Explanation: He holds that checking is required because the flood came to Eretz Yisrael (and bodies could be buried anywhere).

Question: Does the Torah obligate checking?!

Answer: The verse is needed for if he burned it in a place of Tum'ah. The Torah forbids this. It mandates Shechitah and burning in a Tahor place, like the burning of Parim (inner Chata'os). They are equated to each other, like it connotes above (105b).

Question: Why isn't he liable for [Shechutei] Chutz when he slaughtered it outside its place, since it is Tam, and proper for other Korbanos?

We say like this in Yoma (62b) regarding goats of Yom Kipur that were slaughtered outside [before the lottery]. He is liable for both of them (even though one was destined to go to Azazel), since they are proper [right now] for the goat done outside (the outer Chatas of Yom Kipur)!

Answer #1: There is different. He can change them, for there was no designation until the lottery.

Answer #2: There is no Korban [Tzibur] for which Parah [Adumah] is proper. It cannot be a Shelamim, for the Tzibur does not bring females!

Answer #3: Parah is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. One cannot change it to Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

Alternative text: Some texts say "v'Saraf v'Hizah."

Support: [The Gemara] brings about this the argument of R. Yochanan and R. Oshaya (about where it must be burned).

Retraction (of support): However, even if the text here is v'Shachat v'Hizah, this is fine, for [the Gemara] understands that if we equate burning to Haza'ah, the same applies to Shechitah.

Explanation: It is Pasul because we require outside three Machanos.

Question: It is written "va'Ychusu Kol he'Harim ha'Gevohim Asher Tachas Kol ha'Shamayim", and in Bereishis Rabah we say that R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi and a Behemi were walking on the road. "Behemi" is one who guards animals;

A Kusi said to them "go pray on Mount Grizim (Kusim worship it). The flood did not descend on it!" The Behemi asked permission from R. Yishmael to answer him; R. Yishmael permitted him.

The Behemi asked [the Kusi] "is Mount Grizim under [a part of] the entire Shamayim?" The Kusi said that it is. The Behemi said, 'is it not written "all the tall mountains under the entire Shamayim were covered"?!'

R. Yishmael applied to the Behemi "v'Lo Yihyeh Becha Akar v'Akarah uvi'Vhemtecha" - even a Behemi among [Klal Yisrael] will not be barren from an answer! (Since R. Yishmael affirmed that it was a proper answer, how can R. Yochanan say that the flood did not come to Eretz Yisrael? Har Grizim is in Eretz Yisrael!)

Answer #1: Perhaps "va'Ychusu Kol he'Harim" means that the heat of the flood overpowered everywhere, like we say below (113b) that [those in Eretz Yisrael] died from the heat;

The Kusi wanted to say that there was not heat or anything else [due to the flood] there (on Har Grizim).

Answer #2: [R. Yishmael] intended to dispel the Kusi with straw (an improper answer). The verse is not difficult. It says that in places where the flood descended, there the mountains were covered.

Implied question: The children were Tamei due to [nursing, and birth itself, during which they touched] a Nidah or Yoledes!

Answer: [Chachamim] were concerned only to guard them from Tum'as Mes, which requires Haza'ah, and from Tum'ah that leaves their own body, e.g. a Ba'al Keri.

Implied question: [The doors do not help according to] the one who says in Gitin (8b), Nazir (55a), Eruvin (30b) and Chagigah (25a) that Ohel Zaruk is not considered an Ohel!

Answer: He holds like R. Yehudah, who says in Sukah (21a) that they did not bring doors, rather, oxen with wide stomachs [so the child would not tower over the ground];

There, the reason (the bulls block Tum'ah) is due to "uva'Atzamos v'Gidim Tesochecheni" (the verse teaches that they are called Sechach, i.e. a covering), even though [normally] an Ohel not made by man is not considered an Ohel.

However, R. Yehudah surely holds that [Ohel Zaruk] is considered an Ohel, for he says that the reason [they did not use doors] is because a child is bold (he does not fear falling, and he would lean over past the door).

Question: How did it help to use boys [who never became Tamei through a Mes, or a Tum'ah that leaves their bodies]? Still, we need a man at the time of Kidush, that they put the ashes on the water, or at the time of Haza'ah, according to R. Yehudah or Rabanan, like is proven in Yoma (43a)!

Explanation: Also Reish Lakish knew they made a stringency for Parah, but if the flood did not descend to Eretz Yisrael, it is not proper to make this stringency.

Question: It is slightly difficult, for R. Yochanan agrees that (those in Eretz Yisrael) died due to the heat, like it says below (113b)!

Question: We should challenge R. Yochanan himself from here, for they died in the heat!

Implied question: R. Yochanan agrees that everything else in Eretz Yisrael died, due to the heat! (Also the Re'em should have died.)

Answer: Because it was big and strong, the heat did not harm it.

Version #1: This is R. Tam's text. "Orzila d'Reima" is a young Re'em. The Targum of "Ofer he'Ayalim" (Shir ha'Shirim 2:9) is Orzila d'Ayala, and Reima is Re'em (a giant animal).

Version #2: This is unlike the Rashbam, whose text in Bava Basra (73b) is "Orzila d'Yama." He explains that it is a fish of the sea.

Rejection: He was not meticulous. It says here that there was no decree against fish of the sea!

Pesak: Bufalos (buffaloes?) that we call Re'em, this is not correct, and their Chelev is forbidden. Surely the Re'em is a Chayah and its Chelev is permitted, like it is written (among the Kosher Chayos) "Ako v'Dishon", and the Targum is v'Ya'ala v'Rima. Our Bufalos are small.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is the species of Re'em, and others of the species are big!

Rejection #1: If so, what was difficult to [Reish Lakish] "where did [the Re'em] endure?" It was not difficult to him the lion of Bei Ilai, [which is mentioned] in Chulin (59b), where it endured, because there were other small lions that could enter [the ark].

Rejection #2: We see that those Bufalos work - people use them to pull wagons and plow;

The Re'em does not work, for it is written "ha'Sikshar Reim b'Selem Avoso Im Yesaded Amakim Acherecha."

Explanation (Rashi's second Perush): Even Tam animals are excluded, for Paras Chatas is Tam, and we exclude it, because it is not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed.

Rejection: This is not a proof, for Paras Chatas is not destined for the Mizbe'ach, but one who is Makdish a Tam for Bedek ha'Bayis, it is destined for the Mizbe'ach;

This is like we say in Temurah (33b) that anything proper for the Mizbe'ach never evades [being offered on] the Mizbe'ach. It is sold to one who needs an Olah or Shelamim.

Question: Why are Tam Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis different than goats of Yom Kipur? It says in Yoma (62b) that one is liable for both of them outside, since they are proper for the goat offered outside. All the more so one should be liable for these are (Tam Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis), which will never evade the Mizbe'ach!

Answer: Since they are not yet Kodshei Mizbe'ach, they are not considered proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed.

Implied question: In Yoma (62b) we say that he is liable for both of them!

Answer: That is like the conclusion of our Sugya, that we answer "this is before Viduy...", but before the lottery he is liable, for it is proper for the goat offered outside. (It is already proper for outside. It is not called proper for the goat offered inside until after the lottery, so for this it is Mechusar Ma'aseh.)

Explanation: Since the verse exempts before Viduy, all the more so after Viduy! We need "Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" for Parah, and for [other] Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

Question: This itself is astounding! Why don't we exclude them from "la'Shem"?

In all Seforim in Temurah (13a), the text says "and I would not exclude Parah Adumah and Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, which are proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed!" (Before the lottery, the goat is proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed.) It says "la'Shem" - what is special to Hash-m. This excludes these (Parah and the goat), which are not special to Hash-m.

Answer: However, (it does not mention there Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, for) Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are properly called special to Hash-m, for they are totally to Shamayim. You are forced to say also that the text of the Beraisa does not say "Parah", lest our Mishnah contradict it. (Our Mishnah exempts due to Pesach Ohel Mo'ed. We cannot answer like we answered for Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.)

Also, we need "El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" to exclude its roof (exempt one who slaughters on the roof of the Heichal), like we said above (107b).