א' אייר תשע“ח Monday, Apr 16 2018

ג‘ זבחים OVERVIEW of the Daf Distinctive INSIGHT חולין written without specific intent Slaughtering a with the intent for גט A (1 חטאת ששחטה לשם חולין כשרה written without specific גט Another source that a intent is invalid is suggested. written without specific T he (2a) taught that a chattas or Pesach גט Additional sources that a intent is invalid are suggested and rejected until the Ge- which is slaughtered with intent for a different offering mara accepts a source for this halacha. is not valid. However, in regard to chattas, Rav teaches that if the chattas was slaughtered for common use ( the chattas does not become invalid. As the ,( חולין Intent for another category (2 Ravina points out a contradiction whether some- summarizes, “intent for an incorrect offering thing done not for its own sake is acceptable. ruins it, but intent other than for offerings does not ru- Rava resolves the contradiction between the hala- in it.” chos that apply to a get and the halachos that apply to The Gemara does not discuss the status of a Pesach Rambam . חולין offerings. which is slaughtered with intent for Ravina points out another contradiction and Rava’s (Hilchos Psulei HaMukdashim 15:11) rules that a Pe- resolution. sach is invalid if it is not slaughtered with the proper The source regarding partitions mentioned by Rava intent, whether the intent was for a different offering, is presented. or even if it was slaughtered for common use. He cites Whether this approach fits into the approach of R’ the verse (Shemos 12:27), “You shall say, ‘It is a Pesach Eliezer as well as Rabanan as analyzed. feast-offering to Hashem,’ ” where we see that the Pe- An alternative explanation for R’ Eliezer’s position is sach must be brought with the proper intent. presented. The source for Rambam’s view is the Yerushalmi This explanation is unsuccessfully challenged. (Pesachim 5:2). Likutei Halachos notes that this insight The response of Rabanan to this position is present- also appears in the Bavli (Zevachim 7b), but there the ed. lesson is only that the Pesach offering must not be R’ Yosef bar Ami notes another contradiction re- brought with the intent for any other offering. Where, garding intent and resolves it. however, does Rambam see the additional demand that Kesef ? חולין R’ Chaviva also points out a contradiction and re- it becomes invalid if it is slaughtered for solves it. Mishnah explains that the emphasis of the verse that it be “to Hashem” teaches this additional level of intent. also notes that our Gemara may be a source for “צל ח the ruling of Rambam, as our Gemara only discusses REVIEW and Remember that a chattas can be valid if it is brought with intent for but our Gemara does not mention Pesachim at , חולין must be written all. This may suggest that the Pesachim does not share גט What is the source that a .1 .this dispensation ? לשמה ______Sefer Chok Nosson explains that Rava based his ,statement upon a logical argument. As he stated דמינה מחריב בה דלא מינה לא Explain the principle .2 -intent ruins only when it is intent of a different offer“ . מחריב בה ______ing.” This argument would apply to Pesachim as well as should be חולין to chattas, and a Pesachim brought for ? אתא קרא אפקיה מקל וחומר What is the principle .3 ______valid. Yet, the verse in reference to Pesachim teaches us 4. What was the contradiction noted by R’ Chaviva? that it must be done “to Hashem.” In addition, the con- ______clusion of our Gemara is that Rava’s lesson is not based (Continued on page 2) זבחים ג ‘ —Number 2084

(Insight...continued from page 1) HALACHAH Highlight upon the argument he first presents, but it is based up- it shall not be - ולא יחללו “ :(on the verse (Vayikra 22:15 Wearing tefillin on one’s sleeve profaned,” which teaches that only misdirected intent for other offerings can ruin a chattas, but intent for דלאו מינה לא מחריב בה does not ruin it. A Pesachim is not included in חולין That which is not of its own kind does not interfere this dispensation. R av states that if a Chatas was slaughtered for someone who is obligated to bring a Korban Chatas (but Beis HaMikdash since they are obligated to wear the not the owner of this animal) the korban is invalid. If it priestly garments directly on their skin. If the garment was slaughtered for someone who is obligated to bring a must be worn on their skin the only place for the tefillin Korban Olah the korban remains valid. The principle is on the sleeve, and the Gemara understands that the that underlies this halacha is: something of its kind inter- mitzvah is not fulfilled if one’s tefillin are on his sleeve whereas something not of its rather than his arm. Rashba answers that since there is a ,( דבר מינה מחריב בה) feres mitzvah for kohanim to wear the priestly garments when .( דלאו מינה לא מחריב בה ) own kind does not interfere This principle is not limited to issues related to korbanos, performing the service of the Beis Hamikdash the tefillin it finds expression in other areas of halacha as well. and garment are both mitzvah objects and thus the same – דבר מינה מחריב בה Rashba 1 writes that the principle that “something not “kind.” As such, the principle of its own kind does not interfere” permits a person to something of its kind interferes applies. On the other put tefillin on his sleeve and it is not necessary for it to be hand, there is no mitzvah for a person to wear a sleeve. placed directly on the skin of his arm. Since the material Therefore, one’s sleeve and one’s tefillin are different – דלא מינה לא מחריב בה of the sleeve is not the same “kind” as the tefillin it does “kinds” and thus the principle of not constitute an interposition between one’s arm and something not of its own kind applies and the presence his tefillin. A difficulty with this approach is the Gemara of the sleeve is not an interposition between one’s tefillin in Arachin (3b) which teaches that kohanim cannot wear and his arm. .1 שו"ת הרשב"א ח"ג סי' רפ"ב. tefillin on their arm while they perform the service of the due to this kind of fighting that the fighting among the righteous this STORIES Off the Daf worst destruction is wrought.” 1 causes a terrible chilul Hashem, and The Pardes Yosef, zt”l, learns this is mechalel hekdesh, it defiles that The Worst Conflict same concept from a statement on which is holy.” 2 today’s daf. “When ignorant or irreli- He explained, “We find in the "חטאת ששחטה לשם חולין כשרה..." gious Jews humiliate the righteous, midrash that the is shamed in R av Shalom Shachneh of Belz, this does not have that much influ- the eyes of the ignorant when Torah zt”l, could not stand machlokes, espe- ence since any sensible person under- scholars shame one another. 3 This is cially when the conflict was between stands that they are unable to judge because when the leaders of Israel Jews. He once explained, “There are honestly. We can learn this from a respect one another this causes more three types of exile. The first is when statement on Zevachim 3. There we people to want to sit and learn. But we are under exile due to the enmity find that a sacrifice slaughtered when scholars shame one another, of the non-Jews. The second and l’shem chulin does not defile the they are also despicable in the eyes of worse type of exile is when we are ex- kodshim. Obviously chulin has no the ignorant, and the Torah is left iled due to Jewish sinners. Far worse hold on kodshim. lying in the corner abandoned by is when there is fighting between To- “But when tzaddikim shame one all.” 4 .1 דבש השדה, אות ל"ד -rah observant Jews and the worst is another, this makes a terrible impres .2 פרדס יוסף, פרשת אמור when the parties to the conflict are sion and damages both parties to the .3 מדרש רבה רות, א:ב also tzaddikim in other respects. It is altercation. When simple folk see .4 פרדס יוסף, פרשת יתרו

Daf Digest is published by the Chicago Center for Torah and Chesed, under the leadership of HaRav Yehoshua Eichenstein, shlit”a HaRav Pinchas Eichenstein, Nasi; HoRav Zalmen L. Eichenstein, Rov ;Rabbi Tzvi Bider, Executive Director, edited by Rabbi Ben-Zion Rand. Daf Yomi Digest has been made possible through the generosity of Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Ruben.