Temurah

Said R. Joseph: [The word dofi here means] dispute, [e.g., the dispute] relating to ‘laying on of hands’.1 But does not Joseph b. Jo'ezer himself differ with reference to the law of laying on of hands?2 — When he differed it was in his latter years, when his mental powers3 declined. The [above] text [stated]: ‘Rab Judah reported in the name of Samuel: Three thousand traditional laws were forgotten during the period of mourning for Moses’. They said to Joshua: ‘Ask’;4 he replied: It is not in heaven.5 They [the Israelites] said to Samuel: ‘Ask’; he replied: [Scripture says:] These are the commandments,6 implying [that since the promulgation of these commandments] no prophet has now the right to introduce anything new. Said R. Isaac the Smith: Also the law relating to a sin-offering whose owners have died7 was forgotten8 during the period of mourning for Moses. They [the Israelites] said to Phinehas: ‘Ask’; he replied to them: ‘It is not in heaven’.9 They said to Eleazar: ‘Ask’. He replied: ‘These are the commandments’, implying [that since the promulgation of these commandments] no prophet has now the right to introduce anything new. Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: When Moses departed [this world] for the Garden of Eden he said to Joshua: ‘Ask me concerning all the doubts you have’.10 He replied to him: ‘My Master, have I ever left you for one hour and gone elsewhere?11 Did you not write concerning me in the Torah: But his servant Joshua the son of Nun departed not out of the tabernacle?12 Immediately the strength [of Moses] weakened13 and [Joshua] forgot14 three hundred laws and there arose [in his mind] seven hundred doubts [concerning laws]. Then all the Israelites rose up to kill him.15 The Holy One, blessed be He, then said to him [Joshua]: ‘It is not possible to tell you.16 Go and occupy their attention in war, as it says: Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, it came to pass that the Lord spake;17 and it further says; [Prepare you victuals for within three days, etc.]. 18 It has been taught: A thousand and seven hundred kal wahomer19 and gezerah shawah20 and specifications of the Scribes21 were forgotten during the period of mourning for Moses. Said R. Abbuha: Nevertheless Othniel the son of Kenaz restored [these forgotten teachings] as a result of his dialectics, as it says: And Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it;22 and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife.23 And why was her name called Achsah? — Said24 R. Johanan: Because whosoever saw her was angry with his wife.25 And it came to pass as she came unto him that she moved him to ask of her father a field. And she alighted [watiznah] off her ass.26 What does the word wa-tiznah mean? Raba reported in the name of R. Isaac: She said to him: Just as an ass when it has no food in its trough immediately cries out,27 so a woman when she has no wheat in her house cries out immediately, [as it says: And Caleb said unto her: What wouldst thou?].24 And she answered, Give me a blessing for thou hast given me a south land,28 implying a house dry29 [devoid] of all goodness [money]; give me also springs of water,30 meaning a man in whom is Only Torah.31 And he gave her the upper springs [gulloth] and the nether springs.30 He said to her: ‘One to whom all the secrets of the upper and nether worlds are revealed,32 need one ask food from him?’33 But was Caleb the son of Kenaz?34 Was he not the son of Jephunneh?35 — The meaning of the word Jephunneh is that he turned36 from the counsel of the spies. But still was he [Caleb] the son of Kenaz? Was he not the son of Hezron, since it says: And Caleb the son of Hezron begat Azubah?37 — Said Raba: He [Caleb] was a stepson of Kenaz.38 [This can also be proved,39 since it says: Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite,40 but does not say the son of Kenaz.]41 A Tanna taught: Othniel is the same as Jabez.42 He43 was called Othniel because God answered him,44 and Jabez because he counselled45 and fostered Torah in Israel. And what was his [real] name? Judah the brother of Simeon. And whence do we derive that God answered him? — Since it says: And Jabez called on the God of Israel saying, Oh that thou wouldst bless me indeed and enlarge my border, and that thine hand might be with me, and that thou wouldst keep me from evil that it may not grieve me! And God granted him that which he requested.46 ‘Oh that thou wouldst bless me indeed’ with Torah; ‘and enlarge my border’ with pupils; ‘that thine hand might be with me’, that my studies may not be forgotten from my heart; ‘and that thou wouldst keep me from evil’, that I may meet friends like myself; ‘that it may not grieve me’, that the evil inclination may not have power over me so as to prevent me from studying: If thou doest so it is well, but if not, I shall go with my ‘grief’ to the grave. Immediately, ‘God granted him that which he requested’.47 You find a similar example: The poor man and the man of medium wealth meet together,48 the Lord lighteneth both their eyes.49 When the pupil questions his teacher and says to him: ‘Teach me Torah’, if he teaches him, the Lord enlightens the eyes of both of them,50 and if not, ‘the rich and poor meet together, the Lord is the maker of them all:51 He who made this one wise can make him a fool, and He who has made this one a fool can make him wise.52 This is the teaching of R. Nathan. R. Judah the Prince says: ‘If thou wouldst bless me indeed’, by multiplying and increasing; ‘and enlarge my border’, with sons and daughters; ‘and that thine hand might be with me’, in business; ‘and thou wouldst keep me from evil’, that I have no head-ache, ear-ache nor eye-ache; ‘that it may not grieve me’, that the evil inclination may not have power over me so as to prevent me from studying: If thou doest so, it is well, but if not, I will go with my ‘grief’ to the grave. ‘And God granted him that which he requested’. Likewise53 you say: The poor man and the man of medium wealth have met together, the Lord lighteneth both their eyes;54 when the poor man goes to the donor and says, ‘Assist me’,if he assists him it is well, but if not, ‘the rich and the poor meet together, the Lord is the maker of them all’: He who made this one rich can make him poor, and He who made this one poor can make him rich. SAID R. SIMEON: WHAT DO WE FIND AS REGARDS etc. Our Rabbis taught: R. Simeon says, Five sin-offerings are left to die — an offspring of a dedicated animal, the substitute of a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owner has died, a sin-offering whose owner has procured atonement, and a sin-offering whose year is passed. Now you cannot apply [the law of] the offspring of a dedicated animal to a congregation because a congregation does not bring a female animal [for an offering]. You cannot also apply [the law of] the substitute of a sin-offering to a congregation because a congregation cannot effect exchange. You cannot also apply [the law of] a sin-offering whose owner has died to a congregation because ‘a congregation does not die’. With regard to the cases of a sin-offering whose owner has procured atonement or whose year is passed, we do not as yet know.55 Shall we say then that these have the same rule in the case both of a congregation and an individual? I will tell you. Let the cases which are not explicitly stated56 be derived [by analogy] from the cases explicitly stated57 [as follows]: Just as the cases explicitly stated apply to an individual and not to a congregation, so the cases regarding the owners of a sin-offering who have procured atonement and a sin-offering whose year has passed only apply to an individual and not to a congregation. there was a difference of opinion, the School of Shammai holding that it was permissible and the School of Hillel that it was not permissible. This controversy took place after the time of Joseph b. Jo'ezer. differences of opinion relating to certain laws. position to give temurah, etc). employed by the Rabbis as an aid to remembering the laws. traditional teachings lost during the mourning period for Moses. implying that Kenaz was the father of Caleb. illness. Since he therefore married her for heaven's sake, Scripture accounts it as if he had begotten her. only brought him up but did not beget him. The bracketed passage is inserted with Rashi and Sh. Mek; V. Wilna Gaon Glosses. I,16: And the children of the Kenites, etc. and went, etc. This must have been Othniel, Later on it says: And Judah went with Simeon his brother, referring to Othniel mentioned previously in the text (Wilna Gaon Glosses). medium wealth’ is interpreted as one who only possesses a moderate knowledge of the Torah. When therefore the poor man asks the other to teach him, it is incumbent on the latter to do so just as God carried out the wish of Othniel (R. Gershom). Othniel (R. Gershom). Rashi explains ‘likewise’ as meaning that if one seeks and petitions for sustenance, heaven will fulfil his wishes. sin-offering whose year is passed. sin-offering.