POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Zevachim 113
1) LIABILITY FOR "PARAH ADUMAH" OUTSIDE
(a) (Gemara) Question: What does it mean 'outside of its
2) DID THE FLOOD AFFECT "ERETZ YISRAEL"?
(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
(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 -
(f) Answer: R. Yochanan teaches a bigger Chidush:
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
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
(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
(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
2. Reish Lakish reads the end of the verse
incredulously - Eretz Yisrael is not Tahor - was it
not flooded? (i.e., surely it was!)
1. (Some) women would go there to give birth, the
children would be raised (in Taharah) to engage in
the Parah Adumah;
(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).
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
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?
(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
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)?!
(g) Answer: Likewise, even though the flood killed people in
Eretz Yisrael, we assume that the bodies were moved!
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);
(h) Question: If Reish Lakish says that the bodies were
moved, why does he say that Eretz Yisrael is not
(i) Answer: They were moved outside of Yerushalayim, not
outside of Eretz Yisrael.
3) HOW THE "RE'EM" SURVIVED
(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
1. We understand this if the flood encompassed Eretz
Yisrael - but if it did not, why did people in Eretz
(m) Answer: They died on account of the heat - this is like
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
(n) Version #2 - Question (R. Yochanan against Reish Lakish):
"Mi'Kol Asher be'Charavah Mesu";
2. It says here "Va'Yashoku ha'Mayim", like it says
"Va'Chamas ha'Melech Shachachah" (which refers to
1. I explain, the flood did not encompass Eretz Yisrael
- there, there was Charavah (dry land);
(o) Answer: It means, (everything died that lived on) what
was initially dry land.
2. According to you, where was there dry land?
(p) Question: Why does the Torah say this (let it say simply,
(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);
4) THE CORPSES DESCENDED TO BAVEL
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
1. Question: R. Yochanan said that the flood did not
encompass Eretz Yisrael - he should simply say that
it survived in Eretz Yisrael!
(g) Question: (How could it keep the end of its nose inside
-) the ark was moving!
2. Answer: R. Yochanan answered on behalf of Reish
(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
5) ONE IS EXEMPT FOR "SE'IR HA'MISHTALE'ACH"
1. (Reish Lakish): Bavel is called 'Metzulah' because
all the corpses in the flood Nitztalelu (sunk) to
(b) Answer: Surely, some Tum'ah (parts of corpses) stuck in
2. (R. Yochanan): Bavel is called "Shin'ar" because all
the corpses in the flood Nin'aru (were shaken) to
(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
(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
(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
(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.)
2. Suggestion: Perhaps we exclude Bedek ha'Bayis, but
not Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which is fit for Pesach
3. Rejection: "La'Sh-m" - this excludes Se'ir
ha'Mishtale'ach, it is not exclusively for Hash-m
(it is sent to Azazel).
(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.