1 SPRINKLING ROUND ABOUT, WAVING AND PRESENTING, (R. JUDAH MAINTAINED: THERE WERE NO MEAL-OFFERINGS AT THE BAMAH). PRIESTHOOD, SACRIFICIAL VESTMENTS, SERVICE VESSELS, A SWEET ODOUR, A LINE OF DEMARCATION FOR [THE SPRINKLING OF] THE BLOOD, AND THE WASHING OF HANDS AND FEET. BUT TIME, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT WERE ALIKE IN BOTH. GEMARA. What does OUTSIDE ITS APPOINTED PLACE mean? — Resh Lakish said: Outside the place which had been examined for it. Said R. Johanan to him: But surely the whole of Eretz Israel had been thus examined? Rather said R. Johanan: It means, e.g., that one slaughtered it within the wall of Jerusalem. But let him explain it [as meaning] that he slaughtered it without the wall, but not opposite the door [of the Hekal], for R. Adda b. Ahabah said: If one did not slaughter it opposite the door [of the Hekal], it is disqualified for it is said, And he shall slay it . . . and sprinkle [of her blood toward the front of the tent of meeting]: As the sprinkling must be opposite the door, so must its slaughtering be opposite the door? And should you answer that he [R. Johanan] does not assimilate [slaughtering to sprinkling], surely it was stated: (If one did not slaughter it opposite the door, R. Johanan maintained that it was disqualified, [because it says], And he shall slay. . . and sprinkle. Resh Lakish said: It is fit, [because it says, and she shall be brought forth’] without the camp and he shall slay. And it was stated likewise:) If one did not burn it opposite the door, — R. Johanan said: It is disqualified; R. Oshaia said: It is fit. R. Johanan said, ‘It is disqualified’, [because it says,] and he shall burn . . . and he shall sprinkle. R. Oshaia said, ‘It is fit’, because Scripture saith, with her dung [pirshah] it shall be burnt: [that means, in] the place that she departs [poresheth] to death, there must she be burnt! — I will answer you: He [R. Johanan] proceeds to a climax: it goes without saying that [if he slaughters it] without the wall [and not opposite the door] [it is disqualified], because he removed it further [from the Sanctuary]. But even [if he slaughtered it] within the wall, so that he brought it nearer, and I might argue that it is fit, he informs us [that it is not]. The master said: ‘Said R. Johanan to him, But surely the whole of Eretz Israel had been thus examined’. Wherein do they differ? — One master holds that the Flood descended in Eretz Israel; while the other master holds that it did not descend [there]. R. Nahman b. Isaac observed: Both interpret the same text, [Viz.:] Son of man, say unto her: Thou art a land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation. R. Johanan holds: Scripture speaks rhetorically: O Eretz Israel, how art thou not clean; did then the rain [flood] descend upon thee in the day of indignation? While Resh Lakish holds that it bears its plain sense: Eretz Israel, thou art not clean, [for] did not the rain descend upon thee in the day of indignation? Resh Lakish refuted R. Johanan: There were courtyards in Jerusalem built on a rock; beneath them was a hollow, on account of graves down in the depths. There they brought pregnant women, and women who had given birth, and there they reared their children for [the service of] the [Red] Heifer. And they brought oxen with doors on their backs; the children sat on them and carried stone goblets, which they filled [with water] and then returned to their place! — Said R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua: They were especially strict in the case of the [Red] Heifer. R. Johanan refuted Resh Lakish: On one occasion they found [human] bones in the Wood Chamber, and they desired to declare Jerusalem unclean. Whereupon R. Joshua rose to his feet and exclaimed: Is it not a shame and disgrace to us that we declare the city of our fathers unclean! Where are the dead of the Flood, and where are the dead of Nebuchadnezzar? Since he said, ‘Where are the dead of the Flood?’ he surely meant that they had not been there [in Jerusalem]? — Then on your reasoning, had there been none of the slain of Nebuchadnezzar [there]? Rather, they had been, but were removed; so here too they had been [in Eretz Israel], but were cleared away. But if they were removed,ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃ
2 then they were removed! — Granted that they had been cleared away from Jerusalem, they had not been cleared away from the whole of Eretz Israel. 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. Resh Lakish refuted R. Johanan: Whatsoever was in the dry land, died: according to my opinion that the Flood descended to Eretz Israel, it is well: for that reason they died. 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. [For] here it is written, And the water cooled; whilst elsewhere it is said, Then the king's wrath cooled down. 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. 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’? — 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. On the view that the Flood did not descend there, it is well: thus the re'em stayed there. But on the view that it did descend, where did it stay? — Said R. Jannai: They took the young [of the re'em] into the Ark. 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? Forty parasangs. Its neck, stretched out, was three parasangs; the place where its head rested was a parasang and a half. 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. But surely R. Johanan said: The Flood did not descend in Eretz Israel? — He explains [it thus] on the view of Resh Lakish. But the Ark plunged up and down? — Said Resh Lakish: They tied its horns to the Ark. But surely R. Hisda said: The people in the generation of the Flood sinned with hot passion, and with hot water they were punished? — And on your view, how could the Ark travel [at all]? Moreover, how did Og king of Bashan stand? Rather, a miracle was performed for it [the water], and it was cooled at the side of the Ark. 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? Because all the dead of the Flood were dumped [niztallelu] there? And R. Johanan said: Why was it called Shinar? 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]. 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. 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. THE SCAPEGOAT. [Is it not eligible to come to the door of the tent of meeting?] Surely the following contradicts it: Or sacrifice [korban]: I might understand even sacred things of the Temple Repair, which are designated korban, as it says, And we have brought the Lord's korban [offering]. 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, are excluded. 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: therefore it states, [to sacrifice it] 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; the other means after the casting of lots. After the casting of lots too there is still the confession? — 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’?27ᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇ