1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that someone who burns the Parah Adumah Chutz mi'Gitah (see Bartenura) is Patur, which Resh Lakish defines as a location which has not been examined for it. By this he means - examined for hidden graves (regarding Tum'as ha'Tehom [an unknown grave]).

(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 "Vehotzi osah el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh").

(d)We query 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.

2)

(a)Rav Ada bar Ahavah learned from the Hekesh (in Chukas) "Ve'shachat Ve'hizah" - that just as the sprinkling of the blood of the Parah Adumah 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 makes the identical D'rashah from "ve'Saraf" "ve'Hizah" (requiring the burning of the Parah to take place in the same location as the sprinkling).

(c)Rebbi Oshaya learns from the Pasuk there "al Pirshah Yisrof" that - the Parah must be burned wherever it runs to (a play on the word "Pirshah", which has connotations of separating itself) 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 relatively close to the Heichal, he is Patur, how much more so when it is further away.

3)

(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). See Mitzpeh Eisan.

(b)According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, they both derive their respective opinions from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "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 in Succah. The significance of ...

1. ... the courtyards in Yerushalayim that 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 (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 those children would sit on the doors whilst drawing the water for the Mei Parah and would not make an Ohel over any grave that they might pass on the way.

(d)The 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.

4)

(a)All this was - a Gezeirah de'Rabbanan to ensure that the Mei Chatas was prepared be'Taharah throughout.

(b)The Chachamim saw fit to issue such a decree - to demonstrate that a T'vul-Yom is permitted to prepare the Parah Adumah, to counter the leniency of rendering the Kohen who burned the Parah a T'vul-Yom, which they did to disprove the Tzedokim (who maintained that the Parah Adumah could not be brought by a T'vul-Yom).

(c)In addition, during the seven days of preparation, whilst the Kohen was being sprinkled with the Eifer ha'Parah - none of the other Kohanim would touch him.

5)

(a)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.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan queried Resh Lakish from a Beraisa, which relates how they once discovered human bones in a room in the Beis-Hamikdash. When the Chachamim wanted to declare the whole of Yerushalayim Tamei, Rebbi Yehoshua objected, on the grounds that - it would be a disgrace to decree Tum'ah on the city of our fathers.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan queried Resh Lakish from Rebbi Yehoshua's words there 'Where are the dead of the Mabul?' - implying that there were none in Eretz Yisrael.

6)

(a)We counter Rebbi Yochanan's proof from Rebbi Yehoshua's subsequent words 'Ayei Meisei Nevuchadnetzar' however - which implies that there were none in Bavel either (though in fact, there definitely were).

(b)What Rebbi Yehoshua really means therefore was that - even though there were bones that were left over from the Mabul, they were subsequently cleared away. So perhaps there were bones from the Meisei Mabul too, but they too, 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 where the bones were cleared away, and the other, where there were no bones to begin with.

7)

(a)To explain the Pasuk in No'ach "mi'Kol Asher be'Charavah Meisu" - Rebbi Yochanan will explain that, even though the flood did not fall in Eretz Yisrael - the people there died from the heat generated by the water that surrounded it.

(b)This is based on a statement of Rav Chisda, who learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "*Vayashoku* ha'Mayim" (in No'ach) and "va'Chamas ha'Melech *Shachachah*" (in Megilas Esther) 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.

8)

(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.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yanai attempts to explain how the 'Re'eimim' (aurochs), which were too large to fit into Noach's boat, survived (assuming the flood affected Eretz Yisrael as well) - by suggesting that No'ach took in baby aurochs.

(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 by the sea-shore.

(d)When a Re'eim defecated in the River Yarden - it drained it.

10)

(a)We also reject 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 and 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)Seeing as the boat moved around in the turbulent water, Resh Lakish explains that, to prevent it from leaving the Re'eimim behind - No'ach tied their horns to the boat.

11)

(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 (who was also saved from the flood, but was too big to enter the boat) were able to withstand the heat.

(b)We explain all three phenomena - by referring to the miracle that Hash-m performed, saving the boat, Og Melech Habashan and the Re'eim, by cooling all the water that surrounded the boat.

(c)Bavel is referred to as...

1. ... Metzulah (depths), according to Resh Lakish - because all the dead of the Mabul were carried down there.

2. ... Shin'ar (emptied out), 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.

12)

(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, although they are wealthy, 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 from the Mabul (see Sugya in Shabbos, 113b).

13)

(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 "Korban Hash-m".

(b)However, based on the Pasuk "ve'el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o", the Tana concludes that - since they are not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed, they are not subject to Shechutei Chutz.

(c)Whereas from "la'Hashem", the Tana precludes - the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.

(d)This Beraisa clashes with our Mishnah, which precludes the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach - from "ve'el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" (implying that it is not fit to be brought to the Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, whereas the Beraisa emphatically states that it is).

14)

(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 Hash-m (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 it take place after the Hagralah, .

(d)We finally resolve the discrepancy - 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.