Ask A Question on the daf

1) "KORBANOS" THAT WERE OFFERED "SHE'LO LISHMAN"

(a) (Mishnah): Any Zevach (animal Korban) that was slaughtered Lo Lishmah (to be a different Korban, e.g. an Olah was slaughtered to be a Shelamim; Tosfos - or with intention Lizrok (to throw on the Altar) the blood of Reuven's Zevach for Shimon) is Kosher, but the owner did not fulfill his obligation;

1. The only exceptions are Pesach or Chatas - a Pesach (Lo Lishmah) is Pasul (disqualified) if slaughtered at the proper time to slaughter the Pesach (on Erev Pesach), a Chatas (Lo Lishmah) is always Pasul;

(b) R. Eliezer says, also Asham is Pasul if slaughtered Lo Lishmah;

1. Pesach is Pasul (Lo Lishmah) at its proper time, Chatas and Asham at any time.
2. Asham (usually) comes to atone for transgression, just like Chatas; just as Chatas is Pasul Lo Lishmah, also Asham.

(c) Yosi ben Choni says, any Zevach that was slaughtered l'Shem (to be a) Pesach or Chatas is Pasul;
(d) Shimon Achi Azaryah says, any Zevach that was slaughtered l'Shem a Korban of higher Kedushah is Kosher, a Zevach slaughtered l'Shem a Korban of lower Kedushah is Pasul:

1. For example, if Kodshei Kodoshim were slaughtered l'Shem Kodshim Kalim, they are Pasul; if Kodshim Kalim were slaughtered l'Shem Kodshei Kodoshim, they are Kosher;
2. If a Bechor or Ma'aser was slaughtered l'Shem Shelamim, it is Kosher; if a Shelamim was slaughtered l'Shem Bechor or Ma'aser, it is Pasul.

(e) (Gemara) Question: Why did the Tana say *but* the owner did not fulfill his obligation? (He could have omitted this word!)
(f) Answer: He teaches that even though the owner did not fulfill his obligation, the Zevach is still Kodesh, it is forbidden to do another Avodah (Kabalah (receiving the blood), Holachah (bringing it to the Altar) or Zerikah) Lo Lishmah.

1. (Rava): If an Olah was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, it is forbidden to throw the blood Lo Lishmah.
2. We can learn from reasoning or a verse.

i. Reasoning - because it was (improperly) slaughtered Lo Lishmah, should we do another Avodah Lo Lishmah?!
ii. A verse - "...V'Asisa Ka'asher Nadarta...Nedavah".
iii. Question: Why does the Torah call a Neder (a vow to bring a Korban with Acharayos (if the animal becomes lost, stolen or blemished, he must bring another)) 'Nedavah' (a Korban without Acharayos)?

iv. Answer: If you did as you Nadar (vowed, i.e. the Zevach was offered Lishmah), it is a Neder (you fulfilled your obligation); if not, it is a Nedavah (you did not fulfill your vow).
v. The Torah calls a Zevach slaughtered Lo Lishmah a Nedavah - a Nedavah may not be offered Lo Lishmah!

(a) Ravina: Rava asked contradictions, and answered them:
(b) (Rava): Our Mishnah teaches, any Zevach slaughtered Lo Lishmah is Kosher, but the owner did not fulfill his obligation;

1. Inference: If it was slaughtered Stam (without specifying), he fulfilled his obligation - this teaches that Stam is like Lishmah.
2. Contradiction (Mishnah): A Get written Lo Lishmah (i.e. it was written for Leah and given to Rachel) is Pasul;
3. A Get written Stam (without intention for any particular woman) is also Pasul (we will explain the source of this law later), i.e. it is like Lo Lishmah!

(c) Answer (Rava): We expect Zevachim to be offered Lishmah (so if it was slaughtered Stam, we consider this Lishmah);

1. There is no reason why a particular woman should be divorced (in any case, with a Get not written Pratally for her), therefore it is Lo Lishmah.

(d) Question: What is the Rava's source that we expect Zevachim to be offered Lishmah?

1. Suggestion: Our Mishnah teaches, any Zevach slaughtered Lo Lishmah (i.e. with improper intention)... - it did not say, it was not slaughtered Lishmah (i.e. Stam, because then he fulfills his obligation)!
2. Rejection: Also regarding Get, the Mishnah says 'A Get written Lo Lishmah...', it does not say 'A Get not written for a woman!

(e) Answer #1 (Mishnah): What is the case of intention Lishmah followed by Lo Lishmah (Rashi - during slaughter; Tosfos - in different Avodos), which is Pasul? (Regarding a Pesach), first he intended for Pesach, then for Shelamim.

1. Inference: Had he first intended for Pesach, and then Stam, it would be Kosher - this says that Stam is like Lishmah!

(f) Rejection: Perhaps Stam is not (normally) like Lishmah; here it is Kosher, because we assume that he finished the Avodah with the same intention he started with.
(g) Answer #2 (end of that Mishnah): Lo Lishmah followed by Lishmah (which is Pasul): first he intended for Shelamim, then for Pesach.

1. Inference: Had he started Stam, and then intended for Pesach, it would be Kosher - this says that Stam is like Lishmah!

(h) Rejection #1: Stam is not like Lishmah; here it is Kosher, because his final intention reveals what his initial intention was.
(i) Rejection #2: The inference is wrong, had he started Stam, and then intended for Pesach, it is also Pasul;

1. This clause was only taught for parallel structure to the first clause.

(j) Answer #3 (Mishnah): There are six intentions in offering a Zevach - which Korban it is (e.g. Olah), for whom it atones, it is offered to Hash-m, the Chelev (if an Olah, also the limbs) will be burned (and consumed, not just roasted) on the Altar, it should be a pleasant aroma (the meat should not be roasted before it is put on the Altar), it should be pleasing to Hash-m;

1. Additionally, a Chatas or Asham is offered for a particular transgression.
2. R. Yosi says, even if it was offered without any of these intentions, it is Kosher; Beis Din enacted to offer Zevachim Stam, in order that it not be offered Lo Lishmah.
3. We cannot say that Stam (Tosfos - without verbal or mental intention) is Pasul - Beis Din would not make an enactment that will Posel Zevachim (Tosfos - they would not enact to offer it silently, lest one forget to have mental intention)!

(a) Question: What is the Rava's source that a Get written Stam is Pasul?

1. Suggestion (Mishnah): Reuven overheard a scribe reciting the text of a Get (as he wrote it), the names corresponded to him and his wife - he cannot divorce his wife with it.
2. Rejection: Perhaps the case is as Rav Papa explained.

i. (Rav Papa): The case is, the scribe was writing it to practice, he did not intend that it should be used to divorce.