Zevachim 3b

זבחים ג׳ ע״ב

Learn Zevachim 3b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Zevachim 3b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Does a קל וחומר override the rule that something does not affect what is not its own kind? The גמרא tests this using the argument between רבי אליעזר and the רבנן about a divided oven, and applies it to a חטאת slaughtered for the sake of חולין.

Overview

This amud finishes the argument between רבי אליעזר and the רבנן about an earthenware oven divided by boards. The רבנן reject רבי אליעזר's קל וחומר from טומאת מת. The גמרא explains that רבי אליעזר also accepts the rule that something does not affect what is not its kind, but his קל וחומר overrides it. That raises a challenge: a קל וחומר should then make a חטאת slaughtered for חולין פסול. The answer is that רב's ruling comes from a פסוק, ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ״, and a פסוק beats a קל וחומר. The גמרא then asks why the word ״תּוֹכוֹ״ does not block רבי אליעזר's קל וחומר, and answers that he needs it for food sealed in clay. Next, רב יוסף בר אמי points out that two rulings of רב, one about changing the offering and one about changing the owner, seem to clash. He resolves them with two different פסוקים. Finally, רב חביבא sets רב's owner ruling against the ברייתא of ״תוך תוכו״. He answers that the four mentions of ״תוך״ in the פסוק each teach their own law, so the כלי שטף rule applies only to clay vessels.

Opening lines

The steps (18)

1. RejectionThe רבנן reject רבי אליעזר's comparison to a מת
2. ChallengeThis fits the רבנן, but what about רבי אליעזר?
3. Resolutionרבי אליעזר relies on his קל וחומר
4. ChallengeThen use a קל וחומר for a חטאת slaughtered for חולין too
5. Resolutionרב's ruling comes from a verse, not from the principle
6. ChallengeThen let the word ״תּוֹכוֹ״ block רבי אליעזר's קל וחומר
7. Resolution'Its interior' is needed for food sealed in clay
8. ResolutionThe רבנן don't need a פסוק for the clay case
9. Statementרב יוסף בר אמי sets up a contradiction
10. Statementרב's first ruling: changing the offering
11. Challengeרב's second ruling: changing the owner points the other way
12. ResolutionResolving the offering case from the פסוק
13. ResolutionWhy a חטאת slaughtered for a person who owes a חטאת is ruined
14. Statementרב חביבא announces a new contradiction
15. StatementRestating רב: only the same kind of intent ruins a חטאת
16. ChallengeThe ברייתא shows that a different kind does have an effect
17. ResolutionThe word 'interior' is counted four times in the פסוק
18. ResolutionThe last two mentions teach the limits, including that a כלי שטף protects