Zevachim

if it protects in the case of a corpse, which is stringent, that is because it is divided into tents;1 shall it therefore protect in the case of earthen vessels which are less stringent but which are not divided into tents?2 Now this is well according to the Rabbis.3 But what can be said on R. Eliezer's view?4 — R. Eliezer argues a fortiori.5 If so, here too we can argue a fortiori: if sacred animals profane sacred animals, how much more does hullin!6 — Rather, Rab's reason is in accordance with R. Eleazar.7 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:8 holy things profane holy things, but hullin does not profane holy things.9 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?10 — 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,11 they cannot be defiled through its air-space either. Hence [the deduction] informs us that It is not so.12 And the Rabbis? — [They argue,] No text is necessary in respect of these [foodstuffs].13 R. Joseph b. Ammi pointed out a contradiction between change [of intention] in respect of sanctity and change [of intention] in respect of owners,14 and answered it. Did then Rab say: If one slaughters a sin-offering [for one offence] as a sin-offering [for another offence],15 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,16 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,17 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,18 [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.19 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?20 And he answered: ‘Its inside’ is written four times, ‘the inside [tok]’,’its inside [toko]; ‘the inside’ [tok], ‘its inside [toko]’;21 one is required for its essential law;22 another for a gezerah shawah;23 a third [intimates] the inside of this, but not the inside of another;24 and finally [to teach]: Its inside, but not the inside of its inside, and even a non-earthen vessel protects.25 in the other are not contaminated. Hence it is right that even a defective receptacle should have the same effect. 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. its own kind does not ‘destroy’ it. Rabbis and R. Eliezer? How much more should it be unfit when he kills it as hullin, which is not sacred at all! Elai. for this deduction. 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. 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. the sacrifice under the name of one who was not its owner. intended it as a sin-offering for some other offence. a case. tok (which could have been written) is interpreted; further, each addition, ‘toko’, is likewise interpreted, which gives four in all. it; v. Hul. 24b. vessel.