Zevachim 226

הא איפני נהי דאיפני מירושלים מכולה א"י לא איפני

then they were removed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In any case then Eretz Israel is free from lost graves.');">¹</span> - Granted that they had been cleared away from Jerusalem, they had not been cleared away from the whole of Eretz Israel.

איכא דאמרי איתיביה ר"ל לרבי יוחנן איה מתי מבול איה מתי נבוכדנאצר מאי לאו מדהני הוו הני נמי הוו מידי אירי' הא כדאיתיה והא כדאיתיה

Others state, Resh Lakish refuted R'Johanan: 'Where are the dead of the Flood; where are the dead of Nebuchadnezzar? ' Surely then, since the latter were [in Eretz Israel], the former too were there? - Why say thus? each had its own state.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter had been in Eretz Israel, and cleared out, but the former were never there.');">²</span>

איתיביה (בראשית ז, כב) מכל אשר בחרבה מתו בשלמא לדידי דאמינא ירד מבול לא"י משום הכי מתו אלא לדידך אמאי מתו משום הבלא

Resh Lakish refuted R'Johanan: Whatsoever was in the dry land, died:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. VII, 22.');">³</span> according to my opinion that the Flood descended to Eretz Israel, it is well: for that reason they died.

כדרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא ברותחין קלקלו וברותחין נידונו דכתיב הכא (בראשית ח, א) וישוכו המים וכתיב התם (אסתר ז, י) וחמת המלך שככה

But on your view, why did they die? - Because of the heat, in accordance with R'Hisda. For R'Hisda said: With hot passion they sinned, and by hot water they were punished.

איכא דאמרי איתיביה רבי יוחנן לר"ל מכל אשר בחרבה מתו בשלמא לדידי דאמינא לא ירד מבול לא"י משום הכי הוי חרבה אלא לדידך מאי חרבה חרבה שהיתה מעיקרא

[For] here it is written, And the water cooled;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VIII, 1. E.V. abated. lfa');">⁴</span> whilst elsewhere it is said, Then the king's wrath cooled down.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Est.VII, 10. In both cases the root is used, giving them the same meaning, and proving that the water was hot when it descended. - This heat spread to Eretz Israel.');">⁵</span>

ואמאי קרי ליה חרבה כדרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא בדור המבול לא נגזרה גזרה על דגים שבים שנאמר מכל אשר בחרבה מתו ולא דגים שבים

Others state, R'Johanan refuted Resh Lakish: Whatsoever was in the dry land, died. On my opinion that the Flood did not descend to Eretz Israel, it is well: for that reason is it called dry land.

בשלמא למ"ד לא ירד מבול לא"י היינו דקם רימא התם אלא למ"ד ירד רימא היכא קם א"ר ינאי גוריות הכניסו בתיבה

But on your view, what is the meaning of 'dry land'? - The place which was originally dry land. And why does he specify 'dry land'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously all land where people lived was dry before the Flood.');">⁶</span>

והאמר רבה בר בר חנה לדידי חזי לי אורזילא דרימא בת יומא והוי כהר תבור והר תבור כמה הויא ארבעין פרסי משכא דצואריה תלתא פרסי מרבעתא דרישא פרסא ופלגא רמא כבא וסכר ירדנא

- In accordance with R'Hisda. For R'Hisda said: In the generation of the Flood the decree [of destruction] was not decreed against the fish in the sea, because it says, 'Whatsoever was in the dry land died', but not the fish in the sea.

א"ר יוחנן ראשו הכניסו לתיבה והאמר מר מרבעתא דרישא פרסא ופלגא אלא ראש חוטמו הכניסו לתיבה

On the view that the Flood did not descend there, it is well: thus the re'em<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A huge animal, too large to enter the Ark.');">⁷</span> stayed there.

והא א"ר יוחנן לא ירד מבול לא"י לדברי ר"ל קאמר

But on the view that it did descend, where did it stay?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it was able to survive the flood.');">⁸</span> - Said R'Jannai: They took the young [of the re'em] into the Ark.

והא קסגיא תיבה אמר ר"ל קרניו קשרו בתיבה והאמר רב חסדא אנשי דור המבול ברותחין קלקלו וברותחין נידונו

But surely Rabbah B'Bar Hanah said: I saw a sea re'em, one day old, which was as big as Mount Tabor. And how big is Mount Tabor?

ולטעמיך תיבה היכי סגיא ועוד עוג מלך הבשן היכא קאי אלא נס נעשה להם שנצטננו בצידי התיבה

Forty parasangs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Persian mile, nearly four English miles. - This passage occurs in a series of 'tall' stories by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah related in B. B. ');">⁹</span> Its neck, stretched out, was three parasangs; the place where its head rested was a parasang and a half.

ולר"ש [בן לקיש] נהי נמי דירד מבול לא"י והא לא פש דאמר ר"ל למה נקרא שמה מצולה שכל מתי מבול נצתללו שם ורבי יוחנן אמר למה נקרא שמה שנער שכל מתי מבול ננערו שם אי אפשר דלא אידבקו

It cast a ball of excrements and blocked the Jordan! - Said R'Johanan: They took its head [only] into the Ark. But a master said: The place where its head rested was three parasangs? - Rather, they took the tip of its nose into the Ark.

א"ר אבהו למה נקרא שמה שנער שמנערת עשיריה והא קחזינן דהוו תלתא דרי לא משכי

But surely R'Johanan said: The Flood did not descend in Eretz Israel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he needs no explanation at all.');">¹⁰</span> - He explains [it thus] on the view of Resh Lakish.

א"ר אמי כל האוכל מעפרה של בבל כאילו אוכל בשר אבותיו תנ"ה כל האוכל מעפרה של בבל כאילו אוכל בשר אבותיו וי"א כאילו אוכל שקצים ורמשים:

But the Ark plunged up and down?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this would cause the re'em to slip out and drown.');">¹¹</span> - Said Resh Lakish: They tied its horns to the Ark.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To secure it.');">¹²</span>

שעיר המשתלח:

But surely R'Hisda said: The people in the generation of the Flood sinned with hot passion, and with hot water they were punished?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It would have been scalded.');">¹³</span> - And on your view, how could the Ark travel [at all]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since its seams were caulked with pitch, why did not the pitch dissolve in the hot water and leave the Ark unseaworthy?');">¹⁴</span>

ורמינהי (ויקרא יז, ד) או קרבן שומע אני אפילו קדשי בדק הבית שנקראו קרבן שנאמר (במדבר לא, נ) ונקרב את קרבן ה'

Moreover, how did Og king of Bashan stand?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to legend he was such a giant that he escaped from the Flood (Nid. 61b) . Why wasn't he scalded by the hot water?');">¹⁵</span> Rather, a miracle was performed for it [the water], and it was cooled at the side of the Ark.

ת"ל ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו מי שראוי לבא באהל מועד יצאו קדשי בדק הבית שאינן ראוין

Now according to Resh Lakish, even granted that the Flood fell upon Eretz Israel, surely, however, none [of the dead] were left there. For Resh Lakish said: Why was it [Babylon] called Mezulah?

אוציא את אלו שאינן ראוין ולא אוציא את שעיר המשתלח שהוא ראוי לבא אל פתח אהל מועד ת"ל לה' להוציא שעיר המשתלח שאינו מיוחד לה'

Because all the dead of the Flood were dumped [niztallelu] there? And R'Johanan said: Why was it called Shinar?

לא קשיא כאן קודם הגרלה כאן לאחר הגרלה אחר הגרלה נמי האיכא וידוי

Because all the dead of the Flood were shaken out thither [nin'aru lesham]? - Yet it was impossible that some should not have cleaved [remained]. R'Abbahu said: Why was it called Shinar? - Because it shakes out its wealthy men [mena'ereth 'ashirim].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' People cannot be wealthy there.');">¹⁶</span>

אלא אמר רב מני לא קשיא כאן קודם וידוי כאן לאחר וידוי:

But we see that there are [wealthy people there]? - They do not last three generations. R'Ammi said: He who eats earth of Babylon is as though he ate the flesh of his ancestors.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who died there.');">¹⁷</span>

הרובע והנרבע:

It has also been learnt likewise: He who eats earth in Babylon is as though he ate the flesh of his ancestors. Some say, It is as though he ate of abominations and creeping things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shab. 113b.');">¹⁸</span>

והא נמי תיפוק לי מפתח אהל מועד

THE SCAPEGOAT. [Is it not eligible to come to the door of the tent of meeting? ] Surely the following contradicts it: Or sacrifice [korban]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 8.');">¹⁹</span> I might understand even sacred things of the Temple Repair,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 74 n. 7.');">²⁰</span> which are designated korban, as it says, And we have brought the Lord's korban [offering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 50. The verse continues: of jewels of gold, armlets etc.; hence it obviously refers to sacred things of Temple Repair.');">²¹</span> Therefore it states, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meting: [the law applies only to] what is eligible to come to the door of the tent of meeting; hence sacred things of Temple Repair, which are not thus eligible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because only blemished animals can be consecrated for Temple Repair, and such are not eligible for a sacrifice.');">²²</span> are excluded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one slaughtered these without as a sacrifice, he is not culpable.');">²³</span> I might think that I exclude these, which are not eligible, but I do not exclude the scapegoat that is sent away, which is eligible to come to the door of the tent of meeting:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As we do not know which will be sacrificed and which will be sent away, until the lots are cast.');">²⁴</span> therefore it states, [to sacrifice unto the Lord, which excludes the scapegoat, as that is not dedicated to the Lord? - There is no difficulty: the one means before the casting of lots;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To determine which shall be sacrificed and which sent away; V. Lev. XVI, 8. At that stage it is eligible to come to the tent of meeting.');">²⁵</span> the other means after the casting of lots. After the casting of lot too there is still the confession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is made over that goat, v. ibid. 21. That was made within.');">²⁶</span> - Rather, said R'Mani, there is no difficulty: The one means before confession; the other means after confession. A ROBA' AND A NIRBA'. But this too I may infer from 'unto the door of the tent of meeting'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does the Mishnah quote a different proof-text here?');">²⁷</span>