Previous daf

1)

(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 'Tum'as ha'Tehom').

(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 la'Machaneh").

(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 the Heichal.

(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?
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'?

(c) Resh Lakish queried Rebbi Yochanan from a Mishnah is Succah. The significance of ...

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).
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.

(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.

(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.

6)

(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 water.

(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 No'ach's boat]).

(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.
2. ... Shin'ar, according to Rebbi Yochanan - because all the dead of the Mabul were emptied 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.

(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 Hashem".

(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.