Answer #1 (Mishnah): Moreover, if Reuven wrote a Get to divorce his wife Leah, and reconsidered, it cannot be used by someone else with the same name (with a wife Leah, even though the Get was written to divorce; Tosfos - and presumably Reuven intended that if he does not use the Get, someone else will).

Rejection: There is different, for Reuven wrote it to divorce his own wife, and decided not to.

Answer #2 (Mishnah): Moreover, if Reuven wrote a Get to divorce his older wife, he cannot use it to divorce his younger wife, even though she has the same name (even though Reuven wrote it to divorce, and he still wants to)!

Rejection: There is different, for it was written for his older wife, and he decided not to use it for her.

Answer #3 (Mishnah): Moreover, if Reuven told a scribe 'write a Get for my wife Leah. I will decide which of my wives named Leah I will use it for', it is Pasul (even though Reuven never retracted after deciding for whom the Get is).

Rejection: Perhaps it is Pasul because we do not rely on Breirah (to say that (retroactively) the Get was written for whomever Reuven later decides. Perhaps when it was written, he intended to divorce the other wife (and he later retracted, therefore it is Pasul)!

Answer #4 (Mishnah): One who writes Tofsei Gitim (the standard text that is the same for everyone) must leave blank the names, (room for the witnesses to sign - this is not in the text of the Mishnah) and the date.

(Rav Yehudah): He must also delay writing 'you are permitted to any man' (until the husband authorizes him to write the Get, for this is the essential language of divorce. It must be written l'Shem (intending for) his wife.)

(Rav): If a Chatas was slaughtered l'Shem Olah, it is Pasul. If it was slaughtered l'Shem Chulin, it is Kosher.

Inference: Intent for something similar (i.e. another Korban) is like improper intent. Intent for something unrelated is not like having improper intent.

Question #1 (Rava - Mishnah): A Get written Lo Lishmah is Pasul.

This applies even if it was written for a Nochris (even though Gitim do not apply to her)!

Answer #1 (Rava): Intent for something unrelated is like no intent (i.e. Stam). If a Get was written Stam, it is Pasul. If a Zevach was offered Stam, it is Kosher.

Question #2 (Rava - Beraisa): "Tocho" - if Tum'ah is inside a Keli Cheres (earthenware vessel), all food inside the Keli becomes Tamei, but not food inside (a Keli) inside the Keli Cheres (the opening of the inner Keli is outside the outer Keli). Even a Keli that can be immersed (to become Tahor, i.e. it is not of earthenware) shields food inside it from becoming Tamei.

Answer #1 (Rava): Intent for Chulin when offering Kodshim is similar to a wall in a Keli Cheres. Just like a wall is not considered a Keli, so it does not shield from Tum'ah, intent for Chulin is not like intent for a different Zevach, so it has no effect to disqualify Kodshim.

(Mishnah): If boards or curtains divide an (earthenware) oven, and a rodent is in the oven, food anywhere in the oven is Tamei.

(Beraisa): If a chest had a hole plugged up with straw, and the chest was hanging in an oven, if a Sheretz (rodent) is in the chest, food anywhere in the oven is Tamei;

If a Sheretz is in the oven, food in the chest is Tamei;

R. Eliezer says, the food is Tahor.

R. Eliezer: A Kal va'Chomer teaches that the food is Tahor! A wall (Rashi; Tosfos - plugged up chest) blocks Tum'ah Mes (which is stringent) in an Ohel. All the more so, it shields from Tum'ah of Sheratzim (which is lenient) in a Keli Cheres!

Version #1 - Rashi - Chachamim: No. It blocks Tum'ah Mes because people normally divide an Ohel with walls, but it does not shield in a Keli Cheres, for people do not normally divide it with walls.

Version #2 - Tosfos - Chachamim: No. The chest (Shitah Mekubetzes - it is a Keli Cheres with a Tzamid Pasil (it is fully sealed)) blocks Tum'as Mes, for even one wall divides an Ohel (blocking Tum'as Mes), but it does not shield in a Keli Cheres, just like one wall does not block Tum'ah there.

Question: Rav's law is like Chachamim (intent for Chulin has no effect, just like a wall (Tosfos - chest) has no effect to block Tum'ah in a Keli Cheres), but not like R. Eliezer!

Answer: R. Eliezer normally agrees. Here a Kal va'Chomer teaches that it blocks Tum'ah.

Objection: Likewise, a Kal va'Chomer should teach that intent for Chulin disqualifies a Zevach:

Intent for Kodshim disqualifies a Zevach. All the more so intent for Chulin disqualifies it!

Answer #2 (to Question #1 and Question #2): Rav's law is not because intent for something unrelated has no effect. Rather, he expounds a verse.

(R. Elazar): Rav learns from "v'Lo Yechalelu Es Kodshei..." - only (intent for) Kodshim can disqualify Kodshim.

Question: Just like this verse overrides the Kal va'Chomer (that Chulin should also disqualify Zevachim), "Tocho" should override the Kal va'Chomer (which taught that a wall shields from Tum'ah in a Keli Cheres. Why does R. Eliezer learn the Kal va'Chomer)?

Answer: He says that "Tocho" teaches about food covered in dirt in a Tamei Keli Cheres (i.e. it becomes Tamei).

One might have thought that since food covered in dirt in a Tamei Keli Cheres would not become Tamei if Tum'ah touched the dirt, it does not become Tamei in the interior of a Keli Cheres. The verse teaches that this is not so.

Chachamim holds that even though it would not become Tamei if Tum'ah touched the dirt, this does not suggest that it stays Tahor in the interior of a Keli Cheres. Therefore, the verse is not needed for this.

(Rav): If a Chatas (for a particular transgression, e.g. eating Chelev) was slaughtered l'Shem Chatas (for a different transgression, e.g. eating blood), it is Kosher. If it was slaughtered l'Shem Olah, it is Pasul.

Inference: Intent for something unrelated (an Olah) is like having improper intent. Intent for something similar (a different Chatas) is not like having improper intent.

Contradiction (Rav Yosef bar Ami): Rav also taught that if a Chatas was slaughtered on behalf of someone else who must bring a Chatas, it is Pasul. If it was slaughtered on behalf of someone who must bring an Olah (but not a Chatas), it is Kosher!

Inference: Intent for something similar is like having improper intent. Intent for something unrelated is not like having improper intent!

Answer (Rav Yosef bar Ami): The first law is learned from "v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" - as long as it is a Chatas (even if it is for a different transgression);

The second law is learned from "v'Chiper Alav", but not to atone for someone else;

This disqualifies the Zevach if the other person is similar to the owner of the Zevach, i.e. he is liable to bring the same kind of Korban.

Question (Rav Chaviva): Rav taught that a Chatas slaughtered on behalf of someone else who must bring a Chatas is Pasul, but if it was on behalf of one who must bring an Olah it is Kosher. I.e. intent for something similar is like improper intent, and intent for something unrelated is not. This is unlike a Beraisa!

(Beraisa): "Tocho" - food inside a Tamei Keli Cheres becomes Tamei, but not food inside a Keli inside the Keli Cheres, even if the inner Keli can be immersed. (Even something unrelated is considered like something related!)

Answer (R. Chaviva): That law of Tum'ah is expounded from a verse.

It says "Tocho" twice. Each time it could have said 'Toch.' We also expound the extra 'Vovim', so we learn four laws in all:

The basic meaning of the verse teaches that food in the airspace of a Keli Cheres (in which there is Tum'ah) becomes Tamei;

We learn a Gezerah Shavah 'Toch-Toch' from the repetition, teaching that Tum'ah in the airspace of a Keli Cheres makes the Keli Tamei;

One 'Vov' teaches that these laws only apply to earthenware, but not to other Kelim;

The other 'Vov' teaches that even a Keli that can be immersed shields its contents from become Tamei from the outer Keli.