Previous daf

1)

(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]) cannot.

(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 Bah'.

(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 the oven.
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) ...

(b) ... implying that even 'de'La'av Miynah Machriv Bah' (a Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav).

(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 ...
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.

(b) If there is no food or drink in the oven, but the Sheretz is found inside the bee-hive - the oven is Tamei.

(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.

6)

(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 'Kal-va'Chomer'?

(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 Tum'ah.

(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.
2. ... on behalf of someone who is Chayav another Chatas - is Pasul.
3. ... on behalf of someone who is Chayav an Olah - is Kasher.

(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 exact opposite.

(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 principles.

(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.

(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.
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.

(d) And from the fourth "Tocho" - he learns "Tocho", 've'Lo Toch Tocho'.

Next daf