## Zevachim Daf 3a

###### Zevachim 3a:1
[Zevachim 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:1)

יָתֵר עַל כֵּן, כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ, מְצָאוֹ בֶּן עִירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״שְׁמִי כְּשִׁמְךָ וְשֵׁם אִשְׁתִּי כְּשֵׁם אִשְׁתְּךָ״ – פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Moreover,** if a husband **wrote** a bill of divorce with which **to divorce his wife but** later **reconsidered,** and **a resident of his town found him and said to him: My name is** the same **as your name, and my wife’s name is** the same **as your wife’s name,** and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce and I will use it, the bill of divorce is **unfit** for the second man **to divorce** his wife **with it.** Evidently, even if the bill of divorce was written to be used for divorce, if it was not written specifically for the given woman it is not valid.


###### Zevachim 3a:2
[Zevachim 3a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:2)

דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִינְּתִיק לֵיהּ לְשֵׁם גֵּירוּשִׁין דְּהָהוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Perhaps there it is different, as** the bill of divorce **was** specifically **designated** for **the sake of that** man’s **divorce,** and therefore it is not valid for the second man’s divorce. But a bill of divorce that was written without specification might be valid if written for the sake of divorce.


###### Zevachim 3a:3
[Zevachim 3a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:3)

אֶלָּא מֵהָא: יָתֵר עַל כֵּן, יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת – כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה, לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** derive it **from** the subsequent clause in **that** mishna: **Moreover,** if **he has two wives whose names are identical,** and he **wrote** a bill of divorce **to divorce the older** one, and then reconsidered, **he may not divorce the younger** one **with it.** Evidently, a bill of divorce must be written specifically to divorce a specific wife.


###### Zevachim 3a:4
[Zevachim 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:4)

דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִינְּתִיק לֵיהּ לְשֵׁם גֵּירוּשִׁין דְּהָהִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Perhaps there it is different, as** the bill of divorce **was** specifically **designated for the sake of the divorce of that** other wife.


###### Zevachim 3a:5
[Zevachim 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:5)

אֶלָּא מֵהָא: יָתֵר עַל כֵּן, אָמַר לְלַבְלָר: כְּתוֹב, וּלְאֵיזֶה שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֲגָרֵשׁ – פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** derive it **from** the subsequent clause in **that** mishna: **Moreover,** if **he said to the scribe [*lalavlar*]: Write** a bill of divorce for one of my two wives who have identical names, **and I will** use it to **divorce whichever** one of them **that I want,** this bill of divorce is **unfit to divorce** either wife **with it.** Evidently, it must be written for the divorce of a specific woman.


###### Zevachim 3a:6
[Zevachim 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:6)

דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאֵין בְּרֵירָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Perhaps there it is different, as there is no** retroactive **designation.** The designation of the bill of divorce cannot be determined retroactively. It cannot be used for either wife because it was possibly written for the sake of the other wife. But a bill of divorce written without specification may be valid.


###### Zevachim 3a:7
[Zevachim 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:7)

אֶלָּא מֵהָא: הַכּוֹתֵב טוֹפְסֵי גִיטִּין – צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הָאִישׁ וּמְקוֹם הָאִשָּׁה וּמְקוֹם הָעֵדִים וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אַף צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְכׇל אָדָם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** derive it **from that** mishna (*Gittin* 26a): With regard to a scribe **who writes the standard** part **of [*tofesei*] bills of divorce** in advance, so that when one requests a bill of divorce, he will have to add only the details unique to the case, **he must leave** empty **the place** of the name **of the man, and the place** of the name **of the woman, and the place** of the names **of the witnesses, and the place of the date. And** in addition, **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** A scribe **must also leave the place of** the essential phrase: **You are hereby permitted to** marry **any man,** since it must be written for the sake of that specific woman. Evidently, a bill of divorce must be written for a specific husband and wife, and if not it is not valid, even if it was written for the sake of divorce.


###### Zevachim 3a:8
[Zevachim 3a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:8)

תּוּ רָמֵי מִילְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי – מִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – פְּסוּלָה, שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חוּלִּין – כְּשֵׁירָה; אַלְמָא דְּמִינַהּ מַחֲרִיב בַּהּ, דְּלָאו מִינַהּ לָא מַחֲרִיב בַּהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Ravina continued to inform Rav Pappa of Rava’s statements: Rava **further raises another contradiction: Did Rav Yehuda say** that **Rav says** that **a sin offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a burnt offering** is **unfit,** whereas if one **slaughtered** the animal **for the sake of** consumption of **non-sacred** meat, it is **fit? Apparently,** only improper intent that is **of its type,** i.e., for the sake of another offering, **ruins** the offering and renders **it** unfit, whereas wrong intent that is **not of its type,** i.e., for the sake of consumption of non-sacred meat, is disregarded and **does not ruin it.**


###### Zevachim 3a:9
[Zevachim 3a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:9)

וּרְמִינְהוּ: כׇּל הַגֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִשָּׁה – פָּסוּל. וַאֲפִילּוּ לְשֵׁם גּוֹיָה נָמֵי פָּסוּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rava **raises a contradiction** from the aforementioned mishna (*Gittin* 24a): **Any bill of divorce that was written not for the sake of** the **woman** who is being divorced with it **is not valid; and** by inference, **even** if it was written **for the sake of a gentile woman,** it is **not valid.** With regard to the matter of divorce, a gentile woman is not of the same type as a Jewish woman, as the *halakhot* of bills of divorce are irrelevant to her.


###### Zevachim 3a:10
[Zevachim 3a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:10)

וְשַׁנִּי: גֵּט – דַּל גּוֹיָה מִינֵּיהּ הָוֵה לֵיהּ סְתָמָא, וּסְתָמָא פָּסוּל. קָדָשִׁים – דַּל חוּלִּין מִינַּיְיהוּ הָוֵה לֵיהּ סְתָמָא, וּסְתָמָא כְּשֵׁירִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rava **resolves** the contradiction: If **a bill of divorce** is written for the sake of a gentile woman it is not valid, because if you **remove** the intent for the sake of **a gentile woman from it, it is** considered to be **without specification** of the woman who is divorced with it, **and** a bill of divorce written **without specification is not valid.** But if **sacrificial** animals are slaughtered for the sake of consumption of non-sacred meat, they remain fit, since if you **remove** the **non-sacred** intent **from them, they are** considered to be **without specification, and** offerings slaughtered **without specification are fit.**


###### Zevachim 3a:11
[Zevachim 3a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:11)

וּרְמָא מִילְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי: מִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – פְּסוּלָה, שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חוּלִּין – כְּשֵׁירָה; אַלְמָא דְּמִינַּהּ מַחֲרִיב בַּהּ, דְּלָא מִינַּהּ לָא מַחֲרִיב בַּהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **And** Rava **raised another contradiction: Did Rav Yehuda say** that **Rav says** that **a sin offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a burnt offering** is **unfit,** whereas if one **slaughtered it for the sake of** consumption of **non-sacred** meat it is **fit? Apparently,** he holds that only improper intent that is **of its type ruins it,** whereas wrong intent that is **not of its type does not ruin it.**


###### Zevachim 3a:12
[Zevachim 3a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:12)

וְהָתַנְיָא: ״תּוֹכוֹ״ – וְלֹא תּוֹךְ תּוֹכוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּלִי שֶׁטֶף מַצִּיל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The Torah states with regard to ritually impure carcasses of creeping animals: “And every earthen vessel into **whose interior** any of them falls, anything that is in its interior shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:33). From the word “interior” it is derived that only food in its interior is rendered impure, **but not** any food that is in **the interior of its interior,** i.e., in another vessel within the earthenware vessel. **And** this is the *halakha* not only if the inner vessel is an earthenware vessel; **even** if it is a metal or wooden **vessel,** which is purified though **rinsing** in a ritual bath and is therefore susceptible to impurity from its exterior, it nevertheless **protects** food that is inside it from being rendered impure. Evidently, even a vessel that is not of the same type serves to nullify the status of the interior of an earthenware vessel.


###### Zevachim 3a:13
[Zevachim 3a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:13)

וְשַׁנִּי: חוּלִּין אֵצֶל קָדָשִׁים – כִּמְחִיצָה אֵצֶל תַּנּוּר; מָה מְחִיצָה אֵצֶל תַּנּוּר לָא מַהְנְיָא לַהּ כְּלָל, אַף חוּלִּין אֵצֶל קֳדָשִׁים לָא מַהְנְיָא לֵיהּ כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rava **resolves** the contradiction as follows: A vessel purified through rinsing is actually considered of the same type as an earthenware vessel, since they are both vessels. Concerning the *halakhot* of impurity, the equivalent of intent with regard to the consumption of non-sacred meat is an item that is not a vessel at all; the Sages **rendered non-sacred** meat **with regard to sacrificial** animals **like a partition with regard to** an earthenware **oven: Just as a partition in an oven is not effective at all** in preventing the transmission of impurity from one side to the other since it is not a vessel, **so too,** slaughtering an offering for the consumption of **non-sacred** meat **is not effective at all with regard to** rendering **sacrificial** animals unfit.


###### Zevachim 3a:14
[Zevachim 3a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:14)

דִּתְנַן: תַּנּוּר שֶׁחֲצָצוֹ בִּנְסָרִים אוֹ בִּירִיעוֹת, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁרֶץ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד – הַכֹּל טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Kelim* 8:1): In the case of **an oven that** one **divided with boards or with curtains, and** the carcass of **a creeping animal was found in one place, all** of the food in the oven, including that on the other side of the partition, is rendered **impure.**


###### Zevachim 3a:15
[Zevachim 3a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:15)

כַּוֶּורֶת שֶׁהִיא פְּחוּתָה וּפְקוּקָה בְּקַשׁ, וּמְשׁוּלְשֶׁלֶת לַאֲוִיר הַתַּנּוּר – שֶׁרֶץ בְּתוֹכָהּ, הַתַּנּוּר טָמֵא; שֶׁרֶץ בַּתַּנּוּר, אֳוכָלִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טְמֵאִין. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: In the case of **a round barrel that is broken and plugged up with straw and lowered into the airspace of the oven,** if the carcass of **a creeping animal** is **inside** the barrel, **the oven** is rendered **impure.** And if the carcass of **a creeping animal** is **in the oven,** the **food that is inside** the barrel is rendered **impure.** The broken barrel is not considered a vessel despite its being plugged up with straw, and therefore it does not prevent the transmission of impurity between the creeping animal and the oven. **And Rabbi Eliezer deems** the food in the barrel **pure.**


###### Zevachim 3a:16
[Zevachim 3a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: קַל וָחוֹמֶר! אִם הִצִּיל בְּמֵת – הֶחָמוּר, לֹא תַּצִּיל בִּכְלִי חֶרֶס – הַקַּל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **Rabbi Eliezer said:** My opinion can be inferred ***a fortiori*: If** a barrel or any other partition between some item and a corpse under the same roof **protects** the item **from** becoming impure, even though impurity imparted by **a corpse** is **severe** in that it lasts seven days, **shouldn’t** a partition **protect** food **in** the airspace of **an earthenware vessel** from impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal, **which is mild** by comparison?


###### Zevachim 3a:17
[Zevachim 3a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/3a:17)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: The Rabbis **said to him:** Your inference is **not** correct.