Zevachim 5

יתר על כן כתב לגרש את אשתו ונמלך מצאו בן עירו ואמר לו שמי כשמך ושם אשתי כשם אשתך פסול לגרש בו

Even more; If he wrote [a Get] to divorce his wife and then changed his mind; then a fellow-citizen met him and said to him 'My name is the same as yours, and my wife's name is the same as your's, it [the Get] is invalid for divorcing therewith! - Yet perhaps it is different there, because it had been designated for that particular person's divorce!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for no other.');">¹</span>

דילמא שאני התם דאינתיק ליה לשם גירושין דההוא

- Rather, from the following: Even more: If he had two wives of the same name, and he wrote [a Get] to divorce the elder therewith, he cannot divorce the younger with it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 24b.');">²</span>

אלא מהא יתר על כן יש לו שתי נשים ששמותיהן שוות כתב לגרש את הגדולה לא יגרש בו את הקטנה

- Perhaps it is different there, as it had been designated for that particular wife's divorce! - Rather, from the following: Even more: If he said to the writer, 'Write it and I will then divorce whichever I desire,' it is invalid for divorcing therewith!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 24b.');">²</span>

דילמא שאני התם דאינתיק ליה לשם גירושין דההיא

- Perhaps it is different there, because selection is not retrospective!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His subsequent intention has no retrospective validity in the sense that it is regarded as though he had intended it thus in the first place, and so it is still possible that he had first intended it for the other, and therefore it is invalid.');">³</span>

אלא מהא יתר על כן אמר ללבלר כתוב ולאיזה שארצה אגרש פסול לגרש בו

- Rather, from this: He who writes formulas of Gittin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Plural of Get. He writes them to have them ready whenever the occasion arises.');">⁴</span>

דילמא שאני התם דאין ברירה

must leave blanks for the name of the husband, and the name of the wife, the names of the witnesses, and the date.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then he can fill them in as required. But he cannot fill them in in the first place, though writing them for the express purpose of divorce, and then find persons with the same name (Git. 26a) . This proves that they must be written expressly for persons who are to use them.');">⁵</span>

אלא מהא הכותב טופסי גיטין צריך שיניח מקום האיש ומקום האשה ומקום העדים ומקום הזמן ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אף צריך שיניח מקום הרי את מותרת לכל אדם:

Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: He must also leave a blank for [the passage], 'Behold, thou art permitted unto all men'.

תו רמי מילתא אחריתי מי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב חטאת ששחטה לשם עולה פסולה שחטה לשם חולין כשירה אלמא דמינה מחריב בה דלאו מינה לא מחריב בה

He [Raba] pointed out a further contradiction.

ורמינהי כל הגט שנכתב שלא לשם אשה פסול ואפי' לשם גויה נמי פסול

Did then Rab Judah say in Rab's name: if one slaughtered a sin-offering under the designation of a burnt-offering, it is invalid; [if one slaughtered it] under the designation of hullin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos - i.e., not as a sacrifice at all.');">⁶</span>

ושני גט דל גויה מיניה הוה ליה סתמא וסתמא פסול קדשים דל חולין מינייהו הוה ליה סתמא וסתמא כשירים

it is valid?

ורמא מילתא אחריתי מי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב חטאת ששחטה לשם עולה פסולה שחטה לשם חולין כשירה אלמא דמינה מחריב בה דלא מינה לא מחריב בה

This proves that its own kind destroys it, while a different kind does not destroy it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering and a burnt-offering are of the same kind - both are sacred, and by substituting the name of the latter for that of the former, he destroys its validity. But hullin, being non-sacred, is of a different kind, as it were, and does not harm it.');">⁷</span>

והתניא (ויקרא יא, לג) תוכו ולא תוך תוכו ואפי' כלי שטף מציל

But the following contradicts it: 'Every Get written not in the name of the woman [for whom, it is intended] is invalid',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 24a.');">⁸</span>

ושני עשו חולין אצל קדשים כמחיצה אצל תנור מה מחיצה אצל תנור לא מהניא לה כלל אף חולין אצל קדשים לא מהניא ליה כלל

and [in point of fact] even [if written] in the name of a Gentile woman it is still invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now a Gentile woman belongs to a different category, in that the law of Get does not apply to her at all, and yet she destroys the validity of the Get.');">⁹</span>

דתנן תנור שחצצו בנסרים או ביריעות ונמצא שרץ במקום אחד הכל טמא

And he answered: In the case of a Get, disregard the Gentile woman altogether,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regard the Get as though it had not been written for her.');">¹⁰</span>

כוורת שהיא פחותה ופקוקה בקש ומשולשלת לאויר התנור שרץ בתוכה התנור טמא שרץ בתנור אוכלין שבתוכה טמאין ורבי אליעזר מטהר

[and] it is then [written] without defined purpose, which is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it must be written expressly for a particular woman.');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבי אליעזר קל וחומר אם הציל במת החמור לא תציל בכלי חרס הקל

But as for sacrifices, disregard the hullin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that it was slaughtered as hullin.');">¹²</span>

אמרו לו לא

[and] it is [a sacrifice slaughtered] without defined purpose, which is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 2b.');">¹³</span> He pointed out another contradiction. Did then Rab Judah say in Rab's name: If one slaughtered a sin-offering under the designation of a burnt-offering, it is invalid; [if he slaughtered it] under the designation of hullin,it is valid? This proves that its own kind destroys it, while a different kind does not destroy it. But it was taught : [And every earthen vessel into] whose inside [any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean, and it ye shall break]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 33.');">¹⁴</span> but not the inside of the inside, and even a non-earthen vessel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a vessel of rinsing.' This is the technical designation of all non-earthen vessels, because they can be purified from ritual uncleanness in a ritual bath (mikweh) .');">¹⁵</span> saves it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a reptile (sherez) falls inside an earthen utensil containing eatables, even without touching them, they become unclean. On this the comment is made: only if it falls, inside, but not into the inside of the inside. Thus: if a utensil containing eatables is lying in an earthen oven');">¹⁶</span> And he answered it: They [the Rabbis] treated hullin in respect to consecrated animals as a partition in respect to an oven. Just as a partition in respect to an oven has no effect at all, so hullin in respect to consecrated animals has no effect at all. For we learned: If an oven is partitioned with boards or curtains, and a reptile is found in one compartment, the whole is unclean. If a defective receptacle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'a beehive (shaped receptacle) '.');">¹⁷</span> which is stuffed with straw, is lowered into the air-space of an oven, and a reptile is in it, the oven becomes unclean; if a reptile is in the oven the foodstuffs in it [the receptacle] become unclean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the receptacle, not being of the same kind as the oven, does not destroy the status of the food as being in the air-space of the oven. If the receptacle were whole it would protect the eatables, as above. Since it is not whole, however, it lacks the status of a utensil, and this is so even if it is stuffed with straw as a repair.');">¹⁸</span> while R'Eliezer declares it clean. Said R'Eliezer: It follows a fortiori: If it protects in the case of a corpse, which is stringent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If this partition were in a room containing a corpse, it would suffice to protect the foodstuffs from defilement, though the contaminating powers of a corpse are far greater than those of a reptile in an oven.');">¹⁹</span> shall it not protect it in the case of an earthen vessel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of the oven.');">²⁰</span> which is less stringent? Not so, they replied: