זבחים 3 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Even more; If he wrote [a Get] to divorce his wife and then changed his mind; then a fellow-citizen met him and said to him ‘My name is the same as yours, and my wife's name is the same as your's, it [the Get] is invalid for divorcing therewith! — Yet perhaps it is different there, because it had been designated for that particular person's divorce! — Rather, from the following: Even more: If he had two wives of the same name, and he wrote [a Get] to divorce the elder therewith, he cannot divorce the younger with it. — Perhaps it is different there, as it had been designated for that particular wife's divorce! — Rather, from the following: Even more: If he said to the writer, ‘Write it and I will then divorce whichever I desire,’ it is invalid for divorcing therewith! — Perhaps it is different there, because selection is not retrospective! — Rather, from this: He who writes formulas of Gittin must leave blanks for the name of the husband, and the name of the wife, the names of the witnesses, and the date. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: He must also leave a blank for [the passage], ‘Behold, thou art permitted unto all men’. He [Raba] pointed out a further contradiction. Did then Rab Judah say in Rab's name: if one slaughtered a sin-offering under the designation of a burnt-offering, it is invalid; [if one slaughtered it] under the designation of hullin, it is valid? This proves that its own kind destroys it, while a different kind does not destroy it. But the following contradicts it: ‘Every Get written not in the name of the woman [for whom, it is intended] is invalid’, and [in point of fact] even [if written] in the name of a Gentile woman it is still invalid. And he answered: In the case of a Get, disregard the Gentile woman altogether, [and] it is then [written] without defined purpose, which is invalid. But as for sacrifices, disregard the hullin, [and] it is [a sacrifice slaughtered] without defined purpose, which is valid. He pointed out another contradiction. Did then Rab Judah say in Rab's name: If one slaughtered a sin-offering under the designation of a burnt-offering, it is invalid; [if he slaughtered it] under the designation of hullin,it is valid? This proves that its own kind destroys it, while a different kind does not destroy it. But it was taught : [And every earthen vessel into] whose inside [any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean, and it ye shall break] but not the inside of the inside, and even a non-earthen vessel saves it. And he answered it: They [the Rabbis] treated hullin in respect to consecrated animals as a partition in respect to an oven. Just as a partition in respect to an oven has no effect at all, so hullin in respect to consecrated animals has no effect at all. For we learned: If an oven is partitioned with boards or curtains, and a reptile is found in one compartment, the whole is unclean. If a defective receptacle, which is stuffed with straw, is lowered into the air-space of an oven, and a reptile is in it, the oven becomes unclean; if a reptile is in the oven the foodstuffs in it [the receptacle] become unclean; while R. Eliezer declares it clean. Said R. Eliezer: It follows a fortiori: If it protects in the case of a corpse, which is stringent, shall it not protect it in the case of an earthen vessel which is less stringent? Not so, they replied:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ

^ᵃnote:And for no other.
^ᵇnote:Git. 24b.
^ᶜnote:His subsequent intention has no retrospective validity in the sense that it is regarded as though he had intended it thus in the first place, and so it is still possible that he had first intended it for the other, and therefore it is invalid.
^ᵈnote:Plural of Get. He writes them to have them ready whenever the occasion arises.
^ᵉnote:Then he can fill them in as required. But he cannot fill them in in the first place, though writing them for the express purpose of divorce, and then find persons with the same name (Git. 26a). This proves that they must be written expressly for persons who are to use them.
^ᶠnote:V. Glos — i.e., not as a sacrifice at all.
^ᵍnote:A sin-offering and a burnt-offering are of the same kind — both are sacred, and by substituting the name of the latter for that of the former, he destroys its validity. But hullin, being non-sacred, is of a different kind, as it were, and does not harm it.
^ʰnote:Git. 24a.
^ⁱnote:Now a Gentile woman belongs to a different category, in that the law of Get does not apply to her at all, and yet she destroys the validity of the Get.
^ʲnote:Regard the Get as though it had not been written for her.
^ᵏnote:Since it must be written expressly for a particular woman.
^ˡnote:Viz., that it was slaughtered as hullin.
^ᵐnote:V. supra 2b.
^ⁿnote:Lev. XI, 33.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘a vessel of rinsing.’ This is the technical designation of all non-earthen vessels, because they can be purified from ritual uncleanness in a ritual bath (mikweh).
^ᵖnote:If a reptile (sherez) falls inside an earthen utensil containing eatables, even without touching them, they become unclean. On this the comment is made: only if it falls, inside, but not into the inside of the inside. Thus: if a utensil containing eatables is lying in an earthen oven (ancient ovens were open on top), with its mouth protruding above the top of the oven, and a reptile falls into the oven, the foodstuffs remain clean, as the inside of the utensil is regarded as the ‘inside of the inside,’ of an oven. This holds good not only when the inner utensil too is an earthen one, but even if it is non-earthen. The difference between the two is this: an earthen vessel is defiled only if the reptile falls inside, whereas a non-earthen vessel is defiled even if the reptile touches it on the outside. Now a non-earthen vessel is really of a different kind, since it differs in law, and yet it protects the foodstuffs in it from defilement, acting as interposition between the foodstuffs and the vessel in the oven. Thus a different kind too can ‘destroy’ the status of the food as being ‘inside’ the oven and gives it the status of being ‘inside the inside’.
^ᵠnote:Lit. ‘a beehive (shaped receptacle)’.
^ʳnote:Thus the receptacle, not being of the same kind as the oven, does not destroy the status of the food as being in the air-space of the oven. If the receptacle were whole it would protect the eatables, as above. Since it is not whole, however, it lacks the status of a utensil, and this is so even if it is stuffed with straw as a repair.
^ˢnote:If this partition were in a room containing a corpse, it would suffice to protect the foodstuffs from defilement, though the contaminating powers of a corpse are far greater than those of a reptile in an oven.
^ᵗnote:As in the case of the oven.

²if it protects in the case of a corpse, which is stringent, that is because it is divided into tents; shall it therefore protect in the case of earthen vessels which are less stringent but which are not divided into tents? Now this is well according to the Rabbis. But what can be said on R. Eliezer's view? — R. Eliezer argues a fortiori. If so, here too we can argue a fortiori: if sacred animals profane sacred animals, how much more does hullin! — Rather, Rab's reason is in accordance with R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: What is Rab's reason? And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they set apart unto the Lord: holy things profane holy things, but hullin does not profane holy things. This proves that a Scriptural text comes and nullifies the argument a fortiori; then here too, let the text ‘its inside’ come and nullify the argument a fortiori? — This text, ‘its inside’, is required in respect of foodstuffs pasted round with clay and placed within the air-space of an oven. You might think, since they cannot be defiled by contact, they cannot be defiled through its air-space either. Hence [the deduction] informs us that It is not so. And the Rabbis? — [They argue,] No text is necessary in respect of these [foodstuffs]. R. Joseph b. Ammi pointed out a contradiction between change [of intention] in respect of sanctity and change [of intention] in respect of owners, and answered it. Did then Rab say: If one slaughters a sin-offering [for one offence] as a sin-offering [for another offence], it is fit; as a burnt-offering, it is unfit? This then proves that another kind destroys it, whereas its own kind does not destroy it. Yet surely Rab said: If a sin-offering is slaughtered on behalf of one who is liable to a sin-offering, it is unfit; on behalf of one who is liable to a burnt-offering, it is fit. This proves that a person of the same category as the offender destroys it, whereas one of a different category does not destroy it? And he answered: In the former case, the Divine Law states, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering, and lo, a sin-offering has been slaughtered as a sin-offering. But in the latter case it is written, and the priest shall make atonement for him, [which intimates,] ‘for him’, but not for his fellow, and ‘his fellow’ implies one like himself, who stands in need of atonement just as he does. R. Habibi shewed a contradiction between the law of change [of intention] in respect of owners and that of the inside of the inside, and then answered it. Did then Rab say: If a sin-offering is slaughtered on behalf of one who is liable to a sin-offering, it is unfit; on behalf of one who is liable to a burnt-offering, it is fit? This then proves that its own kind destroys it, whereas a different kind does not destroy it. Yet surely it was taught: ‘Its inside’, but not the inside of it inside, and even a non-earthen vessel protects it? And he answered: ‘Its inside’ is written four times, ‘the inside [tok]’,’its inside [toko]; ‘the inside’ [tok], ‘its inside [toko]’; one is required for its essential law; another for a gezerah shawah; a third [intimates] the inside of this, but not the inside of another; and finally [to teach]: Its inside, but not the inside of its inside, and even a non-earthen vessel protects.25^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ

^ᵘnote:A single partition across a room is sufficient to divide it into two rooms, and if a corpse is in one, eatables or utensils in the other are not contaminated. Hence it is right that even a defective receptacle should have the same effect.
^ᵛnote:I.e., a partition placed in an earthen vessel (sc. an oven) does not divide it into separate compartments (here designated ‘tents’), as stated supra 3a: therefore a defective receptacle cannot do so either; so Tosaf. Rashi explains more simply: if it protects . . . into tents — i.e., it is quite usual to partition off a room into two, therefore a partition converts it into two separate tents. But it is not usual to partition an oven: hence the partition cannot affect its status. On this interpretation it appears that R. Eliezer holds that a partition does affect it, protecting the foodstuffs from contamination. In that case they differ not only in respect to a defective receptacle, but also in respect to the partitioning of an oven by a board or curtain.
^ʷnote:The view that the defective receptacle (or, a partition) does not protect agrees with Rab's statement that what is not of its own kind does not ‘destroy’ it.
^ˣnote:According to him a different kind too apparently ‘destroys’ it: is then Rab's ruling a matter of dispute between the Rabbis and R. Eliezer?
^ʸnote:Generally he agrees with Rab, but in this particular case he rules differently, because of his argument.
^ᶻnote:When one kills a sin-offering as a burnt-offering, he is still killing it as something sacred, and yet you say it is unfit. How much more should it be unfit when he kills it as hullin, which is not sacred at all!
^ᵃᵃnote:Not because a different kind does not ‘destroy’ it, but because a Scriptural text teaches this law. Sh. M. emends: R. Elai.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lev. XXII, 15.
^ᵃᶜnote:Tosaf. suggests that ‘the holy things’ is superfluous, being understood from the context, and is therefore employed for this deduction.
^ᵃᵈnote:From this text, ‘its inside,’ it is deduced supra a, but not ‘the inside of the inside’, which is explained as meaning the inside of a second vessel within the first. Now from this it is deduced afortiori that a partition does not destroy the unity of an oven (v. supra a), for if it did, a text would surely not be necessary for teaching that another vessel within the first protects its contents.
^ᵃᵉnote:For a ‘creeping thing’ cannot touch them.
^ᵃᶠnote:The food is defiled. This is learnt from the deduction, its ‘inside’, but not ‘the inside of its ‘inside’, whence it follows that a partition does not protect; and it is in respect of a partition of this nature, viz., clay pasted round food, that this conclusion is drawn.
^ᵃᵍnote:For they are obviously ‘inside’ of the oven.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e. between wrongful intention in respect of the sacrifice and that in respect of the owner thereof; e.g., he offered the sacrifice under the name of one who was not its owner.
^ᵃⁱnote:Its owner had incurred the liability on account of a particular offence, whereas in slaughtering it he (or the priest) intended it as a sin-offering for some other offence.
^ᵃʲnote:But who is not the owner of this particular sacrifice.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lev. IV, 33.
^ᵃˡnote:Ibid. 26, 31, 35.
^ᵃᵐnote:For otherwise he cannot be called ‘his fellow’ in this respect. Hence the exclusion of his fellow applies only to such a case.
^ᵃⁿnote:Cf. supra a p. 7. n. 1.
^ᵃᵒnote:V. Lev. XI, 33, where toko (lit, ‘its inside’) is repeated twice, though in each case tok (‘inside’) would suffice. Each tok (which could have been written) is interpreted; further, each addition, ‘toko’, is likewise interpreted, which gives four in all.
^ᵃᵖnote:Viz., that any food or drink within it is defiled through the reptile (sherez) entering its air-space.
^ᵃᵠnote:V. Glos. Teaching that the dead reptile defiles the utensil too, through entering its air-space, even without touching it; v. Hul. 24b.
^ᵃʳnote:Only an earthen vessel thus becomes unclean through its air-space without actual contact, but not a non-earthen vessel.
^ᵃˢnote:Hence this is a specially decreed law and stands by itself; therefore its principle cannot be applied to sacrifices.