Temurah 16a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said:

the intention is not that there was a defect of sin among them, but rather

it teaches: a defect concerning laying on of hands.

For until Yosef ben Yo’ezer they did not disagree concerning the laws of laying on of hands, as will be explained, nor concerning any matter of halakha, since the heart had not yet diminished. "

Laying on of hands" means that the Sages disagreed whether one lays hands upon the shelamim of the Festival offering on a Festival, as explained in Tractate Hagiga [16a]. And this was the first disagreement concerning which the Sages ever disagreed. And this disagreement began after the days of Yosef ben Yo’ezer and continued for many generations, and it was "a defect of disagreement."

And we raise a difficulty: Was it only after the period of Yosef ben Yo’ezer that "a defect concerning laying on of hands" began?!

But Yosef ben Yo’ezer himself,

while he was alive,

did disagree concerning laying on of hands,

disagreeing concerning this law of laying on of hands with Yosef ben Yohanan of Jerusalem, as explained there in Tractate Hagiga?

And we answer:

When he disagreed concerning it,

when did they disagree concerning laying on of hands?

At the end of the second—

at the end of Yosef ben Yo’ezer’s years,

for the heart had diminished,

when the law of laying on of hands on a Festival was forgotten.

As to the matter itself,

the Gemara brings Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the name of Shmuel in its entirety.

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

They said to him,

the Israelites,

to Joshua: Ask

from Heaven, and they will inform you of the laws that you forgot.

Joshua said to them: It is not in Heaven! [Deuteronomy 30].

That is to say, after Moses died, it is not possible to ask Heaven about doubts in the Torah in subsequent generations.

They said to him

the Israelites,

to Shmuel: Ask!

He said to them,

Shmuel: The Torah said [Leviticus 27]: "

These are the mitzvot

that the Lord commanded Moses to the children of Israel." The verse teaches

that a prophet is not permitted to introduce a matter from now on.

That is to say, after Moses died, no prophet is permitted to introduce any new matter of halakha from Heaven.

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa said: Even

the law of

a sin-offering whose owners died [

another version:

were atoned for ]

while it was in their possession,

whether it is left to die or grazes,

was also forgotten during the mourning for Moses.

They said

the Israelites

to Pinhas: Ask!

He said to them:

It is not in Heaven!

They said to Eleazar, "Ask!" He said to them, "

These are the mitzvot," and a prophet is not permitted to introduce a matter from now on.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: When Moses our teacher departed for the Garden of Eden, he said to Joshua: Ask me all the doubts that you have!

He said to him

Joshua:

My teacher! Did I ever leave you for even one hour and go to another place?!

For did you

not write concerning me [Exodus 33], "

And his attendant, Joshua son of Nun, a young man, would not move from within the tent"?

Immediately Moses’ strength weakened,

and he was distressed that Joshua had praised himself as being his equal.

And

since he caused Moses’ mind to be weakened,

therefore they were forgotten from him,

from Joshua,

three hundred laws, and seven hundred doubts arose for him. And all Israel arose to kill him,

until he would tell them the laws.

until he would tell them the laws.

The Holy One, blessed be He, said

to Joshua:

To tell you—

it is impossible,

as explained above, because "it is not in Heaven." Rather,

go and keep them occupied with war. As it is stated [Joshua 1]: "

And it came to pass after the death of Moses, the servant of the Lord, that the Lord said to Joshua:

And now arise, cross this Jordan."

And Joshua

commanded the officers of the people [there]: "Pass through the midst of the camp and command the people, saying: Prepare provisions for yourselves, for in another three days you are crossing this Jordan."

In a matnita

a tanna taught,

we learned in a beraita:

One thousand seven hundred kal va-chomer inferences,

expositions of "kal va-chomer,"

and gzera shava, and scribal minutiae,

were forgotten during the mourning for Moses! It is stated in the Book of Joshua concerning the division of the land [chapter 15], and it is likewise stated in the Book of Judges [1, with minor changes]: "And to Caleb son of Jephunneh he gave a portion among the children of Judah, according to the word of the Lord to Joshua: Kiryat Arba, the father of the giant, that is Hebron. And Caleb drove out from there the three sons of the giant: Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai, offspring of the giant. And Caleb went up from there against the inhabitants of Debir, and the name of Debir formerly was Kiryat Sefer. And Caleb said: Whoever strikes Kiryat Sefer and captures it—I shall give him Achsah my daughter as a wife! And Otniel son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, captured it, and he gave him Achsah his daughter as a wife. And it came to pass, when she came, that she incited him to ask her father for a field, and she dismounted from the donkey. And Caleb said to her: What do you want? And she said: Give me a blessing! For you have given me the land of the Negev?! Then give me springs of water! And he gave her the upper springs and the lower springs."

В книге Йеошуа при разделе земли сказано [глава 15], а в книге Судей сказано [1, с небольшими изменениями]: «Халеву, сыну Йефунне, дал [Йеошуа] удел среди сынов Иеуды, по слову Всевышнего, данному Йеошуа, — город Арба, отца Анака, то есть Хеврон. И изгнал оттуда Халев трех сыновей Анака: Шешая, Ахимана и Талмая, потомков Анака. И поднялся [Халев] оттуда к жителям Девира, а прежде Девир назывался Кирьят-Сефер. И сказал Халев: тому, кто поразит Кирьят-Сефер и захватит его, я отдам Ахсу, мою дочь, в жены! И захватил его Отниэль, сын Кеназа, брат Халева, и отдал ему Ахсу, свою дочь, в жены. И было, когда она пришла, она побудила его просить у ее отца поле, и спрыгнула с осла. И сказал ей Халев: что с тобой? И сказала она: дай мне благословение! Ведь ты дал мне землю Негева?! Дай же мне источники воды! И дал он ей верхние источники и нижние источники».

The plain meaning of the verses is that Caleb was not satisfied with Hebron, his inheritance, and wanted also to capture the city of Debir, whose former name was "Kiryat Sefer," but he did not succeed, and he gave his daughter Achsah to his brother Otniel in return for his capturing the city. And since Debir [Kiryat Sefer] was a dry place, she asked Otniel to request a field from her father—that is, an inheritance blessed with water—but he did not ask, and she acted herself so that her father would give her springs of water.

But the Sages expounded this verse concerning the laws that were forgotten during the mourning for Moses. According to this exposition, "Debir" is an appellation for "words of Torah," that is, a city where Sages sit to deliberate over these laws. And "Kiryat Sefer" refers to the numbers of the laws that the scribes counted. And "formerly" refers to the laws that had been known in the days of Moses and were forgotten. That is to say, they were now disputing them, whereas formerly they had been known; and Otniel son of Kenaz "captured it," restoring them through his dialectical reasoning.

Rather, Achsah was not satisfied with the fact that Otniel was not wealthy, and she asked her father for wealth; and her father answered her that he would certainly not need sustenance, as will be explained.

Rabbi Abahu said: Even so,

although the laws had been forgotten during the mourning for Moses,

Otniel son of Kenaz restored them through his dialectical reasoning, as it is stated "

And Otniel son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, captured it."

It is further stated there: "

And he gave him Achsah his daughter as a wife."

And why was her name "

Achsah"?

Rabbi Yohanan said,

because

everyone who saw her became angry with his wife

because of her beauty. It is further stated there: "

And it came to pass, when she came, that she incited him to ask her father for a field. And she dismounted from the donkey,"

and we expound:

What is

the meaning of "

and she dismounted"?

Rava said in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak:

from the language of "crying out." For she cried out to her father and

said to him: Just as this donkey ["

from the donkey"]

as soon as it has no food in its manger, it immediately cries out—

so a woman, as soon as she has no grain in her house, immediately cries out,

as

it is stated

there: "

And her father said to her: What do you want?

And she said: Give me a blessing, for you have given me the land of the Negev [you have given me]!," and we expound "Negev" as the language of "dry": that is,

you have given me a house dried of all goodness

?! And she further said: "

Then give me springs of water," and "water" refers only to Torah, and "springs of water" means a person to whom the Torah is revealed.

Have you given me

a person who has nothing but Torah alone?!

And what did he answer her? It is stated there: "

And Caleb gave her the upper springs and the lower springs,"

and we expound: Thus he

said to her: Whoever

has all the secrets of the upper and lower realms revealed to him —

would he ask me for sustenance?!

Surely he will certainly not need sustenance, as it is written in the Torah [Proverbs 31]: "She was like the merchant ships."

And since Otniel's brother is called "son of Kenaz," it follows that Caleb too was son of Kenaz. Therefore we ask:

And since Caleb’s brother was called "son of Kenaz," it follows that Caleb too was the son of Kenaz; therefore we raise a difficulty:

And

is

Caleb the son of Kenaz?!

But Caleb is the son of Jephunneh!

And we answer: In truth, Caleb was the son of Kenaz. And

what, and why was his name called "son of

Jephunneh"?

Because

he turned away from the counsel of the spies!

And still,

it is nevertheless difficult: Was Caleb

the son of Kenaz

?

But he was

the son of Hezron, as it is written [I Chronicles 2]: "

And Caleb son of Hezron fathered Azubah."

"And Caleb son of Hezron fathered Azubah."

And we answer:

Rava said:

Indeed, Caleb was the son of Hezron, but Hezron died and his mother married Kenaz, and Otniel was born; and Caleb was

his stepson,

the stepson

of Kenaz.

Precisely

also,

it may likewise be inferred that Caleb was not the son of Kenaz,

as it is written [Joshua 14]: "

Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite,"

and it does not say "son of Kenaz," in which case it would be understood that Kenaz fathered him, but rather "the Kenizzite," meaning that Kenaz raised him as his stepson.

and it does not say "son of Kenaz," which would mean that Kenaz fathered him. Rather, it says "the Kenizzite," meaning that Kenaz raised him as his stepson.

And we conclude: Indeed,

you may learn from it!

The Gemara continues to expound the verses concerning Otniel son of Kenaz, the first judge who judged the people after Joshua’s death.

Otniel was also called by other names: "Jabez" and "Judah, the brother of Simeon."

A tanna taught: He is Otniel,

he is Jabez. And what was his name?

Judah, the brother of Simeon, was his name. And why was he called

Otniel?

Because

God answered him [

he answered his prayer]

El,

as will be explained below.

And why was his name called

Jabez?

Because

he advised and spread Torah in Israel,

and through his pilpul restored the halakhot that had been forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses.

And from where do we know that God answered him?

For it is written [I Chronicles 4]: “

And Jabez called upon the God of Israel, saying: If You will surely bless me, enlarge my border, let Your hand be with me, and make it so that no harm befalls me.”

And immediately it is said, “

And God brought about that which he asked.”

And the beraita explains the prayer of Jabez: “

If You will surely bless me” —

with Torah. “

And enlarge my border” —

with students. “

And let Your hand be with me” —

so that my learning will not be forgotten from my heart. “

And make it so that no harm befalls me” —

that companions like me should happen upon me. “

So that not” —

so that the evil inclination will not overpower me [

that it overcome me]

the evil inclination, to desist

from the study of Torah. “

my distress,”

thus he said in a language of distress:

if You do so,

that You answer all these requests of mine,

it is good! And if not —

I am going in my distress

in my distress, in pain and grief]

to the grave,

to the grave. That is to say, I am dying in my distress!

And when he prayed thus —

immediately,

God answered his prayer, as the verse concludes, “

And God brought about that which he asked.”

And not only were the requests of Othniel—who was Jabez—fulfilled, but everyone who gives himself over to pursuing words of Torah in such a manner has his requests fulfilled for him from Heaven. And therefore the beraita continues:

You say something similar:

It is said in the Book of Proverbs [29]: “

A poor man and a man of intrigues meet —

God enlightens the eyes of both” [

God enlightens the eyes of both]. And we expound: “A poor man” is the student who knows nothing, whereas “a man of intrigues” [from the language of “within”—intermediate] is a teacher who knows only two or three orders of Mishna and still needs to learn. And when he teaches the “poor man,” the Holy One, blessed be He, teaches him what he has not yet managed to learn, and all the more so does the “poor man” learn. It is found that God enlightens the eyes of both.

And the beraita says:

when the student goes to his teacher,

and gives himself over to pursuing words of Torah even though he is not an eminent teacher,

and says to him “

Teach me Torah,”

if the teacher teaches him,

and gives himself over to the spreading of Torah —

God enlightens the eyes of both —

And if not!

About this another verse is said in the Book of Proverbs [23]: “

A rich man and a poor man meet —

God makes them all.”

And we expound: “A rich man” is an eminent teacher proficient in the entire Torah, and “a poor man” is the student who comes to learn; and if he does not teach him, the sage is punished, and the Holy One, blessed be He,

He who made

him

wise for this one

the teacher —

makes him foolish!

And the Holy One, blessed be He, who made

this one foolish

the student —

makes him wise,

as a reward for his having given himself over to words of Torah. And about this it is said, “God makes them all,” that is, God makes them all into a new creation.

This is the teaching of Rabbi Natan.

Whereas Rabbi Judah the Prince expounds the prayer of Jabez:

Rabbi Judah the Prince says: “

If You will surely bless me” —

with procreation. “

And enlarge my border” —

with sons and daughters. “

And let Your hand be with me” —

in business dealings. “

And make it so that no harm befalls me” —

that there should not be in me an ailment of the head, an ailment of the ears, or an ailment of the eyes. “

So that not” —

so that the evil inclination will not overpower me and make me desist. “

My distress” —

if You do so —

it is good, and if not —

I am going in my distress to the grave.

Immediately — “

And God brought about that which he asked”!

And not only Jabez, but everyone who asks for his sustenance and his needs is attended to from Heaven, to fulfill his requests.

You say something similar:

It is said in the Book of Proverbs: “

A poor man and a man of intrigues meet —

God enlightens the eyes of both.”

When a poor man goes to a householder,

who is not wealthy,

and says “

Support me”!

If he supports him —

it is good,

and God also enlightens his eyes, and he merits wealth.

And if not,

and he does not support him, about this it is said: “

A rich man and a poor man meet —

God makes them all,”

He who made this one rich —

makes him poor,

and He who made

this one poor —

makes him rich.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon said: “What do we find,” and all of them.

The Gemara brings a beraita in which Rabbi Shimon’s words are stated in full.

The Sages taught: Rabbi Shimon says: Five sin-offerings die,

and these are they:

the offspring of a sin-offering, the substitute of a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owners died, and a sin-offering whose owners obtained atonement

its owners, and a sin-offering whose year passed.

And you cannot

say “the offspring of a sin-offering” with regard to the community, because there is no female sin-offering in the community.

And you cannot say “the substitute of a sin-offering” with regard to the community, because the community does not make a substitution.

And you cannot say “a sin-offering whose owners died” with regard to the community, because the community does not die,

as explained above.

But a sin-offering

whose owners obtained atonement, and whose year passed,

for these sin-offerings are possible also with a community sin-offering,

we have not learned

the halakha: whether they apply to the community and die, or whether they do not apply, and they are left to graze until a blemish occurs in them.

Now, since we have not learned the halakha,

could they apply both to an individual and to the community?

You say: Let the obscure be learned from the explicit—the sin-offering whose owners obtained atonement and the sin-offering whose year passed, whose law is not known to us—

from the explicit.

from the offspring of a sin-offering, from the substitute of a sin-offering, and from a sin-offering whose owners died, concerning which it is explicit to us that they do not die as offerings of the community:

just as the explicit

only

with regard to an individual

are

the matters stated, and not with regard to the community, so too with

a sin-offering

whose owners obtained atonement and

a sin-offering

whose year passed,

only

with regard to an individual

are

the matters stated, and not with regard to the community.