Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A "GET" WITHOUT A SPECIFIED INTENT (cont.)

(a) 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)).
(b) Rejection: There is different, because Reuven wrote it to divorce his own wife and decided not to.
(c) 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)!
(d) Rejection: There is different, it was written for his older wife, and he decided not to use it for her.
(e) 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).
(f) 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 was intending to divorce the other wife (and he later retracted, therefore it is Pasul)!
(g) 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.

1. (Rav): 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, if must be written l'Shem (intending for) his wife.)

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

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

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

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

(c) Answer #1 (Rava): Intent for something unrelated is like having no intention (i.e. Stam); if a Get was written Stam, it is Pasul; if a Zevach was offered Stam, it is Kosher.
(d) Question #2 (Rava - Beraisa): "Tocho" - if Tum'ah is inside a Kli Cheres (earthenware vessel), all food *inside* the vessel becomes Tamei, not food *inside* (a vessel) *inside* the Kli Cheres (the opening of the inner vessel is outside the outer vessel)), even a vessel that can be immersed (to become Tahor, i.e. not of earthenware) shields food inside it from becoming Tamei.
(e) Answer #1 (Rava): Intent for Chulin when offering Kodshim is similar to a wall in a Kli Cheres - just as a wall is not considered a vessel, it does not shield from Tum'ah, intent for Chulin is not like intent for a different Zevach, it has no effect to Posel Kodshim.

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

(f) (Beraisa): A chest had a hole, it was plugged up with straw; the chest was hanging in an oven. If a rodent is in the chest, food anywhere in the oven is Tamei;

1. If a rodent is in the oven, food in the chest is Tamei;
2. R. Eliezer says, the food is Tahor.
3. 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 rodents (which is lenient) in a Kli Cheres!
4. 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 Kli Cheres, for people do not normally divide it with walls.
5. Version #2 - Tosfos - Chachamim: No - the chest (Shitah Mekubetzes - it is a Kli 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 Kli Cheres, just as one wall does not block Tum'ah there.

(g) Question: Rav's law is like Chachamim (intent for Chulin has no effect, just as a wall (Tosfos - chest) has no effect to block Tum'ah in a Kli Cheres), but not like R. Eliezer!
(h) Answer: R. Eliezer normally agrees, here a Kal va'Chomer teaches that it blocks Tum'ah.
(i) Objection: Likewise, a Kal va'Chomer should teach that intent for Chulin disqualifies a Zevach:

1. Intent for Kodshim disqualifies a Zevach, all the more so intent for Chulin disqualifies it!

(j) 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.

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

(k) Question: Just as this verse overrides the Kal va'Chomer (that Chulin should also Posel Zevachim), "Tocho" should override the Kal va'Chomer (which taught that a wall shields from Tum'ah in a Kli Cheres - why does R. Eliezer learn the Kal va'Chomer)?
(l) Answer: He says that "Tocho" teaches about food covered in dirt in a Tamei Kli Cheres (i.e. it becomes Tamei).

1. One might have thought, since the food would not become Tamei if Tum'ah touched the dirt, it does not become Tamei in the interior of a Kli Cheres - the verse teaches, this is not so.
2. Chachamim say, the fact that it would not become Tamei if Tum'ah touched the dirt, does not suggest that it stays Tahor in the interior of a Kli Cheres, therefore, the verse is not needed for this.

(a) (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.

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

(b) Contradiction (Rav Yosef bar Ami): But Rav 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!

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

(c) 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);

1. The second law is learned from "V'Chiper Alav" - not to atone for someone else;

i. 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.

(d) Question (Rav Chaviva): How could Rav teach that a Chatas was slaughtered on behalf of someone else who must bring a Chatas is Pasul; on behalf of someone who must bring an Olah is Kosher, i.e. intent for something similar is like improper intention, intent for something unrelated is not?

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

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

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

i. The basic meaning of the verse teaches that food in the airspace of a Kli Cheres (in which there is Tum'ah) becomes Tamei;
ii. We learn a Gezerah Shavah 'Toch-Toch' from the repetition, teaching that Tum'ah in the airspace of a Kli Cheres makes the vessel Tamei;
iii. One 'Vov' teaches that these laws only apply to earthenware, not to other vessels;
iv. The other 'Vov' teaches that even a vessel that can be immersed shields its contents from become Tamei from the outer vessel.