Temurah

Has it not been taught: Likewise,1 R. Jose said: The children of the captivity that were come out of the exile offered burnt-offerings, twelve bullocks, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs, twelve he-goats, for a sin-offering, all this was a burnt-offering unto the Lord.2 But can a sin-offering be brought as a burnt-offering?3 — Said Raba: [It means] like a burnt-offering [in this respect]. Just as a burnt-offering must not be eaten, so that sin-offering was not to be eaten. For R. Jose used to say: They brought the twelve he-goats4 for the sin of idolatry. And Rab Judah reported in the name of Samuel: On account of the idolatry which they committed in the time of Zedekiah. Now, assuming that the one5 who holds that a congregational sin-offering whose owners procured atonement is left to die, also holds that a sin-offering whose owners have died is left to die, is there not here6 a case where the owners have died7 and yet the sin-offering is offered!8 — Said R. Papa: Even according to the one who holds that a congregational sin-offering whose owners have procured atonement is left to die, a congregational sin-offering whose owners have died is not left to die, for ‘a congregation does not die’.9 Whence does R. Papa derive this? Shall we say because Scripture says: Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children?10 If this be so, the same should apply to [the sacrifice] of an individual?11 — Rather this is the reason why [the law of] the owners of [a sin-offering] who died does not apply to a congregation, because [we make an inference] from the case of the goats brought on Festivals and New Moons, since the Divine Law says: Bring them from the offerings of the Temple Treasury. Now perhaps the owners of this money have died?12 Must you therefore not admit that a congregation does not die? And if you prefer [another solution] I may say: When these sin-offerings [goats] were offered13 they were offered on behalf of those still alive,14 since Scripture says: But many of the priests and Levites and chiefs of the fathers who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice and many shouted aloud for joy.15 Perhaps [the survivors] were only a minority?16 — You cannot say this, since [the text continues]: So that the people could not discern the noise of the shouting from the noise of the weeping of the people.17 But how could they bring [a sacrifice for idolatry]? Were they not wilful [sinners of idolatry in the days of Zedekiah]? — Said R. Johanan: It was a special decision.18 So indeed it stands to reason.19 For should you not say so, there is no difficulty as regards [the twelve] bullocks and [the twelve] goats, for this corresponds with the twelve tribes.20 But as regards [rams]21 and lambs, with reference to whom [were they brought]? You must say therefore that this was a special decision [and here, too, it was a special decision]. 22 We have learnt elsewhere: When Joseph b. Jo'ezer of Zereda and Joseph b. Johanan of Jerusalem died the grape-clusters [the scholars] came to an end.23 What is the meaning of eshkoloth [grapeclusters]?24 — A man in whom all is contained.25 R. Judah reported in the name of Samuel: All the ‘grape-clusters’ who arose from the days of Moses until Joseph b. Jo'ezer learnt Torah like Moses our Teacher.26 From that time onward, they did not learn Torah like Moses our Teacher. But did not Rab Judah report in the name of Samuel: Three thousand halachoth were forgotten during the period of mourning for Moses? — Those laws which were forgotten were forgotten, but those which were learnt27 they learnt like Moses our Teacher. But has it not been taught: After the death of Moses, if those who pronounced unclean were in the majority,28 they [the Rabbis] declared [the object] unclean, and if those who pronounced clean were in the majority, they [the Rabbis] declared [it] clean?29 — Their acumen30 diminished, but what they had learnt31 they learnt like Moses our Teacher.32 It has been taught: All the ‘grape-clusters’ who arose in Israel from the days of Moses until the death of Joseph b. Jo'ezer of Zereda were free from all dofi [taint].33 From that time onward some matter of taint was found in them.34 But has it not been taught: There is the story of a certain hasid35 who groaned [from a pain] in his heart, and when the doctors were consulted they said that there was no remedy for him unless he sucked hot milk from [a goat36 every morning]. They brought a goat and bound it to the feet of his bed and he used to suck milk from it. Next day his friends came to visit him. When they saw the goat they exclaimed: ‘A robber in arms is in the house37 and shall we go in to visit him?’ [They38 left him immediately. When he died] they sat down and made investigation and found no other sin in him except that of [the keeping of] the goat. He [the hasid] too at his death said: ‘I myself know that I have not sinned except in the keeping of this goat, having thus transgressed the teaching of my colleagues’. For the Sages taught: One must not rear small cattle in the Land of Israel. And it is also an established fact with us that wherever the Talmud speaks of a certain hasid it refers either to R. Judah b. Baba or R. Judah b. Ila'i. Now [these] Rabbis39 lived many generations after Joseph b. Jo'ezer of Zereda.40 second for a burnt-offering. The Baraitha states that just as a burnt-offering must not be eaten, so this sin-offering must not be eaten. Thereupon the Baraitha proceeds: Likewise, etc. congregation has been guilty and it is burnt outside the camp. considered as being ownerless. individuals. Since then twelve goats were offered on behalf of the twelve tribes, these must have been meant for the first people mentioned in the text who had died, and we can therefore infer that the law of a sin-offering whose owner died does not apply to a congregation. first people mentioned in the text who had died (Rashi). Rashi explains the phrase as denoting one having the knowledge in Torah, fearing God and practising benevolence. with reference to them and the laws were settled by going according to the decision of the majority. robbing another man's pasture; v. B.K. 80a.