Temurah 15b (טו:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara cites a beraita expounding a verse in the Book of Ezra, after the Second Temple was rebuilt. It is stated there that the community offered sin offerings for the sin of idol worship committed in the days of Zedekiah, at the end of the First Temple period. This was so even though the members of that generation had already died; and therefore these were sin offerings whose owners had died.

And wasn’t it taught in a beraita: Similarly

said Rabbi Yose:

It is stated in the Book of Ezra [8]: “

Those who had come from the captivity, the children of the exile, offered burnt offerings to the God of Israel: twelve bulls for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs, and twelve goats as sin offerings—

all as a burnt offering to the Lord.”

And this is difficult: Were they all burnt offerings? But it is stated: “And twelve goats as sin offerings”; they were sin offerings.

And

if so,

can a sin offering be offered as a burnt offering?

Rather, say:

They treated those sin offerings

as

though they were

a burnt offering: Just as a burnt offering is not eaten—

so too that

sin offering was not eaten.

For Rabbi Yose would say: They brought them for idol worship.

As it is stated in the Torah [Numbers 15], in the passage concerning a sin offering for idol worship: “And if it was done unwittingly by the eyes of the congregation, the entire congregation shall offer one bull as a burnt offering and one goat as a sin offering.” Since members of all twelve tribes were present, they brought twelve goats for sin offerings, in addition to twelve bulls as burnt offerings—one bull and one goat for each of the tribes of Israel. Since it was an inner sin offering, whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting, its flesh was burned outside the camp, as is the law concerning bulls and goats that are burned, and it was not eaten. Therefore they are called burnt offerings, since they were not eaten, like a burnt offering, even though they were sin offerings.

And if so,

when did they commit idol worship?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: For the idol worship that they had committed in the days of Zedekiah,

at the end of the First Temple period.

These are the words of the beraita, and their explanation by Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel.

We initially assumed,

the questioner assumed

that according to the one who holds—

namely, Rabbi Judah, who maintains that

a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement

dies, he also holds

that

a communal sin offering whose owners died

dies.

And

this is difficult:

Here,

in the case of the sin offerings brought by the people who returned from the exile,

their

owners died—

the people who had committed idol worship in the days of Zedekiah died during the seventy years of the Babylonian exile—

and

nevertheless

it was offered;

they offered a sin offering whose owners had died.

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: Even according to the one who says that a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement dies,

nevertheless,

a communal sin offering whose owners died does not die.

What is the reason?

Because the community does not die.

That is, even though they died, their sin offering does not go to death, because the law of a sin offering whose owners died does not apply to a community.

The Gemara asks:

From where does Rav Pappa derive this?

From what interpretation did he derive it?

If you say it is because it is written [Psalms 45]: “

In place of your fathers shall be your sons,”

and

it implies that the sons take the place of the fathers, as though the fathers were alive—and likewise the sons of the generation of Zedekiah—

If so, even

an individual

sin offering,

whose owner died while his son remains alive,

also

should not go to death, since the son takes the place of the father?

And we conclude:

Rather, this is the reason that the community does not die:

because

we derive it

from the goats

of the sin offerings

of the Festivals and

of the New Moons.

For the Merciful One said: Bring them,

bring them

from the chamber’s contribution!

That is, from the shekels that were “contributed” from the half-shekel funds collected from the community in the month of Adar.

And

there is concern

perhaps

before the Festivals

their owners died,

some of the owners

who

contributed

these coins,

and it turns out that they are offering a sin offering whose owners died, since they too have a share in communal offerings?

Rather, conclude from this that the community does not die! And if you wish, say

that in fact a communal sin offering whose owners died does go to death. But here,

when they offered

the people who returned from the exile

these sin offerings, they offered them for their brothers

[the living]—for those who had remained alive from the generation of Zedekiah; for their sake

they offered them.

The proof that some remained alive is as it is written [Ezra 3], after the Sanctuary was rebuilt: “ And many of the priests and Levites and heads of the fathers’ houses, the elders who had seen the First Temple, when the foundation of this House was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice, while many raised their voices in joyful shouting.” The explanation is: Those who had seen the First Temple wept with a loud voice, while those who had not seen it shouted and rejoiced. Thus, members of the generation of Zedekiah still remained alive.

And we ask:

But perhaps those

who wept—those who belonged to the generation of Zedekiah—

were a minority,

and an offering is not brought for a minority of Israel,

since most of the owners had died; why, then, did they offer a sin offering whose owners had died?

And we answer: You cannot say that those who remained alive were a minority, since they were certainly the majority! As it is written [there]: “ And the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouting from the sound of the people’s weeping.”

and an offering is not brought for a minority of Israel,

since most of the owners had died; why, then, did they offer a sin offering whose owners had died?

And we answer: You cannot say

This indicates that those who wept—and they were the ones who had remained from the generation of Zedekiah—were the majority. Since they were the majority, this was not a communal sin offering whose owners had died.

As it is written [there]: “

The Gemara is still astonished:

And how could they offer them,

how could they offer on their behalf a sin offering brought for an inadvertent transgression?

But they were intentional sinners;

their law was that they should be put to death on the testimony of witnesses after a warning, and not that they should achieve atonement through a sin offering.

And we answer: Rabbi Yohanan said:

Indeed, an intentional sinner does not achieve atonement through a sin offering; and the fact that they brought a sin offering was because

it was a temporary ruling.

The prophet instructed them to do so by the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, for that occasion בלבד.

And we conclude: It is also reasonable that they offered them only by virtue of a temporary ruling. For if you do not say this, there is a difficulty: Granted, the

it was a temporary special instruction.

The prophet instructed them to do so by command of the Holy One, blessed be He, for that particular occasion בלבד.

And we conclude: It is also reasonable that they offered them only on the basis of a temporary special instruction. For if you do not say this,

it was a temporary ruling.

For the prophet instructed them thus from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed is He, for that time בלבד.

bulls,

twelve of them, and the

goats,

twelve of them, that they offered—this was

corresponding to the twelve tribes. But

the

rams,

ninety-six of them, and the

lambs,

seventy-seven of them—

corresponding to whom

did they offer them in this manner?

corresponding to whom

did they offer them?

ninety-six,

lambs

Rather,

necessarily,

it was a temporary ruling!

The Gemara now cites several statements of the Sages concerning halakhot that were forgotten during the period of mourning for Moses. They are brought here because of Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha’s statement that the law of a sin offering whose owners died was also forgotten. We learned there— we learned in a Mishna in tractate Sotah [47a]: From the time Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosef ben Yohanan of Jerusalem died, the men of the clusters ceased to exist. The Gemara asks:

What

are “clusters”?

And the Gemara asks:

What

Rav Yehuda said: A man who has everything,

Torah, fear of sin, and acts of kindness.

Until that generation there were still “men of the clusters.”

And

Torah, fear of sin, and acts of kindness.

ceased.

Until that generation there were still men who were “clusters.”

And another statement Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: All the men of the clusters who arose for Israel from the days of Moses until Yosef ben Yo’ezer died had learned Torah like Moses our teacher! From that point onward, they did not learn Torah like Moses our teacher. The Gemara assumes that until Yosef ben Yo’ezer, they had learned all the Torah given to Moses our teacher. Therefore it asks: But is it not so that Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Three thousand laws were forgotten during the mourning period for Moses! This shows that they did not learn all the laws transmitted by Moses. And we answer: There is no contradiction!

clusters?

another statement

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: All the men of the clusters who arose for Israel from the days of Moses until Yosef ben Yo’ezer died would learn Torah like Moses our teacher! From that point onward, they would no longer learn Torah like Moses our teacher. The Gemara understood that until Yosef ben Yo’ezer, they learned all the Torah given to Moses our teacher. Therefore it asks: But Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Three thousand halakhot were forgotten during the period of mourning for Moses! Thus, they did not learn all the halakhot transmitted to Moses. And we answer: There is no contradiction! That which was forgotten — was forgotten; the halakhot that were forgotten were indeed forgotten. And

the other halakhot,

which they had learned,

they knew,

they learned them

like Moses our teacher!

they had learned,

they knew,

And we ask:

But it was taught in a beraita: From the time Moses died,

when the Sages disagreed about a matter, the matter was decided according to the majority.

If those who render impure were the majority—

they rendered it impure. If those who render pure were the majority —

they rendered it pure.

when the Sages disagreed about a matter, the matter was decided according to the majority.

If those who declared it impure were the majority—

they declared it impure. If those who declared it pure were the majority —

This shows that they did not learn like Moses. For if they had learned like Moses, they should have directed their tradition according to the halakha, rather than disagreeing about it!

And we answer:

like Moses our teacher!

The heart was diminished,

the intellectual capacity was diminished. They disagreed concerning those halakhot that had been forgotten, and they could not restore them through analytical study of halakha,

and therefore they followed the majority in declaring something pure or impure. But those halakhot that had not been forgotten,

they had learned them precisely

like Moses our teacher.

In a baraita it was taught: In a beraita we learned:

their intellectual capacity had diminished. They disagreed about those laws that had been forgotten and could not restore them through analysis of the law,

and therefore they followed the majority in declaring something pure or impure. But those laws that had not been forgotten, they had learned them precisely and like Moses our teacher. In a beraita it was taught, in a beraita:

All the men of the clusters who arose for Israel from the days of Moses until Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida died—

there was not among them, among those men of the clusters who led Israel, any blemish. From that point onward there was some blemish among them. The Gemara understood this to mean a blemish of sin. Therefore we ask: Did all the sages after Yosef ben Yo’ezer have a blemish of sin?!

But it was taught in a beraita: An incident involving a certain pious man

[below it will be explained who this pious man was], who was groaning from his heart,

complaining of heart pain.

They asked physicians, and they said: He has no cure until he suckles hot milk from morning to morning

[every morning].

So they brought a goat, tied it to the legs of his bed, and he suckled its morning milk, every morning. The next day, his colleagues entered to visit him. When they saw the goat, they said: An armed bandit is inside his house, and we are entering to visit him?

Immediately, they left him and departed. When that pious man died,

his

colleagues

sat

and investigated, and found no sin in him except that of this goat alone.

And he himself,

the pious man himself,

said at the time of his death: I know that I have no sin except that of this goat alone, because I transgressed the words of my colleagues! For the Sages said:

One may not raise small livestock in the Land of Israel.

the pious man himself,

at the time of his death said: I know that there is no sin in me except for that goat, because I transgressed the words of my companions! For the Sages said:

One may not raise small livestock in the Land of Israel.

And they asked physicians, and they said: He has no remedy until he nurses boiling milk from morning to morning

[every morning].

And they brought a goat, tied it to the legs of his bed, and he would nurse milk from it each morning,

every morning.

The next day, his colleagues entered to visit him. When they saw the goat they said: An armed robber

he has

inside his house, and we are entering to visit him?!

Immediately they left him and went out. When that pious man died,

his colleagues sat

And the established principle is: Wherever the tanna says,

in a Mishna or beraita, “

An incident involving a certain pious man,”

he is

either Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava or Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai.

And the Sages,

these two—Rabbi Yehuda ben Ilai and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava— after [after] Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida, were many generations, there were many generations after Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida. This proves that even among the sages who lived after Yosef ben Yo’ezer, no blemish of sin was found!

And we hold: Wherever it says

the tannay, in a Mishna or beraita, “

An incident involving one pious man,”

it is

either Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava or Rabbi Yehuda bar Ila'i.

And the Rabbis,

these—Rabbi Yehuda ben Ila'i and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava—

after

[after]

Yosef ben Yo'ezer of Zeredah, were generation after generation,

there were many generations after Yosef ben Yo'ezer of Zeredah.

And it is demonstrated that even among the Sages after Yosef ben Yo'ezer they found no blemish of sin!