Temurah 15b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara brings a beraita that expounds the verse in the Book of Ezra, after the establishment of the Second Temple. It is stated there that the community offered sin-offerings for the sin of idolatry that they had committed in the days of Zedekiah, at the end of the days of the First Temple. And this was so even though the people of that generation had already died, and it was therefore a sin-offering whose owners had died.

And it was taught in a beraita: Similarly

Rabbi Yosei said:

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

Those who came 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, twelve goats as sin-offerings—

all as a burnt-offering to the Lord.”

And it is difficult: Were they all burnt-offerings?! Yet it is stated, “and twelve goats as sin-offerings”; they were sin-offerings.

And

for

does a sin-offering become a burnt-offering?!

Rather, say:

They treated those sin-offerings

as

like a

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

so that

sin-offering is not eaten.

For Rabbi Yosei would say: They brought them for idolatry.

As it is stated in the Torah [Numbers 15], in the section of the sin-offering for idolatry: “And if it was done inadvertently from the eyes of the congregation—the entire congregation shall offer one bull of cattle as a burnt-offering, and one goat as a sin-offering.” And since there were representatives there from all twelve tribes, they brought twelve goats as sin-offerings, in addition to twelve bulls as burnt-offerings, one bull and one goat for each and every tribe of the tribes of Israel. And 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. And therefore they are called burnt-offerings, since they are not eaten, like a burnt-offering, even though they were sin-offerings.

And if

when did they commit idolatry?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: For the idolatry that they committed in the days of Zedekiah,

at the end of the days of the First Temple.

Up to here are the words of the beraita, and its explanation by Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel.

We had assumed

that the questioner had understood it to mean:

According to the one who holds,

namely Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that

a communal sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement—

dies, he also holds

that likewise

a communal sin-offering whose owners died—

dies.

And

it is difficult:

Here,

in the case of the sin-offering brought by the children of the exile,

that its

owners died,

for those people who committed idolatry 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,

in any event,

a communal sin-offering whose owners died does not die.

What is the reason?

Because the community does not die.

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

And the Gemara asks:

From where does Rav Pappa have this?

From what derivation did he derive this?

If you say, 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

a

private

sin-offering, whose owner died but whose son remains alive,

also, the sin-offering should not go to death, since the son is in place of the father?

should not be put 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

from the goats

of the sin-offering of

the Festivals and

of

the New Moons. For the Merciful One said: Bring them,

bring them

from the chamber contribution!

From shekels that were “contributed” from the funds of the half-shekel [collected from the community in the month of Adar].

And

there is a concern:

perhaps

before the Festivals

their owners died,

some of the owners

who

contributed

these coins, and it follows that they are offering a sin-offering whose owners died, since they too have a share in communal sacrifices?

and it would turn out that they were offering a sin offering whose owners had died, since they too had a share in communal offerings?

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

and if you wish, say, that indeed a communal sin-offering whose owners died goes to death. And here,

when they offered them,

the children of the exile

offered these sin-offerings for their brothers, [

for the living—those who remained alive from the generation of Zedekiah, on their behalf]

they offered them.

And the proof that they remained alive is:

for it is written [Ezra 3], after the foundation of the Sanctuary: “

when the foundation of this Temple was laid before their eyes, they wept aloud, while many others raised their voices in joyful acclaim.”

And many of the priests and the Levites and the heads of the fathers’ houses, the elders who had seen the First House—

when this House was founded before their eyes, they wept with a loud voice, while many raised their voice with a shout, with joy.”

The explanation is: Those who had seen the First House wept with a loud voice, while those who had not seen it shouted and rejoiced. It follows that members of the generation of Zedekiah still remained alive.

And we challenge:

And perhaps those,

who wept, who were from the generation of Zedekiah,

were a minority,

and one does not offer for a minority of Israel, since most of the owners had died; so why did they offer a sin-offering whose owners had died?

And we answer:

You cannot say

that those who remained alive were the minority, for certainly they were the majority!

For it is written [there], “

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

And the people could not recognize the sound of the shout of joy from the sound of the people’s weeping.”

It implies that those who wept, namely those who remained from the generation of Zedekiah, were the majority. And since they were the majority, this is not a communal sin-offering whose owners died .

And the Gemara is still astonished:

And how did they offer them,

how did they offer for them a sin-offering brought for an inadvertent act?

But they were intentional sinners,

and their law was to be killed with witnesses and warning, and not to 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 as for the fact that they brought a sin-offering,

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.

And we conclude:

This too is evidently so,

that they offered only on the basis of a temporary ruling.

For if you do not say so,

it is difficult:

Granted,

what they offered,

bulls

twelve,

and goats

twelve—this was

corresponding to the twelve tribes. But,

what they offered,

rams

ninety-six,

lambs

seventy-seven—

corresponding to whom

did they offer them in this manner?

Rather,

necessarily,

it was a temporary ruling!

And now the Gemara brings several statements of the Sages concerning the laws that were forgotten during the mourning period for Moses. They are brought here because of the statement of Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha, that even the law of a sin-offering whose owners died was forgotten.

We learned there,

we learned in a Mishna in tractate Sotah [47a]:

When Yosef ben Yo'ezer of Zeredah and Yosef ben Yohanan of Jerusalem died—

the men of

the

clusters

ceased.

And the Gemara asks:

What are

clusters?

Rav Yehuda said: A man in whom everything is found,

Torah, fear of sin, and acts of kindness. And until that generation there were still “clusters.”

And

further

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: All the clusters who arose for Israel from the days of Moses until Yosef ben Yo'ezer died used to learn Torah like Moses our teacher! From then onward they did not learn Torah like Moses our teacher.

And the Gemara understood that until Yosef ben Yo'ezer they learned the entire Torah given to Moses our teacher. Therefore it asks:

And

but

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Three thousand laws were forgotten during the mourning period for Moses!

It follows that they did not learn all the laws transmitted to Moses?

And we answer: The statements do not contradict one another!

That which was forgotten —

was forgotten,

these laws that were forgotten were forgotten.

And

the other laws,

which they had learned,

which they learned and did not forget,

they had learned

them,

like Moses our teacher!

And we challenge:

But it was taught in a beraita: When Moses died,

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

If those who rendered impure were the majority—

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

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

they rendered it pure.

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:

It follows that they did not learn like Moses. For if they had learned like Moses, they should have aligned their received tradition according to the halakha, and not disagreed about them!

And we answer:

The heart was diminished,

the heart was diminished. And concerning those laws that were forgotten, they disagreed about them and were unable to restore them through the pilpul of halakha, and therefore in those matters they followed the majority, to render pure or to render impure. But those laws that were not forgotten,

they had learned them thoroughly,

precisely,

like Moses our teacher.

—and later it will be explained who this pious man was— who was groaning from his heart, complaining of heart pain. They consulted physicians, and they said: He has no remedy until he drinks boiling milk from morning to morning [each morning].

In a beraita it was taught,

in a beraita we learned:

All the clusters who arose for Israel from the days of Moses until Yosef ben Yo'ezer of Zeredah died—

there was not among them,

among these clusters who were leaders over Israel,

any blemish.

From then onward there was among them any blemish.

The Gemara understood that this meant a blemish of sin. Therefore we ask: Did every sage after Yosef ben Yo'ezer have a blemish of sin?!

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

[and below it will be explained who that pious man was],

who was groaning from his heart,

complaining of heart pain.

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

examined [his conduct], and found no transgression in him except for that goat alone.

And he,

the pious man himself,

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

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

An incident involving one pious man,” it refers either to Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava or to Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai. And these Sages, Rabbi Yehuda ben Ilai and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, after Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida, were many generations later, there being many generations between them and Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida. This proves that even among the Sages who lived after Yosef ben Yo’ezer, no defect 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!