation of the owner.

דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר: יוֹכִיחַ סוֹפוֹ עַל תְּחִילָּתוֹ!

The Gemara responds: Perhaps there it is different, as the mishna is saying that his ultimate intent proves the nature of his original intent. Since his ultimate intent was to sacrifice a Paschal offering, that was presumably his original intent as well. Here, by contrast, there is no ultimate expression of proper intent.

אִי נַמִי, אַיְידֵי דִּתְנָא ״לִשְׁמָן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן״, תְּנָא נַמִי: ״שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְלִשְׁמָן״!

Alternatively, it can be explained that even if one’s ultimate intent is not considered proof of his original intent, the mishna still uses the same term in both clauses to preserve symmetry. Since in the former clause the tanna taught using the language: For their sake and then not for their sake, teaching that original intent is considered proof of ultimate intent, the tanna also taught the second clause using the language: Not for their sake and then for their sake. In any event, there is no proof from that mishna that an offering slaughtered without specification satisfies its owner’s obligation.

אֶלָּא מֵהָא, לְשֵׁם שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים הַזֶּבַח נִזְבָּח: לְשֵׁם זֶבַח, לְשֵׁם זוֹבֵחַ, לְשֵׁם שֵׁם, לְשֵׁם אִשִּׁים, לְשֵׁם רֵיחַ, לְשֵׁם נִיחוֹחַ, וְהַחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם לְשֵׁם חֵטְא.

Rather, perhaps this halakha is derived from that mishna (46b), which states: The offering is slaughtered for the sake of six matters: For the sake of the particular offering; for the sake of the one sacrificing the offering, i.e., the owner; for the sake of God; for the sake of consumption by the fires of the altar; for the sake of sacrificing it in a manner that gives an aroma; and for the sake of pleasing God. And the sin offering and a guilt offering are slaughtered for the sake of atonement for the sin.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַף מִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לְשֵׁם אַחַת מִכָּל אֵלּוּ – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁתְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא; אַתְנוּ בֵּית דִּין דְּלָא לֵימָא לִשְׁמוֹ, דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְמֵימַר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ.

The mishna on 46b continues: Rabbi Yosei said: Even in the case of one who did not have in mind to slaughter the offering for the sake of any one of these, the offering is fit, since this is a stipulation of the court. The Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei’s opinion: The court stipulated that one should not say that he is slaughtering the offering for its sake, lest he come to say that he is slaughtering it not for its sake. Therefore one should not specify his intent at all.

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ סְתָמָא פָּסוּל, קָיְימִי בֵּית דִּין וּמַתְנִי מִילְּתָא דְּמִיפְסִיל בֵּיהּ?

The Gemara infers: And if it enters your mind that if one slaughters an offering without specification it is unfit, would the court arise and stipulate a matter that disqualifies the offering? Clearly, an offering slaughtered without specification is fit and satisfies the obligation of the owner.

וְגַבֵּי גֵּט דִּסְתָמָא פָּסוּל מְנָלַן?

§ The Gemara asks: And with regard to a bill of divorce, from where do we derive that if it is written without specification as to which woman it is referring, it is not valid?

אִילֵימָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: הָיָה עוֹבֵר בַּשּׁוּק וְשָׁמַע סוֹפְרִים מַקְרִין: ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי גֵּירֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִית מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״, וְאָמַר: זֶה שְׁמִי וְזֶה שֵׁם אִשְׁתִּי – פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ;

If we say it is inferred from that which we learned in a mishna ( Gittin 24a): In the case of a man who was passing through the marketplace, and he heard scribes who write bills of divorce dictating to their students: The man so-and-so divorces so-and-so from the place of such and such, and the man said: This is my name and that is the name of my wife, and he desires to use this bill for his divorce, this bill is unfit to divorce his wife with it, that is not a proof.

דִּילְמָא כִּדְרַב פַּפָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב פַּפָּא: הָכָא בְּסוֹפְרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהִתְלַמֵּד עָסְקִינַן, וְלָא אִיכְּתוּב לְשׁוּם כְּרִיתוּת כְּלָל!

It can be explained: Perhaps the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Rav Pappa. As Rav Pappa says: Here we are dealing with scribes who are wont to practice writing bills of divorce; and this bill of divorce is a draft and was not written for the sake of severance, i.e., divorce, at all. But if a bill of divorce is written to be used for divorce, perhaps it is fit even if written without specifying the woman in question.

אֶלָּא מֵהָא:

Rather, derive this halakha from the subsequent clause in that mishna: