1)

TOSFOS DH Masnisin Kol ha'Zevachim she'Nizbechu v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä îúðé' ëì äæáçéí ùðæáçå ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the required intents, and when they apply.)

òáåãä ÷îééúà ð÷è åäåà äãéï ÷áìä åäåìëä åæøé÷ä ëã÷úðé ñéôà (ì÷îï ã' éâ.)

(a)

Explanation: [The Mishnah] mentioned the first Avodah, and the same applies to Kabalah (receiving the blood in a Kli Shares), Holachah (taking it to the Mizbe'ach) and Zerikah (throwing it on the Mizbe'ach), like the Seifa teaches (13a);

åùéðåé ÷åãù ùééê áäðê àøáò òáåãåú ëâåï òåìä ìùí ùìîéí

1.

Shinuy Kodesh applies to these four Avodos, e.g. an Olah l'Shem Shelamim.

àáì ùéðåé áòìéí ìà ùééê àìà áæøé÷ä ëâåï ùåçè àå î÷áì àå îåìéê ÷øáï øàåáï ò''î ìæøå÷ ãîå ìùí ùîòåï ëãîåëç ì÷îï áôéø÷éï (ãó é.)

(b)

Distinction: However, Shinuy Ba'alim applies only to Zerikah, e.g. Shechitah, Kabalah, or Holachah of Reuven's Korban with intent to do Zerikas Dam for Shimon, like is proven below (10a).

åöøéê ìã÷ã÷ îðà ìéä ìäù''ñ ùéðåé áòìéí ã÷áòé ì÷îï áôø÷éï (ãó ã.) îðà ìï ãáòéðï æáéçä ìùîä ëå' åäãø ÷àîø àùëçðà ùéðåé ÷åãù ùéðåé áòìéí îðà ìï

(c)

Question: How did the Gemara know that Shinuy Ba'alim [disqualifies], that it asks below (4a) what is the source that we require Shechitah Lishmah... and later it says "we find Shinuy Kodesh. What is the source for Shinuy Ba'alim?"

îùîò ãàîúðéúéï ÷àé åëåìä îúðéúéï ìà îéùúîòà ëìì ùéðåé áòìéí ãìéùðà ãìùîï îùîò ìàôå÷é ùéðåé ÷åãù

1.

This implies that [the Gemara] refers to our Mishnah. Our Mishnah does not connote at all Shinuy Ba'alim, for the expression "Lishman" connotes to exclude Shinuy Kodesh!

åëåìä îúðéúéï ìà ð÷éè àìà ùéðåé ÷åãù ã÷úðé ðîé áñéôà (ùí ãó éâ.) ëéöã ìùîï åùìà ìùîï ìùí ôñç ìùí ùìîéí

2.

Our entire Mishnah mentions only Shinuy Kodesh! Also the Seifa (13a) teaches "what is the case of Lishmah and [later] Lo Lishmah? L'Shem Pesach and [later] l'Shem Shelamim."

åðøàä ãñîê àîúðéúéï ãì÷îï ôø÷ áéú ùîàé (ãó îå:) ãúðï ìùí ùùä ãáøéí äæáç ðæáç ìùí æáç ìùí æåáç åëï ôéøù á÷åðèøñ áâî'

(d)

Answer #1: [The Gemara] relies on the Mishnah below (26b), which teaches "Shechitah of a Korban is l'Shem six matters - l'Shem Zevach, l'Shem Zove'ach..." Also Rashi explained like this in the Gemara.

åà''ú àé àääéà ÷àé à''ë äåä ìéä ìôøåùé ðîé îðà ìï ìùí äùí ìùí àéùéí [ìùí øéç] ìùí ðéçåç

1.

Question: If it refers to that [Mishnah], if so, it should have explained also what is the source [to require] l'Shem Hash-m, l'Shem the fire, l'Shem a scent, and l'Shem pleasantness?

åé''ì ãìà àúé ìôøåùé àìà áäðé ãëùéøéï åìà òìå ìùí çåáä àáì äðê ëùéøéï åîøöéï åòìå ìùí çåáä ëîå ùàôøù

2.

Answer: It comes to explain only those that are Kosher, but [the owner] did not fulfill his obligation. These are Kosher, and he fulfilled his obligation, like I will explain.

åòåã é''ì ãùìà ìùîï ãîúðéúéï îùîò áéï ùéðåé ÷åãù áéï ùéðåé áòìéí ëîå áøééúà ãøáé ùîòåï ÷îöä ùìà ìùîä ãîå÷é øéù ô''÷ ãîðçåú (ãó á:) áùéðåé áòìéí

(e)

Answer #2: Lo Lishmah of our Mishnah connotes both Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim, like the Beraisa of R. Shimon "if he did Kemitzah Lo Lishmah...", which we establish in Menachos (2b) to discuss Shinuy Ba'alim.

åìäëé ðîé [ìà ôøéê] áôéø÷éï ãäðê àøáòä ãáøéí îðà ìï ãìà îééøé áäï áîúðé'

1.

Support: This is why we did not ask in our Perek what is the source for the [other] four matters (that it must be l'Shem), for our Mishnah does not discuss them.

åîéäå øáä ãåå÷à îå÷é ìä áùéðåé áòìéí àáì øáà åøá àùé ìà îå÷îé ìä äëé äúí

(f)

Disclaimer: However, [in Menachos] only Rabah establishes [the Beraisa] to discuss Shinuy Ba'alim, but Rava and Rav Ashi do not establish it so there.

åàí úàîø åäà áôø÷ áéú ùîàé (ì÷îï ãó îå:) ãøéù ìäå îãëúéá òåìä àùä øéç ðéçåç ìä' òåìä ìùí òåìä åäééðå ùéðåé ÷åãù

(g)

Question: Below (46b), we expound these [matters that must be l'Shem] from "Olah Isheh Rei'ach Nicho'ach la'Shem." "Olah" teaches that it must be l'Shem Olah, i.e. [it forbids] Shinuy Kodesh;

åáôéø÷éï áâî' (ì÷îï ãó ã.) ãøéù ùéðåé ÷åãù î÷øà àçøéðà

1.

Below (4a) we expound Shinuy Kodesh from a different verse!

åéù ìåîø ã÷øà ãäúí áä÷èøú àéîåøéí åäëà áòáåãú äãí

(h)

Answer: The verse there (46b) discusses Haktaras Eimurim (burning what the Torah specified on the Mizbe'ach). Here we discuss Avodos of the blood.

åàò''â ã÷úðé ìùí å' ãáøéí äæáç ðæáç

(i)

Implied question: It teaches there six matters l'Shem which the Korban is slaughtered! (It does not discuss Haktarah.)

äåà äãéï äæáç ð÷èø ãäà ÷øà ãîééúé äúí áä÷èøä îééøé

(j)

Answer: Likewise, Haktarah of the Korban [is l'Shem these six matters], for the verse brought there discusses Haktarah.

åî''î ùôéø ãøéù î÷øà ãäúí æáéçä ìùí å' ãáøéí

(k)

Implied question: [If so,] how do we expound from the verse there Shechitah l'Shem six matters?

îãàéú÷ù àì ùí æáç åìùí (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) æáç ãäééðå ùéðåé ÷åãù äåé áéï áòáåãú ãí [ëãéìéó] î÷øàé ãôéø÷éï áéï áä÷èøä [ëãéìéó] î÷øà ãäúí ä''ä ùàø çîùä ãáøéí éäå áæáéçä ëîå áä÷èøä

(l)

Answer: [It properly expounds this,] since [Shechitah and Haktarah] are equated for "Shem Zevach", and l'Shem Zevach is Shinuy Kodesh, both regarding Avodas Dam like we learn from verses in our Perek, and for Haktarah, like we learn from verses there. The other five matters apply to Shechitah just like to Haktarah.

åîéäå äà ìà îöéðï ìîéìó îäé÷éùà ãðéîà åìà òìå ìùí çåáä åàéðä îøöä áëì (î÷åí) äðê å' ãáøéí

(m)

Observation: However, we cannot learn from the Hekesh to say that [the owner] did not fulfill his obligation, and it is not mrz (accepted, if there was a Shinuy) in any of these six matters;

ãääåà ÷øà ëúéá áä÷èøú àéîåøéí åäåà òöîå ùìà äå÷èøå àéîåøéí ëùø

1.

Source: That verse discusses Haktaras Eimurim, and the Korban is Kosher if the Emurim were not burned at all [and all the more so if Haktarah was not l'Shem one of the matters]!

åì÷îï ãîééúé ÷øà ìùí æáç ãäééðå ùéðåé ÷åãù ìà îééúé ðîé ÷øà ìùí æåáç ãäééðå ùéðåé áòìéí

(n)

Implied question: Below, we bring the verse [to teach about] l'Shem Zevach, i.e. Shinuy Kodesh. Why don't we bring also the verse about l'Shem Zove'ach, i.e. Shinuy Ba'alim?

îùåí ãùéðåé áòìéí (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) ìà ùééê ìôøù áùòú ä÷èøä ãáùòú ä÷èøä ìà îùëçú ìùí æåáç

(o)

Answer: This is because we cannot explain Shinuy Ba'alim at the time of Haktarah, for at the time of Haktarah we do not find l'Shem Zove'ach;

ãùéðåé áòìéí ìéúéä àìà áùåçè ò''î ìæøå÷ àå î÷áì åîåìéê ò''î ìæøå÷ ëãîåëç áôéø÷éï (ì÷îï ã' ç.)

1.

This is because Shinuy Ba'alim is only Shechitah with intent to throw [l'Shem someone else], or Kabalah or Holachah with intent to throw, like is proven below (8a);

åáùòú ä÷èøä ëáø ðæø÷ äãí åàí ëï îäéëà úéúé ä÷èøä ìùí æåáç ãáääåà ÷øà ìòåìä àùä øéç ðéçåç ìà ëúéá

2.

At the time of Haktarah, Zerikah was already done. If so, how could we learn Haktarah l'Shem Zove'ach? It is not written in the verse "Olah Isheh Rei'ach Nicho'ach";

åîòáåãú ãí ìà àúé ãòáåãú ãí âåôéä ìéúéä àìà áò''î ìæøå÷ ëãôøéùéú

i.

And we cannot learn from Avodas Dam, for Avodas Dam itself is only with intent to throw, like I explained.

åäùúà æáéçä ìùí ùùä ãáøéí åä÷èøä ìùí çîùä

(p)

Explanation #1: Now, Shechitah is l'Shem six matters, and Haktarah is l'Shem five matters.

àé ðîé äà ã÷àîø ìùí ùùä ãáøéí ðæáç äæáç ìà ùçåùá (ùèî"÷ ë"é) áùòú ùçéèä ìùí å' ãáøéí

(q)

Explanation #2: This that it says that a Korban is slaughtered l'Shem six matters does not mean that he thinks at the time of Shechitah l'Shem six matters;

àìà ëìåîø äæáç ðòùä ìùí å' ãáøéí åëì àçú áùòúä

1.

Rather, it means that the Korban is done (offered) l'Shem six matters, and each is in its time.

åáô' äîô÷éã (á''î ãó îâ:) ôéøùúé äà ãîçùáä ôåñìú á÷ãùéí àé áãéáåø äæáç ðòùä [ùìà] ìùîä àå àôéìå áîçùáä:

(r)

Reference: In Bava Metzi'a (43b DH ha'Choshev), I explained this that intent disqualifies Kodshim, whether [only] through speech the Korban becomes Lo Lishmah, or even through [mere] intent. (Tosfos says there that it is only through speech.)

2)

TOSFOS DH ha'Pesach bi'Zmano

úåñôåú ã"ä äôñç áæîðå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that at other times, it is Kosher.)

àáì ùìà áæîðå ìà åàôé' ùåçèå ìùí òåìä

(a)

Inference: However, not at the time [of Pesach], no (Shinuy Kodesh does not disqualify).

åàôéìå ìî''ã áòé ò÷éøä î''î äåé ùìîéí ëããøùéðï åàí îï äöàï ÷øáðå ìæáç ùìîéí ëì ãùçéè ìéä ùìîéí ìéäåé ì÷îï áôéø÷éï (ãó ç:):

1.

This is even if he slaughters l'Shem Olah, and even according to the opinion that requires Akirah (declaring it to be a different Korban), in any case it is a Shelamim, like we expound from "v'Im Min ha'Tzon Korbano l'Zevach Shelamim" - however he slaughters it, it is a Shelamim (below 8b).

3)

TOSFOS DH ha'Chatas Ba'ah Al Chet veha'Asham Ba Al ha'Chet

úåñôåú ã"ä äçèàú áàä òì çèà åäàùí áà òì äçèà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that they do not always come due to Chet.)

àéëà çèàú åàùí ðîé ãàéï áàéï òì çèà ëâåï çèàú éåìãú åàùí îöåøò

(a)

Implied question: There are also Chatas and Asham that do not come due to transgression, e.g. Chatas Yoledes (one who give birth) and Asham Metzora!

àìà îùåí ãøåáà àúå òì çèà îùåå ìäå àäããé

(b)

Answer: Because most [Chata'os and Ashamos] come due to transgression, [R. Eliezer] equates them to each other.

4)

TOSFOS DH l'Shem Gavoha Mehen Kesherin

úåñôåú ã"ä ìùí âáåä îäï ëùéøéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the source that l'Shem a lower Kedushah is totally Pasul.)

áâîøà îéáòé ìï àé áòé ìîéîø ëùéøéï åîøöéï åôìéâé áúøúé àå ëùéøéï åàéï îøöéï åìà ôìéâé àìà áçãà

(a)

Reference: In the Gemara [11b], we ask whether this means that they are Kosher and they are Meratzeh, and [Shimon Achi Azaryah and Chachamim] argue about two matters (Chachamim hold that Lo Lishmah is never Meratzeh, and they do not distinguish between l'Shem a higher Kedushah and l'Shem a lower Kedushah);

[îùîò ãìà îñô÷à àìà áçãà] ëâåï áâáåä àáì áðîåê ôùéèà ìéä ãôñåìéï ìâîøé ÷àîø

1.

Inference: [The Gemara] is unsure only about one of these, e.g. l'Shem a higher Kedushah, but [l'Shem] a lower [Kedushah], it is obvious that [Shimon] says that it is totally Pasul.

åúéîä îðà ìéä ãéìîà ôñåì åìà òìå ÷àîø ãàùëçï [ááøééúà] ëé äàé âååðà

(b)

Question: What is [the Gemara's] source? Perhaps [Shimon] says that it is Pasul and they do not count (for the owner's obligation)! We find like this in a Beraisa!

ãúðéà ì÷îï (ãó ã.) ùìîéí ùùçèï ìùí úåãä ôñåìéï åäééðå ôñåìéï åìà òìå åìà ôñåìéï ìâîøé

1.

A Beraisa below (4a) teaches that if a Shelamim was slaughtered l'Shem Todah, it is Pasul. I.e. it is Pasul and it does not count. It is not totally Pasul!

åéù ìåîø îùåí ããøùéðï èòîà ãùîòåï (äâäú öàï ÷ãùéí) áâîøà (ùí ãó éà:) îãëúéá åìà éçììå àú ÷ãùé áðé éùøàì àùø éøéîå áîåøí [îäí] àéï îúçììéï áðîåê îäí îúçììéï åçéìåì îùîò ôñåì âîåø

(c)

Answer #1: We expound Shimon's reason in the Gemara (11b) because it is written "v'Lo Yechalelu Es Kodshei Bnei Yisrael Asher Yarimu" - when they are Muram (offered l'Shem a higher Kedushah) they are not Mechulalin (profaned), but [l'Shem] a lower [Kedushah], they are Mischalelin. Chilul connotes a total Pesul.

åàò''â ããøùéðï áâîøà ÷ãùéí îçììéï ÷ãùéí åàéï çåìéï îçììéï ÷ãùéí åìà îéôñìå ùàø ÷ãùéí ùìà ìùîï

1.

Implied question: We expound in the Gemara "Kodshim are Mechalel Kodshim, but Chulin are not Mechalel Kodshim", and we do not [say that Chilul connotes a total Pesul, and totally] disqualify other Kodshim Lo Lishmah!

îëì î÷åí ùééê áäï çéìåì îùåí ôñç åçèàú ãîéôñìå

2.

Answer: In any case Chilul applies due to Pesach and Chatas, which are [totally] disqualified. (Therefore it says "Mechalel" even though it is not always totally Pasul.)

åòåã éù ìã÷ã÷ îâåôä ãîúðéúéï äáëåø åäîòùø ùùçèï ìùí ùìîéí ëùéøéï îùåí ãäåé ìùí âáåä

(d)

Answer #2: We can infer also from our Mishnah itself! It says that if Bechor or Ma'aser was slaughtered l'Shem Shelamim, it is Kosher, for it is l'Shem a higher Kedushah;

ãàé ìùí ðîåê îéôñìé åäééðå ìòðéï ôñåì âîåø ãááëåø åáîòùø ìà ùééê ìà òìå ìáòìéí ìùí çåáä

1.

Inference: If it were l'Shem a lower Kedushah, it would be Pasul, i.e. totally Pasul, for regarding Bechor and Ma'aser there is no concept of the owner fulfilling his obligation. (One is allowed to offer them and eat the meat. If they became blemished or died, there is no Achrayus to offer anything to compensate for them.)

i.

Note: Even though there is no lower Kedushah than Bechor and Ma'aser, Tosfos properly infers that because Shelamim is a higher Kedushah, they are Kosher.

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Asur Lishnuyei

úåñôåú ã"ä åàñåø ìùðåéé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that sometimes the Tana does not teach this.)

éù î÷åîåú ùäúðà [àéðå] çåùù ìàùîòéðï çéãåù æä

(a)

Observation: In some places the Tana is not concerned to teach this Chidush;

åáôø÷ äúëìú (îðçåú ãó îç:) âáé ùàø ùìîé ðæéø åâáé àùí ðæéø åàùí îöåøò ã÷úðé ëùéøéï åìà òìå åìà ÷úðé àìà

1.

In Menachos (48b), regarding other Shalmei Nazir, and regarding Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora, it teaches "they are Kosher, and they do not count [for his obligation", and it did not teach "but" (to forbid doing other Avodos Lo Lishmah).

6)

TOSFOS DH Kari Lei Neder v'Kari Lei Nedavah

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷øé ìéä ðãø å÷øé ìéä ðãáä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with elsewhere, where these words are not used precisely.)

îùîò äëà ãëì äéëà ãëúéá ðãø ðãø ãå÷à ðãáä ðãáä ãå÷à

(a)

Inference: Here it connotes that whenever [the Torah] writes "Neder", it is specifically a Neder, and "Nedavah" is specifically a Nedavah;

åëï áôø÷ ÷îà ãø''ä (ãó å.) ìòðéï áì úàçø

1.

Also in Rosh Hashanah (6a) regarding Bal Te'acher [it connotes like this];

åàôéìå ìø''î áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó á.) ããøéù èåá àùø ìà úãåø èåá îæä åîæä ùàéðå ðåãø ëì òé÷ø àìîà ÷øé ìðãáä ðãø

(b)

Question: (It connotes unlike this in Chulin!) And even according to R. Meir, who expounds in Chulin (2a) "Tov Asher Lo Sidor" - better than both of these is that he is not Noder at all. This shows that [he holds that the Torah] calls a Nedavah "Neder"!

ùàðé äëà ããøéù îãùðé ÷øà áãéáåøéä

(c)

Answer #1: Here is different, for he expounds that the verse deviated from the way [the Torah] normally speaks.

à''ð áçåìéï ãøéù ãëéåï ãçééù ÷øà ìú÷ìä ìà ùðà ðãø ìà ùðà ðãáä ãáúøåééäå àéëà ìîéçù

(d)

Answer #2: In Chulin he expounds that since the verse is concerned for ruin (transgressing a vow), there is no difference between a Neder and a Nedavah. There is concern regarding both of them.

àé ðîé îùåí ãðãø ðô÷à ìï î÷øà ãëé úçãì ìðãåø ù''î ãèåá àùø ìà úãåø ìðãáä àúà:

(e)

Answer #3: Because we learn a Neder from the verse "Ki Sechdal Lindor", this shows that "Tov Asher Lo Sidor" comes to teach [even] a Nedavah.

2b----------------------------------------2b

7)

TOSFOS DH v'Im Lav Yehei Nedavah

úåñôåú ã"ä åàí ìàå éäà ðãáä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we expound this verse differently in Rosh Hashanah.)

àò''â ãáô''÷ ãø''ä (ãó å.) ãøéù ìéä ìòðéï áì úàçø ãìà ùééê ìàçø ùçéèä

(a)

Implied question: In Rosh Hashanah (6a) we expound this regarding Bal Te'acher, that it does not apply after Shechitah!

äëà ãøéù îôùèéä ã÷øà ãîùîò ã÷øé ìéä ìðãø ðãáä

(b)

Answer: Here we expound the simple meaning of the verse. It connotes that a Neder is called a Nedavah.

8)

TOSFOS DH Zevachim bi'Stam Lishman Hen Omdin

úåñôåú ã"ä æáçéí áñúí ìùîï äï òåîãéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the question about a minor.)

åàéðå ôñåì òã ùéëåéï ùìà ìùîï

(a)

Explanation: It is Pasul only if he intends Lo Lishmah.

[åà''ú áô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó éá:) áòé ø''é àé ÷èï éù ìå îçùáä åëå' åôé' á÷åðèøñ ëâåï áùçéèú ÷ãùéí ãéìéó áøéù æáçéí ãáòé ìùîä åùçè ÷èï òåìä ìùîä îé äåé ëååðä àå ìà

(b)

Question: In Chulin (12b), R. Yochanan asked whether or not intent applies to a minor. Rashi explained it is in a case like Shechitas Kodshim, which we learn in Zevachim that it requires Lishmah, and a minor slaughtered an Olah Lishmah. Is this considered intent, or not?

äà îùîò äëà ãîñúîà ðîé ëùø åàéðå ôñåì òã ùéëåéï ùìà ìùîï]

1.

It connotes here that also Stam is Kosher. It is Pasul only if he intends Lo Lishmah!

åé''ì ãñúîà ã÷èï âøò ãàéï ìå ãòú ìäáéï ùäï ÷ãùéí åñáåø ùäï çåìéï åäåä ìéä îúòñ÷ åôñåì

(c)

Answer: Stam of a minor is worse, for he lacks Da'as to understand that it is Kodshim. He thinks that it is Chulin. He is like Mis'asek (engaged in something else), which is Pasul;

ëãàîø áôø÷ áéú ùîàé (ì÷îï ãó îå:) ìùí çåìéï ëùéøéï îùåí çåìéï ôñåìä

1.

Source: It says below (46b) that l'Shem Chulin is Kosher. Mishum Chulin (he thought that it was Chulin and slaughtered l'Shem Chulin), it is Pasul.

åäàé ÷èï àôéìå àåîø éåãò àðé ùäï ÷ãùéí åìùîï àðé îúëåéï îéáòéà ìï àé ëååðúå ëååðä àå ãéìîà ìà îäðé àí àéï îòùéå îåëéçéï

2.

A minor, even if he says "I know that it is Kodshim and I intend Lishmah", we are unsure whether his intent is considered intent. Or, perhaps it does not help, unless his actions prove (that he intended for Kodshim, e.g. he was holding Kodshei Kodoshim in the south, and went to the north to slaughter it).

9)

TOSFOS DH Stam Ishah Lav l'Geirushin Omedes

úåñôåú ã"ä ñúí àùä ìàå ìâéøåùéï òåîãú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos uses this to resolve a question about what a Nochri can do.)

åàôé' æéðúä úçú áòìä îëì î÷åí ìàå ìäúâøù áâè æä òåîãú

(a)

Explanation: Even if she was Mezanah while married [so her husband must divorce her], she is not destined to be divorced through this Get.

åâí àí ìà éøöä äáòì ìà éâøùðä àìà ùìà úùîùðå

1.

Also, if her husband wants, he need not divorce her, just he may not have Bi'ah with her.

åîúåê äà îéìúà îéúøöà îä ùî÷ùéí áñåó ôø÷ ùðé ãâéèéï (ãó ëâ.) ãàîø òåáã ëåëáéí àãòúà ãðôùéä òáéã åàéðå ëùø ìëúåá àú äâè

(b)

Support: This answers what people ask in Gitin (23a). It says that a Nochri does based on his own will, and he is not qualified to write a Get...

åáô' ùðé ãòáåãä æøä (ãó ëå:) àîøé' éîåì àøîàé åàì éîåì ëåúé îùåí ãëåúé îúëåéï ìùí äø âøéæéí

1.

Question: And in Avodah Zarah (26b) we say that a Nochri may circumcise [a Yisrael], but not a Kusi, for a Kusi intends for Har Grizim (his idolatry);

[åäúí ðîé] áòéðï ìùîä ëããøùéðï (ùí ãó ëæ.) îìä' äîåì (éîåì) åàôé' äëé îëùøéðï àøîàé

i.

Also there we require Lishmah, like we expound there (27a) from "la'Shem Yimol", and even so we are Machshir a Nochri!

ãéù ìçì÷ áéï âè ìîéìä ëîå ùîçì÷ ëàï áéï æáçéí ìâè

2.

Answer: We can distinguish between Get and Milah, just like we distinguish here between Zevachim and Get;

ãäúí (äâää áâìéåï) ñúîà ôñåì îùåí ãñúí àùä ìàå ìâéøåùéï ÷ééîà åìëê ðîé [áòåáã ëåëáéí] ôñåì àò''â ãòáéã ñúí

i.

There, a Stam Get is Pasul, for a Stam wife is not destined to be divorced. Therefore also through a Nochri it is Pasul, even though he does Stam (without a Pasul intent);

àáì îéìä ñúîà ìùîä ÷ééîà ëîå æáçéí äéìëê òåáã ëåëáéí ëùø àò''â ãòáéã ñúí

ii.

However, Stam Milah is Lishmah, just like Zevachim. Therefore, a Nochri is Kosher, even though he does Stam.

10)

TOSFOS DH Ha l'Shem Pesach v'Stama Kosher

úåñôåú ã"ä äà ìùí ôñç åñúîà ëùø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this is in two Avodos.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãñåó ùçéèä ñúîà àéùúçéè

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): At the end of Shechitah he slaughtered Stam.

åúéîä ëéåï ãàîø áúçéìú ùçéèä ìùí ôñç åëé ëì ùòä éù ìå ìãáø òã ùéâîø ùçéèúå

(b)

Question: Since he said at the beginning of Shechitah "l'Shem Pesach", must he speak until he finishes his Shechitah?!

åðøàä ìôøù ãáùúé òáåãåú àééøé ëâåï ãùçéè ìùí ôñç å÷éáì ñúí

(c)

Explanation #2: We discuss two Avodos, e.g. he slaughtered l'Shem Pesach and was Mekabel Stam.

åîéäå áôø÷ úîéã ðùçè (ôñçéí ãó ðè:) îéáòé ìï àé áòáåãä àçú úðï àå áùúé òáåãåú åòáåãä àçú äééðå ëãôéøù ä÷åðèøñ

(d)

Question: In Pesachim (59b) we asked whether the Mishnah teaches in one Avodah or in two Avodos. One Avodah is like Rashi explained!

åéù ìééùá ãàôéìå àí úéîöé ìåîø ìùí ôñç åñúîà ôñåì [àô''ä] àéï öøéê ìãáø ëì ùòä àìà ùáúçéìú ùçéèä éàîø ùòåùä ëì äùçéèä ìùí ùçéèú ôñç

(e)

Answer: Even if you will say that l'Shem Pesach and Stam is Pasul, even so he need not speak the entire time. Rather, at the beginning of Shechitah he says that he does the entire Shechitah for the sake of Shechitas Pesach.

11)

TOSFOS DH Asnu Beis Din d'Lo Leima Lishmah Dilma Asi Lemeimar she'Lo Lishmah

úåñôåú ã"ä àúðå áéú ãéï ãìà ìéîà ìùîä ãéìîà àúé ìîéîø ùìà ìùîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we were not concerned for this regarding Gitin.)

áùîòúà ÷îééúà ãâéèéï (ãó â.) ãîôøù ãìëê ìà úé÷ðå ìåîø áôðé ðëúá ìùîä ìî''ã ìôé ùàéï á÷éàéï ìùîä îùåí ãàé îôùú ìéä ìãéáåøà àúé ìîéâæééä

(a)

Implied question: In Gitin (3a) it explains that they did not enact to say 'it was written in front of me Lishmah', according to the opinion that [the enactment was also because] people are not expert about the law of Lishmah, because if you obligate him to say too much, he will come to truncate;

ìà äåé îöé ìîéîø ãéìîà àúé ìîéîø ùìà ìùîä

1.

Why couldn't we say that [if he must say Lishmah,] perhaps he will come to say Lo Lishmah?

ãîé äåà ùåèä ëì ëê ùðåúï âè ìàùä æå ùðëúá ìùîä åäåà àåîø ùìùí àçøú ðëúá

(b)

Answer: No one is so crazy, that he will give a Get to this woman, that was written for her, and he will say that it was written for another [woman];

àáì àãí äùåçè ÷øáï ôòîéí ùèåòä åñáåø ùäåà ÷øáï àçø åëï äî÷áì åîåìéê åæåø÷

1.

However, one who slaughters a Korban, sometimes he errs and thinks that it is a different Korban. The same applies to one who does Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah.

12)

TOSFOS DH Kaimei Beis Din u'Masnei v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ééîé áéú ãéï åîúðé ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we needed to infer this.)

éù úéîä ìîä ìå ìäàøéê ëì æä äà áäãéà àîø ñúîà ëùø

(a)

Question: Why does [the Gemara] say all this? [R. Yosi] explicitly said that Stam is Kosher!

åðøàä ìôøù ãîé ùìà äéä áìáå äééðå ùìà àîø áäãéà ìùí àçã îëì àìå àáì çéùá áìáå ìîä ùãéðå ìäéåú äà ñúîà ôñåì

(b)

Answer: We can explain [R. Yosi to say] "one who did not have in his heart", i.e. he did not explicitly say l'Shem one of all of these, but he thought in his heart for what it should be. [This implies that] Stam is Pasul;

ìäëé [ãéé÷] îúðàé áéú ãéï åëé îúðå áéú ãéï ãìà ìéîà áäãéà åáîçùáä ñâé åùîà àúé ìéãé ôñåì ùìà éçùá ëìì åéùçåè ñúîà åéôñì

1.

Therefore, we infer from Tenai Beis Din. Would Beis Din enact not to say explicitly, and intent suffices? Perhaps it will come to be Pasul, for he will not intend at all, and he will slaughter Stam, and it will be Pasul!

13)

TOSFOS DH b'Sofrim ha'Asuyin Lehislamed Askinan

úåñôåú ã"ä áñåôøéí äòùåééï ìäúìîã òñ÷éðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is unlike Megilas Sotah.)

åàôéìå ìîàï ãàîø áôø÷ ÷îà ãòéøåáéï (ãó éâ.) âáé îâéìú ñåèä ãîåç÷éï àåúä îï äúåøä àó òì âá ãáòéðï ìùîä åàó òì âá (îëàï îãó äáà) ãúåøä ìäúìîã òáéãà ëã÷àîø äúí

(a)

Implied question: According to the opinion that in Eruvin (13a) regarding Megilas Sotah, that one may erase it from the Torah, even though we require Lishmah, and even though Torah is [written] in order to learn, like it says there (we should similarly be Machshir a Get, even if the scribe wrote it to learn)!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF