## Zevachim Daf 2b

###### Zevachim 2b:1
[Zevachim 2b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:1)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 unrelated to the vow, and shall not satisfy the obligation of your vow.


###### Zevachim 2b:2
[Zevachim 2b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:2)

וּנְדָבָה מִי שְׁרֵי לְשַׁנּוֹיֵי בַּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 2b:3
[Zevachim 2b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לָרַב פָּפָּא: לָא הֲוֵית גַּבַּן בְּאוּרְתָּא בִּתְחוּמָא בֵּי חַרְמָךְ – דְּרָמֵי רָבָא מִילֵּי מְעַלְּיָיתָא אַהֲדָדֵי, וְשַׁנִּי לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Zevachim 2b:4
[Zevachim 2b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:4)

מַאי מִילֵּי מְעַלְּיָיתָא? תְּנַן: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן כּוּ׳. טַעְמָא דְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן; הָא סְתָמָא – עָלוּ נָמֵי לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה; אַלְמָא סְתָמָא נָמֵי כְּלִשְׁמָן דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 2b:5
[Zevachim 2b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:5)

וּרְמִינְהִי: כׇּל הַגֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִשָּׁה – פָּסוּל. וּסְתָמָא נָמֵי פָּסוּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 2b:6
[Zevachim 2b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:6)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 2b:7
[Zevachim 2b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:7)

וּזְבָחִים בִּסְתָמָא כְּשֵׁירִין מְנָלַן? אִילֵּימָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן כּוּ׳ – וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״שֶׁלֹּא נִזְבְּחוּ לִשְׁמָן״; גַּבֵּי גֵּט נָמֵי, הָקָתָנֵי: כׇּל הַגֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִשָּׁה פָּסוּל – וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״שֶׁלֹּא נִכְתַּב לְשֵׁם אִשָּׁה פָּסוּל״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Zevachim 2b:8
[Zevachim 2b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:8)

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 דְּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 2b:9
[Zevachim 2b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 2b:10
[Zevachim 2b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 2b:11
[Zevachim 2b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:11)

דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר: יוֹכִיחַ סוֹפוֹ עַל תְּחִילָּתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 2b:12
[Zevachim 2b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:12)

אִי נָמֵי, אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא ״לִשְׁמָן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן״, תְּנָא נָמֵי ״שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְלִשְׁמָן״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 2b:13
[Zevachim 2b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:13)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 2b:14
[Zevachim 2b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:14)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 2b:15
[Zevachim 2b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:15)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ סְתָמָא פָּסוּל, קָיְימִי בֵּית דִּין וּמַתְנִי מִילְּתָא דְּמִיפְּסִיל בֵּיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 2b:16
[Zevachim 2b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:16)

וְגַבֵּי גֵּט דִּסְתָמָא פָּסוּל – מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?**


###### Zevachim 2b:17
[Zevachim 2b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:17)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 2b:18
[Zevachim 2b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:18)

דִּילְמָא כִּדְרַב פָּפָּא – דְּאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּסוֹפְרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהִתְלַמֵּד עָסְקִינַן; וְלָא אִיכְּתוּב לְשׁוּם כְּרִיתוּת כְּלָל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 2b:19
[Zevachim 2b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/2b:19)

אֶלָּא מֵהָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** derive this *halakha* **from** the subsequent clause in **that** mishna: