Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת גיטין דף מ"ה, and we will start on עמוד א' the third line of the wide lines after the two dots. And the גמרא here is still in the middle of the סוגיא of עבדים כנענים. And the גמרא tells a story: ההוא עבדא, there was this עבד, דערק, and he ran away מחוץ לארץ לארץ, outside of ארץ ישראל to ארץ ישראל. אזל מריה בתריה, his master followed him and caught up to him, ואתא לקמיה דרבי אמי, and he came to רבי אמי to ask a שאלה: is he allowed to keep this עבד or not? אמר ליה, so רבי אמי said to him: נכתוב לך שטרא אדמיה, let him write you a שטר on the worth, in other words, let him write a document that he owes you the amount of money that he is worth, וכתוב ליה גיטא דחירותא, and you write to him a שטר שחרור. But since he doesn't want him to lose the value of the עבד, that's why he told him, let the עבד pay you the money that he is worth, but since he has no money, let him write you a שטר that eventually he will pay you. ואי לא, and if you don't want to do that, מפקנא ליה מינך, I will take him away from you, which means I will force you to free him, כדרב אחא בריה דרבי יאשיה, because of what רב אחא the son of רבי יאשיה said. The גמרא goes through at length all the details, until eventually we will get to the statement of רב אחא בריה דרבי יאשיה.

דתניא, because we learned in a ברייתא, the פסוק says in משפטים כ"ג פסוק ל"ג: "לא ישבו בארצך פן יחטיאו אותך לי". This refers to the גוים of the seven nations of ארץ כנען. השם said: do not allow them to live in your land, because they might make you sin to Me. And the פסוק continues: "כי תעבוד את אלהיהם כי יהיה לך למוקש", that you might worship their idols. And therefore you are not allowed to allow one of those גוים to live in ארץ ישראל. And the ברייתא continues: יכול, I would think, בעובד כוכבים שקיבל עליו שלא לעבוד עבודת כוכבים הכתוב מדבר, that the תורה is also talking about a גוי who accepted upon himself not to worship any idols anymore, that he too is not allowed to live in ארץ ישראל? תלמוד לומר, but we have another פסוק that says, and this is a פסוק in פרשת כי תצא, קאפיטל כ"ג פסוק ט"ז, it says: "לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו", do not deliver, return, an עבד to his master, "אשר ינצל אליך מעם אדוניו", that he saved himself to you from his master. And the way the גמרא learns now, this is a פסוק that refers to a גוי that ran away from his master, meaning from his עבודה זרה, and he ran to you, and he wants to stop worshipping עבודה זרה. So the תורה says: do not return him to his master, meaning to his עבודה זרה. But מאי תקנתו? What's his תקנה? What should be done with him? So the פסוק continues: "עמך ישב בקרבך וגו'", that he should live with you. So we see clearly from this פסוק that a גוי that accepted upon himself not to worship עבודה זרה is allowed to live in ארץ ישראל. So obviously, the פסוק where it says that you are not allowed to allow a גוי to live in ארץ ישראל, that refers only to a גוי who still wants to worship עבודה זרה.

וקשיא ליה לרבי יאשיה, so רבי יאשיה asked a קשיא on this פשט: האי מעם אדוניו, according to this פשט, why does the תורה say מעם אדוניו? If you're going to say that the פסוק "לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו אשר ינצל אליך מעם אדוניו" is speaking by a גוי who ran away from his עבודה זרה, then why does the תורה say he ran away from his master? מעם אביו מיבעי ליה, it should have said he ran away from his father. If the תורה means from his god, then it should have mentioned his father, which is referred to as god. Or according to another גירסא in the גמרא, the גמרא's קשיא is not that it should have said מעם אדוניו, but it should have said מעם אלהיו, that he ran away from his god. מיבעי ליה, that's what the תורה should have said. אלא אמר רבי יאשיה, so therefore רבי יאשיה said a different פשט, that this פסוק "לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו" is speaking in a different case: במוכר עבדו לחוץ לארץ הכתוב מדבר, the פסוק is speaking by a person who sells his עבד to חוץ לארץ, to outside of ארץ ישראל, and the תורה says in a case like that, do not return him to his master, but he goes out free.

וקשיא ליה לרב אחא בריה דרבי יאשיה, so רב אחא the son of רבי יאשיה had a קשיא on the פשט of רבי יאשיה: If you're going to say that the פסוק is speaking by an עבד who ran away from ארץ ישראל to חוץ לארץ, האי אשר ינצל אליך, why does the תורה use the לשון that he saved himself to you? אשר ינצל מעמך מיבעי ליה, it should have said that he saved himself from you. Since ארץ ישראל is the place where אידן live, so when the תורה wants to tell us that there's a case where an עבד ran ran away from ארץ ישראל, it should have said he ran away from you, because ארץ ישראל is the place where you, where the יידן live. Since the פסוק says he ran away אליך, to you, obviously the פסוק is not speaking by a case of an עבד who ran away from ארץ ישראל. אלא אמר רב אחא ברבי יאשיה, so רב אחא, son of רב יאשיה said that the פשט in the פסוק is בעבד שברח מחוץ לארץ לארץ, just opposite, an עבד that ran away from חוץ לארץ to ארץ ישראל, הכתוב מדבר, the תורה is speaking about. And the תורה says, in a case like that, you are not allowed to have him work, but you have to free him. And this is what the גמרא said before that, when רב אמי said to him that your עבד who ran away from חוץ לארץ to ארץ ישראל, he said to him, "Write him a שטר of חירות, let him give you a שטר on his worth, and if not, I'm going to force you to free him because of what רב אחא ברבי יאשיה said." This is what he was referring to, because as we see here, רב אחא ברבי יאשיה holds that an עבד that runs away from ארץ ישראל to חוץ לארץ goes out free. תניא אידך, we learn in another ברייתא, a different פשט in the same פסוק of לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו. The פסוק says: לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו, do not return an עבד to his master. רבי אומר, רבי says that this פסוק is בלוקח עבד על מנת לשחררו הכתוב מדבר, that the פסוק is speaking in a case buys an עבד on condition that he will free him. The פסוק says automatically he goes out free. And the גמרא explains: היכי דמי, how is that possible? אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, so רב נחמן בר יצחק said: דכתב ליה, he wrote to him before he bought him, he gave him a שטר where it says הכי, this way: לכשאקחך, when I will buy you, הרי עצמך קנוי לך מעכשיו, so you should acquire yourself from now. In other words, when I buy you, you should become free retroactive from the time when I wrote this שטר. And that's what the פסוק means with לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו, which is a different פשט than what רב אחא ברבי יאשיה said, that the פסוק is speaking by an עבד who ran away from חוץ לארץ to ארץ ישראל. And the

גמרא tells a story that רב חסדא, ערק ליה עבדא לבי כותאי, an עבד of רב חסדא ran away amongst the כותים. The כותים were people who there is a שאלה in גמרא whether they were גירי אמת, true converts, or they were גירי אריות, they were only converted because they were afraid of lions, but they weren't really גירי אמת. And they also did not believe in the תורה שבעל פה. They only accepted the תורה שבכתב, the written תורה, and they did not accept the תורה שבעל פה, the oral תורה, the words of the חכמים. So an עבד of רב חסדא ran away to amongst the כותים, and this was in חוץ לארץ. שלח להו, so he sent a message to the כותים: הדרו ניהלי, give him back to me. שלחו ליה, so they sent him a message back: לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו. Doesn't the פסוק say that you're not allowed to return an עבד to his master? And the גמרא continues with three lines here in parentheses because according to some גירסאות, this should not be in the גמרא, according to some it should be, so we will learn those words too. שלח להו, when they answered him that you're not allowed to return an עבד that ran away from his master, so he sent them back a message: doesn't the פסוק say, וכן תעשה לחמורו, this is what you should also do to his donkey, וכן תעשה לשמלתו, this is what you should also do to his garment, וכן תעשה לכל אבדת אחיך, and this is what you should do to any object of your brother that is lost. This is a פסוק concerning the מצוה of השבת אבידה, that if a person loses something, whoever finds it has a מצוה of returning it to its owner. So he sent them back that the תורה says you must return a lost object, so the עבד too, even though he ran away from me, you must return him to me. שלחו ליה, so they sent him back a message: but והכתיב, but doesn't the תורה say, לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו, that you're not allowed to return an עבד to his master that ran away? Even though the תורה says that an אבידה, an object that is lost, must be returned to the owner, but by an עבד there's a specific פסוק that says that you shouldn't return an עבד to his master. שלח להו, so he sent them back: ההוא בעבד שברח מחוץ לארץ לארץ, that that פסוק is only referring by an עבד that ran away from חוץ לארץ to ארץ ישראל, וכדרב אחא ברבי יאשיה, as רב אחא ברבי יאשיה explained it. And what he was saying to them, "But my case is not that, my case is that he ran away from ארץ ישראל to חוץ לארץ. According to רב אחא ברבי יאשיה, in a case like that, the עבד does not go out free." Then the גמרא asks: ומאי שנא דשלח להו כדרב אחא ברבי יאשיה, what is the reason why did he send them the message that the פשט in that פסוק is like רב אחא ברבי יאשיה said? Before in the גמרא we had another פשט, the פשט of רבי, that the פסוק is speaking in a case of somebody who buys the עבד on condition that he will free him as soon as he buys him. So he could have written that to them, that the דין that they said, that you should not return an עבד to his master, does not apply to him, because the פשט in that פסוק is like רבי said. Why did he write to them that the פשט in the the פסוק is like רב אחא בריה דרב יאשיה says. And the גמרא answers, משום דמשמע להו קראי, because the פשט of רב אחא בריה דרב יאשיה is more משמעות, fits more to the wording of the פסוק. So, it fits more to the תורה שבכתב. And since they were כותיים, that they did not accept תורה שבעל פה, so they would not have accepted the פשט of רבי. But the פשט of רב אחא בריה דרב יאשיה, which fits to the words of the פסוק, that they would accept. That's why when he sent them the message, he sent them that the פשט in the פסוק is like רב אחא בריה דרב יאשיה. Then the גמרא continues: אביי אירכס ליה חמרא בי כותאי, אביי lost a donkey amongst the כותיים. שלח להו, he sent them a message: שדרוה לי, return it to me. שלחו ליה, so they sent him back a message: שלח סימני. Send a סימן, give the signs of the donkey so we will know that it's yours, and we will return it to you. שלח להו, so he sent them a message: דחיוורא כרסיה, that its stomach was white, that's the סימן. שלחו ליה, so they sent him back: אי לאו נחמני את, if you would not be נחמני, because אביי was referred to as רחמני as we learned earlier, but they said to him, if you wouldn't be אביי, in other words if we wouldn't have known you as a real religious Jew, a trustworthy person, לא הוינן משדרינן ליה ניהלך, we wouldn't have returned it to you on the סימן that you gave. Because אטו כולי חמרי לאו כרסייהו חיוורן נינהו? Aren't all donkeys their stomachs white? So what kind of a סימן is it? Nevertheless they returned it to him because they knew that he wouldn't lie, because they knew that אביי was a great man. And now we will continue with the משנה. The

משנה says: אין פודין את השבויים יתר על כדי דמיהן מפני תיקון העולם. You should not redeem captives more than their worth, because of the תקנה of the world, the betterment of the world, we should not pay more than the captive is worth. Then the משנה says another דין: ואין מבריחין את השבויים מפני תיקון העולם. You should not help a captive escape, because of the תיקון of the world, this is because of future captives. If they know that people help the captives escape, so later on if they will ever capture a ייד, they will chain him and they will hurt him so much to make sure that he won't escape. So because of the betterment of the future captives, we should not help a captive escape. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says: מפני תקנת השבויים. It is not for the תקנה of the future captives, but it is a תקנה for the captives who are there. In other words, if you let one captive escape, so then the captives who are left, the people, the גוים, will harm them more, will chain them more to make sure that they don't escape. And therefore, you should not help one captive escape. Then the גמרא says: איבעיא להו, they asked a question, there was an איבעיא asked: האי מפני תיקון העולם, when it says in the משנה that you should not redeem a captive for more than his worth because of the תקנה of the world, משום דוחקא דציבורא הוא? Is it a תקנה because of the burden on the community? We don't want to burden the community too much, so therefore we do not allow the community to redeem the captive for more than his worth, so the burden shouldn't be too great. אי דילמא, or maybe משום דלא ליגרבו ולייתו טפי, it is in order for the גוים not to grab more Jews? If they will see that they are able to get a great, high price for the captives, this will encourage them to capture more Jews and to demand more money. In order for that not to happen, the דין is you should not pay more than the captive is worth. And it's self-understood that the difference between these two opinions is in a case where an individual himself has enough money to pay the demands of the captors. If the reason is because we do not want to burden the community too much, so in a case like this, you're allowed to do it, because there is no burden on the community, because an individual himself is going to redeem the captives. But if the reason is because we don't want to encourage the bandits, the גוים, to capture more יידן, so even if an individual Jew has more money, still he is not allowed to redeem the captive for more than the captive is worth. And the גמרא says: תא שמע, come hear, I will answer your question. Because we find לוי בר דרגא פרקא לברתיה, לוי בר דרגא redeemed his daughter בתלת סר אלפי דינרי זהב for 13,000 gold דינרים. So we see that since he was a private person and he was able to give the whole money, he was allowed. So that answers the question, that the reason you're not allowed to do it is because of the burden of the community. אמר אביי, but אביי said: ומאן לימא לן, who tells us דברצון חכמים עבד, that he did it with the consent of the חכמים? דילמא, maybe שלא ברצון חכמים עבד, maybe he did it without the consent of the חכמים. Maybe the דין is that he wasn't allowed to do it, and nevertheless he did it. So we have no ראיה from the story of לוי בר דרגא. Then the גמרא continues, goes back to the משנה. It says in the משנה: ואין מבריחין את השבויים מפני תיקון העולם. They're not allowed to help a שבוי, a captive escape, because of the תיקון of the world, in order we shouldn't hurt the future captives. But רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says: מפני תקנת השבויים, because of the תקנה for these captives themselves. And if there are any captives left over, they will be hurt more. So the גמרא asks, מאי בינייהו? What is the difference between these two opinions? And the גמרא answers, איכא בינייהו, the difference is דליכא אלא חד, if there is only one captive. Can you help him escape or not? If the reason is because of the future captives, so you can't help him either, because if they will see that this one captive escaped, they're going to make sure that the future captive should not escape, and it will harm them. But if the reason is because of those captives that are left from the same group, so if לכתחילה there was only one captive, so there will be no captives left. So according to that, you are allowed to help this one captive escape. And then the

גמרא continues with a story: בנתיה דרב נחמן, the daughters of רב נחמן, בחשן קדרה בידייהו. They would stir a boiling hot pot with their hands. They wouldn't use a spoon, but they would do it with their own hands. And they wouldn't get burnt. And apparently it was because they were such righteous women, they were great צדקניות, and the זכות, the merit of their צדקות made it so that they shouldn't get burnt. But קשיא ליה לרב עיליש, רב עיליש had a קשיא. כתיב, there is a פסוק in קהלת, it says: אדם אחד מאלף מצאתי, I found one out of a thousand people should be a צדיק, ואשה בכל אלה לא מצאתי, but a woman amongst them all I didn't find. He didn't find a woman should be such a great צדקת. And he had a קשיא, והאיכא בנתיה דרב נחמן? But he sees that there are צדקניות, look, the daughters of רב נחמן! They are so great that השם performs miracles that their hands don't get burnt. רמא להו מילתא, so something happened, ואשתביין, and they got captured. And as the מהרש"א explains, that this story itself was the cause for their being captured. Since they made themselves look like צדקניות, like righteous women, so therefore they got captured. ואשתבאי איהו נמי בהדייהו, and this רב עיליש got captured together with them. יומא חד, one day, הוה יתיב גבי ההוא גברא, there was this man sitting next to רב עיליש, דהוה ידע בלישנא דציפרי, that he understood the language of the birds. אתא עורבא, a raven came, וקקרא ליה, and called to רב עיליש. אמר ליה, so רב עיליש said to that man: מאי קאמר? What is it saying? אמר ליה, so he said to him: עיליש ברח, עיליש ברח. The raven was saying: עיליש, run away! עיליש, run away! אמר, he said: עורבא שיקרא הוא. A raven is a liar. And as the מהרש"א explains, that he knew it from the story of נח with the מבול, when he sent out the עורב, and the עורב lied. Therefore ולא סמיכנא עליה, I can't rely on the, on it, I can't rely on the raven. אדהכי, in the meantime, אתא יונה וקקריא. A dove came and called to him. אמר ליה, so he said to that man: מאי קאמרה? What is it saying? אמר ליה, he said to him, it's saying: עיליש ברח, עיליש ברח. עיליש, run away! עיליש, run away! אמר, he said: כנסת ישראל כיונה מתילא, that כלל ישראל is compared to a יונה, compared to a dove, and as רש"י brings, because there's a פסוק that says: יונתי תמתי. So since the יונה tells me that I should run away, and as the מהרש"א explains, he wasn't afraid that that other person was lying, because he saw a good סימן here. Since a dove came, and כלל ישראל is compared to a dove, so probably this is a good sign. So he believed that גוי that the dove was saying that he should run away. So since he says that כנסת ישראל is compared to a dove, שמע מינה, this proves, מתרחיש לי ניסא, that a miracle will happen to me, and I will be able to escape. אמר, and he said to himself: איזל אחזי בנתיה דרב נחמן, I will go, I'm going to check on the daughters of רב נחמן, אי קיימן בהימנותייהו, אהדרינהו. If they are still keeping to their virtue, I'm going to take them back with me. Because he knew, as the מהרש"א explains, that they were forced by their captors to be with them, but he did not know whether it was done באונס or ברצון, were they forced to do it, or they did it willingly? So he wanted to check to see if they did it by force, so then he knew that they were still צדקות, and he would take them along. אמר, and he said: נשי, women, כל מילי דאית להו, all the things that they have, whenever they want to discuss anything, סדרן להדדי בבית הכסא, they do it all in the בית הכסא, in the bathroom. So he was going to listen on the outside of the bathroom to see what they are talking about. שמעינהו, he heard them, דקאמרן, that they were saying: הני גוברין, these captors of ours are our husbands, too. ונהרדעא, the Jewish people from נהרדעא, our original husbands, גוברין, were also our husbands. In other words, why do we need our early, original husbands if we have husbands now, too? לימא להו לשבייאיכו, let us tell to our captors, דלירחקינהו, that they should take us away far מהכא, from here, דלא ליתו אינשין, our husbands should not come, ולישמעו, and they will hear where we are, וליפרקינן, and they will redeem us. So if we will be taken away far from here, they will not not know where we are, and our husbands will not be able to redeem us. So when he heard that, he did not take them along. קם, he got up, ערק, he ran away. אתא איהו, he went, וההוא גברא, and the other person who understood the language of the birds went along with him. לדידיה, to him, to רב

עילש, אתרחיש ליה ניסא, a miracle happened, עבר במברא, he went across the river and he was able to get away from them, וההוא גברא, the other person, אשכחוה, they caught him, וקטלוה, and they killed him. כי הדרן, when the daughters of רב נחמן came back, something happened later on and they were able to get away and come back, ואתן, and they came, אמר, he said, הוו קא בחשן קדירה בכשפים, that when they stirred their hot pots, it was not because they were such great צדקניות, because they were not such great people, but they did it through witchcraft, through magic. And as the מפרשים explain, that that was the reason why השם made it so that עילש should be captured together with them, that he should be able to testify later on that they are not such great women, but the way they did it was through כשף, through witchcraft. Then we will continue with the משנה. אין לוקחין ספרים תפילין ומזוזות, you are not allowed to buy ספרי תורה or תפילין or מזוזות, מן העובדי כוכבים, from the גוים, יותר על כדי דמיהן, more than they are worth, מפני תיקון העולם, for the תקנה of the world. And as רש''י explains, or it is because of דוחקא דציבורא, for the burden on the community, if they are going to want more money than it's worth, the community will have too big of a burden, or as רש''י says, they shouldn't go and do it more, this shouldn't encourage them try to steal more ספרי תורה or more תפילין ומזוזות, and they will demand a lot of money, and therefore you're not allowed to buy it from them for more than it's worth. And the גמרא continues:

אמר ליה רב בודא לרב אשי, רב בודא said to רב אשי, from the משנה it comes out that יותר על כדי דמיהן הוא דאין לוקחין, more than it's worth you are not allowed to buy, הא בכדי דמיהן, but if they sell it for the price that it is worth, לוקחין, you are allowed to buy. שמע מינה, doesn't this prove that ספר תורה שנמצא ביד עובד כוכבים קורין בו, a ספר תורה that's found in the hands of a גוי, you are allowed to read in it? Because if you wouldn't be allowed to read in it, so what's the use of buying it from them? Since it seems from the משנה that for the right price you are allowed to buy it from them, so we see from there that you're allowed to use, read a ספר תורה that is bought by a גוי. And the גמרא says, no, דילמא לגנוז, maybe what it means that you're allowed to buy it in order to hide it, to put it away. But who says that you are allowed to read in it? Then the גמרא continues: אמר רב נחמן, רב נחמן said, נקטינן, we have an accepted rule that ספר תורה שכתבו מין, a ספר תורה that was written by a מין, a מין is, as רש''י explains, a גוי who is הדוק, very close connected to עבודה זרה, like a priest, etc. So if a ספר תורה was written by a מין, ישרף, you must burn it, because we are sure that he wrote it intending for עבודה זרה. כתבו עובד כוכבים, but if a regular גוי who worships idols wrote it, but not a מין, יגנז, it should only be hidden, but not burned. And the reason for that is because here it's a ספק, a doubt whether it was written for עבודה זרה, because this גוי, even though he himself worships עבודה זרה, but maybe he wrote it because he wants to sell the ספר תורה, so he wrote a כשר ספר תורה intending for השם. And since it's only a ספק, we don't know for sure whether it's for עבודה זרה, therefore you hide it, and you don't burn it. נמצא ביד מין, if you find a ספר תורה in the hands of a מין, יגנז, you hide it. Since you don't know whether he wrote it or not, so there is a ספק whether it was written for עבודה זרה or not, so you don't have to burn it, you just hide it. נמצא ביד עובד כוכבים, if it was found in the hands of a גויישע idol worshiper, אמרי לה יגנז, some say still you have to hide it, ואמרי לה, and some say, קורין בו, you could even read it, you could even use it to be read in. And the reason for that is, as רש''י explains, because it is a ספק ספיקא, a double ספק. The first ספק is maybe he didn't write it, maybe a איד wrote it, so it's a כשר ספר תורה. Even if he himself wrote it, maybe he didn't write it for עבודה זרה, since he is not a מין, he is only an עובד כוכבים, maybe he did not write it for עבודה זרה, he wrote it to be sold, so he wrote it in a כשר way for השם. So since it is a ספק ספיקא, a double ספק, therefore they hold that you're allowed to use it. Then the גמרא continues that this דין that we said before that a ספר תורה that was written by a עובד כוכבים must be hidden is not so simple, because ספר תורה שכתבו עובד כוכבים, a ספר תורה that was written by a גוי idol worshiper, תנא חדא, we learn in one ברייתא, ישרף, it has to be burned, ותניא אידך, we learn in another ברייתא, יגנז, it should be hidden, ותניא, and if we learn in another ברייתא, in a third ברייתא, קורין בו, that you could even read in it. And it seems like a contradiction Between the three ברייתות. And the גמרא says

לא קשיא, there is no קושיא. הא דתניא ישרף, the ברייתא where it says that it should be burned, רבי אלעזר היא. That ברייתא goes according to רבי אלעזר. דאמר, he says, סתם מחשבת עובד כוכבים לעבודה זרה, that the סתם מחשבה, the סתם thought of a גוי who worships idols is for עבודה זרה. And since this גוי wrote a ספר תורה, and we don't know whether his מחשבה, whether his thoughts, his intentions were for עבודה זרה or not, so we have to assume that it was for עבודה זרה, and therefore he פסקנ'ס that it must be burned. והא דתניא יגנז, and the ברייתא where it says that the ספר תורה written by an עובד כוכבים should be hidden, האי תנא הוא. That ברייתא goes according to another תנא. דתני רב המנונא בריה דרבא מפאשרוניא, because רב המנונא, the son of רבא from פאשרוניא said that ספר תורה, תפילין, ומזוזות שכתבו מין, ספר תורה or תפילין or מזוזות that were written by a מין, ומסור, or by a מסור, which is an informer, or an עובד כוכבים, a גוי who worships idols, ועבד, or by a גוי'שע slave, אשה, by a woman, וקטן, or by a child, וכותי, or by a כותי, וישראל מומר, or by a ישראל מומר, a ייד who does not keep the מצוות. So in all of these cases, פסולים. The ספר תורה and the תפילין or the מזוזות are פסול. And the reason for that is שנאמר, because it says in the תורה, וקשרתם וכתבתם. It says you should tie the תפילין around your hands, and then it says וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך, that you should write them on the מזוזות of your doors. So the גמרא learns out that כל שישנו בקשירה ישנו בכתיבה. The one that's שייך, that is connected to קשירה, to tying the תפילין on his hands, he is the one that is שייך to writing, to writing תפילין, מזוזות, or a ספר תורה. וכל שאינו בקשירה, and the one that is not שייך to the tying of the תפילין on his hands, אינו בכתיבה, is also not שייך in the writing of the תפילין, ספר תורה, מזוזות. And therefore, all these are not able to write a ספר תורה or תפילין or מזוזות. The woman, for instance, because she is פטור from תפילין, she cannot write. Why is she פטור from תפילין? Because תפילין is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. It's a מצוה which has a time limit. And as רש''י says, because שבת you don't put on תפילין, and at night you don't put on תפילין. The same applies to the קטן. Since the קטן is פטור from the מצוה of תפילין, so he also cannot write a ספר תורה or תפילין or מזוזות. And the same applies to the גוי etc. And the rest, for instance the ישראל מומר, even though he is obligated to put on תפילין, but since he does not put on תפילין, so he is also considered אינו בקשירה, that he's not שייך to the tying of the תפילין, therefore he is also not able to write a ספר תורה or תפילין or מזוזות. So we see here that this מאן דאמר holds that a גוי or the rest of these people are אסור, are forbidden to write ספר תורה, תפילין, ומזוזות, so therefore if they did write it, it is פסול. So this is the מאן דאמר of that ברייתא where it says that if an עובד כוכבים wrote ספר תורה, תפילין, ומזוזות, you must hide it. You don't have to burn it, but you must hide it and you can't use it, this goes according to this מאן דאמר. He does not hold that we definitely know it was written for עבודה זרה, and therefore he says you do not have to burn it. On the other hand, you cannot use it because he learns out from the לימוד that כל שישנו בקשירה ישנו בכתיבה, the עובד כוכבים that wrote ספר תורה, תפילין, ומזוזות cannot be used and therefore it must be hidden. והא דתניא קורין בו, and the third ברייתא where it says that you could even read in that ספר תורה that was written by an עובד כוכבים, האי תנא הוא. That goes according to another תנא. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, לוקחין ספרים מן העובדי כוכבים בכל מקום, you're allowed to buy ספרי תורה from a גוי who worships idols anywhere, ובלבד שיהיו כתובין כהלכתן, as long as they are written כהלכה, as long as they are written properly. ומעשה בעובד כוכבים אחד בצידון, and there is even a story with one עובד כוכבים that lived in צידון שהיה כותב ספרים, that he used to write ספרי תורה, והתיר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ליקח ממנו, and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was מתיר, allowed, to buy a ספר תורה from this גוי. So we see from here that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds that a ספר תורה written by an עובד כוכבים is כשר. And that is the מאן דאמר of that third ברייתא where it says that if an עובד כוכבים wrote a ספר תורה, you're even allowed to read in it, that goes according to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. Then the גמרא asks a קושיא, ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל, עיבוד לשמן בעי, כתיבה לשמן לא בעי? Know for sure that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל needs that when you make the parchment, when you tan the parchment, you must do it לשמה. it must be done specifically for the purpose of the מצוה of תפילין, or the מצוה of ספר תורה, or the מצוה of מזוזה. So certainly he would hold that when you write the ספר תורה, תפילין, and מזוזות, it must be done לשמה, it must be written for the sake of the מצוה of ספר תורה, תפילין, and מזוזות. So how could רבן שמעון בן גמליאל allow to buy a ספר תורה that was written by an עובד כוכבים, since he definitely does not write it לשמה? There is no such thing as לשמה by a גוי. And therefore, how could he allow to buy the ספר תורה by this עובד כוכבים? And where do we see that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds that the עיבוד, the tanning of the parchment, must be done לשמה? Because דתניא, we learn in a ברייתא: ציפן זהב, a person covered up his תפילין with gold, או שטלה עליהן עור בהמה טמאה, or he covered it up with a patch made of skin from a not kosher animal, פסולות, those תפילין are פסול. But if he covered it up with עור בהמה טהורה, with the skin of a kosher animal, כשרות, it's כשר. אף על פי שלא עיבדן לשמן, even if that piece of skin was not tanned לשמה for the sake of the מצוה of תפילין. That's the opinion of the first תנא. But רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, אפילו עור בהמה טהורה פסולות, that even if you cover it with the skin of a kosher animal, it's still פסול, עד שיעבדן לשמן, unless you tanned that skin לשמה for the sake of the מצוה of תפילין. So we see clearly that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds that the tanning of the parchment must be done לשמה. So certainly he holds that the writing of the תפילין must be done לשמה. So how could he have said that you're allowed to buy a ספר תורה written by עובד כוכבים?

אמר רבה בר שמואל, so רבה בר שמואל answered, that his case was בגר שחזר לסורו. It wasn't a real עובד כוכבים, it wasn't a real גוי. It was really a גר, a convert, that he turned away from יידישקייט, and he went back to worship עבודה זרה. So this one could write a ספר תורה לשמה, since he is really a ייד, because as soon as you are מגייר כהלכה, as soon as he becomes a convert על פי דין, then he could never become a גוי again. So this convert, since he was a ייד, so he was able to write the ספר תורה לשמה. We just refer to him as עובד כוכבים because he was חזר לסורו, he returned back to worship idols. But then the גמרא asks, לסורו? If he returned to his bad behavior from before, כל שכן certainly it shouldn't be good. דהוה ליה מין! Now he is considered even a מין. We said before, a מין is a person who is very close, connected to עבודה זרה. If he was a גר and then went back to worship idols, then he is even worse, because now he is close to עבודה זרה, and he has a דין of a מין. אמר רב אשי, so רב אשי said, שחוזר לסורו משום יראה, that the reason he went back to his bad behavior is because he was afraid of the other גוים. He was afraid they might kill him if he stays a religious Jew, and therefore he went back to worship idols. So he's not really a מין, because in his heart he knows that he is a ייד, and he is not allowed to worship idols. He just did it because he was afraid. So therefore, a person like this is able to write a ספר תורה לשמה, and therefore רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was מתיר that ספר תורה. Then the גמרא

continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, מעלין בדמיהן עד כדי טרפיק. That what it said in the משנה, that you're not allowed to pay for a ספר תורה, מזוזות, or תפילין more than it's worth, but you're allowed to pay a little bit more, with a טרפיק more. And the גמרא asks, מאי טרפיק? How much is this coin, a טרפיק? אמר רב ששת, so רב ששת said, איסתירא, an איסתירא, and as רש״י explains, this is a certain type of סלע, which was an eighth of a סלע צורי, which really is a half of a דינר. So that's the דין, that with a half of a דינר more than it's worth, you are allowed to pay to the גוים. Then the גמרא continues with a story: ההיא טייעא, there was this Arab lady, דאייתי חייתא דתפילין לקמיה דאביי, she brought a small bag of תפילין to אביי, and she wanted to sell it to him. אמר לה, he said to her, יהבת לי ריש ריש בתמרי? Will you give me each pair for a couple of dates? אימליא זיערא, she got angry at him, שקלא, she took, שדינהו בנהרא, she threw the whole bag into the river. אמר, אביי said, לא איבעי לי לזלזולינהו באפה כולי האי. I shouldn't have made it look so cheap in her eyes. Because when I said that I'm going to give her just a few dates for each pair, then she saw it was very cheap, so she threw it out. But if I wouldn't have said that, maybe I would be able to buy it from her.

Going back a little bit earlier in the גמרא, where the משנה said the דין that you're not allowed to redeem the captives for more than they are worth מפני תיקון העולם. And the גמרא gives two possible reasons. One is because of the burden on the ציבור, and one is because were afraid that this is going to encourage the גוים to capture more יידן and demand more money. And it seems from the גמרא that this question, which of the two reasons is the real reason, was not resolved. But תוספות asks a קושיא, לכאורה we could resolve this question from a גמרא in כתובות: the דין is that one of the obligations of a husband towards wife is that if she is captured, he must redeem her. And the גמרא says there that if she was captured, and they want 10 times her worth for her release, the husband is obligated to give that, too, if it is the first time she was captured. So we see from there that a person is allowed to give for his wife more than she is worth. So obviously, the reason why the חכמים said that you're normally not allowed to pay for a captive more than his worth is not because of the reason that it might encourage them to capture more people, but it is because of the burden on the community. Because if the reason would be because this would encourage them to capture more people, so a husband shouldn't be able to redeem his wife either for that amount of money. And תוספות answers, maybe a wife is different because a wife is כגופו, she is like himself, and therefore he is obligated to redeem her even if she's worth more. And this is more than a daughter, because concerning a daughter we see from the גמרא that you are not allowed to redeem her for more than her worth according to the reason that it might encourage the גוים. But concerning a wife, maybe it's different. But then תוספות asks another קושיא: we

have later on in the גמרא in פרק הניזקין דף נח עמוד א׳, the גמרא tells a story of רבי יהושע בן חנניה, at the time of the חורבן בית המקדש, he heard this תינוק, this boy that was a very smart child, and he said he wants to redeem him because he was sure that he would grow up to be a גדול בישראל. And the truth is that they later asked for a lot of money, and רבי יהושע בן חנניה paid a lot of money for him, and he did grow up later to be a גדול בישראל. So we see from there that he did redeem a child for ממון הרבה, for a lot of money. And if the reason why you're not allowed to redeem a captive for more than his worth would be because this would encourage the גוים, so how was רבי יהושע בן חנניה allowed to do it? If we accept the reason because it shouldn't be a burden on the community, so the answer would be that he didn't go to the community, he paid his own money. But if the reason would be because you would encourage the גוים to capture more יידן, how was רבי יהושע בן חנניה allowed to pay so much money for that child? So this would prove that the reason is because of the burden on the community. And תוספות says it's no ראיה from there, because this was an exception case, because this child was a מופלג בחכמה, the child was very smart, and he saw that the child would grow up to be a גדול בישראל, and that's why he's allowed to pay for him extra money. Another תירוץ תוספות gives, that this was the time of the חורבן בית המקדש, so there, the reason that we say that we shouldn't encourage the גוים to capture more people does not apply, because in the time of the חורבן בית המקדש things were free and the גוים captured יידן anyway, so there is no such thing as trying to prevent the encouragement of the גוים capturing יידן. And therefore רבי יהושע בן חנניה was allowed to pay ממון הרבה, a lot of money, to release that תינוק, that child. Concerning what the הלכה is like, so there are some ראשונים that learn that the הלכה is like the second reason, that we shouldn't encourage the גוים to capture more יידן. That's how the רמב״ם פסקנ'ס, and that's how the רי״ף פסקנ'ס.

Because the רמב״ם says in הלכות מתנות עניים in פרק ח׳ הלכה י״ב: אין פודין את השבויים ביתר על דמיהן מפני תיקון העולם, that you should not redeem the captives for more than their worth because of the תיקון העולם, and he gives the reason: שלא יהיו האויבים רודפים אחריהם לשבותם. So the גוים, our enemies, should not chase the יידן in order to capture them. So we see the רמב״ם accepts the second reason. And because of that, the רמב״ם also פסקנ'ס in פרק י״ד of הלכות אישות that even a husband cannot free, redeem his wife for more than she is worth. And this is all because the reason why you're not allowed to redeem a captive for more than his worth is because we don't want to encourage the גוים to capture more יידן, so the same reason applies also concerning a husband and his wife. Another ענין that תוספות says in the בלאט גמרא that we learned today, is concerning that כלל that we brought later on in the גמרא, that כל שישנו בקשירה ישנו בכתיבה, that only a person who is שייך, is connected to the מצוה of תפילין, of tying the תפילין on his hands, is able to write the תפילין or the מזוזות or the ספר תורה. But somebody who is not בקשירה, for instance a woman who is not obligated to put on תפילין, she cannot write a ספר תורה or תפילין or מזוזות. So

תוספות says that the רבינו תם wanted to פסק'ן from this גמרא that a woman is not allowed to put together the לולב, she's not allowed to put ציצית into the בגד, into the garment, since she is not commanded to keep the מצוה of לולב, because מצוה of לולב is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, it has a time limit, it is only on סוכות, and ציצית is also called a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא because you do not have to wear ציצית at night. So just like we see here that since she is not obligated to put on תפילין, she cannot write תפילין, the same way the רבינו תם wanted to say, since she is not obligated to fulfill the מצוה of לולב or fulfill the מצוה of ציצית, she is not allowed to put together the לולב, or put the ציצית into the בגד. But תוספות concludes that it's not so, because we see in the גמרא מנחות, דף מ״ב עמוד א׳, the גמרא says that a גוי cannot put ציצית into the בגד. And the גמרא learns it out from a special פסוק where it says, בני ישראל ועשו. So we learn out that only בני ישראל, only Jewish people, they could do the מצוה of ציצית, they could prepare the ציצית, but a גוי cannot. So we see from there that only a גוי is excluded because the פסוק says בני ישראל, but a woman is not excluded, and a woman is allowed to put the ציצית into the בגד according to תוספות. And it is

only by a ספר תורה or תפילין and מזוזות that she is excluded, because here we have a special פסוק, וקשרתם וכתבתם. So the תורה compares קשירה to כתיבה, the putting on of the תפילין to the writing of the תפילין, which automatically means also ספר תורה and מזוזות, and therefore here we exclude a woman. But concerning other מצוות, even those מצוות that a woman is פטור from fulfilling, she is allowed to prepare the מצוה. Another thing that תוספות asks is concerning the גמרא later. The גמרא tells us that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was מתיר to buy the ספר תורה from the עובד כוכבים that wrote the ספר תורה. And the גמרא asks a קושיא, since רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds that you have to have עיבוד לשמה, you have to tan the parchment לשמה for the purpose of the מצוה of תפילין, ספר תורה, מזוזות, so certainly you would have to write לשמה. So how could he allow the גוי to write the ספר תורה when the גוי cannot write לשמה? So תוספות asks a קושיא, what is the comparison? Maybe רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds that you must prepare the parchment לשמה, but the writing, maybe it does not have to be לשמה? And the reason תוספות gives is because סתם כתיבה לשמה. When you write a ספר תורה or whatever you write תפילין and מזוזות, when you write it, מסתמא you're writing it לשמה. Since you are writing a ספר תורה, or you are writing the תפילין, or you are writing the מזוזות, so we have to assume that you're writing it for the sake of the תפילין, for the sake of the מזוזות, for the sake of the ספר תורה, because that is actually what you are doing. So maybe when you write the ספר תורה, תפילין and מזוזות, you do not have to actually have in mind לשמה, because מן הסתם it goes לשמה. But when you make the parchment, since not all parchment goes for ספר תורה, תפילין and מזוזות, not even the majority of the parchments go for that, so how do we know that when he made the parchment, it was made for the sake of the מצוה of ספר תורה, תפילין and מזוזות? And therefore, over there רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds that you must have in mind לשמה. But how do we know that also by כתיבה you must have in mind לשמה, since סתם is לשמה? And תוספות did not answer this question. But רב חיים בריסקער in חידושי רבינו חיים הלוי on the רמב״ם in הלכות תפילין, פרק א׳, הלכה ט״ו, answers this question. He says that the גמרא is speaking about a גוי. And the reason why by a גוי there is no לשמה is not because we do not know what he has in his mind, and maybe he has in mind for something else and doesn't have in mind for the sake of the מצוה. He says a גוי, since he is not בקדושת ישראל, he doesn't have the קדושה of a ייד, is בכלל מופקע מדין לשמה. He's excluded from the general concept of לשמה. Even if the גוי is going to have in mind that he's doing it for the sake of the מצוה, it is not considered לשמה. Since a גוי is not in the whole category of being able to write a ספר תורה or תפילין and מזוזות לשמה. And that is the פשט in the גמרא. When the גמרא asks the קושיא on רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, that since he says that you have to have עיבוד לשמה, you have to prepare the parchment לשמה, certainly you must write the ספר תורה, תפילין and מזוזות לשמה. So how did he allow the גוי, the עובד כוכבים to write the ספר תורה? The פשט in the גמרא's קושיא is that since he was a גוי, it was impossible for him to write it לשמה. And since רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds that you must prepare the parchment לשמה, you certainly have to write the ספר תורה, תפילין and מזוזות לשמה, and a גוי cannot write it לשמה, because a גוי is מופקע, is excluded from the general דין of לשמה. So now you can't ask תוספות' קושיא: but maybe by writing סתמא לשמה? When can we say that by writing סתמא לשמה? Only by a ייד. Since a ייד is in the category of לשמה, so we could say even if he didn't have in mind לשמה, but since מן הסתם when you write a ספר תורה, תפילין and מזוזות, so since that is what you are doing, מן הסתם you're doing it לשמה, that would be כשר. But when we're talking about a גוי, the חסרון of by a גוי of not being לשמה is not because he doesn't have in mind לשמה, it is because he's not in the category of לשמה. So here we cannot say that סתמא is לשמה. And that's why the גמרא is able to ask a קושיא on the case of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, because there it was a case of a גוי. And the answer of the גמרא is that it wasn't a גוי. It was a ייד. It was a גר שחזר לסורו. It was a ייד, a גוי who converted, and then he went back to worship idols, so על פי הלכה he is still a ייד. So he is not מופקע from the דין לשמה, he is שייך to do לשמה, and therefore, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was מתיר to buy the ספר תורה that was written by this עובד כוכבים. And based on this סברא, רב חיים wants to answer the רמב״ם. Because he asks a very strong קושיא on the רמב״ם. The רמב״ם paskens in פרק א׳ of הלכות תפילין, הלכה ט״ו, that הכותב ספר תורה או תפילין ומזוזה, when one writes a ספר תורה או תפילין ומזוזה, ובשעת כתיבה לא היתה לו כוונה, when he wrote he didn't have the כוונה, the proper intentions, וכתב אזכרה מן האזכרות שבהן שלא לשמן, and he wrote one of the times that he wrote the name of השם שלא לשמה, so the רמב"ם פסקנס פסולין, it's פסול. So he says, we see from the רמב"ם that only if you write the name of השם not לשמה, the ספר תורה is פסול. But when you write the ספר תורה itself שלא לשמה, the ספר תורה is not פסול. And he explains why too, because there are two ענינים. When you write a ספר תורה, you have to write it לשמה, לשם ספר תורה, for the sake of the מצוה of ספר תורה. When you write the שם, in addition to that, you also must have in mind לשם קדושת השם, that you're writing this word with the intentions of the קדושה, of the holiness of the name of השם. So it seems from the רמב"ם that only if you didn't write the שם with the intentions of the קדושת השם, that's when the ספר תורה is פסול. But if you didn't have the כוונה of לשמה generally when you wrote the ספר תורה, the ספר תורה is כשר. Because the רמב"ם says clearly that he wrote one of the אזכרות שלא לשמן it is פסול, so he stresses clearly that the פסול is because the שם was written שלא לשמה. And also we see later on in פרק י', when the רמב"ם mentions all the different things that makes the ספר תורה פסול, so he mentions that if you wrote the אזכרה, the name of השם שלא לשמה without כוונה, the ספר תורה is פסול. But he does not mention that if you wrote the ספר תורה generally שלא לשמה that the ספר תורה is פסול. So here too we see that the רמב"ם holds that you do not have to write a ספר תורה לשמה. So he asks a קשיא: Based on our גמרא, we see that if you hold that the preparation of the parchment must be לשמה, certainly the כתיבה, the writing must be לשמה, because that's the גמרא'ס קשיא on רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. That since רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds that the עיבוד, the preparation of the parchment must be לשמה, certainly he will hold that the כתיבה must be לשמה, that is the whole קשיא of the גמרא. So we see that the גמרא accepts the סברא that if the עיבוד must be לשמה, the כתיבה certainly must be לשמה. Now the רמב"ם himself פסקנס in פרק א' הלכה י"א that the גויל of a ספר תורה or קלף of תפילין, that the parchment of the ספר תורה or of the תפילין, if you prepared it, you tanned the parchment שלא לשמה, they're פסול. And also in פרק י' where he mentions all the different פסולים of the ספר תורה, he mentions the פסול of preparing the parchment שלא לשמה. So if the רמב"ם פסקנס that the preparation of the parchment must be לשמה, so certainly the כתיבה must be לשמה, as we see in our גמרא the logic that the גמרא accepts בפשטות, that if the עיבוד must be לשמה, the כתיבה must be לשמה. So how could the רמב"ם פסקן that the עיבוד must be לשמה and nevertheless he פסקנס that the כתיבה doesn't have to be לשמה? But based on what we said before, רב חיים answers this question. He says in truth, if עיבוד needs לשמה, certainly כתיבה needs לשמה. But on the other hand, we have this סברא that סתמא לשמה, that when you write a ספר תורה, מן הסתם it's written לשמה. So even though you certainly have to have it לשמה, but we assume that it is לשמה, even if the person didn't have in mind לשמה. But since סתמא לשמה, when you write a ספר תורה you are writing the words of the ספר תורה, you are writing the תפילין, you are writing the מזוזות, so מן הסתם you have לשמה. So the סברא is certainly that if you have to have the עיבוד לשמה, you must have the כתיבה לשמה. But by כתיבה, even if you didn't have the intentions לשמה, it is considered as if you had לשמה in the case of a ייד. And that's why the רמב"ם פסקנס that עיבוד must be לשמה, nevertheless by כתיבה he says if it wasn't לשמה it's still כשר, not because we do not need לשמה by כתיבה, it is because by כתיבה, as long as he didn't have intentions against לשמה, we assume it was written לשמה. And therefore if it was written שלא לשמה, meaning he didn't have in mind לשמה, it still is כשר because that is considered that it was לשמה, because סתמא לשמה. And when the גמרא says that the כתיבה needs לשמה and if it wasn't written לשמה it's פסול, that is in the case of a גוי, because our גמרא is speaking by an עובד כוכבים. That's why the גמרא feels that if the עיבוד is לשמה, then the כתיבה certainly has to be לשמה. And we can't say that סתמא לשמה, because it's the case of a גוי. And by a גוי, he is מופקע from the דין of לשמה completely, he is not in the category of לשמה at all. And that's the גמרא'ס קשיא: Since רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds עיבוד must be לשמה, the כתיבה certainly must be לשמה, and since he's a גוי we do not say סתמא לשמה. Therefore the גמרא asks the קשיא: How was רבן שמעון בן גמליאל מתיר to buy this ספר תורה from the עובד כוכבים since it's not לשמה and there is no סתמא לשמה and it has to be לשמה because if the עיבוד must be לשמה the כתיבה certainly must be לשמה? The גמרא'ס קשיא is, how was he מתיר to buy this ספר תורה from the עובד כוכבים? And the answer is, really it was not a גוי, it was a גר שחזר לסורו. But according to this רב חיים asks, he doesn't understand the גמרא. In the גמרא, we have three opinions concerning a עובד כוכבים that wrote a ספר תורה. One opinion is that it has to be burned, one is that it has to be hidden, and one that you could even use it. And the גמרא explained that the one that holds that it has to be hidden is because this is the מאן דאמר that holds that כל שישנו בקשירה ישנו בכתיבה. And since a גוי is not שייך בקשירה, he's also not שייך בכתיבה. The one that says that you could use it goes according to the מאן דאמר that holds that you don't have to have it לשמה. And the גמרא thought it was רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. מסקנת הגמרא is that it's not רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, because he holds that even עיבוד must be לשמה, so certainly the כתיבה must be לשמה. So obviously it's not רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, but it must be another מאן דאמר who holds that the כתיבה doesn't have to be לשמה, and therefore if a גוי wrote a ספר תורה, it still is כשר, even though it was not written לשמה. But רב חיים asks, if the דין is that a גוי is מופקע from the עצם דין of לשמה, so the ספר תורה should be פסול for a different reason, since the שמות, the names of השם, certainly have to be written לשמה, and since a גוי is מופקע from the דין of לשמה, so how could a ספר תורה be כשר, since the שמות, the names of השם, were not written לשמה? And that is a קושיא on the opinion that holds that the ספר תורה could be used. It is also a קושיא on the opinion that holds that the ספר תורה should be hidden. Why should it be hidden? It shouldn't have the קדושה of a ספר תורה to begin with, so you shouldn't have to hide it, since it was written by a גוי and a גוי is not in the דין of לשמה, so the שמות were not written לשמה, so there is no קדושת השם in this ספר תורה, so it doesn't have a דין of a ספר תורה, so you shouldn't have to put it away. And he answers that when we say that a גוי, according to the רמב"ם, is מופקע, excluded from the דין of לשמה, it would only apply to דין of לשמה of the ספר תורה itself. But when it comes to the לשמה of the שמות, there a גוי could write a שם לשמה. And even though it seems איפכא מסתברא, it seems to be the opposite, because the writing of the שם is stricter than the writing of the ספר תורה, so if we say concerning the ספר תורה that a גוי is מופקע, excluded from the דין of לשמה, he certainly should be excluded from the דין of לשמה concerning the אזכרות, concerning the names of השם. But he explains that it's not so, because the דין of לשמה of writing of the אזכרות and of the writing of the ספר תורה are two different דינים. When we speak of writing of the ספר תורה, לשמה means it has to be written לשם the מצוה of ספר תורה or תפילין or מזוזות. When we speak of the שם קדושת השם, it means that you have to write it for the sake of the name of השם. When a person writes the name of השם and he knows what that word means, automatically it is written לשם קדושת השם. The only time writing of the name of השם would be considered שלא לשמה if he doesn't know what he is writing. He doesn't know that the word that he is writing is the name of השם. But as long as he knows that he is writing the name of השם, that itself is considered לשמה for the קדושת השם. While concerning the other words of the ספר תורה, what does לשמה there mean? That is something in addition to the writing itself, that you have to know that what you are writing is for the קדושה of ספר תורה, it's for the מצוה of ספר תורה. But concerning the שם, all it is that you have to know that you are writing the name of השם. And therefore, he says, concerning the whole ספר תורה, since the ענין of לשמה is something in addition to the writing itself, so we say a גוי doesn't have that מעלה, so a גוי is מופקע from the דין of לשמה, he's excluded from the דין of לשמה. But concerning the לשמה that we need by the writing of the name of השם, since there לשמה is part of the writing, it is not something in addition to the עצם writing of the word, so here he says that a גוי is included in the דין of לשמה. Since his מעשה is a מעשה, he is writing the name of השם, and he's able to write it, and it is the name of השם, and he knows what the word means, so there it is לשמה just because he writes it. And therefore, the דין is that if a גוי wrote a ספר תורה, so if you hold that you don't have to have כתיבה לשמה, the ספר תורה is כשר, even though the אזכרות we think was not written לשמה, because the אזכרות could be written לשמה by a גוי. And therefore, according to one opinion, you could even read in the ספר תורה; according to the other opinion, at least you have to hide the ספר תורה, because it does have a דין of קדושת ספר תורה.