POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Zevachim 3
ZEVACHIM 2-4 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
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)).
2) INTENT FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT
(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
(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
(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)
(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
(b) Question #1 (Rava - Mishnah): A Get written Lo Lishmah is
i. This applies even if it was written for a
Nochris (even though Gitim do not apply to
(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
(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
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.
3) INTENT FOR A DIFFERENT "KORBAN" OR A DIFFERENT OWNER
(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
(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;
(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
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
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
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
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.