surely it is a vow? (1) The meaning however is this: if you have acted in accordance with your vow, (2) let it be the fulfillment of your vow; but if not, let it count as a freewilloffering. (3) Now as a freewill-offering is it permitted to make a change in it? (4) Rabina said to R. Papa: You were not with us in the evening within the Sabbath limit of Be Harmack, (5) when Raba pointed out a contradiction in two important laws, and then reconciled them. 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]. But the following contradicts it: ‘Every Get (6) which was written not in the name of the woman [for whom it is intended] (7) is invalid; (8) and [in point of fact if it is written with] an undefined purpose it is also invalid? (9) And he answered it: Sacrifices, where no purpose is defined, stand [to be slaughtered] for their own purpose. (10) whereas a woman, If nothing is defined, does not stand to be divorced. Now, how do we know that sacrifices slaughtered with undefined purpose are valid? 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’. 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? In the name of the Passover-offering and in the name of a peace-offering. (11) Thus it is [invalid] only because he stated (12) ‘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! (13) — 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 Passoveroffering. Thus it is [invalid] only because he stated, (12) ‘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! (13) — Perhaps it is different there, because we say: the end illumines the beginning. (14) 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]! (15) Rather, it follows from this: A sacrifice is slaughtered for the sake of six things: For the sake of the sacrifice, for the sake of the sacrificer, for the sake of the Divine Name, for the sake of fireofferings, for the sake of a savor, for the sake of pleasing, and a sin-offering and a guiltoffering for the sake of sin. (16) R. Jose said: Even if one did not have any of these purposes in his heart, it is valid, because it is a regulation (17) of the Beth din. (18) 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? (19) 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 Soand-so of such a place,’ (20) whereupon he exclaimed , ‘That is my name and my wife's name,’ it [the Get so written] is invalid for divorcing therewith! (21) — Yet perhaps that is [to be explained] as [did] R. Papa. For R. Papa said: We are discussing scribes engaged in practicing, So that it was not written for the purpose of divorcement at all! (22) — Rather [it follows] from this:

---

(1). ↑ 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.
(2). ↑ I.e., you have slaughtered it in the name of the sacrifice which you actually vowed.
(3). ↑ Additional to the vow originally made.
(4). ↑ Of course not. Hence, though it was slaughtered for a different purpose, its other rites must still be performed for the right purpose.
(5). ↑ 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.
(6). ↑ Deed of Divorce.
(7). ↑ 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.
(8). ↑ Git. 24a.
(9). ↑ Hence an undefined purpose is the same as a wrongful purpose.
(10). ↑ This may be assumed.
(11). ↑ 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 peaceoffering. V. infra 13a.
(12). ↑ Not necessarily, as mere wrongful intention is effective.
(13). ↑ Which proves that where the purpose is undefined the sacrifice is valid.
(14). ↑ Hence since the end (sprinkling) was in the name of the Passover-offering, we assume the beginning (the slaughtering) to have been likewise.
(15). ↑ For the sake of parallelism. Yet actually if he slaughters it without a defined purpose, it may be invalid.
(16). ↑ 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 honor 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 savor to God (v.e.g., Lev.III, (5) — nihoah, translated there ‘sweet’, is rendered ‘pleasing’).
(17). ↑ Lit., ‘stipulation’.
(18). ↑ That one should not define its purpose-the name of the sacrifice for which it is offered, infra 46b.
(19). ↑ Surely not. This then proves Raba's first point.
(20). ↑ They were teaching pupils to write a Get, and had selected the names at random.
(21). ↑ Git. 24a.
(22). ↑ But if a scribe writes a Get for the purpose of divorce, selecting names at random, perhaps it is valid.