Zevachim Daf 113 (זבחים דף קי״ג)
Daf: 113 | Amudim: 113a – 113b | Date: Cycle 14: 23 Tevet 5785 (January 23, 2025)
Breakdown
📖 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.
English Translation:
And placement of blood around all sides of the altar, and waving, and bringing the meal offering near the altar corner. Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no meal offering on a private altar.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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.
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
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Temple requirements not applicable to private altars
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִיהוּן, וּבִגְדֵי שָׁרֵת, וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת, וְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, וּמְחִיצָה לְדָמִים, וְרִיחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם.
English Translation:
And priesthood, and service vestments, and service vessels, and pleasing aroma to God, and the partition for blood, and washing of hands and feet.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The mishna lists more Temple requirements absent from private altars: 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:
- 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 3
TYPE: משנה (סיום)
What IS equal between private and public altars
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל הַזְּמַן, הַנּוֹתָר וְהַטָּמֵא — שָׁוִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה.
English Translation:
But regarding time [piggul], leftover [notar], and impurity — these are equal in this [private altar] and that [public altar].
What the Gemara is Doing:
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 4
TYPE: גמרא
The red heifer “outside its pit” — Reish Lakish’s interpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָרָא: מַאי חוּץ מִגִּתָּהּ? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: חוּץ מִמָּקוֹם הַבָּדוּק לָהּ.
English Translation:
Gemara: What is the meaning of “outside its pit”? Reish Lakish said: Outside the place that was inspected for it.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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.
Key Terms:
- גתה (gitah) = Its pit — the designated burning location
- מקום הבדוק (makom ha-baduk) = The inspected place — checked for hidden graves
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Yoḥanan’s challenge
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּדוּקָה הִיא!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: But isn’t all of Eretz Yisrael inspected?
What the Gemara is Doing:
Rabbi Yoḥanan challenges Reish Lakish: 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 about whether the flood in Noah’s time affected Eretz Yisrael.
Segment 6
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: For example, where he slaughtered it inside the walls of Jerusalem.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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 7
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.
English Translation:
Let him interpret it as a case where he slaughtered it outside the wall but not opposite the entrance! As Rav Adda bar Ahava said: If he slaughtered it not opposite the entrance — it is disqualified.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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 (derived from “before his eyes”). This would be another form of procedural violation.
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת
Dispute about slaughter and burning locations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: פְּסוּלָה — ״וְשָׁחַט… וְהִזָּה״. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה — ״אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְשָׁחַט״.
English Translation:
If he slaughtered it not opposite the entrance — Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Disqualified, based on “and he shall slaughter… and sprinkle.” Reish Lakish says: Valid, based on “outside the camp and he shall slaughter.”
What the Gemara is Doing:
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. The same logic applies to burning the heifer.
Segment 9
TYPE: מחלוקת נוספת
Dispute about burning not opposite entrance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׂרָפָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה, וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
If he burned it not opposite the entrance — Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Disqualified. And Rabbi Oshaya says: Valid.
What the Gemara is Doing:
Rabbi Yoḥanan extends his juxtaposition logic to burning — “burn” is juxtaposed with “sprinkle,” requiring the burning to face the Temple. 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.
Segment 10
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 — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
They said: He is speaking in the style of “it is not necessary.” It is not necessary to state that outside the wall — where he distanced it — it is invalid. But even inside the wall — where he brought it closer — this [ruling] teaches us it is also invalid.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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 11
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 Master said: Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: But isn’t all of Eretz Yisrael inspected? About what do they disagree? One Sage holds the flood descended upon Eretz Yisrael, and one Sage holds it did not descend.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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 12
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 said: Both of them interpreted the same verse: “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).
What the Gemara is Doing:
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 13
TYPE: דרשה (המשך)
Rabbi Yoḥanan’s reading — rhetorical question
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר, אַתְמוֹהֵי מַתְמַהּ קְרָא: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִי לָא מְטוֹהָרָה אַתְּ?! כְּלוּם יָרְדוּ עָלַיִךְ גְּשָׁמִים בְּיוֹם זָעַם?!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan holds the verse is asking rhetorically: Eretz Yisrael, are you not cleansed?! Did rains fall upon you on the day of indignation?!
What the Gemara is Doing:
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.
Segment 14
TYPE: דרשה (המשך)
Reish Lakish’s reading — straightforward statement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ סָבַר: כִּפְשָׁטֵיהּ — אָרֶץ לֹא מְטוֹהָרָה אַתְּ; מִי לֹא יָרְדוּ עָלַיִךְ גְּשָׁמִים בְּיוֹם זָעַם?!
English Translation:
Reish Lakish holds it according to its straightforward meaning: You are a land that is not cleansed; didn’t rains fall upon you in the day of indignation?!
What the Gemara is Doing:
Reish Lakish reads the verse literally as a statement of condemnation: Jerusalem is NOT cleansed because the flood DID fall upon it. The verse critiques the land for having been affected by the flood’s destruction.
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
Reish Lakish challenges from the pure courtyards
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲצֵרוֹת הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בְּנוּיוֹת עַל הַסֶּלַע, וְתַחְתֵּיהֶן חָלוּל מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם.
English Translation:
Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Courtyards were built in Jerusalem on rock, and beneath them was a hollow space due to concern about a grave in the depths.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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 16
TYPE: משנה (מובאת)
The courtyards for children serving the red heifer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמְבִיאִין נָשִׁים מְעוּבָּרוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת, וּמְגַדְּלוֹת שָׁם בְּנֵיהֶם לַפָּרָה. וּמְבִיאִין שְׁוָורִים, וְעַל גַּבֵּיהֶן דְּלָתוֹת, וְתִינוֹקוֹת יוֹשְׁבִין עֲלֵיהֶן, וְכוֹסוֹת שֶׁל אֶבֶן בְּיָדָן.
English Translation:
And they would bring pregnant women who would give birth there, and raise their children there for the red heifer. And they would bring oxen, and upon them were doors, and the children would sit upon them, and stone cups were in their hands.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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 17
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: They established a higher standard for the red heifer.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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 18
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.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish: Once they found bones in the Chamber of the Woodshed, and they sought to decree impurity upon Jerusalem.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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. This would only be noteworthy if bones were unexpected — suggesting the flood hadn’t contaminated the land!
Segment 19
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Yehoshua’s response about the flood’s dead
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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 Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: Is it not a shame and disgrace for us to decree impurity upon the city of our fathers?! Where are the dead of the flood? Where are the dead killed by Nebuchadnezzar?
What the Gemara is Doing:
Rabbi Yehoshua protested the proposed decree, 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 20
TYPE: תירוץ
Reish Lakish’s response — bodies were removed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, הֲרוּגֵי נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא הֲווֹ?! אֶלָּא הֲווֹ, וּפַנִּינְהוּ; הָכָא נָמֵי — הֲווֹ וּפַנִּינְהוּ.
English Translation:
And according to your reasoning, were there also no victims of Nebuchadnezzar?! Rather, there were, and they were removed. Here too, there were, and they were removed.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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.
Amud Bet (113b)
Segment 21
TYPE: אגדתא (המשך)
How did they die if no flood came?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי אִפַּנּוֹ — מֵחֲמֵי הַמַּבּוּל מֵתוּ.
English Translation:
And if they were removed — they died from the heat of the floodwaters.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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:
- חמי המבול (chamei ha-mabul) = The heat of the floodwaters
Segment 22
TYPE: אגדתא
Rav Ḥisda’s teaching — the flood’s heat as punishment
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּחֲמִין קִלְקְלוּ — בְּחֲמִין נִדּוֹנוּ.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda said: With heat they sinned — with heat they were judged.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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. This aggadic teaching connects the punishment’s form to the sin’s nature.
Segment 23
TYPE: ראיה
Proof that the flood waters “calmed” from heat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ הַמַּיִם״ — כְּמוֹ ״וַתָּשָׁךְ חֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ״.
English Translation:
As it is stated: “And the waters subsided [va-yashoku]” (Genesis 8:1) — like “and the king’s anger was assuaged [va-tashakh]” (Esther 7:10).
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara proves the waters were heated by comparing vocabulary. The verb for the waters “subsiding” (va-yashoku) resembles the verb for anger “being assuaged” (va-tashakh). Just as anger “cools down,” so did the hot floodwaters eventually cool. The linguistic parallel demonstrates the waters’ initial heated state.
Segment 24
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge from “all that was on dry land died”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָכְתִיב: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה מֵתוּ״!
English Translation:
But it is written: “All that was on dry land died” (Genesis 7:22)!
What the Gemara is Doing:
A challenge arises: if Eretz Yisrael was dry (no flood), how does “all on dry land died” apply? Shouldn’t those on truly dry land have survived? This verse seems to assume floodwaters were everywhere.
Segment 25
TYPE: תירוץ
Fish were exempt from the decree
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מַאי חָרָבָה — יַבֶּשֶׁת. דָּגִים שֶׁבַּיָּם — לֹא נִגְזְרָה עֲלֵיהֶם גְּזֵרָה.
English Translation:
Rather, what is “dry land”? Land-based creatures. Fish in the sea — no decree was issued upon them.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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 26
TYPE: אגדתא
The reima survived the flood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנְיָא: רֵימָא — גּוּרָיו הִכְנִיסוּ לַתֵּיבָה.
English Translation:
It was taught: The reima — its cubs were brought into the ark.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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 27
TYPE: אגדתא (המשך)
The reima’s enormous size
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּרָא דְּרֵימָא — אֲתָא לְאַרְעָא, וְהַוָּה רְבִיעַ כְּהַר תָּבוֹר. וְרֵישֵׁיהּ — תְּלָתָא פַּרְסֵי.
English Translation:
A cub of the reima — when it came to the ground, it was as large as Mount Tabor. And its head [neck] — three parasangs.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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 28
TYPE: בעיא
How did the reima survive if tied to the ark?
Hebrew/Aramatic:
וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ מֵחֲמֵי הַמַּבּוּל מֵתוּ! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שׁוּלֵי הַתֵּיבָה מְצַנְּנִין אוֹתָן.
English Translation:
But didn’t you say they died from the heat of the floodwaters! Rather, conclude from this: the base of the ark cooled the waters around it.
What the Gemara is Doing:
A contradiction emerges: if the floodwaters were lethally hot, how did the reima survive while tied to the ark’s exterior? The resolution: the ark itself miraculously cooled the surrounding water. The reima survived by staying close to the ark’s cooling zone.
Segment 29
TYPE: תירוץ חלופי
Alternative: The reima was in Eretz Yisrael
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינָּה: בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה.
English Translation:
Rather, conclude from this: it was in Eretz Yisrael.
What the Gemara is Doing:
An alternative resolution: the reima survived because it was located in Eretz Yisrael, where no floodwaters fell according to Rabbi Yoḥanan. This supports the view that Eretz Yisrael was uniquely protected from the flood.
Segment 30
TYPE: אגדתא
Babylonia’s names and the flood
Hebrew/Aramatic:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בָּבֶל — לָמָּה נִקְרֵאת ״שִׁנְעָר״? שֶׁנִּנְעֲרוּ כׇּל מֵתֵי הַמַּבּוּל לְשָׁם.
English Translation:
Rav Yosef said: Babylonia — why is it called “Shinar”? Because all the dead of the flood were shaken [nina’aru] out there.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara offers an etymological explanation for Babylonia’s biblical name “Shinar.” It derives from “shaken out” — when the floodwaters receded, all the corpses were deposited in that low-lying region. This connects geography to cosmic history.
Key Terms:
- שנער (Shinar) = Biblical name for Babylonia/Mesopotamia
Segment 31
TYPE: אגדתא נוספת
Alternative etymologies for Babylonia
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: בָּבֶל — לָמָּה נִקְרֵאת ״מְצוּלָה״? שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ כׇּל מֵתֵי הַמַּבּוּל לְשָׁם.
English Translation:
Rav Yosef said: Babylonia — why is it called “Metzulah” (the depths)? Because all the dead of the flood were found there.
What the Gemara is Doing:
Another name for Babylonia — “Metzulah” (depths) — also connects to the flood. The region served as a repository for flood victims, earning names reflecting this catastrophic role.
Segment 32
TYPE: הלכתא
Return to halacha — the scapegoat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ — מֵאֵימָתַי חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹחֵט בַּחוּץ? מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא חוּץ לְחוֹמַת עֲזָרָה.
English Translation:
The Sages taught: The scapegoat — from when is one liable for it on account of slaughtering outside? From when it leaves beyond the wall of the Temple courtyard.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara returns to halachic material about the Yom Kippur scapegoat. At what point does slaughtering this goat outside the Temple trigger the prohibition? Answer: once it exits the courtyard walls. Before that, it’s still in its proper domain; after, it has been designated for the wilderness.
Key Terms:
- שעיר המשתלח (sa’ir ha-mishtaleiach) = The scapegoat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur
- חומת עזרה (chomat azarah) = The wall of the Temple courtyard
Segment 33
TYPE: מחלוקת
Before the lottery vs. after confession
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קֹדֶם הַגְרָלָה — לֹא הֻקְבָּע עֲדַיִן. לְאַחַר וִידּוּי — כְּבָר נִתַּכְפְּרוּ בָּהּ.
English Translation:
Before the lottery — it has not yet been designated. After confession — atonement has already been achieved through it.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The baraita clarifies the liability timing for the scapegoat. Before the lottery determines which goat goes to Azazel, neither goat has its fate sealed — no liability. After the High Priest’s confession over the chosen goat, its purpose is complete — atonement achieved — so slaughtering it creates no new prohibition.
Segment 34
TYPE: משנה (מובאת)
Disqualified animals offered outside
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹחֵט בַּחוּץ.
English Translation:
An animal that mounted or was mounted — one is not liable for them on account of slaughtering outside.
What the Gemara is Doing:
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 35
TYPE: מחלוקת
Blemished animals after redemption
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין — מֵאֵימָתַי חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם? מִשֶּׁיִּפָּדוּ.
English Translation:
Blemished animals — from when is one liable for them? From when they are redeemed.
What the Gemara is Doing:
A question arises about blemished sanctified animals: at what point does slaughtering them outside create liability? The answer connects to redemption: before redemption, the animal retains sanctity but is unfit for the altar (no liability). After redemption, its sanctity is transferred to money — slaughtering the now-ordinary animal outside creates no Temple-related prohibition.