- A חטאת shechted לשם חולין is valid (דלאו מינה לא מחריב בה)
Rav taught that although if one shechted a חטאת for the sake of an עולה, it is disqualified, if he shechted it לשם חולין – for the sake of chullin, it is valid. This proves: דמינה מחריב בה – intent for something else of its own type (kodashim) damages it, דלאו מינה לא מחריב בה – but intent for something not of its own type (i.e., non-kodashim) does not damage it, because the chullin intent cannot take effect on a korban. Rava asked that this contradicts the laws of divorce, because a Mishnah implies that a get written for any other woman is invalid, including one written for an עבודת כוכבים (who is not eligible for גיטין)!? Rava answered that regarding gittin, דל עובדת כוכבים מיניה – remove the intent for the idolatress from it (since it is ineffective), הוה ליה סתמא – and it is still unspecified, which is invalid for a get. But regarding korbanos, דל חולין מינייהו הוה ליה סתמא – remove the intent for chullin from them, it is then unspecified, which is valid for korbanos.
- תוכו ולא תוך תוכו, a מחיצה in a תנור
Rava posed another contradiction to Rav’s ruling from a Baraisa’s derashah: תוכו – when a שרץ falls into a כלי חרס, everything in [the כלי’s] interior becomes tamei, ולא תוך תוכו – but not something in an interior within its interior (i.e., food inside another כלי inside the כלי חרס) which remains tahor. This applies even if the inside utensil is a כלי שטף – an immersible utensil (i.e., non-earthenware, which can be purified in a mikveh). This proves that even a different “type” can be an independent interior to protect from tumah!? The Gemara answers that chullin relative to kodashim is not like a different type of כלי, but like a מחיצה – partition, which is not effective to protect one side of an oven from tumah in the other. However, the Gemara asks that although this is the Chochomim’s opinion, Rebbe Eliezer disagrees and holds that since a מחיצה can protect against tumah of a מת (through an אהל), certainly it can protect against tumah of a שרץ in a כלי חרס!? The Gemara therefore explains Rav’s ruling based on a derashah: ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל – and they shall not profane the holy things of Yisroel, teaching: קדשים מחללין קדשים – intentions for kodashim invalidate kodashim, but chullin intentions do not.
- A חטאת shechted for someone obligated in an עולה is valid
Rav Yosef bar Ami posed a different contradiction: Rav had said that a חטאת shechted for the sake of another type of חטאת is valid, but one shechted for an עולה is פסול. This indicates that דלאו מינה מחריב בה – intent for a different type does damage it, דמינה לא מחריב בה – but intent for something else of its same type does not damage it (compared to intent for a חטאת, intent for an עולה is “not its type”). But this contradicts Rav’s ruling that a חטאת which was shechted על מי שמחוייב חטאת – for the sake of someone liable to a chatas is invalid, but a חטאת shechted על מי שמחוייב עולה – for the sake of someone liable to an olah remains valid, proving that intent for a “different type” (someone liable to a different korban) does not harm it!? The Gemara answers that regarding shechting for a different person, the passuk says: וכפר עליו – [the Kohen] shall effect atonement for him, which teaches עליו ולא על חבירו –it must be sacrificed for him, and not for his friend. This implies that intent only disqualifies when חבירו דומיא דידיה – “his friend” is similar to him, meaning שמחוייב כפרה כמותו – that [his friend] is liable to the same type of atonement as he.