Zevachim

Even 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!1 — 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.2 — 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!2 — Perhaps it is different there, because selection is not retrospective! 3 — Rather, from this: He who writes formulas of Gittin4 must leave blanks for the name of the husband, and the name of the wife, the names of the witnesses, and the date.5 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,6 it is valid? This proves that its own kind destroys it, while a different kind does not destroy it.7 But the following contradicts it: ‘Every Get written not in the name of the woman [for whom, it is intended] is invalid’,8 and [in point of fact] even [if written] in the name of a Gentile woman it is still invalid.9 And he answered: In the case of a Get, disregard the Gentile woman altogether,10 [and] it is then [written] without defined purpose, which is invalid.11 But as for sacrifices, disregard the hullin,12 [and] it is [a sacrifice slaughtered] without defined purpose, which is valid.13 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]14 but not the inside of the inside, and even a non-earthen vessel15 saves it.16 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,17 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;18 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,19 shall it not protect it in the case of an earthen vessel20 which is less stringent? Not so, they replied: in the first place, and so it is still possible that he had first intended it for the other, and therefore it is invalid. 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. 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. destroys the validity of the Get. from ritual uncleanness in a ritual bath (mikweh). 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’. 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. though the contaminating powers of a corpse are far greater than those of a reptile in an oven.