Zevachim 113b — the Talmud in English

And we object to Reish Lakish:

And if

you concede that

they were cleared

from the Flood dead,

this was cleared

everyone; if so, why did you say that the Land of Israel is not checked?

And we answer:

Although they were cleared

from the Flood dead

from Jerusalem, from the entire Land of Israel they were not cleared!

And the red heifer is made outside Jerusalem, and therefore it is necessary to prepare for it a checked place in which there had not been Flood dead.

There are those who say: Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan

from the above beraita: “

Where are the Flood dead, where are the dead of Nebuchadnezzar?” Is it not that they are equal? And

from the fact that

these

dead of Nebuchadnezzar

were, these too

Flood dead

were

in the Land of Israel, and how did you say that there had not been Flood dead in the Land of Israel? [And Rabbi Yehoshua’s claim was that the dead had been removed from Jerusalem, but the rest of the Land was not checked].

Rabbi Yohanan answered:

Is it necessarily so!?

Are they equal?

This is in accordance with its matter, and that is in accordance with its matter!

The dead of Nebuchadnezzar indeed existed and they removed them, but the Flood dead had never existed in the Land of Israel.

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan:

It is said concerning the Flood: “

From all that was on dry land they died.”

And it indicates that they died everywhere, including in the Land of Israel.

Granted, according to me, for I say that the Flood descended upon the Land of Israel; because of that they died. But according to you, why did they die

in the Land of Israel? Surely the Flood was not there in the Land of Israel.

Rabbi Yohanan answered: Those who were in the Land of Israel

died from the hot vapor,

for although the Flood did not descend there, the vapor reached there [nevertheless, the Land of Israel is checked, because these dead were subsequently buried in a cemetery, and there is concern for impurity only in the other lands, where the Flood descended and the dead sank into the mud].

And we find that there was much vapor during the Flood,

as Rav Hisda. For Rav Hisda said: With hot substances they sinned

—the generation of the Flood—

and with hot substances they were judged,

for the waters of the Flood were boiling, and the vapor from them reached the Land of Israel.

And Rav Hisda explains:

“With hot substances they sinned”—

with seminal emission, and “with hot substances they were judged,” for it is written here

concerning the Flood, “

And the waters subsided,” and it is written there

concerning Ahasuerus, “

And the king’s wrath subsided.”

And we infer one from the other: Just as we find with Ahasuerus that “subsided” concerns the boiling of anger, so too we explain in the Flood that the waters subsided from their boiling, and it follows that until then they had been boiling.

There are those who say: Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish:

It is said concerning the Flood: “

From all that was on dry land they died. Granted, according to me, for I say that the Flood did not descend upon the Land of Israel; because of that”

it says “on dry land,” for it

was dry land

in the world, and it is in the Land of Israel.

But according to you, what is “dry land”?

Was there not a place that was dry from the waters of the Flood? Reish Lakish answered: The reference is to

the dry land that had been so originally,

before the Flood; that is, in the Flood all those who had previously been on dry land died.

And Reish Lakish explains:

And why does he call it “dry land”?

And what is added to us by the verse “all that was on dry land they died,” when it had already been stated, “And all flesh that moved upon the earth expired”? [And according to Rabbi Yohanan it is understandable, for this verse teaches that even in the Land of Israel, which was dry land, they died] .

The novel teaching of the verse is

as Rav Hisda. For Rav Hisda said: In the generation of the Flood, a decree was not issued against the fish of the sea,

as it is stated, “From all that was on dry land they died,” but not the fish of the sea!

And we inquire about this:

Granted, according to the one who says that the Flood did not descend upon the Land of Israel, this is why

the

re’em

stood there, the re’em, which because of its great size could not enter the ark,

there,

in the Land of Israel, which was dry land, and thus it was saved from the Flood [male and female] and its species was not eradicated from the earth .

But according to the one who says that it descended

—the Flood upon the Land of Israel—

where did the re’em stand?

Where did the re’em stand, and how was it saved from the Flood!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yannai said: Young ones,

when they were small,

they brought

them

into the ark.

And we object:

But Rabba bar bar Hana said,

I myself saw a day-old re’em calf,

a re’em calf,

on the day of its birth,

on the day it was born,

and it was

its size

like Mount Tabor, and how large was Mount Tabor

its size?

Forty parasangs.

And

the length of its neck

the length of the neck of that re’em

was three parasangs.

It was.

The place where its head rested

the measure of the place where its head rested

was a parasang and a half. It cast dung,

it cast dung into the Jordan,

and blocked the Jordan

it blocked the flow of its waters.

And since even a day-old one was so large, how did they bring it into the ark? And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Only its

head

of the small re’em

did they bring into the ark.

And we object:

But the Master said

above, Rabba bar bar Hana, that the size of

the place where its head rested was a parasang and a half,

which is much larger than the entire ark?

And we answer:

Rather, its nostril

alone

did they bring into the ark,

so that it could breathe, while it stood on its legs upon the earth and did not drown in the water because of its height.

And we object: Why did Rabbi Yohanan need to explain how they brought the re’em into the ark?

But Rabbi Yohanan said: The Flood did not descend upon the Land of Israel,

and if so, the re’em could have stood there?

And we answer: Rabbi Yohanan

spoke according to the words of Reish Lakish,

who says that the Flood descended upon the Land of Israel; necessarily, the re’em was saved in the ark. But Rabbi Yohanan according to his own position truly has no need for all this.

And we object: And what benefit was there in bringing its nostril into the ark?

But the ark was moving,

the ark traveled upon the surface of the water from a high place to a low place, and its nostril slipped away from the ark and it died?

And we answer:

Reish Lakish said: They tied its horns to the ark,

so that its nostril would not slip away from the ark.

And we object:

But Rav Hisda said: The people of the generation of the Flood sinned with hot substances and were judged with hot substances,

and if so, the re’em was scalded in the boiling water and died?

And we answer:

And according to your reasoning,

if they were judged with hot substances,

where did the ark move?

For the tar that it had inside and outside would have melted in the boiling water.

And furthermore, Og, king of Bashan,

who emerged from the Flood,

where did he stand

so that he did not die from the boiling water?

Rather,

we are forced to say:

A miracle was performed for them, that the waters cooled

around

at the sides of the ark,

and there Og, king of Bashan, and the re’em stood and the tar did not melt .

And we inquire about this:

And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

why did they need to check the place where the heifer was burned, lest the Flood dead had remained there?

Even granted that the Flood descended upon the Land of Israel,

nevertheless,

was no dead person left there?

For all the dead were swept from the Land of Israel to Babylonia, which is lower than it.

For Reish Lakish said: Why was it called

Babylonia

“the deep”?

Because

all the Flood dead sank there. And Rabbi Yohanan said: Why was it called “Shinar”?

Because

all the Flood dead were shaken out there.

And we answer:

It is impossible that some did not adhere

from among the dead to the mud and remain there in the Land of Israel.

Rabbi Abbahu said: Why was it called “Shinar”?

Because

it shakes out its wealthy.

Its wealthy do not endure [because they do not have mercy upon people. Rashi].

And we object:

But we see that there are

wealthy people in Babylonia?

And we answer:

For up to three generations it does not sustain

their wealth.

Rabbi Ami said: Anyone who eats from the dust of Babylonia is as though he eats the flesh of his ancestors

who died there in exile [Rashi, Shabbat 113b].

It was also taught so: Anyone who eats from the dust of Babylonia is as though he eats the flesh of his ancestors. And some say: As though he eats creeping things and crawling things

of the Flood .

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise the scapegoat

that one sacrificed outside is exempt, as it is stated, “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it.” Anyone that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable for it.

And we inquire about this: Is

the scapegoat not fit for the entrance of the Tent of Meeting?

But it was taught:

It is stated concerning slaughtering outside [Leviticus 17], “He did not bring it to offer a sacrifice to the Lord,” and it is expounded in Torat Kohanim that “sacrifice” comes to exempt one from liability for slaughtering unconsecrated animals inside.

And the beraita discusses:

Or

it is not coming for this exposition, but rather we expound as follows: “

Sacrifice”—

I might understand

that one is liable outside

even

for slaughtering animals that are only

consecrated for the Temple repair, for

they

were called “sacrifice,” as it is stated

after the war with Midian: “

And we brought the offering of the Lord,” golden vessels, anklet and bracelet; and these are not consecrated with the sanctity of the altar, but only for the Temple repair, and nevertheless they were called “sacrifice.”

golden vessels, bracelets, and armlets. These items were not sanctified with the sanctity of the altar, but only for the Temple maintenance fund, and nevertheless they were called “an offering.”

The verse states: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it.”

And we expound:

One that is fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting

is for which one is liable because of slaughtering outside;

excluded are consecrated objects for the Temple repair,

for one is not liable for them because of slaughtering outside, since

they are not fit for the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,

for although they are unblemished, they are not destined to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting .

I might say that I exclude these, but I do not exclude the scapegoat

from liability for slaughtering outside, because

it is fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,

for it is destined to enter the courtyard in order that lots be cast over it and confession be made over it?

The verse states, “

to offer a sacrifice

to the Lord,”

and we expound:

To exclude the scapegoat, which is not designated for the Lord,

for it is not offered upon the altar.

And seemingly it follows that the beraita disagrees with the Mishna, for the Mishna excluded the scapegoat because it is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, whereas in the beraita it is explained that it was excluded only from “to the Lord,” but it is still considered “fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”?

And we answer:

It is not difficult. Here

the beraita deals

before the drawing of the lots

, when it is fit and destined to enter the Courtyard in order to perform the drawing of the lots upon it; therefore, it was excluded only by “to the Lord.” But

here,

in the Mishna, it is speaking

after the drawing of the lots,

when it is no longer fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and it was excluded by “to the entrance of” .

And we challenge:

After the drawing of the lots also

it is still fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, for

there is the confession

that must be confessed over it in the Courtyard?

And we answer:

Rather, Rav Mani said: It is not difficult. Here,

the beraita,

before the confession. Here,

the Mishna,

after the confession 69 .

We learned in the Mishna:

the animal that copulated and the animal that was copulated with

—if he offered them outside, he is exempt, as it is stated: “before the Tabernacle of the Lord”: anyone that is not fit to come before the Tabernacle of the Lord, one is not liable for it.

And we consider the matter:

But this too,

all the animals disqualified for offering that are taught in the Mishna,

let it emerge for you

that one is exempt from liability for slaughtering them outside

from “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,”

just as we learned in the first clause, to exempt one for slaughtering the red heifer and the sent-away goat, for they too are not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting because of their disqualification; and why is it necessary to derive this also from the verse “before the Tabernacle of the Lord”?