Zevachim 113
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
What actions are performed on public bamot but not on private bamot?
What is considered “outside its gat,” as mentioned in connection with the slaughtering and burning of the para aduma (red heifer)? There is a dispute between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan, which is rooted in an earlier disagreement about whether the Flood reached the Land of Israel. Each of them raises three challenges to the other’s position.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her father, Hachazan Yoel Ben Meir on his yahrzeit last Shabbat. “He was a lone shoah survivor in Canada, believing hakol letova. and dedicated himself to Torah and gmilut chasadim. He gave advice spiced with midrashim and challenged my thirst for learning. He would be proud of the generation of lamdanim in the family. Yehi Zichru Baruch.”
Zevachim 113
וּמַתַּן סָבִיב, וּתְנוּפָה, וְהַגָּשָׁה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה, וְכִיהוּן, וּבִגְדֵי שָׁרֵת, וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת, וְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, וּמְחִיצָה לְדָמִים, וְרִיחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם.
no placement of blood around all sides of the altar in offerings for which this is required, no waving of meal offerings, and no bringing of meal offerings to the corner of the altar prior to removal of the handful. Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no meal offering sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple. And requiring a member of the priesthood to perform the sacrificial rites, the priestly service vestments, the service vessels, the pleasing aroma to God, the partition for the blood, i.e., the red line dividing the upper and lower halves of the altar, and the priest’s washing of hands and feet before his service all do not apply to sacrifice on private altars, as the service there need not be performed by priests nor follow all the protocols of the Temple service.
אֲבָל הַזְּמַן, הַנּוֹתָר וְהַטָּמֵא – שָׁוִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה.
But the intent to sacrifice or partake of the offering beyond its designated time, which renders the offering piggul; the halakha of portions of the offering left over [notar] beyond the time it may be eaten; and the prohibition against eating consecrated meat while ritually impure are equal in this, a private altar, and that, a public altar.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי חוּץ מִגִּתָּהּ? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: חוּץ מִמָּקוֹם הַבָּדוּק לָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּדוּקָה הִיא!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who burns the red heifer outside its pit is not liable for sacrificing outside the Temple courtyard. The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of: Outside its pit? Reish Lakish said: It means outside the place that was inspected to ensure that it is not a gravesite, which would render it impure. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: But is not all of Eretz Yisrael inspected for impurity? Therefore, there is no need for the site of the burning of the red heifer to be specially inspected.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לִפְנִים מִן חוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The term: Outside its pit, is referring to a case where the priest slaughtered the red heifer within the walls of Jerusalem and not in the place outside the walls, as the Torah prescribes: “And it shall be brought outside the camp, and it shall be slaughtered before him” (Numbers 19:3).
וְלוֹקְמַהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ חוּץ לַחוֹמָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח! דְּאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט… וְהִזָּה״ –
The Gemara challenges: But let Rabbi Yoḥanan interpret it to be a case where the priest slaughtered it outside the wall but not opposite, i.e., not in the direction of, the entrance to the Temple, as Rav Adda bar Ahava says: If he slaughtered it in a location not opposite the entrance, it is disqualified, as it is stated with regard to the red heifer: “And you shall give it to Elazar the priest, and it shall be brought outside the camp, and it shall be slaughtered before him. And Elazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and sprinkle of its blood toward the front of the Tent of Meeting seven times” (Numbers 19:3–4).
מָה הַזָּאָתָהּ כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח, אַף שְׁחִיטָתָהּ כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח. וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּלָא מַקֵּישׁ, וְהָא אִתְּמַר: שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: פְּסוּלָה – ״וְשָׁחַט… וְהִזָּה״. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה – ״אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְשָׁחַט״.
The slaughter of the red heifer and the sprinkling of its blood are juxtaposed so that one will draw the following conclusion: Just as its sprinkling must be performed opposite the entrance, so too, its slaughter must be performed opposite the entrance. And if you would say that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not juxtapose the two verses for the purpose of this comparison, that is difficult: But it was stated with regard to a red heifer slaughtered in a location not opposite the entrance that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is disqualified, as “and it shall be slaughtered” is juxtaposed with “and sprinkle.” Reish Lakish says: It is fit, since it is stated: “And it shall be brought outside the camp, and it shall be slaughtered,” indicating that it may be slaughtered in any location outside the camp.
וְאִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, שְׂרָפָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה, וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר פְּסוּלָה – ״וְשָׂרַף… וְהִזָּה״.
And it was also stated that amora’im disagree with regard to a red heifer that the priest burned not opposite the entrance to the Temple. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is disqualified, and Rabbi Oshaya says: It is fit. The Gemara explains their reasoning: Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is disqualified because of an additional juxtaposition. It is stated: “And the heifer shall be burned in his sight; its skin, and its flesh, and its blood, with its dung, shall be burned” (Numbers 19:5), while in the previous verse it is stated: “And sprinkle of its blood toward the front of the Tent of Meeting.” This teaches that just as the sprinkling of the blood must be done opposite the entrance, so too must the burning be done opposite the entrance.
וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר כְּשֵׁרָה – ״עַל פִּרְשָׁהּ יִשְׂרֹף״; מְקוֹם שֶׁפּוֹרֶשֶׁת לְמִיתָה, שָׁם תְּהֵא שְׂרֵיפָתָהּ.
And Rabbi Oshaya says that a red heifer that was burned in a location not opposite the entrance is fit, as the verse states: “With its dung [pirshah], shall be burned,” which is interpreted homiletically to mean: In the place that its soul departs [poreshet] for death, there shall be its burning. Just as no specific location is given for the soul’s departing, so too, the burning need not be performed in a specific location. Since Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the red heifer must be slaughtered opposite the entrance to the Temple, why does he not understand the term: Outside of its pit, to be referring to its slaughter in any location not opposite the Temple entrance?
אָמְרִי: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר; לָא מִיבַּעְיָא חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – דְּרַחוֹקֵי רַחֲקַהּ; אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה – דְּקָרוֹבֵי קָרְבַהּ, וְאֵימָא תִּתַּכְשַׁר – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Yoḥanan is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary for the mishna to teach that in slaughtering a red heifer outside the wall in a location not opposite the entrance, one does not transgress the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard. In that case it is clearly disqualified, as he has distanced it from where it is meant to be slaughtered. But even if one slaughtered it inside the wall of Jerusalem, so that he brings it closer to the Temple, and one might say that it is a valid way of slaughtering the red heifer, Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that nevertheless it is disqualified.
אָמַר מָר, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּדוּקָה הִיא. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמָר סָבַר: לֹא יָרַד.
§ The Gemara returns to the disagreement cited earlier: The Master says that Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: But is not all of Eretz Yisrael inspected for impurity? Since Reish Lakish’s response to this question is not mentioned, the Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the flood in the time of Noah descended upon Eretz Yisrael, and its residents perished. It is therefore necessary to inspect the place where the red heifer is burned to ascertain whether it is a gravesite. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael, and there is no reason to suspect there are lost graves there.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״בֶּן אָדָם אֱמׇר לָהּ אַתְּ אֶרֶץ לֹא מְטֹהָרָה הִיא לֹא גֻשְׁמָהּ בְּיוֹם זָעַם״.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And both of them, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, interpreted the same verse, stated by Ezekiel with regard to Eretz Yisrael, to derive their opinions. The verse states: “Son of man, say to her: You are a land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation” (Ezekiel 22:24).
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר, אַתְמוֹהֵי מַתְמַהּ קְרָא: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִי לָא מְטוֹהָרָה אַתְּ?! כְּלוּם יָרְדוּ עָלַיִךְ גְּשָׁמִים בְּיוֹם זָעַם?! וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ סָבַר: כִּפְשָׁטֵיהּ – אָרֶץ לֹא מְטוֹהָרָה אַתְּ; מִי לֹא יָרְדוּ עָלַיִךְ גְּשָׁמִים בְּיוֹם זָעַם?!
Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the verse is asking a rhetorical question: Eretz Yisrael, are you not cleansed from the impurity imparted by corpses? Did the rains of the flood fall upon you on the day of indignation? And Reish Lakish holds that this verse should be read in accordance with its straightforward meaning, i.e., as a statement, not a question: You are a land that is not cleansed. Didn’t rains fall upon you on the day of indignation? Therefore, the bodies of all of those who perished in the flood are somewhere in the ground.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲצֵירוֹת הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בְּנוּיוֹת עַל הַסֶּלַע, וְתַחְתֵּיהֶן חָלוּל מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם, וּמְבִיאִין נָשִׁים מְעוּבָּרוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת, וּמְגַדְּלוֹת שָׁם בְּנֵיהֶם לַפָּרָה.
Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna (Para 3:2): Courtyards were built in Jerusalem on stone, and beneath these courtyards there was a hollow space due to the concern that there was a lost grave in the depths. The space served as a barrier preventing the impurity from reaching the courtyards above. And they would bring pregnant women, and those women would give birth in those courtyards. And those women would raise their children there, thereby ensuring that the children never became impure. This would enable the children to assist in the rite of the red heifer.
וּמְבִיאִין שְׁוָורִים, וְעַל גַּבֵּיהֶן דְּלָתוֹת, וְתִינוֹקוֹת יוֹשְׁבִין עֲלֵיהֶן, וְכוֹסוֹת שֶׁל אֶבֶן בְּיָדָן, וּמִלְּאוּ וְיָשְׁבוּ בִּמְקוֹמָן.
And once the children reached the appropriate age, the priests would bring oxen there. And on the backs of these oxen, they would place doors, and the children would sit upon the doors, so that the doors would serve as a barrier between them and any impurity in the depths, and they would hold cups of stone, which are not susceptible to ritual impurity, in their hands, and they would ride upon the oxen to the Siloam pool. And they filled the cups with water and would sit back in their places upon the oxen and be taken to the Temple Mount. The water in the cups would be used for the rite of the red heifer. Apparently, there is concern that hidden sources of impurity exist in Eretz Yisrael.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מַעֲלָה עָשׂוּ בַּפָּרָה.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that Rabbi Yoḥanan would reply: The Sages established a higher standard for purity in the case of the red heifer, but generally speaking there is no concern for hidden sources of impurity in Eretz Yisrael caused by those who perished in the flood.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: פַּעַם אֶחָד מָצְאוּ עֲצָמוֹת בְּלִשְׁכַּת דִּיר הָעֵצִים, וּבִקְּשׁוּ לִגְזוֹר טוּמְאָה עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. עָמַד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עַל רַגְלָיו וְאָמַר: לֹא בּוּשָׁה וּכְלִימָּה הִיא לָנוּ, שֶׁנִּגְזוֹר טוּמְאָה עַל עִיר אֲבוֹתֵינוּ?! אַיֵּה מֵתֵי מַבּוּל? אַיֵּה מֵתֵי נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר?
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita (see Tosefta, Eduyyot 3:3): Once, human bones were found in the Chamber of the Woodshed, and the Sages sought to decree impurity upon Jerusalem, i.e., to proclaim all who go there to be impure, as if a corpse can be found in a chamber of the Temple there is reason to be concerned that there are lost graves in other places as well. Rabbi Yehoshua stood upon his feet and said: Is it not a shame and disgrace for us to decree impurity upon the city of our fathers because of this concern? Show me: Where are the dead of the flood, and where are all of the dead killed by Nebuchadnezzar?
מִדְּקָאָמַר הָכִי, לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּלָא הֲווֹ? וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, הֲרוּגֵי נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא הֲווֹ?! אֶלָּא הֲווֹ, וּפַנִּינְהוּ; הָכָא נָמֵי – הֲווֹ וּפַנִּינְהוּ. וְאִי אִפַּנּוֹ,
Rabbi Yoḥanan infers: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said this, is this not to say that there were no lost graves in Jerusalem from the flood, because the flood did not take place there? Reish Lakish responds: And according to your reasoning, so too were there not those killed by Nebuchadnezzar, in and around Jerusalem, who were mentioned by Rabbi Yehoshua? Certainly there were, as Nebuchadnezzar killed many people in Jerusalem. Rather, there were, and others removed the bodies. Here too, with regard to the dead of the flood, there were, and others removed the bodies. And it is possible to ask: If they were removed, why is it necessary to be concerned that there may be impurity in the place of the red heifer,
הָא אִיפְּנוֹ! נְהִי דְּאִיפַּנּוֹ מִירוּשָׁלַיִם, מִכּוּלַּהּ אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא אִיפַּנּוֹ.
as they were already removed. One can respond: This baraita deals exclusively with Jerusalem. Granted that the bones of those who perished in the flood and at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar were removed from Jerusalem, but they were not removed from all of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, outside Jerusalem, the red heifer may be slaughtered only in a place that has been inspected.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַיֵּה מֵתֵי מַבּוּל? אַיֵּה מֵתֵי נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר? מַאי, לָאו מִדְּהָנֵי הֲווֹ – הָנֵי נָמֵי הֲווֹ? מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתֵיהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתֵיהּ.
There are those who say the discussion should be inverted, and Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the flood did not affect Eretz Yisrael, from that baraita, as Rabbi Yehoshua said: Where are the dead of the flood, and where are all of the dead killed by Nebuchadnezzar? Reish Lakish said: What, is it not possible to infer from this question that since those slaughtered by Nebuchadnezzar were in Eretz Yisrael, those who perished in the flood were also there? Rabbi Yoḥanan responds: Are the cases comparable? This is as it is and that is as it is, i.e., the dead of Nebuchadnezzar were indeed in Eretz Yisrael, but the dead of the flood were not, as there was no flood there.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה מֵתוּ״ – בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, דְּאָמֵינָא יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מֵתוּ. אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, אַמַּאי מֵתוּ? מִשּׁוּם הַבְלָא.
Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to the flood, it is stated: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, whatsoever was on the dry land, died” (Genesis 7:22). Granted, according to my opinion, that I say the flood descended upon Eretz Yisrael, due to that reason all living creatures on Earth died, even those in Eretz Yisrael. But according to your opinion that the flood did not descend on Eretz Yisrael, why did they die there? Rabbi Yoḥanan responds: They died due to the heat that accompanied the floodwaters, and that spread to Eretz Yisrael as well. Those corpses were then buried in known locations.
כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּרוֹתְחִין קִלְקְלוּ, וּבְרוֹתְחִין נִידּוֹנוּ; דִּכְתִיב הָכָא: ״וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ הַמָּיִם״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וַחֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ שָׁכָכָה״.
The Gemara notes that this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: The generation of the flood sinned with boiling heat, i.e., forbidden sexual intercourse, and they were punished with the boiling heat of the flood waters. As it is written here, with regard to the flood: “And God remembered Noah and every living creature and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God made a wind to pass over the earth and the waters calmed [vayashoku hamayim]” (Genesis 8:1); and it is written there, with regard to the execution of Haman: “So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the king’s boiling anger was assuaged [shakhakha]” (Esther 7:10). This latter verse indicates that a matter is assuaged from heat; similarly, the flood waters were hot.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה מֵתוּ״ – בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, דְּאָמֵינָא לֹא יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי הֲוַי חָרָבָה. אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, מַאי חָרָבָה? חָרָבָה שֶׁהָיְתָה מֵעִיקָּרָא.
There are those who say that this discussion should be inverted, and in fact Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from that verse: It is stated that “whatsoever was on the dry land, died” (Genesis 7:22). Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that the flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael, due to that reason, there was an area of dry land even during the flood, and all living creatures there died from the heat. But according to your opinion that the flood did descend upon Eretz Yisrael, what is the meaning of “dry land”? There was no dry land anywhere. Reish Lakish responds: The verse is referring to land that had been dry initially, before the flood.
וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ חָרָבָה? כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּדוֹר הַמַּבּוּל לֹא נִגְזְרָה גְּזֵרָה עַל דָּגִים שֶׁבַּיָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה מֵתוּ״ – וְלֹא דָּגִים שֶׁבַּיָּם.
And why does the Torah call it “dry land” during the flood? There was no dry land during the flood. It is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: During the generation of the flood no decree was decreed upon the fish in the sea, as it is stated: “Whatsoever was on the dry land, died” (Genesis 7:22), i.e., only those creatures that had been on dry land, but not the fish in the sea.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – הַיְינוּ דְּקָם רֵימָא הָתָם. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יָרַד, רֵימָא הֵיכָא קָם? אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: גּוּרִיּוֹת הִכְנִיסוּ בַּתֵּיבָה.
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says the flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, this is the explanation of the fact that the reima remained there, in Eretz Yisrael, and survived the flood. But according to the one who says the flood descended upon Eretz Yisrael, i.e., Reish Lakish, how did the reima remain? Given its large size, it clearly could not have fit into Noah’s ark. Rabbi Yannai says: They brought reima cubs into the ark, and they survived the flood.
וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: לְדִידִי חֲזֵי לִי אוּרְזִילָא דְּרֵימָא (בַּת) [בַּר] יוֹמֵאּ, וְהָוֵי כְּהַר תָּבוֹר. וְהַר תָּבוֹר כַּמָּה הָוֵיא – אַרְבְּעִין פַּרְסֵי; מְשָׁכָא דְּצַוְּארֵיהּ – תְּלָתָא פַּרְסֵי, מַרְבַּעְתָּא דְּרֵישָׁא – פַּרְסָא וּפַלְגָא, רְמָא כַּבָּא וּסְכַר יַרְדְּנָא.
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say: I have seen a day-old offspring of the reima, and it was as large as Mount Tabor. And how large is Mount Tabor? It is forty parasangs. And the length of the cub’s neck was three parasangs, and the place where its head rests, i.e., its neck, was a parasang and a half. It cast feces, and thereby dammed up the Jordan river. Even the cub would have been too large for the ark.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רֹאשׁוֹ הִכְנִיסוּ לַתֵּיבָה. וְהָאָמַר מָר: מַרְבַּעְתָּא דְּרֵישָׁא פַּרְסָא וּפַלְגָא! אֶלָּא רֹאשׁ חוֹטְמוֹ הִכְנִיסוּ לַתֵּיבָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They brought only the head of the cub into the ark, while its body remained outside. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the Master, i.e., Rabba bar bar Ḥana, say that the size of the place where its head rests was a parasang and a half? Consequently, even its head alone would not fit into the ark. Rather, they brought the head, i.e., edge, of its nose into the ark, so that it might breathe.
וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל! לְדִבְרֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ קָאָמַר.
The Gemara wonders why Rabbi Yoḥanan was compelled to give this answer: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say that the flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael? According to his opinion, perhaps the reima survived by remaining there during the flood. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan said his answer in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish.
וְהָא קָסָגְיָא תֵּיבָה! אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: קַרְנָיו קָשְׁרוּ בַּתֵּיבָה. וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל בְּרוֹתְחִין קִלְקְלוּ וּבְרוֹתְחִין נִידּוֹנוּ!
The Gemara challenges: But the ark was moving upon the water. How was it was possible to keep the nose of the reima in the ark? Reish Lakish says: They tied its horns to the ark, so that the reima would move with it. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say that the people of the generation of the flood sinned with boiling heat and were punished with boiling heat? How could the reima have survived the boiling water?
וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, תֵּיבָה הֵיכִי סָגְיָא? וְעוֹד, עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן הֵיכָא קָאֵי? אֶלָּא נֵס נַעֲשָׂה לָהֶם, שֶׁנִּצְטַנְּנוּ בְּצִידֵּי הַתֵּיבָה.
The Gemara replies: And according to your reasoning, that it was impossible to survive the boiling water, how did the ark itself move? It was covered with pitch, which melts in boiling water. Moreover, how did Og, king of the Bashan (see Numbers 21:33–35), who according to tradition was of the generation of the flood, stand, i.e., survive the boiling water? Rather, it must be that a miracle was performed for them, namely that the water on the sides of the ark cooled, allowing the ark, the reima, and Og to survive.
וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן [בֶּן לָקִישׁ] – נְהִי נָמֵי דְּיָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהָא לָא פָּשׁ! דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״מְצוּלָה״? שֶׁכׇּל מֵתֵי מַבּוּל נִצְטַלְּלוּ שָׁם. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״שִׁנְעָר״? שֶׁכׇּל מֵתֵי מַבּוּל נִנְעֲרוּ שָׁם. אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא אִידְּבַקוּ.
The Gemara challenges: But even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, that the flood descended upon Eretz Yisrael and the corpses of those who perished in the flood might impart impurity there, though the flood did indeed descend upon Eretz Yisrael, no trace of the dead remains there. As Reish Lakish says: Why is Babylonia called Metzula (see Isaiah 44:27)? It is because all the dead of the flood, throughout the world, sank [nitztalelu] there. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why is Babylonia called Shinar? It is because all the dead of the flood were deposited [ninaru] there. Evidently, even Reish Lakish says that all who died in the flood, including those from Eretz Yisrael, sank in Babylonia. The Gemara responds: It is impossible that the corpses of some of those in Eretz Yisrael who perished in the flood were not stuck in the mud and remained there.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״שִׁנְעָר״? שֶׁמְּנַעֶרֶת עֲשִׁירֶיהָ. וְהָא קָחָזֵינַן דְּהָווּ! תְּלָתָא דָּרֵי לָא מָשְׁכִי.
Having mentioned some explanations for the names of Babylonia, the Gemara adds: Rabbi Abbahu says: Why is it called Shinar? Because it shakes [shemena’eret] its wealthy people, i.e., they do not remain wealthy. The Gemara asks: But we see that there are wealthy people in Babylonia who remain wealthy. The Gemara responds: Their wealth does not extend for three generations.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: כָּל הָאוֹכֵל מֵעֲפָרָהּ שֶׁל בָּבֶל – כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר אֲבוֹתָיו. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כָּל הָאוֹכֵל מֵעֲפָרָהּ שֶׁל בָּבֶל – כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר אֲבוֹתָיו. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים.
With regard to the statement that the corpses of those who perished in the flood came to Babylonia, Rabbi Ami says: Concerning anyone who eats the dust of Babylonia, it is as if he eats the flesh of his ancestors, since there is a great deal of dust from the dead there. This is also taught in a baraita: Concerning anyone who eats the dust of Babylonia, it is as if he eats the flesh of his ancestors. And some say: It is as if he eats repugnant creatures and crawling things, which also died in the flood and were absorbed by the ground of Babylonia.
שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ.
§ The mishna teaches that if one sacrificed the scapegoat of Yom Kippur outside the Temple he is exempt from the prohibition against sacrificing outside, since the Torah states: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it” (Leviticus 17:3–4), and the scapegoat is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
וּרְמִינְהִי: אוֹ ״קׇרְבָּן״ – שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ קׇרְבָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַנַּקְרֵב אֶת קׇרְבַּן ה׳״?
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: The verse states: “To present it as an offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4), and it is derived from the word “offering” that one who slaughters non-sacred animals inside the Temple is not liable. The baraita asks: Or perhaps from the word “offering” I would derive that the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple applies even to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as they too are called offerings, as it is stated with regard to the spoils of the war against Midian: “And we have brought the Lord’s offering, what every man has gotten, of jewels of gold, armlets, and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and girdles, to make atonement for our souls before the Lord” (Numbers 31:50). These were certainly not items consecrated for the altar.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ״ – מִי שֶׁרָאוּי לָבֹא בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד; יָצְאוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת – שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִן.
Therefore, the verse states: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it” (Leviticus 17:4), which teaches that this halakha applies only to that which is fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, i.e., is fit to be sacrificed. Excluded are items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are not fit for sacrifice.
אוֹצִיא אֶת אֵלּוּ – שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִן; וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ – שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לָבֹא אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לַה׳״ – לְהוֹצִיא שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְיוּחָד לַה׳.
The baraita continues: Perhaps I shall exclude these, i.e., items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are not fit to be sacrificed upon the altar, from the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple, but I shall not exclude the scapegoat, which is fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Therefore, the verse states: “To present it as an offering to the Lord,” which serves to exclude from this prohibition the scapegoat, which is not designated as a sacrifice to the Lord, but is rather sent to Azazel. According to the baraita, the scapegoat is fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן קוֹדֶם הַגְרָלָה, כָּאן לְאַחַר הַגְרָלָה. אַחַר הַגְרָלָה נָמֵי, הָאִיכָּא וִידּוּי!
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita that states that the scapegoat is fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is referring to before the lottery, wherein the two goats of the Day of Atonement are brought into the Temple courtyard, and the High Priest draws lots to determine which is to be sacrificed to the Lord, and which is for Azazel. There, the mishna that states that the scapegoat is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is referring to after the lottery, at which point it is no longer fit for the Temple. The Gemara challenges: After the lottery it is also fit to be brought inside, as there is still an obligation for the High Priest to recite confession upon it in the Temple courtyard.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב מַנִּי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן קוֹדֶם וִידּוּי, כָּאן לְאַחַר וִידּוּי.
Rather, Rav Mani said: This is not difficult, as here, the baraita that states that the scapegoat may be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is referring to before the confession, when it is still fit to enter the Temple. There, the mishna that states that it is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is referring to after the confession, at which point it is no longer fit to be brought inside.
הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע.
§ The mishna teaches that with regard to an animal that actively copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or another disqualified offering such as an animal that was designated for idol worship, or one that was worshipped: If one sacrificed it outside the Temple courtyard, he is exempt. This is because with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering outside, the Torah states: “He did not bring it, to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4), which teaches that there is no liability for slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard an animal that is not fit to be sacrificed.
וְהָא נָמֵי תִּיפּוֹק לִי מִ״פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״!
The Gemara asks: And with regard to this too, derive from the first part of that verse: “To the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” that, as in the case of the red heifer and the scapegoat, if an animal is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable for slaughtering it outside.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: A Breakaway Mikdash in Egypt? Chazal’s take the Temple of Onias
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
Zevachim 113
וּמַתַּן סָבִיב, וּתְנוּפָה, וְהַגָּשָׁה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה, וְכִיהוּן, וּבִגְדֵי שָׁרֵת, וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת, וְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, וּמְחִיצָה לְדָמִים, וְרִיחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם.
no placement of blood around all sides of the altar in offerings for which this is required, no waving of meal offerings, and no bringing of meal offerings to the corner of the altar prior to removal of the handful. Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no meal offering sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple. And requiring a member of the priesthood to perform the sacrificial rites, the priestly service vestments, the service vessels, the pleasing aroma to God, the partition for the blood, i.e., the red line dividing the upper and lower halves of the altar, and the priest’s washing of hands and feet before his service all do not apply to sacrifice on private altars, as the service there need not be performed by priests nor follow all the protocols of the Temple service.
אֲבָל הַזְּמַן, הַנּוֹתָר וְהַטָּמֵא – שָׁוִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה.
But the intent to sacrifice or partake of the offering beyond its designated time, which renders the offering piggul; the halakha of portions of the offering left over [notar] beyond the time it may be eaten; and the prohibition against eating consecrated meat while ritually impure are equal in this, a private altar, and that, a public altar.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי חוּץ מִגִּתָּהּ? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: חוּץ מִמָּקוֹם הַבָּדוּק לָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּדוּקָה הִיא!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who burns the red heifer outside its pit is not liable for sacrificing outside the Temple courtyard. The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of: Outside its pit? Reish Lakish said: It means outside the place that was inspected to ensure that it is not a gravesite, which would render it impure. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: But is not all of Eretz Yisrael inspected for impurity? Therefore, there is no need for the site of the burning of the red heifer to be specially inspected.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לִפְנִים מִן חוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The term: Outside its pit, is referring to a case where the priest slaughtered the red heifer within the walls of Jerusalem and not in the place outside the walls, as the Torah prescribes: “And it shall be brought outside the camp, and it shall be slaughtered before him” (Numbers 19:3).
וְלוֹקְמַהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ חוּץ לַחוֹמָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח! דְּאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט… וְהִזָּה״ –
The Gemara challenges: But let Rabbi Yoḥanan interpret it to be a case where the priest slaughtered it outside the wall but not opposite, i.e., not in the direction of, the entrance to the Temple, as Rav Adda bar Ahava says: If he slaughtered it in a location not opposite the entrance, it is disqualified, as it is stated with regard to the red heifer: “And you shall give it to Elazar the priest, and it shall be brought outside the camp, and it shall be slaughtered before him. And Elazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and sprinkle of its blood toward the front of the Tent of Meeting seven times” (Numbers 19:3–4).
מָה הַזָּאָתָהּ כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח, אַף שְׁחִיטָתָהּ כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח. וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּלָא מַקֵּישׁ, וְהָא אִתְּמַר: שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: פְּסוּלָה – ״וְשָׁחַט… וְהִזָּה״. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה – ״אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְשָׁחַט״.
The slaughter of the red heifer and the sprinkling of its blood are juxtaposed so that one will draw the following conclusion: Just as its sprinkling must be performed opposite the entrance, so too, its slaughter must be performed opposite the entrance. And if you would say that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not juxtapose the two verses for the purpose of this comparison, that is difficult: But it was stated with regard to a red heifer slaughtered in a location not opposite the entrance that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is disqualified, as “and it shall be slaughtered” is juxtaposed with “and sprinkle.” Reish Lakish says: It is fit, since it is stated: “And it shall be brought outside the camp, and it shall be slaughtered,” indicating that it may be slaughtered in any location outside the camp.
וְאִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, שְׂרָפָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה, וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר פְּסוּלָה – ״וְשָׂרַף… וְהִזָּה״.
And it was also stated that amora’im disagree with regard to a red heifer that the priest burned not opposite the entrance to the Temple. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is disqualified, and Rabbi Oshaya says: It is fit. The Gemara explains their reasoning: Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is disqualified because of an additional juxtaposition. It is stated: “And the heifer shall be burned in his sight; its skin, and its flesh, and its blood, with its dung, shall be burned” (Numbers 19:5), while in the previous verse it is stated: “And sprinkle of its blood toward the front of the Tent of Meeting.” This teaches that just as the sprinkling of the blood must be done opposite the entrance, so too must the burning be done opposite the entrance.
וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר כְּשֵׁרָה – ״עַל פִּרְשָׁהּ יִשְׂרֹף״; מְקוֹם שֶׁפּוֹרֶשֶׁת לְמִיתָה, שָׁם תְּהֵא שְׂרֵיפָתָהּ.
And Rabbi Oshaya says that a red heifer that was burned in a location not opposite the entrance is fit, as the verse states: “With its dung [pirshah], shall be burned,” which is interpreted homiletically to mean: In the place that its soul departs [poreshet] for death, there shall be its burning. Just as no specific location is given for the soul’s departing, so too, the burning need not be performed in a specific location. Since Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the red heifer must be slaughtered opposite the entrance to the Temple, why does he not understand the term: Outside of its pit, to be referring to its slaughter in any location not opposite the Temple entrance?
אָמְרִי: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר; לָא מִיבַּעְיָא חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – דְּרַחוֹקֵי רַחֲקַהּ; אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה – דְּקָרוֹבֵי קָרְבַהּ, וְאֵימָא תִּתַּכְשַׁר – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Yoḥanan is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary for the mishna to teach that in slaughtering a red heifer outside the wall in a location not opposite the entrance, one does not transgress the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard. In that case it is clearly disqualified, as he has distanced it from where it is meant to be slaughtered. But even if one slaughtered it inside the wall of Jerusalem, so that he brings it closer to the Temple, and one might say that it is a valid way of slaughtering the red heifer, Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that nevertheless it is disqualified.
אָמַר מָר, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּדוּקָה הִיא. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמָר סָבַר: לֹא יָרַד.
§ The Gemara returns to the disagreement cited earlier: The Master says that Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: But is not all of Eretz Yisrael inspected for impurity? Since Reish Lakish’s response to this question is not mentioned, the Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the flood in the time of Noah descended upon Eretz Yisrael, and its residents perished. It is therefore necessary to inspect the place where the red heifer is burned to ascertain whether it is a gravesite. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael, and there is no reason to suspect there are lost graves there.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״בֶּן אָדָם אֱמׇר לָהּ אַתְּ אֶרֶץ לֹא מְטֹהָרָה הִיא לֹא גֻשְׁמָהּ בְּיוֹם זָעַם״.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And both of them, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, interpreted the same verse, stated by Ezekiel with regard to Eretz Yisrael, to derive their opinions. The verse states: “Son of man, say to her: You are a land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation” (Ezekiel 22:24).
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר, אַתְמוֹהֵי מַתְמַהּ קְרָא: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִי לָא מְטוֹהָרָה אַתְּ?! כְּלוּם יָרְדוּ עָלַיִךְ גְּשָׁמִים בְּיוֹם זָעַם?! וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ סָבַר: כִּפְשָׁטֵיהּ – אָרֶץ לֹא מְטוֹהָרָה אַתְּ; מִי לֹא יָרְדוּ עָלַיִךְ גְּשָׁמִים בְּיוֹם זָעַם?!
Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the verse is asking a rhetorical question: Eretz Yisrael, are you not cleansed from the impurity imparted by corpses? Did the rains of the flood fall upon you on the day of indignation? And Reish Lakish holds that this verse should be read in accordance with its straightforward meaning, i.e., as a statement, not a question: You are a land that is not cleansed. Didn’t rains fall upon you on the day of indignation? Therefore, the bodies of all of those who perished in the flood are somewhere in the ground.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲצֵירוֹת הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בְּנוּיוֹת עַל הַסֶּלַע, וְתַחְתֵּיהֶן חָלוּל מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם, וּמְבִיאִין נָשִׁים מְעוּבָּרוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת, וּמְגַדְּלוֹת שָׁם בְּנֵיהֶם לַפָּרָה.
Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna (Para 3:2): Courtyards were built in Jerusalem on stone, and beneath these courtyards there was a hollow space due to the concern that there was a lost grave in the depths. The space served as a barrier preventing the impurity from reaching the courtyards above. And they would bring pregnant women, and those women would give birth in those courtyards. And those women would raise their children there, thereby ensuring that the children never became impure. This would enable the children to assist in the rite of the red heifer.
וּמְבִיאִין שְׁוָורִים, וְעַל גַּבֵּיהֶן דְּלָתוֹת, וְתִינוֹקוֹת יוֹשְׁבִין עֲלֵיהֶן, וְכוֹסוֹת שֶׁל אֶבֶן בְּיָדָן, וּמִלְּאוּ וְיָשְׁבוּ בִּמְקוֹמָן.
And once the children reached the appropriate age, the priests would bring oxen there. And on the backs of these oxen, they would place doors, and the children would sit upon the doors, so that the doors would serve as a barrier between them and any impurity in the depths, and they would hold cups of stone, which are not susceptible to ritual impurity, in their hands, and they would ride upon the oxen to the Siloam pool. And they filled the cups with water and would sit back in their places upon the oxen and be taken to the Temple Mount. The water in the cups would be used for the rite of the red heifer. Apparently, there is concern that hidden sources of impurity exist in Eretz Yisrael.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מַעֲלָה עָשׂוּ בַּפָּרָה.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that Rabbi Yoḥanan would reply: The Sages established a higher standard for purity in the case of the red heifer, but generally speaking there is no concern for hidden sources of impurity in Eretz Yisrael caused by those who perished in the flood.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: פַּעַם אֶחָד מָצְאוּ עֲצָמוֹת בְּלִשְׁכַּת דִּיר הָעֵצִים, וּבִקְּשׁוּ לִגְזוֹר טוּמְאָה עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. עָמַד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עַל רַגְלָיו וְאָמַר: לֹא בּוּשָׁה וּכְלִימָּה הִיא לָנוּ, שֶׁנִּגְזוֹר טוּמְאָה עַל עִיר אֲבוֹתֵינוּ?! אַיֵּה מֵתֵי מַבּוּל? אַיֵּה מֵתֵי נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר?
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita (see Tosefta, Eduyyot 3:3): Once, human bones were found in the Chamber of the Woodshed, and the Sages sought to decree impurity upon Jerusalem, i.e., to proclaim all who go there to be impure, as if a corpse can be found in a chamber of the Temple there is reason to be concerned that there are lost graves in other places as well. Rabbi Yehoshua stood upon his feet and said: Is it not a shame and disgrace for us to decree impurity upon the city of our fathers because of this concern? Show me: Where are the dead of the flood, and where are all of the dead killed by Nebuchadnezzar?
מִדְּקָאָמַר הָכִי, לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּלָא הֲווֹ? וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, הֲרוּגֵי נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא הֲווֹ?! אֶלָּא הֲווֹ, וּפַנִּינְהוּ; הָכָא נָמֵי – הֲווֹ וּפַנִּינְהוּ. וְאִי אִפַּנּוֹ,
Rabbi Yoḥanan infers: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said this, is this not to say that there were no lost graves in Jerusalem from the flood, because the flood did not take place there? Reish Lakish responds: And according to your reasoning, so too were there not those killed by Nebuchadnezzar, in and around Jerusalem, who were mentioned by Rabbi Yehoshua? Certainly there were, as Nebuchadnezzar killed many people in Jerusalem. Rather, there were, and others removed the bodies. Here too, with regard to the dead of the flood, there were, and others removed the bodies. And it is possible to ask: If they were removed, why is it necessary to be concerned that there may be impurity in the place of the red heifer,
הָא אִיפְּנוֹ! נְהִי דְּאִיפַּנּוֹ מִירוּשָׁלַיִם, מִכּוּלַּהּ אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא אִיפַּנּוֹ.
as they were already removed. One can respond: This baraita deals exclusively with Jerusalem. Granted that the bones of those who perished in the flood and at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar were removed from Jerusalem, but they were not removed from all of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, outside Jerusalem, the red heifer may be slaughtered only in a place that has been inspected.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַיֵּה מֵתֵי מַבּוּל? אַיֵּה מֵתֵי נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר? מַאי, לָאו מִדְּהָנֵי הֲווֹ – הָנֵי נָמֵי הֲווֹ? מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתֵיהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתֵיהּ.
There are those who say the discussion should be inverted, and Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the flood did not affect Eretz Yisrael, from that baraita, as Rabbi Yehoshua said: Where are the dead of the flood, and where are all of the dead killed by Nebuchadnezzar? Reish Lakish said: What, is it not possible to infer from this question that since those slaughtered by Nebuchadnezzar were in Eretz Yisrael, those who perished in the flood were also there? Rabbi Yoḥanan responds: Are the cases comparable? This is as it is and that is as it is, i.e., the dead of Nebuchadnezzar were indeed in Eretz Yisrael, but the dead of the flood were not, as there was no flood there.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה מֵתוּ״ – בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, דְּאָמֵינָא יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מֵתוּ. אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, אַמַּאי מֵתוּ? מִשּׁוּם הַבְלָא.
Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to the flood, it is stated: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, whatsoever was on the dry land, died” (Genesis 7:22). Granted, according to my opinion, that I say the flood descended upon Eretz Yisrael, due to that reason all living creatures on Earth died, even those in Eretz Yisrael. But according to your opinion that the flood did not descend on Eretz Yisrael, why did they die there? Rabbi Yoḥanan responds: They died due to the heat that accompanied the floodwaters, and that spread to Eretz Yisrael as well. Those corpses were then buried in known locations.
כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּרוֹתְחִין קִלְקְלוּ, וּבְרוֹתְחִין נִידּוֹנוּ; דִּכְתִיב הָכָא: ״וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ הַמָּיִם״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וַחֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ שָׁכָכָה״.
The Gemara notes that this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: The generation of the flood sinned with boiling heat, i.e., forbidden sexual intercourse, and they were punished with the boiling heat of the flood waters. As it is written here, with regard to the flood: “And God remembered Noah and every living creature and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God made a wind to pass over the earth and the waters calmed [vayashoku hamayim]” (Genesis 8:1); and it is written there, with regard to the execution of Haman: “So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the king’s boiling anger was assuaged [shakhakha]” (Esther 7:10). This latter verse indicates that a matter is assuaged from heat; similarly, the flood waters were hot.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה מֵתוּ״ – בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, דְּאָמֵינָא לֹא יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי הֲוַי חָרָבָה. אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, מַאי חָרָבָה? חָרָבָה שֶׁהָיְתָה מֵעִיקָּרָא.
There are those who say that this discussion should be inverted, and in fact Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from that verse: It is stated that “whatsoever was on the dry land, died” (Genesis 7:22). Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that the flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael, due to that reason, there was an area of dry land even during the flood, and all living creatures there died from the heat. But according to your opinion that the flood did descend upon Eretz Yisrael, what is the meaning of “dry land”? There was no dry land anywhere. Reish Lakish responds: The verse is referring to land that had been dry initially, before the flood.
וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ חָרָבָה? כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּדוֹר הַמַּבּוּל לֹא נִגְזְרָה גְּזֵרָה עַל דָּגִים שֶׁבַּיָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה מֵתוּ״ – וְלֹא דָּגִים שֶׁבַּיָּם.
And why does the Torah call it “dry land” during the flood? There was no dry land during the flood. It is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: During the generation of the flood no decree was decreed upon the fish in the sea, as it is stated: “Whatsoever was on the dry land, died” (Genesis 7:22), i.e., only those creatures that had been on dry land, but not the fish in the sea.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – הַיְינוּ דְּקָם רֵימָא הָתָם. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יָרַד, רֵימָא הֵיכָא קָם? אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: גּוּרִיּוֹת הִכְנִיסוּ בַּתֵּיבָה.
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says the flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, this is the explanation of the fact that the reima remained there, in Eretz Yisrael, and survived the flood. But according to the one who says the flood descended upon Eretz Yisrael, i.e., Reish Lakish, how did the reima remain? Given its large size, it clearly could not have fit into Noah’s ark. Rabbi Yannai says: They brought reima cubs into the ark, and they survived the flood.
וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: לְדִידִי חֲזֵי לִי אוּרְזִילָא דְּרֵימָא (בַּת) [בַּר] יוֹמֵאּ, וְהָוֵי כְּהַר תָּבוֹר. וְהַר תָּבוֹר כַּמָּה הָוֵיא – אַרְבְּעִין פַּרְסֵי; מְשָׁכָא דְּצַוְּארֵיהּ – תְּלָתָא פַּרְסֵי, מַרְבַּעְתָּא דְּרֵישָׁא – פַּרְסָא וּפַלְגָא, רְמָא כַּבָּא וּסְכַר יַרְדְּנָא.
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say: I have seen a day-old offspring of the reima, and it was as large as Mount Tabor. And how large is Mount Tabor? It is forty parasangs. And the length of the cub’s neck was three parasangs, and the place where its head rests, i.e., its neck, was a parasang and a half. It cast feces, and thereby dammed up the Jordan river. Even the cub would have been too large for the ark.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רֹאשׁוֹ הִכְנִיסוּ לַתֵּיבָה. וְהָאָמַר מָר: מַרְבַּעְתָּא דְּרֵישָׁא פַּרְסָא וּפַלְגָא! אֶלָּא רֹאשׁ חוֹטְמוֹ הִכְנִיסוּ לַתֵּיבָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They brought only the head of the cub into the ark, while its body remained outside. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the Master, i.e., Rabba bar bar Ḥana, say that the size of the place where its head rests was a parasang and a half? Consequently, even its head alone would not fit into the ark. Rather, they brought the head, i.e., edge, of its nose into the ark, so that it might breathe.
וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל! לְדִבְרֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ קָאָמַר.
The Gemara wonders why Rabbi Yoḥanan was compelled to give this answer: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say that the flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael? According to his opinion, perhaps the reima survived by remaining there during the flood. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan said his answer in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish.
וְהָא קָסָגְיָא תֵּיבָה! אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: קַרְנָיו קָשְׁרוּ בַּתֵּיבָה. וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל בְּרוֹתְחִין קִלְקְלוּ וּבְרוֹתְחִין נִידּוֹנוּ!
The Gemara challenges: But the ark was moving upon the water. How was it was possible to keep the nose of the reima in the ark? Reish Lakish says: They tied its horns to the ark, so that the reima would move with it. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say that the people of the generation of the flood sinned with boiling heat and were punished with boiling heat? How could the reima have survived the boiling water?
וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, תֵּיבָה הֵיכִי סָגְיָא? וְעוֹד, עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן הֵיכָא קָאֵי? אֶלָּא נֵס נַעֲשָׂה לָהֶם, שֶׁנִּצְטַנְּנוּ בְּצִידֵּי הַתֵּיבָה.
The Gemara replies: And according to your reasoning, that it was impossible to survive the boiling water, how did the ark itself move? It was covered with pitch, which melts in boiling water. Moreover, how did Og, king of the Bashan (see Numbers 21:33–35), who according to tradition was of the generation of the flood, stand, i.e., survive the boiling water? Rather, it must be that a miracle was performed for them, namely that the water on the sides of the ark cooled, allowing the ark, the reima, and Og to survive.
וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן [בֶּן לָקִישׁ] – נְהִי נָמֵי דְּיָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהָא לָא פָּשׁ! דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״מְצוּלָה״? שֶׁכׇּל מֵתֵי מַבּוּל נִצְטַלְּלוּ שָׁם. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״שִׁנְעָר״? שֶׁכׇּל מֵתֵי מַבּוּל נִנְעֲרוּ שָׁם. אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא אִידְּבַקוּ.
The Gemara challenges: But even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, that the flood descended upon Eretz Yisrael and the corpses of those who perished in the flood might impart impurity there, though the flood did indeed descend upon Eretz Yisrael, no trace of the dead remains there. As Reish Lakish says: Why is Babylonia called Metzula (see Isaiah 44:27)? It is because all the dead of the flood, throughout the world, sank [nitztalelu] there. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why is Babylonia called Shinar? It is because all the dead of the flood were deposited [ninaru] there. Evidently, even Reish Lakish says that all who died in the flood, including those from Eretz Yisrael, sank in Babylonia. The Gemara responds: It is impossible that the corpses of some of those in Eretz Yisrael who perished in the flood were not stuck in the mud and remained there.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״שִׁנְעָר״? שֶׁמְּנַעֶרֶת עֲשִׁירֶיהָ. וְהָא קָחָזֵינַן דְּהָווּ! תְּלָתָא דָּרֵי לָא מָשְׁכִי.
Having mentioned some explanations for the names of Babylonia, the Gemara adds: Rabbi Abbahu says: Why is it called Shinar? Because it shakes [shemena’eret] its wealthy people, i.e., they do not remain wealthy. The Gemara asks: But we see that there are wealthy people in Babylonia who remain wealthy. The Gemara responds: Their wealth does not extend for three generations.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: כָּל הָאוֹכֵל מֵעֲפָרָהּ שֶׁל בָּבֶל – כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר אֲבוֹתָיו. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כָּל הָאוֹכֵל מֵעֲפָרָהּ שֶׁל בָּבֶל – כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר אֲבוֹתָיו. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים.
With regard to the statement that the corpses of those who perished in the flood came to Babylonia, Rabbi Ami says: Concerning anyone who eats the dust of Babylonia, it is as if he eats the flesh of his ancestors, since there is a great deal of dust from the dead there. This is also taught in a baraita: Concerning anyone who eats the dust of Babylonia, it is as if he eats the flesh of his ancestors. And some say: It is as if he eats repugnant creatures and crawling things, which also died in the flood and were absorbed by the ground of Babylonia.
שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ.
§ The mishna teaches that if one sacrificed the scapegoat of Yom Kippur outside the Temple he is exempt from the prohibition against sacrificing outside, since the Torah states: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it” (Leviticus 17:3–4), and the scapegoat is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
וּרְמִינְהִי: אוֹ ״קׇרְבָּן״ – שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ קׇרְבָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַנַּקְרֵב אֶת קׇרְבַּן ה׳״?
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: The verse states: “To present it as an offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4), and it is derived from the word “offering” that one who slaughters non-sacred animals inside the Temple is not liable. The baraita asks: Or perhaps from the word “offering” I would derive that the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple applies even to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as they too are called offerings, as it is stated with regard to the spoils of the war against Midian: “And we have brought the Lord’s offering, what every man has gotten, of jewels of gold, armlets, and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and girdles, to make atonement for our souls before the Lord” (Numbers 31:50). These were certainly not items consecrated for the altar.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ״ – מִי שֶׁרָאוּי לָבֹא בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד; יָצְאוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת – שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִן.
Therefore, the verse states: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it” (Leviticus 17:4), which teaches that this halakha applies only to that which is fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, i.e., is fit to be sacrificed. Excluded are items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are not fit for sacrifice.
אוֹצִיא אֶת אֵלּוּ – שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִן; וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ – שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לָבֹא אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לַה׳״ – לְהוֹצִיא שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְיוּחָד לַה׳.
The baraita continues: Perhaps I shall exclude these, i.e., items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are not fit to be sacrificed upon the altar, from the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple, but I shall not exclude the scapegoat, which is fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Therefore, the verse states: “To present it as an offering to the Lord,” which serves to exclude from this prohibition the scapegoat, which is not designated as a sacrifice to the Lord, but is rather sent to Azazel. According to the baraita, the scapegoat is fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן קוֹדֶם הַגְרָלָה, כָּאן לְאַחַר הַגְרָלָה. אַחַר הַגְרָלָה נָמֵי, הָאִיכָּא וִידּוּי!
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita that states that the scapegoat is fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is referring to before the lottery, wherein the two goats of the Day of Atonement are brought into the Temple courtyard, and the High Priest draws lots to determine which is to be sacrificed to the Lord, and which is for Azazel. There, the mishna that states that the scapegoat is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is referring to after the lottery, at which point it is no longer fit for the Temple. The Gemara challenges: After the lottery it is also fit to be brought inside, as there is still an obligation for the High Priest to recite confession upon it in the Temple courtyard.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב מַנִּי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן קוֹדֶם וִידּוּי, כָּאן לְאַחַר וִידּוּי.
Rather, Rav Mani said: This is not difficult, as here, the baraita that states that the scapegoat may be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is referring to before the confession, when it is still fit to enter the Temple. There, the mishna that states that it is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is referring to after the confession, at which point it is no longer fit to be brought inside.
הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע.
§ The mishna teaches that with regard to an animal that actively copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or another disqualified offering such as an animal that was designated for idol worship, or one that was worshipped: If one sacrificed it outside the Temple courtyard, he is exempt. This is because with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering outside, the Torah states: “He did not bring it, to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4), which teaches that there is no liability for slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard an animal that is not fit to be sacrificed.
וְהָא נָמֵי תִּיפּוֹק לִי מִ״פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״!
The Gemara asks: And with regard to this too, derive from the first part of that verse: “To the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” that, as in the case of the red heifer and the scapegoat, if an animal is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable for slaughtering it outside.
