Zevachim Daf 113 (זבחים דף קי״ג)
Daf: 113 | Amudim: 113a – 113b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (113a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Continuation of differences between private and public altars
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַתַּן סָבִיב, וּתְנוּפָה, וְהַגָּשָׁה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה, וְכִיהוּן, וּבִגְדֵי שָׁרֵת, וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת, וְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, וּמְחִיצָה לְדָמִים, וְרִיחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם.
English Translation:
No placement of blood around all sides of the altar in offerings for which this is required, no waving of meal offerings, and no bringing of meal offerings to the corner of the altar prior to removal of the handful. Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no meal offering sacrificed on an altar outside the Temple. And requiring a member of the priesthood to perform the sacrificial rites, the priestly service vestments, the service vessels, the pleasing aroma to God, the partition for the blood, i.e., the red line dividing the upper and lower halves of the altar, and the priest’s washing of hands and feet before his service all do not apply to sacrifice on private altars, as the service there need not be performed by priests nor follow all the protocols of the Temple service.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna continues listing ritual requirements that apply to the public altar but not to private altars (bamot). Blood placement “around” (on all sides) wasn’t required on private altars. Waving offerings and bringing meal offerings to the altar corner weren’t required. Rabbi Yehuda goes further: meal offerings weren’t brought on private altars at all — they were exclusively a Temple/Tabernacle offering. Priestly service wasn’t required (anyone could officiate), vestments weren’t worn, sacred vessels weren’t used, the “pleasing aroma” language didn’t apply, the red line dividing upper/lower altar wasn’t relevant, and hand/foot washing wasn’t performed. Private altars were dramatically simplified worship.
Key Terms:
- מתן סביב (matan saviv) = Placing blood around all sides of the altar
- תנופה (tenufah) = Waving the offering
- הגשה (hagashah) = Bringing the meal offering to the altar corner
- כיהון (kehunah) = Priesthood — requirement for priestly service
- בגדי שרת (bigdei sharet) = Service vestments worn by priests
- מחיצה לדמים (mechitzah le-damim) = The partition (red line) on the altar dividing blood applications
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה (סיום)
What IS equal between private and public altars
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל הַזְּמַן, הַנּוֹתָר וְהַטָּמֵא – שָׁוִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה.
English Translation:
But the intent to sacrifice or partake of the offering beyond its designated time, which renders the offering piggul; the halakha of portions of the offering left over [notar] beyond the time it may be eaten; and the prohibition against eating consecrated meat while ritually impure are equal in this, a private altar, and that, a public altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
Despite all the differences, three rules applied equally to both altar types: (1) Intent to eat beyond the designated time (piggul) invalidated the offering. (2) Meat left over beyond the eating deadline (notar) was forbidden. (3) Eating sacrificial meat while impure was prohibited. These fundamental sanctity rules transcended the venue.
Key Terms:
- זמן (zman) = Time-related disqualification (piggul) — intent to consume beyond designated time
- נותר (notar) = Leftover — meat remaining beyond eating deadline
- טמא (tamei) = Ritually impure
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
The red heifer “outside its pit” — Reish Lakish’s interpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַאי חוּץ מִגִּתָּהּ? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: חוּץ מִמָּקוֹם הַבָּדוּק לָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּדוּקָה הִיא!
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who burns the red heifer outside its pit is not liable for sacrificing outside the Temple courtyard. The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of: Outside its pit? Reish Lakish said: It means outside the place that was inspected to ensure that it is not a gravesite, which would render it impure. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: But is not all of Eretz Yisrael inspected for impurity? Therefore, there is no need for the site of the burning of the red heifer to be specially inspected.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara revisits the mishna’s statement (from 112a) about the red heifer burned “outside its pit.” Reish Lakish explains: the “pit” refers to the place that was specially inspected for corpse impurity. Before burning the red heifer on the Mount of Olives, the site was checked to ensure no graves were present that would contaminate the process. Rabbi Yoḥanan challenges: if the entire Land of Israel is assumed to be inspected and free of hidden graves, why would a special inspection be needed for the red heifer location? This challenge leads to a major aggadic debate.
Key Terms:
- גתה (gitah) = Its pit — the designated burning location
- מקום הבדוק (makom ha-baduk) = The inspected place — checked for hidden graves
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yoḥanan’s alternative explanation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לִפְנִים מִן חוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.
English Translation:
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The term: Outside its pit, is referring to a case where the priest slaughtered the red heifer within the walls of Jerusalem and not in the place outside the walls, as the Torah prescribes: “And it shall be brought outside the camp, and it shall be slaughtered before him” (Numbers 19:3).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan offers his own interpretation: “outside its pit” means slaughtering the red heifer inside Jerusalem’s walls, when it should be slaughtered outside. The Torah requires the heifer to be brought “outside the camp” — Jerusalem’s walls serve as the camp’s boundary. Slaughtering inside the walls, though physically closer to the Temple, violates the procedure.
Segment 5
TYPE: בעיא
Question about slaughter not opposite the entrance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלוֹקְמַהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ חוּץ לַחוֹמָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח! דְּאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט… וְהִזָּה״ –
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But let Rabbi Yoḥanan interpret it to be a case where the priest slaughtered it outside the wall but not opposite, i.e., not in the direction of, the entrance to the Temple, as Rav Adda bar Ahava says: If he slaughtered it in a location not opposite the entrance, it is disqualified, as it is stated with regard to the red heifer: “And you shall give it to Elazar the priest, and it shall be brought outside the camp, and it shall be slaughtered before him. And Elazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and sprinkle of its blood toward the front of the Tent of Meeting seven times” (Numbers 19:3–4).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges: why not interpret “outside its pit” as slaughtering outside Jerusalem but not facing the Temple entrance? Rav Adda bar Ahava taught that the red heifer must be slaughtered opposite the Temple entrance. The scriptural proof comes from Numbers 19:3-4, where “slaughter” and “sprinkle” are juxtaposed — just as sprinkling faces the Temple, so must slaughter.
Key Terms:
- כנגד הפתח (keneged ha-petach) = Opposite the entrance — facing the Temple
Segment 6
TYPE: מחלוקת
Dispute about slaughter location requirements
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה הַזָּאָתָהּ כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח, אַף שְׁחִיטָתָהּ כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח. וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּלָא מַקֵּישׁ, וְהָא אִתְּמַר: שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: פְּסוּלָה – ״וְשָׁחַט… וְהִזָּה״. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה – ״אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְשָׁחַט״.
English Translation:
The slaughter of the red heifer and the sprinkling of its blood are juxtaposed so that one will draw the following conclusion: Just as its sprinkling must be performed opposite the entrance, so too, its slaughter must be performed opposite the entrance. And if you would say that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not juxtapose the two verses for the purpose of this comparison, that is difficult: But it was stated with regard to a red heifer slaughtered in a location not opposite the entrance that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is disqualified, as “and it shall be slaughtered” is juxtaposed with “and sprinkle.” Reish Lakish says: It is fit, since it is stated: “And it shall be brought outside the camp, and it shall be slaughtered,” indicating that it may be slaughtered in any location outside the camp.
קלאוד על הדף:
A formal dispute emerges. Rabbi Yoḥanan juxtaposes “slaughter” with “sprinkle” — just as sprinkling must face the Temple entrance, so must slaughter. Reish Lakish reads “outside the camp and slaughter” as permitting slaughter anywhere outside, without directional requirements.
Segment 7
TYPE: מחלוקת נוספת
Dispute about burning not opposite entrance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, שְׂרָפָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה, וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר פְּסוּלָה – ״וְשָׂרַף… וְהִזָּה״.
English Translation:
And it was also stated that amora’im disagree with regard to a red heifer that the priest burned not opposite the entrance to the Temple. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is disqualified, and Rabbi Oshaya says: It is fit. The Gemara explains their reasoning: Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is disqualified because of an additional juxtaposition. It is stated: “And the heifer shall be burned in his sight; its skin, and its flesh, and its blood, with its dung, shall be burned” (Numbers 19:5), while in the previous verse it is stated: “And sprinkle of its blood toward the front of the Tent of Meeting.” This teaches that just as the sprinkling of the blood must be done opposite the entrance, so too must the burning be done opposite the entrance.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan extends his juxtaposition logic to burning — “burn” is juxtaposed with “sprinkle,” requiring the burning to face the Temple. The scriptural basis is Numbers 19:5 (“and the heifer shall be burned”) compared to the previous verse about sprinkling toward the Tent of Meeting.
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ חלופי
Rabbi Oshaya’s reasoning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר כְּשֵׁרָה – ״עַל פִּרְשָׁהּ יִשְׂרֹף״; מְקוֹם שֶׁפּוֹרֶשֶׁת לְמִיתָה, שָׁם תְּהֵא שְׂרֵיפָתָהּ.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Oshaya says that a red heifer that was burned in a location not opposite the entrance is fit, as the verse states: “With its dung [pirshah], shall be burned,” which is interpreted homiletically to mean: In the place that its soul departs [poreshet] for death, there shall be its burning. Just as no specific location is given for the soul’s departing, so too, the burning need not be performed in a specific location. Since Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the red heifer must be slaughtered opposite the entrance to the Temple, why does he not understand the term: Outside of its pit, to be referring to its slaughter in any location not opposite the Temple entrance?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Oshaya disagrees, deriving from “with its dung [pirshah] shall be burned” that the burning occurs wherever the heifer “departs [poreshet] for death” — no specific directional requirement. This homiletical reading plays on the similarity between “pirshah” (its dung) and “poreshet” (departs).
Key Terms:
- פרשה/פורשת (pirshah/poreshet) = Its dung / departs — homiletical wordplay
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution using “it is not necessary” style
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרִי: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר; לָא מִיבַּעְיָא חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – דְּרַחוֹקֵי רַחֲקַהּ; אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה – דְּקָרוֹבֵי קָרְבַהּ, וְאֵימָא תִּתַּכְשַׁר – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Yoḥanan is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary for the mishna to teach that in slaughtering a red heifer outside the wall in a location not opposite the entrance, one does not transgress the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard. In that case it is clearly disqualified, as he has distanced it from where it is meant to be slaughtered. But even if one slaughtered it inside the wall of Jerusalem, so that he brings it closer to the Temple, and one might say that it is a valid way of slaughtering the red heifer, Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that nevertheless it is disqualified.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves why Rabbi Yoḥanan specified “inside the walls” rather than “not facing the entrance.” He used “it is not necessary” reasoning: obviously slaughtering outside but in the wrong direction is invalid (distancing from proper location). The novel teaching is that even slaughtering inside Jerusalem — seemingly closer to sanctity — is invalid.
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדתא
The flood and Eretz Yisrael debate — source of the dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּדוּקָה הִיא. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמָר סָבַר: לֹא יָרַד.
English Translation:
The Gemara returns to the disagreement cited earlier: The Master says that Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: But is not all of Eretz Yisrael inspected for impurity? Since Reish Lakish’s response to this question is not mentioned, the Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the flood in the time of Noah descended upon Eretz Yisrael, and its residents perished. It is therefore necessary to inspect the place where the red heifer is burned to ascertain whether it is a gravesite. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael, and there is no reason to suspect there are lost graves there.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the underlying disagreement: did the flood in Noah’s time affect the Land of Israel? Reish Lakish holds it did — hence corpses may be buried there requiring inspection. Rabbi Yoḥanan holds it didn’t — Eretz Yisrael was miraculously spared, so ancient graves aren’t a concern.
Key Terms:
- מבול (mabul) = The flood in Noah’s time
Segment 11
TYPE: דרשה
Both derive from the same verse — Ezekiel 22:24
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״בֶּן אָדָם אֱמׇר לָהּ אַתְּ אֶרֶץ לֹא מְטֹהָרָה הִיא לֹא גֻשְׁמָהּ בְּיוֹם זָעַם״.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And both of them, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, interpreted the same verse, stated by Ezekiel with regard to Eretz Yisrael, to derive their opinions. The verse states: “Son of man, say to her: You are a land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation” (Ezekiel 22:24).
קלאוד על הדף:
Remarkably, both Sages derive their opposing views from the same verse! This verse in Ezekiel addresses Jerusalem, and its meaning hinges on how one reads it — as a statement or a rhetorical question.
Segment 12
TYPE: דרשה (המשך)
Two readings of the same verse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר, אַתְמוֹהֵי מַתְמַהּ קְרָא: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִי לָא מְטוֹהָרָה אַתְּ?! כְּלוּם יָרְדוּ עָלַיִךְ גְּשָׁמִים בְּיוֹם זָעַם?! וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ סָבַר: כִּפְשָׁטֵיהּ – אָרֶץ לֹא מְטוֹהָרָה אַתְּ; מִי לֹא יָרְדוּ עָלַיִךְ גְּשָׁמִים בְּיוֹם זָעַם?!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the verse is asking a rhetorical question: Eretz Yisrael, are you not cleansed from the impurity imparted by corpses? Did the rains of the flood fall upon you on the day of indignation? And Reish Lakish holds that this verse should be read in accordance with its straightforward meaning, i.e., as a statement, not a question: You are a land that is not cleansed. Didn’t rains fall upon you on the day of indignation? Therefore, the bodies of all of those who perished in the flood are somewhere in the ground.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan reads the verse as a rhetorical question: “Are you not cleansed? Did rain fall on you during God’s anger?” The implied answer is “No” — Eretz Yisrael was spared the flood, remaining pure from corpse contamination. Reish Lakish reads the verse literally as a statement of condemnation: Jerusalem is NOT cleansed because the flood DID fall upon it.
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Reish Lakish challenges from the pure courtyards
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲצֵירוֹת הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בְּנוּיוֹת עַל הַסֶּלַע, וְתַחְתֵּיהֶן חָלוּל מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם, וּמְבִיאִין נָשִׁים מְעוּבָּרוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת, וּמְגַדְּלוֹת שָׁם בְּנֵיהֶם לַפָּרָה.
English Translation:
Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna (Para 3:2): Courtyards were built in Jerusalem on stone, and beneath these courtyards there was a hollow space due to the concern that there was a lost grave in the depths. The space served as a barrier preventing the impurity from reaching the courtyards above. And they would bring pregnant women, and those women would give birth in those courtyards. And those women would raise their children there, thereby ensuring that the children never became impure. This would enable the children to assist in the rite of the red heifer.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish brings proof from a mishna (Parah 3:2) describing special courtyards in Jerusalem built over hollow spaces to create barriers against potential underground impurity. If no flood affected Eretz Yisrael, why this elaborate precaution?
Key Terms:
- קבר התהום (kever ha-tehom) = A grave in the depths — hidden corpse impurity
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה (מובאת)
The courtyards for children serving the red heifer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמְבִיאִין שְׁוָורִים, וְעַל גַּבֵּיהֶן דְּלָתוֹת, וְתִינוֹקוֹת יוֹשְׁבִין עֲלֵיהֶן, וְכוֹסוֹת שֶׁל אֶבֶן בְּיָדָן, וּמִלְּאוּ וְיָשְׁבוּ בִּמְקוֹמָן.
English Translation:
And once the children reached the appropriate age, the priests would bring oxen there. And on the backs of these oxen, they would place doors, and the children would sit upon the doors, so that the doors would serve as a barrier between them and any impurity in the depths, and they would hold cups of stone, which are not susceptible to ritual impurity, in their hands, and they would ride upon the oxen to the Siloam pool. And they filled the cups with water and would sit back in their places upon the oxen and be taken to the Temple Mount. The water in the cups would be used for the rite of the red heifer. Apparently, there is concern that hidden sources of impurity exist in Eretz Yisrael.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna describes the elaborate system for raising ritually pure children to assist with the red heifer. Pregnant women gave birth in these isolated courtyards. Children grew up never touching the ground (riding on doors placed on oxen). Stone cups (which can’t become impure) held water for the purification ritual. This extreme caution suggests concern about hidden impurity.
Key Terms:
- כוסות של אבן (kosot shel even) = Stone cups — not susceptible to ritual impurity
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
The higher standard for red heifer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מַעֲלָה עָשׂוּ בַּפָּרָה.
English Translation:
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that Rabbi Yoḥanan would reply: The Sages established a higher standard for purity in the case of the red heifer, but generally speaking there is no concern for hidden sources of impurity in Eretz Yisrael caused by those who perished in the flood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the challenge: the elaborate precautions don’t prove the flood came to Eretz Yisrael. Rather, the Sages instituted extra stringencies specifically for the red heifer — a uniquely important purification ritual. General law didn’t require such precautions, but for the red heifer, they applied an elevated standard.
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא הפוכה
Rabbi Yoḥanan challenges Reish Lakish — the Chamber of Woodshed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: פַּעַם אֶחָד מָצְאוּ עֲצָמוֹת בְּלִשְׁכַּת דִּיר הָעֵצִים, וּבִקְּשׁוּ לִגְזוֹר טוּמְאָה עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. עָמַד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עַל רַגְלָיו וְאָמַר: לֹא בּוּשָׁה וּכְלִימָּה הִיא לָנוּ, שֶׁנִּגְזוֹר טוּמְאָה עַל עִיר אֲבוֹתֵינוּ?! אַיֵּה מֵתֵי מַבּוּל? אַיֵּה מֵתֵי נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר?
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita (see Tosefta, Eduyyot 3:3): Once, human bones were found in the Chamber of the Woodshed, and the Sages sought to decree impurity upon Jerusalem, i.e., to proclaim all who go there to be impure, as if a corpse can be found in a chamber of the Temple there is reason to be concerned that there are lost graves in other places as well. Rabbi Yehoshua stood upon his feet and said: Is it not a shame and disgrace for us to decree impurity upon the city of our fathers because of this concern? Show me: Where are the dead of the flood, and where are all of the dead killed by Nebuchadnezzar?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan now challenges Reish Lakish with a baraita: bones were once discovered in a Temple chamber, and the Sages considered declaring all of Jerusalem impure. Rabbi Yehoshua protested, asking rhetorically where the flood victims’ bodies were if they had died there. Similarly, where were Nebuchadnezzar’s victims? His implication: these bodies aren’t in Jerusalem because they were either removed or never existed there.
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ
Reish Lakish’s response — bodies were removed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִדְּקָאָמַר הָכִי, לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּלָא הֲווֹ? וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, הֲרוּגֵי נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא הֲווֹ?! אֶלָּא הֲווֹ, וּפַנִּינְהוּ; הָכָא נָמֵי – הֲווֹ וּפַנִּינְהוּ. וְאִי אִפַּנּוֹ,
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan infers: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said this, is this not to say that there were no lost graves in Jerusalem from the flood, because the flood did not take place there? Reish Lakish responds: And according to your reasoning, so too were there not those killed by Nebuchadnezzar, in and around Jerusalem, who were mentioned by Rabbi Yehoshua? Certainly there were, as Nebuchadnezzar killed many people in Jerusalem. Rather, there were, and others removed the bodies. Here too, with regard to the dead of the flood, there were, and others removed the bodies. And it is possible to ask: If they were removed, why is it necessary to be concerned that there may be impurity in the place of the red heifer?
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish counters: Nebuchadnezzar certainly killed many in Jerusalem! Yet we don’t find their bodies because they were removed. The same applies to flood victims — they were there but were subsequently removed. Rabbi Yehoshua’s rhetorical question doesn’t prove the flood never came. The segment ends mid-thought, continuing onto amud bet.
Amud Bet (113b)
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ (המשך)
Bodies removed from Jerusalem, not all of Israel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא אִיפְּנוֹ! נְהִי דְּאִיפַּנּוֹ מִירוּשָׁלַיִם, מִכּוּלַּהּ אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא אִיפַּנּוֹ.
English Translation:
As they were already removed. One can respond: This baraita deals exclusively with Jerusalem. Granted that the bones of those who perished in the flood and at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar were removed from Jerusalem, but they were not removed from all of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, outside Jerusalem, the red heifer may be slaughtered only in a place that has been inspected.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the challenge: while bodies may have been removed from Jerusalem specifically, they weren’t removed from all of Eretz Yisrael. This is why inspection is required for the red heifer location (on the Mount of Olives, outside Jerusalem).
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא חלופית
Alternative version — Reish Lakish challenges Rabbi Yoḥanan
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַיֵּה מֵתֵי מַבּוּל? אַיֵּה מֵתֵי נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר? מַאי, לָאו מִדְּהָנֵי הֲווֹ – הָנֵי נָמֵי הֲווֹ? מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתֵיהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתֵיהּ.
English Translation:
There are those who say the discussion should be inverted, and Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the flood did not affect Eretz Yisrael, from that baraita, as Rabbi Yehoshua said: Where are the dead of the flood, and where are all of the dead killed by Nebuchadnezzar? Reish Lakish said: What, is it not possible to infer from this question that since those slaughtered by Nebuchadnezzar were in Eretz Yisrael, those who perished in the flood were also there? Rabbi Yoḥanan responds: Are the cases comparable? This is as it is and that is as it is, i.e., the dead of Nebuchadnezzar were indeed in Eretz Yisrael, but the dead of the flood were not, as there was no flood there.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents an alternative version where Reish Lakish challenges Rabbi Yoḥanan: since Nebuchadnezzar’s victims were certainly in Israel, shouldn’t the flood victims also have been there? Rabbi Yoḥanan responds that the cases are distinct — Nebuchadnezzar’s killings occurred in Israel, but the flood never reached there.
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge from “all on dry land died”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה מֵתוּ״ – בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, דְּאָמֵינָא יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מֵתוּ. אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, אַמַּאי מֵתוּ? מִשּׁוּם הַבְלָא.
English Translation:
Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to the flood, it is stated: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, whatsoever was on the dry land, died” (Genesis 7:22). Granted, according to my opinion, that I say the flood descended upon Eretz Yisrael, due to that reason all living creatures on Earth died, even those in Eretz Yisrael. But according to your opinion that the flood did not descend on Eretz Yisrael, why did they die there? Rabbi Yoḥanan responds: They died due to the heat that accompanied the floodwaters, and that spread to Eretz Yisrael as well. Those corpses were then buried in known locations.
קלאוד על הדף:
A question arises: if Rabbi Yoḥanan is correct that no flood fell on Eretz Yisrael, how did its inhabitants die during the flood? The answer: they died from the supernatural heat generated by the floodwaters. The flood was boiling hot, and its heat radiated even to areas without direct rainfall.
Key Terms:
- הבלא (havla) = The heat/steam — the deadly heat from the floodwaters
Segment 21
TYPE: אגדתא
Rav Ḥisda’s teaching — the flood’s heat as punishment
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּרוֹתְחִין קִלְקְלוּ, וּבְרוֹתְחִין נִידּוֹנוּ; דִּכְתִיב הָכָא: ״וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ הַמָּיִם״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וַחֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ שָׁכָכָה״.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes that this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: The generation of the flood sinned with boiling heat, i.e., forbidden sexual intercourse, and they were punished with the boiling heat of the flood waters. As it is written here, with regard to the flood: “And God remembered Noah and every living creature and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God made a wind to pass over the earth and the waters calmed [vayashoku hamayim]” (Genesis 8:1); and it is written there, with regard to the execution of Haman: “So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the king’s boiling anger was assuaged [shakhakha]” (Esther 7:10). This latter verse indicates that a matter is assuaged from heat; similarly, the flood waters were hot.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ḥisda explains the hot floodwaters as measure-for-measure punishment. The generation of the flood sinned with “heat” — interpreted as sexual immorality (the “heat” of passion). Therefore, God punished them with heated waters. The linguistic proof: “vayashoku” (the waters calmed) resembles “shakhakha” (anger was assuaged), both implying cooling from heat.
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא חלופית
Alternative version — Rabbi Yoḥanan challenges Reish Lakish
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה מֵתוּ״ – בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, דְּאָמֵינָא לֹא יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי הֲוַי חָרָבָה. אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, מַאי חָרָבָה? חָרָבָה שֶׁהָיְתָה מֵעִיקָּרָא.
English Translation:
There are those who say that this discussion should be inverted, and in fact Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from that verse: It is stated that “whatsoever was on the dry land, died” (Genesis 7:22). Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that the flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael, due to that reason, there was an area of dry land even during the flood, and all living creatures there died from the heat. But according to your opinion that the flood did descend upon Eretz Yisrael, what is the meaning of “dry land”? There was no dry land anywhere. Reish Lakish responds: The verse is referring to land that had been dry initially, before the flood.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative version: Rabbi Yoḥanan challenges Reish Lakish from the same verse — if flood waters covered all land, what is “dry land”? Reish Lakish responds: it refers to what had been dry land before the flood covered it.
Segment 23
TYPE: דרשה
Fish were exempt from the decree
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ חָרָבָה? כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּדוֹר הַמַּבּוּל לֹא נִגְזְרָה גְּזֵרָה עַל דָּגִים שֶׁבַּיָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה מֵתוּ״ – וְלֹא דָּגִים שֶׁבַּיָּם.
English Translation:
And why does the Torah call it “dry land” during the flood? There was no dry land during the flood. It is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: During the generation of the flood no decree was decreed upon the fish in the sea, as it is stated: “Whatsoever was on the dry land, died” (Genesis 7:22), i.e., only those creatures that had been on dry land, but not the fish in the sea.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara clarifies: “dry land” means land-dwelling creatures, not a geographic location. The divine decree targeted land animals, not sea creatures. Fish survived the flood because they weren’t included in the punishment — their natural habitat remained viable.
Segment 24
TYPE: אגדתא
The reima survived the flood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – הַיְינוּ דְּקָם רֵימָא הָתָם. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יָרַד, רֵימָא הֵיכָא קָם? אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: גּוּרִיּוֹת הִכְנִיסוּ בַּתֵּיבָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says the flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, this is the explanation of the fact that the reima remained there, in Eretz Yisrael, and survived the flood. But according to the one who says the flood descended upon Eretz Yisrael, i.e., Reish Lakish, how did the reima remain? Given its large size, it clearly could not have fit into Noah’s ark. Rabbi Yannai says: They brought reima cubs into the ark, and they survived the flood.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita addresses the legendary reima (often identified with the re’em, a gigantic wild ox). Its young cubs fit in the ark, but the adults couldn’t. This raises the question: how did the adult reima survive the flood?
Key Terms:
- רימא (reima) = A giant creature mentioned in Scripture
Segment 25
TYPE: אגדתא (המשך)
The reima’s enormous size
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: לְדִידִי חֲזֵי לִי אוּרְזִילָא דְּרֵימָא (בַּת) [בַּר] יוֹמֵאּ, וְהָוֵי כְּהַר תָּבוֹר. וְהַר תָּבוֹר כַּמָּה הָוֵיא – אַרְבְּעִין פַּרְסֵי; מְשָׁכָא דְּצַוְּארֵיהּ – תְּלָתָא פַּרְסֵי, מַרְבַּעְתָּא דְּרֵישָׁא – פַּרְסָא וּפַלְגָא, רְמָא כַּבָּא וּסְכַר יַרְדְּנָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say: I have seen a day-old offspring of the reima, and it was as large as Mount Tabor. And how large is Mount Tabor? It is forty parasangs. And the length of the cub’s neck was three parasangs, and the place where its head rests, i.e., its neck, was a parasang and a half. It cast feces, and thereby dammed up the Jordan river. Even the cub would have been too large for the ark.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara describes the reima’s staggering dimensions: even a cub was mountain-sized! Mount Tabor (in the Jezreel Valley) served as the comparison. The creature’s neck alone extended three parasangs (about 12 kilometers). These fantastical measurements emphasize its inability to fit in the ark.
Key Terms:
- פרסה (parasang) = A Persian measure of distance, approximately 4 kilometers
Segment 26
TYPE: תירוץ
Only the head/nose entered the ark
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רֹאשׁוֹ הִכְנִיסוּ לַתֵּיבָה. וְהָאָמַר מָר: מַרְבַּעְתָּא דְּרֵישָׁא פַּרְסָא וּפַלְגָא! אֶלָּא רֹאשׁ חוֹטְמוֹ הִכְנִיסוּ לַתֵּיבָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They brought only the head of the cub into the ark, while its body remained outside. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the Master, i.e., Rabba bar bar Ḥana, say that the size of the place where its head rests was a parasang and a half? Consequently, even its head alone would not fit into the ark. Rather, they brought the head, i.e., edge, of its nose into the ark, so that it might breathe.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan suggests only the head was brought in. But even the head was too large! The resolution: only the tip of its nose entered the ark, allowing it to breathe while its body remained outside.
Segment 27
TYPE: קושיא
Why did Rabbi Yoḥanan need to explain this?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא יָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל! לְדִבְרֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ קָאָמַר.
English Translation:
The Gemara wonders why Rabbi Yoḥanan was compelled to give this answer: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say that the flood did not descend upon Eretz Yisrael? According to his opinion, perhaps the reima survived by remaining there during the flood. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan said his answer in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish.
קלאוד על הדף:
A contradiction: Rabbi Yoḥanan holds no flood came to Israel, so why explain how the reima survived the flood? Answer: he’s responding to Reish Lakish’s view, explaining how the reima would have survived according to that position.
Segment 28
TYPE: קושיא
How did the reima survive the boiling water?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא קָסָגְיָא תֵּיבָה! אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: קַרְנָיו קָשְׁרוּ בַּתֵּיבָה. וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל בְּרוֹתְחִין קִלְקְלוּ וּבְרוֹתְחִין נִידּוֹנוּ!
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But the ark was moving upon the water. How was it was possible to keep the nose of the reima in the ark? Reish Lakish says: They tied its horns to the ark, so that the reima would move with it. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say that the people of the generation of the flood sinned with boiling heat and were punished with boiling heat? How could the reima have survived the boiling water?
קלאוד על הדף:
Another challenge: the ark was moving — how did the reima stay connected? Reish Lakish: its horns were tied to the ark. But then: the water was boiling! How did the reima survive the heat?
Segment 29
TYPE: תירוץ
A miracle cooled the water around the ark
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, תֵּיבָה הֵיכִי סָגְיָא? וְעוֹד, עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן הֵיכָא קָאֵי? אֶלָּא נֵס נַעֲשָׂה לָהֶם, שֶׁנִּצְטַנְּנוּ בְּצִידֵּי הַתֵּיבָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara replies: And according to your reasoning, that it was impossible to survive the boiling water, how did the ark itself move? It was covered with pitch, which melts in boiling water. Moreover, how did Og, king of the Bashan (see Numbers 21:33–35), who according to tradition was of the generation of the flood, stand, i.e., survive the boiling water? Rather, it must be that a miracle was performed for them, namely that the water on the sides of the ark cooled, allowing the ark, the reima, and Og to survive.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns the question around: how did the pitch-covered ark survive boiling water? How did Og (legendary giant king) survive? Answer: a miracle cooled the water around the ark, allowing the ark, the reima, and Og to survive.
Segment 30
TYPE: קושיא
Even Reish Lakish says corpses went to Babylonia
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן [בֶּן לָקִישׁ] – נְהִי נָמֵי דְּיָרַד מַבּוּל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהָא לָא פָּשׁ! דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״מְצוּלָה״? שֶׁכׇּל מֵתֵי מַבּוּל נִצְטַלְּלוּ שָׁם. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״שִׁנְעָר״? שֶׁכׇּל מֵתֵי מַבּוּל נִנְעֲרוּ שָׁם. אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא אִידְּבַקוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, that the flood descended upon Eretz Yisrael and the corpses of those who perished in the flood might impart impurity there, though the flood did indeed descend upon Eretz Yisrael, no trace of the dead remains there. As Reish Lakish says: Why is Babylonia called Metzula (see Isaiah 44:27)? It is because all the dead of the flood, throughout the world, sank [nitztalelu] there. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why is Babylonia called Shinar? It is because all the dead of the flood were deposited [ninaru] there. Evidently, even Reish Lakish says that all who died in the flood, including those from Eretz Yisrael, sank in Babylonia. The Gemara responds: It is impossible that the corpses of some of those in Eretz Yisrael who perished in the flood were not stuck in the mud and remained there.
קלאוד על הדף:
A challenge: even Reish Lakish says flood corpses ended up in Babylonia (“Metzula” = they sank there; “Shinar” = they were shaken out there). So why worry about corpses in Israel? Resolution: some corpses got stuck in the mud and remained.
Key Terms:
- מצולה (Metzula) = The depths — Babylonia, where corpses sank
- שנער (Shinar) = Biblical name for Babylonia/Mesopotamia
Segment 31
TYPE: אגדתא נוספת
Alternative etymology for Shinar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״שִׁנְעָר״? שֶׁמְּנַעֶרֶת עֲשִׁירֶיהָ. וְהָא קָחָזֵינַן דְּהָווּ! תְּלָתָא דָּרֵי לָא מָשְׁכִי.
English Translation:
Having mentioned some explanations for the names of Babylonia, the Gemara adds: Rabbi Abbahu says: Why is it called Shinar? Because it shakes [shemena’eret] its wealthy people, i.e., they do not remain wealthy. The Gemara asks: But we see that there are wealthy people in Babylonia who remain wealthy. The Gemara responds: Their wealth does not extend for three generations.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abbahu offers another etymology: “Shinar” means Babylonia “shakes out” its wealthy — riches don’t last there. Challenge: we see rich Babylonians! Answer: wealth doesn’t last three generations.
Segment 32
TYPE: אגדתא
Eating Babylonian dust
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: כָּל הָאוֹכֵל מֵעֲפָרָהּ שֶׁל בָּבֶל – כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר אֲבוֹתָיו. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כָּל הָאוֹכֵל מֵעֲפָרָהּ שֶׁל בָּבֶל – כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר אֲבוֹתָיו. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים.
English Translation:
With regard to the statement that the corpses of those who perished in the flood came to Babylonia, Rabbi Ami says: Concerning anyone who eats the dust of Babylonia, it is as if he eats the flesh of his ancestors, since there is a great deal of dust from the dead there. This is also taught in a baraita: Concerning anyone who eats the dust of Babylonia, it is as if he eats the flesh of his ancestors. And some say: It is as if he eats repugnant creatures and crawling things, which also died in the flood and were absorbed by the ground of Babylonia.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ami’s striking teaching: eating Babylonian dust is like eating one’s ancestors’ flesh, since all flood corpses ended up there. An alternative view: it’s like eating vermin and creeping things, which also perished in the flood and were absorbed into Babylonian soil.
Segment 33
TYPE: הלכתא
Return to halacha — the scapegoat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ.
English Translation:
The mishna teaches that if one sacrificed the scapegoat of Yom Kippur outside the Temple he is exempt from the prohibition against sacrificing outside, since the Torah states: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it” (Leviticus 17:3–4), and the scapegoat is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to halachic material about the Yom Kippur scapegoat. The mishna taught that slaughtering it outside creates no liability because it’s not “fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”
Key Terms:
- שעיר המשתלח (sa’ir ha-mishtaleiach) = The scapegoat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur
Segment 34
TYPE: קושיא
Contradiction about items consecrated for Temple maintenance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּרְמִינְהִי: אוֹ ״קׇרְבָּן״ – שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ קׇרְבָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַנַּקְרֵב אֶת קׇרְבַּן ה׳״?
English Translation:
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: The verse states: “To present it as an offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4), and it is derived from the word “offering” that one who slaughters non-sacred animals inside the Temple is not liable. The baraita asks: Or perhaps from the word “offering” I would derive that the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple applies even to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as they too are called offerings, as it is stated with regard to the spoils of the war against Midian: “And we have brought the Lord’s offering, what every man has gotten, of jewels of gold, armlets, and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and girdles, to make atonement for our souls before the Lord” (Numbers 31:50). These were certainly not items consecrated for the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: the word “offering” (korban) includes items consecrated for Temple maintenance, not just altar sacrifices. So why isn’t slaughtering them outside prohibited?
Segment 35
TYPE: תירוץ
“Fit to come to the Tent of Meeting” excludes Temple maintenance items
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ״ – מִי שֶׁרָאוּי לָבֹא בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד; יָצְאוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת – שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִן.
English Translation:
Therefore, the verse states: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it” (Leviticus 17:4), which teaches that this halakha applies only to that which is fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, i.e., is fit to be sacrificed. Excluded are items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are not fit for sacrifice.
קלאוד על הדף:
The verse “to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it” limits the prohibition to things actually fit for sacrifice. Temple maintenance funds aren’t sacrificed on the altar, so slaughtering animals bought with them outside creates no liability.
Segment 36
TYPE: קושיא
Why exclude the scapegoat specifically?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹצִיא אֶת אֵלּוּ – שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִן; וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ – שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לָבֹא אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לַה׳״ – לְהוֹצִיא שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְיוּחָד לַה׳.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Perhaps I shall exclude these, i.e., items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are not fit to be sacrificed upon the altar, from the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple, but I shall not exclude the scapegoat, which is fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Therefore, the verse states: “To present it as an offering to the Lord,” which serves to exclude from this prohibition the scapegoat, which is not designated as a sacrifice to the Lord, but is rather sent to Azazel. According to the baraita, the scapegoat is fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita notes: the scapegoat IS brought to the Tent of Meeting entrance (for the lottery), so why is it excluded? Because the verse says “to the Lord” — and the scapegoat goes to Azazel, not to God.
Segment 37
TYPE: קושיא
Contradiction — is the scapegoat fit for the entrance or not?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן קוֹדֶם הַגְרָלָה, כָּאן לְאַחַר הַגְרָלָה. אַחַר הַגְרָלָה נָמֵי, הָאִיכָּא וִידּוּי!
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita that states that the scapegoat is fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is referring to before the lottery, wherein the two goats of the Day of Atonement are brought into the Temple courtyard, and the High Priest draws lots to determine which is to be sacrificed to the Lord, and which is for Azazel. There, the mishna that states that the scapegoat is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is referring to after the lottery, at which point it is no longer fit for the Temple. The Gemara challenges: After the lottery it is also fit to be brought inside, as there is still an obligation for the High Priest to recite confession upon it in the Temple courtyard.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the contradiction: before the lottery, either goat could become the Temple sacrifice (fit for the entrance). After the lottery, the scapegoat is designated for Azazel (not fit). But wait — even after the lottery, the confession is performed at the Temple entrance!
Segment 38
TYPE: תירוץ
Before vs. after confession
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב מַנִּי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן קוֹדֶם וִידּוּי, כָּאן לְאַחַר וִידּוּי.
English Translation:
Rather, Rav Mani said: This is not difficult, as here, the baraita that states that the scapegoat may be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is referring to before the confession, when it is still fit to enter the Temple. There, the mishna that states that it is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is referring to after the confession, at which point it is no longer fit to be brought inside.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Mani refines the answer: the distinction is before vs. after confession. Before confession: the scapegoat must come to the Temple for the ritual. After confession: its purpose is complete — it’s destined for the wilderness, no longer fit for the Temple.
Segment 39
TYPE: משנה (מובאת)
Disqualified animals offered outside
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע.
English Translation:
The mishna teaches that with regard to an animal that actively copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or another disqualified offering such as an animal that was designated for idol worship, or one that was worshipped: If one sacrificed it outside the Temple courtyard, he is exempt. This is because with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering outside, the Torah states: “He did not bring it, to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4), which teaches that there is no liability for slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard an animal that is not fit to be sacrificed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reiterates the principle from 112a: permanently disqualified animals (like those involved in bestiality) create no liability when slaughtered outside. They could never be valid offerings, so “outside” versus “inside” is irrelevant.
Segment 40
TYPE: בעיא
Why not derive from “entrance of Tent of Meeting”?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא נָמֵי תִּיפּוֹק לִי מִ״פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And with regard to this too, derive from the first part of that verse: “To the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” that, as in the case of the red heifer and the scapegoat, if an animal is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable for slaughtering it outside.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks: can’t we derive the exemption for disqualified animals from “entrance of the Tent of Meeting” — they’re not fit to enter, so no liability? The discussion continues on the next daf.