Zevachim 6

אם הציל במת חמור שכן חלוקה באוהלין תציל בכלי חרש הקל שאין חלוקין באוהלין

if it protects in the case of a corpse, which is stringent, that is because it is divided into tents;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A single partition across a room is sufficient to divide it into two rooms, and if a corpse is in one, eatables or utensils in the other are not contaminated. Hence it is right that even a defective receptacle should have the same effect.');">¹</span>

התינח לרבנן לרבי אליעזר מאי איכא למימר

shall it therefore protect in the case of earthen vessels which are less stringent but which are not divided into tents?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a partition placed in an earthen vessel (sc. an oven) does not divide it into separate compartments (here designated 'tents') , as stated supra 3a: therefore a defective receptacle cannot do so either; so Tosaf. Rashi explains more simply: if it protects . . into tents - i.e., it is quite usual to partition off a room into two, therefore a partition converts it into two separate tents. But it is not usual to partition an oven: hence the partition cannot affect its status. On this interpretation it appears that R. Eliezer holds that a partition does affect it, protecting the foodstuffs from contamination. In that case they differ not only in respect to a defective receptacle, but also in respect to the partitioning of an oven by a board or curtain.');">²</span>

ר' אליעזר קל וחומר קאמר

Now this is well according to the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The view that the defective receptacle (or, a partition) does not protect agrees with Rab's statement that what is not of its own kind does not 'destroy' it.');">³</span>

אי הכי התם נמי לימא קל וחומר קדשים מחללין קדשים חולין לא כל שכן

But what can be said on R'Eliezer's view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to him a different kind too apparently 'destroys' it: is then Rab's ruling a matter of dispute between the Rabbis and R. Eliezer?');">⁴</span>

אלא טעמא דרב כרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר מאי טעמא דרב (ויקרא כב, טו) ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל את אשר ירימו לה' קדשים מחללין קדשים ואין חולין מחללין קדשים

- R'Eliezer argues a fortiori.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Generally he agrees with Rab, but in this particular case he rules differently, because of his argument.');">⁵</span>

אלמא אתא קרא אפקיה מקל וחומר הכא נמי ליתי תוכו לפקיה מק"ו

If so, here too we can argue a fortiori: if sacred animals profane sacred animals, how much more does hullin!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When one kills a sin-offering as a burnt-offering, he is still killing it as something sacred, and yet you say it is unfit. How much more should it be unfit when he kills it as hullin, which is not sacred at all!');">⁶</span>

האי תוכו מיבעי ליה לאוכלין שגיבלן בטיט והכניסן לאויר תנור סד"א הואיל ובנגיעה לא מטמא באוירו נמי לא מטמו [קמ"ל]

- Rather, Rab's reason is in accordance with R'Eleazar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not because a different kind does not 'destroy' it, but because a Scriptural text teaches this law. Sh. M. emends: R. Elai.');">⁷</span>

ורבנן הנך לא צריכי קרא:

For R'Eleazar said: What is Rab's reason?

רב יוסף בר אמי רמי שינוי קודש אשינוי בעלים ומשני

And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they set apart unto the Lord:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 15.');">⁸</span>

מי אמר רב חטאת ששחטה לשם חטאת כשירה לשם עולה פסולה אלמא דלאו מינה מחריב בה דמינה לא מחריב בה

holy things profane holy things, but hullin does not profane holy things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf. suggests that 'the holy things' is superfluous, being understood from the context, and is therefore employed for this deduction.');">⁹</span>

והאמר רב חטאת ששחטה על מי שמחוייב חטאת פסולה על מי שמחויב עולה כשרה אלמא דבר מינה מחריב בה דלאו מינה לא מחריב בה

This proves that a Scriptural text comes and nullifies the argument a fortiori; then here too, let the text 'its inside' come and nullify the argument a fortiori?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this text, 'its inside,' it is deduced supra a, but not 'the inside of the inside', which is explained as meaning the inside of a second vessel within the first. Now from this it is deduced afortiori that a partition does not destroy the unity of an oven (v. supra a) , for if it did, a text would surely not be necessary for teaching that another vessel within the first protects its contents.');">¹⁰</span>

ומשני התם (ויקרא ד, לג) ושחט אותה לחטאת אמר רחמנא והרי חטאת לשם חטאת נשחטה

- This text, 'its inside', is required in respect of foodstuffs pasted round with clay and placed within the air-space of an oven.

הכא וכפר עליו כתיב עליו ולא על חבירו חבירו דומיא דידיה שמחוייב כפרה כמותה

You might think, since they cannot be defiled by contact,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a 'creeping thing' cannot touch them.');">¹¹</span>

רב חביבא רמי שינוי בעלים אתוך תוכו ומשני

they cannot be defiled through its air-space either.

ומי אמר רב חטאת ששחטה על מי שמחוייב [חטאת פסולה על מי שמחוייב] עולה כשירה אלמא דמינה מחריב בה לאו מינה לא מחריב בה

Hence [the deduction] informs us that It is not so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The food is defiled. This is learnt from the deduction, its 'inside', but not 'the inside of its 'inside', whence it follows that a partition does not protect; and it is in respect of a partition of this nature, viz., clay pasted round food, that this conclusion is drawn.');">¹²</span>

והתניא תוכו ולא תוך תוכו אפילו כלי שטף מציל

And the Rabbis? - [They argue,] No text is necessary in respect of these [foodstuffs].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they are obviously 'inside' of the oven.');">¹³</span>

ומשני ארבעה תוכו כתיבי (תוכו) תוך תוכו תוך תוכו

R'Joseph B'Ammi pointed out a contradiction between change [of intention] in respect of sanctity and change [of intention] in respect of owners,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. between wrongful intention in respect of the sacrifice and that in respect of the owner thereof; e.g., he offered the sacrifice under the name of one who was not its owner.');">¹⁴</span>

חד לגופיה וחד לגזירה שוה

and answered it.

חד תוכו של זה ולא תוכו של אחר אידך תוכו ולא תוך תוכו ואפילו כלי שטף מציל:

Did then Rab say: If one slaughters a sin-offering [for one offence] as a sin-offering [for another offence],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its owner had incurred the liability on account of a particular offence, whereas in slaughtering it he (or the priest) intended it as a sin-offering for some other offence.');">¹⁵</span> it is fit; as a burnt-offering, it is un This then proves that another kind destroys it, whereas its own kind does not destroy it. Yet surely Rab said: If a sin-offering is slaughtered on behalf of one who is liable to a sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But who is not the owner of this particular sacrifice.');">¹⁶</span> it is unfit; on behalf of one who is liable to a burnt-offering, it is fit. This proves that a person of the same category as the offender destroys it, whereas one of a different category does not destroy it? And he answered: In the former case, the Divine Law states, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 33.');">¹⁷</span> and lo, a sin-offering has been slaughtered as a sin-offering. But in the latter case it is written, and the priest shall make atonement for him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 26, 31, 35.');">¹⁸</span> [which intimates,] 'for him', but not for his fellow, and 'his fellow' implies one like himself, who stands in need of atonement just as he does.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise he cannot be called 'his fellow' in this respect. Hence the exclusion of his fellow applies only to such a case.');">¹⁹</span> R'Habibi shewed a contradiction between the law of change [of intention] in respect of owners and that of the inside of the inside, and then answered it. Did then Rab say: If a sin-offering is slaughtered on behalf of one who is liable to a sin-offering, it is unfit; on behalf of one who is liable to a burnt-offering, it is fit? then proves that its own kind destroys it, whereas a different kind does not destroy it. Yet surely it was taught: 'Its inside', but not the inside of it inside, and even a non-earthen vessel protects it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra a p. 7. n. 1.');">²⁰</span> And he answered: 'Its inside' is written four times, 'the inside [tok]','its inside [toko]; 'the inside' [tok], 'its in [toko]';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XI, 33, where toko (lit, 'its inside') is repeated twice, though in each case tok ('inside') would suffice. Each tok (which could have been written) is interpreted; further, each addition, 'toko', is likewise interpreted, which gives four in all.');">²¹</span> one is required for its essential law;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that any food or drink within it is defiled through the reptile (sherez) entering its air-space.');">²²</span> another for a gezerah shawah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Teaching that the dead reptile defiles the utensil too, through entering its air-space, even without touching it; v. Hul. 24b.');">²³</span> a third [intimates] the inside of this, but not the inside of another;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only an earthen vessel thus becomes unclean through its air-space without actual contact, but not a non-earthen vessel.');">²⁴</span> and finally [to teach]: Its inside, but not the inside of its inside, a even a non-earthen vessel protects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence this is a specially decreed law and stands by itself; therefore its principle cannot be applied to sacrifices.');">²⁵</span>