ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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
(a) In a case where someone overhear Sofrim saying that they were writing a
Get for 'Ish P'loni she'Geirash Ishah P'lonis mi'Makom P'loni', and where
all the details fit his situation, the Mishnah in Gitin rules - that he
cannot use that Get for himself.
(b) We reject the proof from there that by Get 'S'tama ke'she'Lo Lishmah',
on the basis of Rav Papa, according to whom - the Tana speaks about a
Sofrim's apprentices, whom we suspect of writing the Get purely for the sake
of practice (and not for the sake of a Get).
(c) The Beraisa forbids Reuven to divorce his wife Le'ah with a Get that was
written for another Reuven, who intended to divorce his wife Le'ah, but who
changed his mind.
(d) There is no proof that S'tam is considered she'Lo li'Shemah from ...
1. ... this Beraisa that by Get, S'tam is considered she'Lo li'Shemah (see
Tosfos DH 'Kasav Le'gareish') - because, changing the Get from one couple to
another, is not considered Stam, but a real she'Lo li'Shemah.
2. ... the Beraisa which disqualifies a Get that Reuven wrote to divorce an
older wife who is called Le'ah, from being used to divorce a younger wife
with the same name - for the same reason.
3. ... a third Beraisa, which disqualifies a Get which the Sofer writes for
Reuven to divorce whichever wife he subsequently decides - because there
too, the Get is not Pasul because S'tam is she'Lo li'Shemah), but due to the
principle 'Ein B'reirah' (which means, in effect, that. at the time of
writing, Reuven may have actually intended to divorce the other wife, in
which case it too, is not a case of S'tam, but of real she'Lo li'Shemah).
(a) A fourth Beraisa rules - that if a Sofer writes skeleton Gitin for use
should the need arise, he is obligated to leave blank the names of the
husband, the wife and the witnesses, as well as the date.
(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav add - the basic text of the Get ('Harei At Muteres
le'Chol Adam') ...
(c) ... a conclusive proof that S'tam by Gitin is considered she'Lo
li'Shemah (otherwise why should he not insert it).
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav states that a Chatas that is Shechted as an Olah is
Pasul, but that if it is Shechted as Chulin - it is Kasher?
(b) Rava extrapolate from Rav Yehudah's dual ruling - that 'de'Miynah
Machriv Bah, de'La'av Miynah Lo Machriv Bah' (that whereas the same species
[a Korban like itself] can change its status, a foreign species [Chulin])
(c) Rava extrapolates from the Mishnah in Gitin (that we cited earlier) 'Kol
ha'Get she'Nichtav *she'Lo le'Shem Ishah* Pasul' - that the Tana is speaking
even with regard to a Get that is written for a Nochris ...
(d) ... a Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - since a Nochris is not subject to
Gitin, which suggests that the Tana holds that even 'de'La'av Miynah Machriv
(e) Rava reconciles the Mishnah with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - by pointing out
that even if one were to remove the Nochris from the scene, the Get would be
Pasul, because S'tam by Get, is considered she'Lo li'Shemah, whereas if one
were to remove the Chulin from the case of Chatas, it would be Kasher, since
S'tam by Kodshim is considered li'Shemah (as we explained earlier).
(a) Rava also queried Rav Yehudah Amar Rav from another Beraisa. When the
Tana learns from the Pasuk "Tocho" (in connection with earthenware vessels
containing food or drink, in which there is a dead Sheretz) ...
1. ... "Tocho", 've'Lo Toch Tocho', he means - that although the Sheretz
renders Tamei food or drink that is inside the same earthenware vessel as
itself, this will not be the case if they are inside a vessel which in turn,
is located inside the same oven, provided its walls extend above those of
(b) ... implying that even 'de'La'av Miynah Machriv Bah' (a Kashya on Rav
Yehudah Amar Rav).
2. ... 'va'Afilu K'lei Shetef Matzil', he means that this applies even if
the vessel is made of materials other than earthenware (which are not
generally subject to the special Dinim of earthenware vessels) ...
(c) And he answers that we compare Chulin vis-a-vis Kodshim to like a wall
vis-a-vis an oven, by which he means that the Tana does not consider a
vessel (irrespective of what it is made of) to be 'La'av Miyno'. A vessel he
maintains, is a vessel (and is therefore considered Miyno). A wall however,
is different, as we shall now see.
(a) The Mishnah in Keilim rules that in a case where an oven contains food
or drink, and where they discovered a dead Sheretz on the other side of ...
1. ... planks or a curtain with which they divided it - the food and drink
are Tahor, and ...
(b) If there is no food or drink in the oven, but the Sheretz is found
inside the bee-hive - the oven is Tamei.
2. ... the same applies to a broken bee-hive which they filled in with
straw, because in spite of the straw (the Tana is teaching us), the bee-hive
is not considered a vessel.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer there says 'Tahor', and he learns it from a 'Kal
va'Chomer' from the equivalent case of Ohel ha'Meis - where any division
saves the food and drink from the Tum'ah on the other side, how much more so
earthenware vessels (whose Tum'ah is less stringent than Tum'as Meis).
(d) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Eliezer - by pointing out that the Din of
Ohel is confined to Tum'as Meis, and just as an Ohel is effective to
transmit Tum'ah, so too, is it effective to prevent Tum'ah from entering.
The Tum'ah of earthenware vessels on the other hand, is not subject to the
Din of Ohel, not one way and not the other.
(a) The problem with Rava's initial answer to his Kashya (where he learns
'de'La'av Miynah Lo Machriv' from this Beraisa) is from Rebbi Eliezer, who
gives vessels the same Din as a partition in this regard (and who seems to
hold that even 'de'La'av Miynah Machriv'). We answer that this is due to the
'Kal-va'Chomer', which overrides the principle of 'de'La'av Miynah, Lo
Machriv'. We reject this answer however - on the grounds that, if that were
so, - then why should the same 'Kal-va'Chomer' 'Kodshim Mechalelin Kodshim,
Chulin Lo Kol-she'Kein', not apply by Chatas she'Shachtah le'Shem Chulin!
(b) So according to Rebbi Eliezer, we establish Rav like Rebbi Elazar, who
learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yechalelu es Kodshei B'nei Yisrael es Asher
Yarimu la'Hashem" - that Kodshim desecrate Kodshim, but not Chulin (and this
is a 'Gezeiras -ha'Kasuv' which overrides Rebbi Eliezer's principle that
even 'de'La'av Miynah Machriv').
(c) The problem that this answer poses is - that just as the Pasuk of "ve'Lo
Yechalelu ... " overrides the principle of 'de'La'av Miynah ... ', why does
the Pasuk of "Tocho" ('ve'Lo Toch Tocho') not also override the
(a) We answer that "Tocho" is needed to teach us that, in a case where the
food was covered with clay - it is subject to Tum'ah via the air of the
oven, even though it is not subject to Tum'ah via touching.
(b) This answers the Kashya - in that it leaves Rebbi Eliezer free to
Darshen the 'Kal-va'Chomer' with regard to an Ohel in the vessel.
(c) The Rabbanan however - hold that food that is covered with clay does not
require a Pasuk to preclude it from Tum'ah, since it is obviously inside the
oven, and there is no reason to declare it Tahor. Consequently, they use the
D'rashah of "Tocho", 've'Lo Toch Tocho', to extrapolate that a Mechitzah of
other materials does not save the food inside an earthenware vessel from
(a) Rav rules that a Chatas which a Kohen Shechts as another Chatas is
Kasher. By 'one Chatas as another Chatas' he means - a Chatas Cheilev (to
atone for having eaten Cheilev be'Shogeg [say]) as a Chatas Dam (to atone
for having drunk blood).
(b) He rules that a Chatas that a Kohen Shechts ...
1. ... as an Olah - is Pasul.
(c) The problem with Rav's two dual statements is - that in the first set
(by Shinuy Kodesh) he seems to hold 'de'La'av Miynah Machriv Bah, de'Miynah
Lo Machriv Bah', whereas in the second set (by Shinuy Ba'alim) he holds the
2. ... on behalf of someone who is Chayav another Chatas - is Pasul.
3. ... on behalf of someone who is Chayav an Olah - is Kasher.
(d) We answer the Kashya based on the two Pesukim 1. "Ve'shachat Osah
le'Chatas" - implying that as long as one Shechts the Chatas as a Chatas, it
is Kasher (but not if he Shechts it as an Olah); 2. "Alav" 've'Lo al
Chavero' - which implies that the Korban is Pasul if it is Shechted on
behalf of one's friend who is Chayav the same Korban as he is, otherwise
not. In other words, both cases are a 'Gezeiras Hakasuv', and not subject to
(a) We just learned that, by Shinuy Ba'alim, if a Kohen Shechts Reuven's
Chatas on behalf of Shimon who is Chayav another Chatas, it is Pasul,
whereas if he Shechts it on behalf of Levi who is Chayav an Olah, it is
Kasher (suggesting that 'de'Bar Miynah Machriv, de'La'av Miynah Lo
Machriv'). Rav Chaviva queries this from the Beraisa of ''Tocho", 've'Lo
Toch Tocho' - which adds 'va'Afilu K'lei Shetef Matzil (implying that
'de'La'av Miynah Lo Machriv'), contradicting what we just learned with
regard to Shinuy Ba'alim.
In that case, Rav Chaviva holds on principle - 'de'Bar Miynah Machriv,
de'La'av Miynah Lo Machriv'.
(b) And he answers by ascribing the Din of 'Toch Tocho' to a 'Gezeiras
ha'Kasuv'. When he says 'Arba'ah "Tocho" Kesivi - he is really referring to
the word "Tocho" which is written twice (each time incorporating two
D'rashos, "Toch" and "Tocho", "Toch" and 'Tocho").
(c) When he says ...
1. ... 'Chad le'Gufeih', he means - one to teach us - that food and drink
can become Tamei via the air of an earthenware vessel.
(d) And from the fourth "Tocho" - he learns "Tocho", 've'Lo Toch Tocho'.
2. ... 'Chad li'Gezeirah-Shavah' - he means that the second one comes to
teach that the Sheretz renders Tamei, even food that it did not touch.
3. ... 'Chad Tocho shel Zeh, ve'Lo Tocho shel Acher' - comes to preclude
vessels that are not made of earthenware, from the Din of Tum'as Avir.