Zevachim 113b (קיג:) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection to Reish Lakish:

But if

you concede that

they were cleared

when the Flood dead were removed

then they were cleared

everywhere, so why did you say that Eretz Yisrael had not been examined?

And we answer:

Although they were cleared

of the Flood dead

from Jerusalem, the whole of Eretz Yisrael was not cleared!

The red heifer, however, was prepared outside Jerusalem, and therefore a site had to be prepared for it that had been examined to ensure that no Flood dead were buried there.

Some say: Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan

from the earlier beraita:

“Where are the Flood dead? Where are the dead of Nebuchadnezzar.” Is it not

that they are equal? And

since these

dead of Nebuchadnezzar

were

also Flood dead

and were

in Eretz Yisrael, how could you say that there were no Flood dead in Eretz Yisrael? [Rabbi Yehoshua’s claim was that the dead had been removed from Jerusalem, but that the rest of the land had not been examined.]

Rabbi Yohanan replied:

Is that necessarily so!?

Are they equal?

This one is as it is, and that one is as it is!

The dead of Nebuchadnezzar did in fact exist and were removed, but there had never been any Flood dead in Eretz Yisrael.

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan:

It is stated concerning the Flood:

“All that was on dry land died.”

This indicates that they died everywhere, including in Eretz Yisrael.

Granted, according to me, who say that the Flood descended upon Eretz Yisrael; that is why they died. But according to you, why did they die

in Eretz Yisrael? The Flood did not occur there!

Rabbi Yohanan replied: Those who were in Eretz Yisrael

died from the hot air,

for although the Flood did not descend there, the hot vapor reached there. [Nevertheless, Eretz Yisrael had been examined, because these dead were subsequently buried in a cemetery. 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 intense hot vapor during the Flood,

as in the statement of Rav Hisda. For Rav Hisda said: The generation of the Flood sinned with boiling fluids

the generation of the Flood

and were judged with boiling fluids,

as the waters of the Flood were boiling, and their vapor reached Eretz Yisrael.

And Rav Hisda explains:

“They sinned with boiling fluids”—

with semen, and “were judged with boiling fluids,” as it is written here

concerning the Flood:

“And the waters subsided,” and it is written there

concerning Ahasuerus:

“And the king’s wrath subsided.”

We infer one from the other: Just as with Ahasuerus, the expression “subsided” refers to the boiling of anger, so too, concerning the Flood, “the waters subsided” means that the waters cooled from their boiling, indicating that until then they had been boiling.

Some say: Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish:

It is stated concerning the Flood:

“All that was on dry land died.” Granted, according to me, who say that the Flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael; that is why

it says “on dry land,”

for there was dry land

in the world, namely Eretz Yisrael.

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

Was there any place that remained dry from the waters of the Flood? Reish Lakish replied: The reference is to

the dry land that had existed 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 it call it “dry land”?

What additional point is taught by the verse “All that was on dry land died,” when it was already stated: “And all flesh that moved upon the earth perished”? [According to Rabbi Yohanan, this is understandable, as the verse teaches that even in Eretz Yisrael, which was dry land, they died.]

The novel teaching of the verse is

as in the statement of Rav Hisda. For Rav Hisda said: In the generation of the Flood, no decree was issued against the fish of the sea,

as it is stated: “All that was on dry land died”—but not the fish of the sea!

And we raise the following question:

Granted, according to the one who says that the Flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael; this explains how

the

re'em

the re'em, which because of its great size could not enter the ark, survived

there,

in Eretz Yisrael, which was dry land, and thus survived the Flood [male and female] and its species was not eradicated from the earth.

But according to the one who says that the Flood descended

upon Eretz Yisrael,

where did the re'em stand?

Where did the re'em stand, and how did it survive the Flood!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yannai said: They brought in its young,

when they were small,

into

the ark

.

And we raise an objection:

But Rabba bar bar Hana said:

I myself saw a day-old re'em calf,

the re'em’s calf,

on its first day

of life,

and it was

in size

like Mount Tabor. And how large is Mount Tabor?

Its size is

forty parasangs. And

its

neck was

the length of that re'em’s neck

three parasangs

long.

The place where its head rested

measured

one and a half parasangs. It defecated,

casting its waste into the Jordan,

and blocked the Jordan,

stopping the flow of its waters.

Since even a day-old calf was so enormous, how could they bring it into the ark? And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

They brought only

its head

of the young re'em

into the ark.

And we raise an objection:

But the Master said

above, Rabba bar bar Hana, that the size of

the place where its head rested was one and a half parasangs,

much larger than the entire ark?

And we answer:

Rather, its nostrils

alone

were brought into the ark,

so that it could breathe, while it stood with its feet on the ground and did not drown in the water because of its height.

And we raise an objection: 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 Eretz Yisrael,

in which case the re'em could have stood there.

And we answer: Rabbi Yohanan

was speaking according to the position of Reish Lakish,

who says that the Flood descended upon Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, the re'em necessarily survived in the ark. But according to Rabbi Yohanan’s own position, he truly does not need any of this.

And we raise an objection: What did they accomplish by bringing its nostrils into the ark?

But the ark moved,

for the ark traveled across the surface of the water from a higher place to a lower place, and its nostrils would have slipped out of the ark and it would have died.

And we answer:

Reish Lakish said: Its horns were tied to the ark,

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

And we raise an objection:

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

so the re'em must have been scalded by the boiling water and died!

And we answer:

And according to your reasoning,

if they were judged with boiling fluids,

how could the ark move?

The pitch with which it was coated inside and outside would have melted in the boiling water!

Furthermore, Og, king of Bashan,

who emerged from the Flood,

where did he stand

so that he was not killed by the boiling water?

Rather,

we must say

that a miracle was performed for them, and the water cooled

around

alongside the ark,

and there Og, king of Bashan, stood along with the re'em, and the pitch did not melt.

And we raise the following question:

And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

why did they need to examine the site where the red heifer was burned, lest Flood dead remained there?

Even if it is also so that the Flood descended upon Eretz Yisrael,

nevertheless,

was any dead person left there?

All the dead would have been swept from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, which is lower than it.

For Reish Lakish said: Why was it called

Babylonia

“the abyss”?

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 become attached

to the mud among the dead and remain there in Eretz Yisrael.

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

Because it

shakes out its wealthy.

Its wealthy do not endure [because they do not show mercy to others. Rashi].

And we raise an objection:

But we see that there are

wealthy people in Babylonia!

And we answer:

Their wealth does not last for

three generations.

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

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

A beraita likewise teaches: Anyone who eats from the dust of Babylonia is as though he eats the flesh of his forefathers. And some say: It is as though he eats creeping things and crawling animals

of the Flood.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise the scapegoat

that was offered outside is exempt, as it is stated: “And they did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” Anything that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting does not incur liability for offering it outside.

And we raise the following question: Is

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

But it was taught in a beraita:

It is stated concerning offerings slaughtered outside [Leviticus 17]: “They did not bring them to offer an offering to the Lord.” And it is expounded in the Torat Kohanim that the word “offering” exempts one from liability for slaughtering unconsecrated animals inside,

and the beraita discusses this:

Or

perhaps the word is not intended for this exposition, but rather we expound it as follows:

“An offering”—

I might understand

that one incurs liability for slaughtering outside

even

animals that are merely

consecrated for Temple maintenance, for

they

are called “an offering,” as it is stated

after the war with Midian:

“And we have brought an offering of the Lord,”

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

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

And we expound:

Only that which is fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting

incurs liability for slaughtering outside;

consecrated items for Temple maintenance are excluded,

and one does not incur liability for them for slaughtering outside because

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 not the scapegoat

from liability for slaughtering outside, because

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

since it is destined to enter the courtyard in order that lots be drawn over it and confession be made over it.

The verse therefore states:

“to offer an offering

to the Lord,”

and we expound:

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

as it is not offered upon the altar.

Apparently, then, the beraita disagrees with the Mishna. The Mishna excluded the scapegoat because it is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, whereas the beraita indicates that it is excluded only by the phrase “to the Lord,” but is nevertheless considered “fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”?

And we answer:

This is not difficult. Here,

the beraita is dealing with

before the lottery,

when it is fit and destined to enter the Temple courtyard in order for the lottery to be conducted with regard to it; therefore, it is excluded only by the phrase “for the Lord.” But

here,

in the Mishna, it is speaking

after the lottery,

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

And we challenge this:

Even after the lottery

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

there is the confession

that must be recited over it in the Temple courtyard?

And we answer:

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

the beraita,

is before the confession. Here,

the Mishna,

is after the confession 69 .

We learned in the Mishna:

An animal that mated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality

which one offered outside, he is exempt, as it is stated: “before the Sanctuary of the Lord”; anyone that is not fit to come before the Sanctuary of the Lord does not incur liability for offering it.

And we inquire about this:

But this too,

all the offerings disqualified for sacrifice that are listed in the Mishna,

let it emerge

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 cow of the purification offering and the scapegoat, since they too are not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting because of their disqualification. Why, then, is it necessary to derive this also from the verse “before the Sanctuary of the Lord”?