Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 16 for kids: Finding Forgotten Laws

תמורה ט״ז

📖 This daf tells of laws forgotten after Moses died and asks how people could learn them again. It also explores which rules for sin offerings apply to one person, but not to a community.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 16a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 16b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Temurah 16

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 16 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 16a, in English Tab translation (28)
  1. The flaw of placing hands — Until Yosef ben Yo’ezer, the Sages had not disputed whether to place hands on an offering, or disputed any other matter, because their understanding had not yet diminished. This issue is singled out because it was their first dispute. From his time onward, they disagreed about placing hands on peace offerings on a Festival, as stated in Chagiga: Shammai says to place hands, and Hillel says not to.
  2. But Yosef himself disputed it — He disputed this matter, as stated in tractate Chagiga.
  3. When his understanding diminished — In his later years, his understanding weakened and teachings were forgotten.
  4. Was forgotten during the mourning for Moses — This includes whether a sin offering whose owner died must be left to die or put out to pasture. The comments give three orderings of those asked for guidance: Joshua, Samuel, Pinehas, and Elazar; Joshua, Elazar, Pinehas, and Samuel; or Joshua, Pinehas, Elazar, and Samuel.
  5. And he forgot them — Joshua forgot them because he had upset Moses by acting as though he was as great as Moses.
  6. To kill him — Until he told them the forgotten laws.
  7. A fortiori inferences — Interpretations derived by reasoning from a lighter case to a stricter one.
  8. Minutiae of the scribes — As explained in Shekalim, the Sages grouped and counted teachings so they would not be forgotten, such as the fifteen women who exempt their co-wives, the thirteen rulings about the carcass of a kosher bird, and the five people who must not separate terumah. Some such details had not yet been grouped and counted, and were forgotten during the mourning for Moses.
  9. And Othniel captured it — He captured Kiriath Sefer; here, ‘Kiriath Sefer’ means the forgotten laws.
  10. Angry with his wife — Because Achsah was so beautiful.
  11. And she alighted — The word is read as an expression of crying out.
  12. Dried out — Barren and lacking every good thing.
  13. Only Torah — Torah is called water. Othniel was wise but not wealthy.
  14. Springs of water — Torah: that is, a person to whom Torah is clear.
  15. Ask him for food — Surely he would not need to, for it says of Torah, ‘She is like merchant ships,’ bringing her food from afar.
  16. Son of Kenaz — The verse calls Othniel ‘son of Kenaz, Caleb’s brother,’ which seems to make Caleb a son of Kenaz. Elsewhere, however, Caleb is called ‘son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite,’ not ‘son of Kenaz.’
  17. He fathered Azubah as a wife — Sotah explains that Caleb married Miriam, who had been forsaken because of illness. Because he married her for the sake of Heaven, Scripture credits him as though he had given birth to her.
  18. Kenaz’s stepson — Caleb was Kenaz’s stepson, and Othniel was Caleb’s maternal half-brother.
  19. This is also precise — Caleb was not Kenaz’s son: elsewhere he is called ‘son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite,’ not ‘son of Kenaz.’ Kenaz raised him but was not his father.
  20. And keep me from evil, so that — So that the evil inclination will not overpower me and stop me from studying Torah.
  21. In sorrow — The word suggests grief. He said: ‘If You grant my request, well and good; if not, I will go down to the grave in sorrow.’ Likewise, ‘they were grieved’ is translated as ‘they were distressed.’
  22. Similarly, you may say — Whoever devotes himself to pursuing Torah has his requests fulfilled.
  23. A person of middling means — An intermediate scholar who knows two or three orders of the Mishnah.
  24. He enlightens the eyes of both — Even the teacher still needs to learn, and the Holy One, blessed be He, teaches him.
  25. He makes them both — He now makes them anew: one wise and the other foolish.
  26. A similar case, etc. — One who asks for food and other needs is answered from Heaven, and his requests are fulfilled.
  27. Unspecified — A sin offering whose owner has already obtained atonement, or one that has passed its first year.
  28. Explicit — A sin offering’s offspring or substitute, or one whose owner has died; it is clear that these cases do not apply to communal offerings.
Rashi on Temurah 16b, in English Tab translation (8)
  1. Can one derive a possible case from an impossible one? — Those three cases cannot occur with a communal offering at all, whether the question is leaving it to die or offering it. That is why the rule that they die does not apply to communal offerings.
  2. Four were given to them — At Sinai they were taught that four of the five sin offerings must be left to die and the fifth must be left to graze. They forgot whether the rule concerned individual or communal offerings, and during the days of mourning for Moses they forgot which offering was to graze. They therefore ruled stringently that all five must die. If the teaching concerned communal offerings, how could it include four cases? Only two can occur with a communal offering. It must therefore have concerned individual offerings.
  3. One was given to them — One sin offering was designated to die and four to graze. Because they forgot which one was to die, they applied that ruling to all five. Rabbi Natan is explaining Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning in the mishna, but before he finishes, the Gemara interrupts with a question and its answer.
  4. Let them check which group they learned it in — Why did they apply the ruling to all five because of uncertainty about one? If they remembered that the offering designated to die could occur with either an individual or a community, only the sin offering whose owners had already gained atonement and the one that had passed its first year would be in doubt; the other three cannot occur with a community. If they remembered that it could occur only with an individual, only those three would be in doubt.
  5. They forgot two things — They forgot both which offering it was and which group it belonged to, so they ruled that all five must die. Rabbi Natan then resumes his explanation of Rabbi Shimon: the four offerings taught together as subject to grazing cannot all occur with a community, so that teaching concerned individuals. The Sages, by contrast, hold that the four were designated to die wherever the case can occur, whether for an individual or a community. Rabbi offered another explanation: Reish Lakish’s point is a received tradition, not an inference. The four offerings were taught together as subject to death and so must have been taught in one setting, which can only be an individual offering; a communal offering in these cases grazes. The fifth was taught as subject to grazing, but after its identity was forgotten during the mourning for Moses, they ruled stringently that it too must die. Reish Lakish mentions the four because that is how the tradition was given, not because Rabbi Shimon’s explanation requires that number. Rabbi Natan likewise says that the four taught together as subject to grazing must have been taught in the setting of individual offerings. At least one of those four could also occur with a community, yet the teaching still applies only to individuals; the offering designated to die is learned from them, even if it too could occur with a community. This is not deriving a possible case from an impossible one. That objection would apply if three offerings that cannot occur with a community had been taught together as subject to grazing, and two offerings that can occur with a community had been taught separately as subject to death. One could not then infer that the two must die only when offered by an individual. The Gemara’s question, ‘Let them check which group they learned it in,’ asks why forgetting the identity of the one offering designated to die left all five in doubt rather than only the two that can occur with a community or the three that cannot.
  6. They forgot two things — They forgot which group contained the offering designated to die and which offering it was. They therefore ruled that all five must die. The Gemara now returns to Rabbi Natan’s explanation of Rabbi Shimon; until this point it had interrupted him to question why the ruling was applied to all five.
  7. One may consecrate limbs and fetuses, but may not make them substitutes — This follows Rabbi Yehuda, who interprets the words ‘an animal for an animal’ in the first chapter.
  8. For one with a permanent blemish — If someone substitutes a blemished animal for an unblemished consecrated animal, the blemished animal acquires such strong sanctity that redeeming it does not make it non-sacred.
Tosafot on Temurah 16b, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. Can one derive the possible from the impossible? — In Horayot, the answer is that all five sin-offering cases were taught as one tradition. Since some cannot occur with communal offerings, none of the five applies to communal offerings. Here the text reads: Reish Lakish said that at Sinai they received a tradition that four sin offerings must die and one must graze. During the mourning for Moses, they forgot which was which and decreed that all five must die. The four destined to die were taught together; since some cannot occur with communal offerings, all four concern individuals. This would be obvious if all five had originally been taught to die, but it holds even though one was taught to graze. Whether that one was among the cases impossible for a community or among those possible for it, the four taught to die still include cases impossible for a community. Thus they all concern individuals. The forgotten fifth case, though it could occur with a community, was decreed to die only when it concerns an individual: here the possible is derived from the impossible.
  2. Rabbi Natan said: One was given, and they extended it to five — At Sinai they received a tradition that one sin offering must die and four must graze. During the mourning for Moses, they forgot which must die and which must graze, so they decreed that all five must die. The Gemara interrupts Rabbi Natan’s explanation to ask why they did not at least check which group contained the case taught to die: the three cases possible only for individuals, or the two also possible for a community. They could then have decreed death only for that group and left the other to graze. The answer is that they forgot both which case it was and which group it belonged to. Rabbi Natan’s explanation then resumes: The four cases taught to graze were taught as one tradition. Since some cannot occur with communal offerings, the unspecified cases are learned from those explicitly limited to individuals, as explained above for Reish Lakish.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Temura 16.