Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) LIABILITY FOR "PARAH ADUMAH" OUTSIDE

(a) (Gemara) Question: What does it mean 'outside of its pit'?
(b) Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): It means, outside of the place that was checked for it (for Tum'ah).
(c) Objection (R. Yochanan): All of Eretz Yisrael is (Muchzak Tahor, as if it was) checked!
(d) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): It means, inside the wall of Yerushalayim.
(e) Question: Why didn't R. Yochanan establish the case to be that he slaughtered it outside of Yerushalayim, not facing Pesach Ohel Mo'ed?

1. (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): If he slaughtered it not facing Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, it is Pasul - "V'Shochat...v'Hizah";

i. Just as Haza'ah must be facing Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, also slaughter.

2. Suggestion: Perhaps he does not make a Hekesh between slaughter and Haza'ah.
3. Rejection: R. Yochanan taught, if the Parah Adumah was not facing Pesach Ohel Mo'ed when it was burned, it is Pasul - we learn from "V'Shochat...v'Hizah";
4. (R. Oshaya): It is Kosher - "Al Pirshah Yisrof", where it was Poresh (departed from life) to die, there it is burned (this need not be where it was slaughtered, perhaps it took some steps before dying.)

(f) Answer: R. Yochanan teaches a bigger Chidush:

1. One might have thought, outside of Yerushalayim (not facing Pesach Ohel Mo'ed) is Pasul, for it is far from Kedushah, but inside Yerushalayim is Kosher - he teaches, this is not so.

(g) (R. Yochanan): All of Eretz Yisrael is (Muchzak Tahor, as if it was) checked!

(a) Question: What do R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about?
(b) Answer: Reish Lakish holds that the flood came (even) to Eretz Yisrael, R. Yochanan holds that it did not.
(c) (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Both expound the same verse - "Eretz Lo Metoharah Hi Lo Gushmah b'Yom Za'am":

1. R. Yochanan reads the beginning of the verse incredulously - is not Eretz Yisrael Tahor, as evidenced by the fact that it was spared from the flood?!
2. Reish Lakish reads the end of the verse incredulously - Eretz Yisrael is not Tahor - was it not flooded? (i.e., surely it was!)

(d) Question (Reish Lakish - Beraisa): There were Chatzeros in Yerushalayim built on rocks, with gaps underneath (to shield from Tum'ah, lest there is a Mes buried underneath);

1. (Some) women would go there to give birth, the children would be raised (in Taharah) to engage in the Parah Adumah;
2. (They would never become Tamei Mes; they were used only until the age of nine, but not more, less they experience a Tum'ah (Keri) that emanates from their own body;)
3. The children would ride on boards (to shield from Tum'ah) on top of oxen to draw water in stone vessels (which are not Mekabel Tum'ah) from a spring; the water would be Mekudash with ashes of the Parah Adumah and sprinkled on the Kohen preparing to perform Parah Adumah during the seven days of his separation.
4. Summation of question: If Eretz Yisrael is checked, why must the Chatzer be built on top of gaps, and why must the children ride on top of boards?

(e) Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): (Letter of the law, this was not necessary -) it was a stringency of Parah Adumah (because Chachamim were 'lenient' to Metamei the Kohen shortly before doing it, in order that a Tevul Yom perform Parah Adumah to disprove the Tzedukim, Chachamim made many stringencies).
(f) Version #1 - Question (R. Yochanan - Beraisa): Once, bones were found under the chamber (in the Mikdash) where wood was stored, Chachamim wanted to decree that all of Eretz Yisrael is (doubtfully) Tamei (lest there are bones underneath);

1. R. Yehoshua opposed the idea: This will be shameful for us to decree Tum'ah on the city of our fathers! Where are the bones of those who died in the flood, or at the hands of (the army of) Nebuchadnetzar (who brought the first Churban)?!
2. Inference: R. Yehoshua was saying that we need not be concerned for Tum'ah - apparently, he held that people did not die from the flood in Eretz Yisrael!
3. Counter-question: He also said that we need not be concerned for those killed by Nebuchadnetzar - we know that he killed millions!
4. Answer: You must say, even though he killed many, we assume that their bodies were moved (to places that normally will not Metamei people in Eretz Yisrael);

(g) Answer: Likewise, even though the flood killed people in Eretz Yisrael, we assume that the bodies were moved!
(h) Question: If Reish Lakish says that the bodies were moved, why does he say that Eretz Yisrael is not considered checked?

(i) Answer: They were moved outside of Yerushalayim, not outside of Eretz Yisrael.
(j) Version #2 - Question (Reish Lakish - Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): ...Where are the bones of those who died in the flood, or at the hands of Nebuchadnetzar?!

1. Just like people really were killed by Nebuchadnetzar, people really died (in Eretz Yisrael) in the flood!

(k) Answer: No, they are different (people were killed by Nebuchadnetzar and moved away, but the flood did not affect Eretz Yisrael at all.)
(l) Version #1 - Question (Reish Lakish): "Mi'Kol Asher be'Charavah Mesu";

1. We understand this if the flood encompassed Eretz Yisrael - but if it did not, why did people in Eretz Yisrael die?

(m) Answer: They died on account of the heat - this is like Rav Chisda.

1. (Rav Chisda): The generation of the flood sinned through Roschim (semen, which is hot, i.e. Arayos), therefore it was punished with Roschim (boiling water);
2. It says here "Va'Yashoku ha'Mayim", like it says "Va'Chamas ha'Melech Shachachah" (which refers to Hash-m's fury).

(n) Version #2 - Question (R. Yochanan against Reish Lakish): "Mi'Kol Asher be'Charavah Mesu";

1. I explain, the flood did not encompass Eretz Yisrael - there, there was Charavah (dry land);
2. According to you, where was there dry land?

(o) Answer: It means, (everything died that lived on) what was initially dry land.
(p) Question: Why does the Torah say this (let it say simply, everything died!)
(q) Answer: This teaches like Rav Chisda.

1. (Rav Chisda): There was no decree for fish to die in the flood - "Mi'Kol Asher be'Charavah Mesu", not fish of the sea.

(a) Question: According to R. Yochanan, we understand how the Re'em (a giant land animal) survived (i.e. it could survive in Eretz Yisrael);

1. But according to Reish Lakish, how could it survive (it was too big to fit in the ark)!

(b) Answer #1 (R. Yanai): Infant Re'emim were in the ark.
(c) Question: But Rabah bar bar Chanah said that he saw a one-day old Orzila (a fish corresponding to the Re'em), and it was as big as Har Tavor, which is 40 Parsa'os; its neck was three Parsa'os long, there was one and a half Parsa'os between the horns on its head (one Parsah is more than 20 times the length of the ark!);

1. It eliminated waste, and this dammed up the Yarden.

(d) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): Rather, the Re'em was outside the ark, it inserted its head inside (to breathe.)
(e) Objection: But we said that there was one and a half Parsa'os between its horns!
(f) Correction: Rather, it inserted the end of its nose inside.

1. Question: R. Yochanan said that the flood did not encompass Eretz Yisrael - he should simply say that it survived in Eretz Yisrael!
2. Answer: R. Yochanan answered on behalf of Reish Lakish.

(g) Question: (How could it keep the end of its nose inside -) the ark was moving!
(h) Answer (Reish Lakish): It stuck its horns into the ark (its nose would slip out of the ark!)
(i) Question: But Rav Chisda taught that they sinned through Roschim and were punished with Roschim (the boiling water would kill the Re'em!)

1. Counter-questions: The pitch on the ark could not stand up to Roschim! (A Medrash teaches that Og hung onto the ark and survived the flood -) Og could not survive in Roschim!

(j) Answer (to all these questions): Miraculously, the water around the ark was not boiling.

(a) Question: Granted, Reish Lakish says that the flood encompassed Eretz Yisrael - but he says that the corpses did not remain there! (He should agree with R. Yochanan that all of Eretz Yisrael is (Muchzak Tahor, as if it was) checked!)

1. (Reish Lakish): Bavel is called 'Metzulah' because all the corpses in the flood Nitztalelu (sunk) to there.
2. (R. Yochanan): Bavel is called "Shin'ar" because all the corpses in the flood Nin'aru (were shaken) to there.

(b) Answer: Surely, some Tum'ah (parts of corpses) stuck in the mud.
(c) (R. Avahu): Bavel is called "Shin'ar" because it is Mena'er (uproots) its rich inhabitants (of their wealth, for they do not show enough mercy on people.)
(d) Question: But we see rich people in Bavel!
(e) Answer: Their wealth does not last three generations. (f) (R. Ami): Eating dirt of Bavel is like eating one's ancestors (that died in the flood.)
(g) Support (Beraisa): Eating dirt of Bavel is like eating one's ancestors;
(h) Some say, it is like eating Shekatzim u'Rmashim (insects that died in the flood.)

(a) (Mishnah): Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (is not fit for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, therefore one is exempt for slaughtering it outside.)
(b) Contradiction (Beraisa) Suggestion: "O Korban" - perhaps one is liable (for Shechutei Chutz) even for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, for they are called Korban - "Va'Nakrev Es Korban Hash-m"

1. Rejection: "V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" - Shechutei Chutz only applies to things fitting to be offered in Pesach Ohel Mo'ed - this excludes Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.
2. Suggestion: Perhaps we exclude Bedek ha'Bayis, but not Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which is fit for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed!
3. Rejection: "La'Sh-m" - this excludes Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, it is not exclusively for Hash-m (it is sent to Azazel).

(c) Answer #1: The Beraisa discusses before the lottery (both goats are considered fit for Ohel Mo'ed, either could be picked to be the Chatas), the Mishnah discusses after the lottery (the goat that will go to Azazel is unfit for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed.)
(d) Objection: Even after the lottery, the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach is fit for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed - the Kohen confesses on it!
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Mani): The Beraisa discusses before confession, the Mishnah discusses after confession.