ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 113
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that someone who burns the Parah Adumah 'Chutz
mi'Gitah' (see Bartenura) is Patur. Resh Lakish explains this to mean 'a
location which has not been examined for it' - for hidden graves (regarding
(b) Rebbi Yochanan objects to this explanation - based on the principle that
the whole of Eretz Yisrael has a Chazakah of being free of Tum'ah (as we
will explain shortly).
(c) He therefore interprets 'Chutz mi'Gitah' - to mean within the walls of
Yerushalayim (since the Torah writes in Chukas "Ve'hotzi Osah el mi'Chutz
(d) We ask on Rebbi Yochanan however (based on a statement by Rav Ada bar
Ahavah, which we are about to discuss) - why he did not establish 'Chutz
mi'Gitah' even outside Yerushalayim, but not in line with the entrance to
(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah learned from the 'Hekesh' "Ve'shachat Ve'hizah" -
that just as the Haza'ah ha'Dam must take place facing the entrance of the
Heichal, so too, must the Shechitah (see Tosfos DH 'she'Ne'emar').
(b) We know that Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Rav Ada bar Ahavah's D'rashah -
because he said the same thing himself.
(c) Rebbi Oshaya disagrees. *He* learns from the Pasuk there "al Pirshah
Yisrof" - that the Parah must be burned wherever it runs to as it expires,
after it has been Shechted.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless chose to establish our Mishnah within the
walls - to teach us that even if someone burns the Parah when it is still
close to the Heichal he is Patur, how much more so when he is further aware.
(a) The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish,
whether Eretz Yisrael has a Chezkas Taharah or not is - whether the water of
the Mabul fell in Eretz Yisrael (Resh Lakish), leaving the bones hidden in
the mud or not (Rebbi Yochanan). Note, See Mitzpeh Eisan.
(b) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, they both derive their respective
opinions from the Pasuk "ben Adam, Amar Lah '*At Eretz Lo Metuharah Hi, Lo
Gushmah be'Yom Za'am*", which ...
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan translates as - 'Are you not a land that is Tahor,
since rain did not fall on you on the day of rage?
(c) Resh Lakish queried Rebbi Yochanan from a Mishnah is Succah. The
significance of ...
2. ... Resh Lakish translates as - 'You are a land that is not Tahor, for
did rain not fall on you on the day of rage'?
1. ... the courtyards in Yerushalayim, which were built on top of rocks,
underneath which was a hollow space was - the fact that, due to the space
between any graves that may have been there and the rock, the Tum'ah did not
rise to the surface (i.e. they avoided Tum'as ha'Tehom).
(d) The small children would then draw water from the Shilo'ach with stone
containers - in case there was Tum'as ha'Tehom in the vicinity of the spring
into which they lowered them, and stone is not subject to Tum'ah.
2. ... the pregnant women who would give birth there, was - the fact that
the babies that were born there, who would later deal with the Mei Chatas,
were born Tahor and were assured of not becoming Tamei until they were ready
to fulfill their task.
3. ... the oxen that they would bring there with wide doors on their backs
was - the fact that these children would sit on these doors when drawing the
water for the Mei Parah and would not make an Ohel over any grave that they
pass on the way.
(a) All this was - a Rabbinical decree to counter rendering the Kohen who
burned the Parah a T'vul-Yom, which they did to prove the Tzedokim (who
maintained that the Parah Adumah could not be brought by a T'vul-Yom). So to
counter-balance that leniency, none of the other Kohanim would touch the
Kohen concerned throughout the seven days of separation, whilst these
children would sprinkle on him.
(b) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua reconciles this Beraisa with Rebbi
Yochanan, in whose opinion Eretz Yisrael has a Chezkas Taharah - by
stressing that it was all a Ma'alah de'Rabbanan anyway (as we explained),
and not a real suspicion of Tum'ah.
(c) When they once discovered human bones in a room in the Beis-Hamikdash,
and they wanted to declare the whole of Yerushalayim Tamei - Rebbi Yehoshua
objected, on the grounds that it would be a shame and disgrace to decree
Tum'ah on the city of our fathers.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan queried Resh Lakish from this Beraisa. He extrapolated
from Rebbi Yehoshua's words 'Where are the dead of the Mabul? - that there
were none in Eretz Yisrael.
(a) We counter Rebbi Yochanan's proof from Rebbi Yehoshua's subsequent words
'Ayei Meisei Nevuchadnetzar' however - which there definitely were ...
(b) ... only they were cleared away, according to Rebbi Yehoshua. So perhaps
there were bones from the Meisei Mabul too, but they were cleared away.
(c) Nevertheless, Resh Lakish considers Eretz Yisrael Safek Tamei Tum'as
ha'Tehom - because it is only from the area of Yerushalayim that they were
cleared away, but not from the rest of Eretz Yisrael.
(d) In the second Lashon, it is Resh Lakish who infers from Rebbi Yehoshua
that, just as Meisei Nevuchadnetzar existed in Eretz Yisrael, so too did the
Meisei Mabul. Rebbi Yochanan will counter that however - by establishing the
one when there were bones that were cleared away, and the other, when there
were no bones to begin with.
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, even though the flood did not fall in Eretz
Yisrael, the people in Eretz Yisrael died from the heat generated by the
(b) This is based on a statement of Rav Chisda, who learns from the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Va'yashoku ha'Mayim" and "va'Chamas ha'Melech
Shachachah" - that they were punished with boiling water ('Midah ke'Neged
Midah', because they sinned with boiling semen).
(c) In spite of the fact that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, the people who
lived in Eretz Yisrael died anyway, his proof that Eretz Yisrael has a
Chezkas Taharah, based on the fact that the flood did not affect Eretz
Yisrael, is sound - because seeing as they died on the ground, their bones
were easily discernible, and were later buried without any problem.
(a) According to the second Lashon, it is Rebbi Yochanan who queried Resh
Lakish from the Pasuk "mi'Kol Asher be'Charavah Meisu", proving that some
land at least, was not affected by the Mabul. To which Resh Lakish's
replied - that "Charavah" means the erstwhile dry land.
(b) Seeing as the entire land was now water, Rav Chisda extrapolates from
the fact that the Torah refers to it as 'Charavah' - that it was only land
creatures that died, and not the fish.
(a) Rebbi Yanai attempts to explain how the 'Re'eim' (aurochs), which was
too large to fit into Noach's boat, survived, assuming the flood affected
Eretz Yisrael, too - by suggesting that No'ach took in baby aurochses.
(b) We dismiss this suggestion however, upon hearing Rabah bar bar Chanah's
description of the baby's size - which he knew because he actually saw it.
(c) He was referring to - a sea Re'eim that he saw beside the sea.
(d) When a Re'eim defecated in the Yarden - it drained it.
(a) We also rejected Rebbi Yochanan's suggestion that No'ach placed the
Re'eim's head in the boat - by pointing out that the crater made by the
creature's head was one a half Parsah (six Mil [many times larger than
(b) We therefore amend his answer - by changing it to its nose in place of
its whole head.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan found it necessary to say this (in spite of the fact
that, in his opinion, the Mabul did not fall in Eretz Yisrael) - in order to
answer the Kashya on Resh Lakish.
(d) The boat moved around in the turbulent water. Resh Lakish therefore
explains that, to prevent it from leaving the Re'eim behind - No'ach tied
the Re'eim's horns to the boat.
(a) To counter the Kashya how the Re'eim could possibly survive the heat of
the water, as we explained earlier - we ask how both the boat and Og Melech
Habashan were able to withstand the heat.
(b) We explain all three phenomena - by referring to the miracle that Hashem
performed, saving the boat, Og Melech Habashan and the Re'eim, in cooling
all the water that surrounded the boat.
(c) Bavel is referred to as...
1. ... Metzulah, according to Resh Lakish - because all the dead of the
Mabul were carried down there.
(d) Nevertheless, Resh Lakish considers Eretz Yisrael a Safek Tum'as
ha'Tehom - because inevitably, some bones must have got stuck in the mud of
Eretz Yisrael on the way down to Bavel.
2. ... Shin'ar, according to Rebbi Yochanan - because all the dead of the
Mabul were emptied there.
(a) According to Rebbi Avahu, Bavel is called Shin'ar, because 'Mena'eres
Ashirehah' - meaning that it gets rid of the wealthy people, because they do
not have compassion on the poor.
(b) We reconcile this with the fact that there are wealthy men in Bavel - by
pointing out that their wealth does not last for three generations.
(c) The Beraisa that we cite in support of Rebbi Ami, states that if someone
eats the earth of Bavel, it is as if he has eaten the flesh of his ancestors
(see Chok Nasan). According to Yesh Omrim - it is as if he ate the vermin fr
om the Mabul (see Sugya in Shabbos).
(a) The Beraisa thinks that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis ought to be subject to
Shechutei Chutz - because the Pasuk in Matos refers to them as "Kodshei
(b) The Tana concludes however, that, based on the Pasuk "ve'el Pesach Ohel
Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" - they are not, since they are not fit to be brought to the
entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed.
(c) If someone is Makdish to Bedek ha'Bayis, an animal that is fit to go on
the Mizbe'ach - he transgresses an Asei, so generally, it is Ba'alei-Mumin
that one donates to Bedek ha'Bayis (see Tosfos DH 'Yatz'u').
(a) Whereas from "la'Hashem", the Tana excludes - the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.
(b) This Beraisa clashes with our Mishnah, which precludes the Sa'ir
ha'Mishtale'ach from Shechutei Chutz - from "ve'el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo
Hevi'o" (implying that it is not fit to brought to the Pesach Ohel Mo'ed,
whereas the Beraisa emphatically states that it is).
(a) The Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach must be fit to be brought to the entrance of
the Ohel Mo'ed - because it has to be eligible to be brought to Hashem
(should the lot fall out that way).
(b) Initially, we resolve the discrepancy between our Mishnah and the
Beraisa - by precluding the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach from "ve'el Pesach Ohel
Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" (like our Mishnah) after the Hagralah (the drawing of the
lots) and from "la'Hashem" (like the Beraisa) before the Hagralah (the lot,
which has to be drawn at the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed).
(c) We refute this answer however - seeing as the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach
still needs to stand at the Pesach Ohel Mo'ed for the Viduy (even though
this take place after the Hagralah, .
(d) So we finally answer the Kashya - by establishing our Mishnah (not after
the Hagralah, but) - after the Viduy (when the goat no longer requires
Pesach Ohel Mo'ed), and the Beraisa, before the Viduy.