Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 4, 2019 | ื’ืณ ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Temurah 16

What Torah was forgotten in the days of mourning for Moshe? Was it retrieved? Who was Otniel the son of Kenaz and what was his greatness? Are the five cases of sin offerings that are left to die applicable also to communal offerings?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื“ื•ืคื™ ืฉืœ ืกืžื™ื›ื” ืงืชื ื™

Rav Yosef said in response: The baraita is not referring to a flaw due to some sin; rather, it is teaching about the flaw of the early dispute over the halakha of placing hands on the head of an animal brought as a Festival peace offering, as taught in tractate แธคagiga (16a).

ื•ื”ื ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืขื–ืจ ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืžื™ืคืœื™ื’ ืคืœื™ื’ ื‘ืกืžื™ื›ื” ื›ื™ ืื™ืคืœื™ื’ ื‘ื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉื ื™ื” ื“ื‘ืฆืจ ืœื™ื‘ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Yosef ben Yoโ€™ezer himself disputed the halakha of placing hands on the head of an offering. The first Sages to dispute this issue were Yosef ben Yoโ€™ezer and Yosef ben Yoแธฅanan. The Gemara answers: When they disputed it, that was at the end of the years of Yosef ben Yoโ€™ezerโ€™s life, when the understanding of his heart was limited, due to old age. Therefore, the dispute is considered as though it occurred after his lifetime.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉืœืฉืช ืืœืคื™ื ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ื ืฉืชื›ื—ื• ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืื‘ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžืฉื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืœื ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara returns to the matter itself. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Three thousand halakhot were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses. The Jewish people said to Joshua: Ask for guidance from Heaven so that you can reacquire the forgotten halakhot. Joshua said to them: โ€œIt is not in heavenโ€ (Deuteronomy 30:12). Once the Torah was given on Sinai, the Sages of each generation must determine the halakha. No new halakhot may be added or subtracted by heavenly instruction or through prophecy.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืืœื” ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื ื‘ื™ื ืจืฉืื™ ืœื—ื“ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ืžืขืชื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื ืคื—ื ืืฃ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื ืฉืชื›ื—ื” ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืื‘ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžืฉื”

Many years later the Jewish people again said to Samuel: Ask for halakhic guidance from Heaven. He said to them: This is not possible, as the Torah states: โ€œThese are the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses to tell the children of Israel at Mount Sinaiโ€ (Leviticus 27:34). The word โ€œtheseโ€ indicates that from now on a prophet is not permitted to introduce any new element related to the Torah and its mitzvot through prophecy. With regard to the topic of the chapter, Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa says: Also, the halakha of a sin offering whose owner has died was one of those forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses.

ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื—ืก ืฉืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ื”ื™ื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืืœืขื–ืจ ืฉืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืืœื” ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ื‘ื™ื ืจืฉืื™ ืœื—ื“ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ืžืขืชื”

At the time of Mosesโ€™ death, the people said to Pinehas: Ask for halakhic guidance from Heaven so that you can relearn the forgotten halakhot. Pinehas said to them: โ€œIt is not in heavenโ€ (Deuteronomy 30:12). The people said to Elazar: Ask for halakhic guidance from God. He said to them that the verse states: โ€œThese are the commandments,โ€ to teach that a prophet is not permitted to introduce any new element from now on.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื ืคื˜ืจ ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื’ืŸ ืขื“ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืœื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืืœ ืžืžื ื™ ื›ืœ ืกืคื™ืงื•ืช ืฉื™ืฉ ืœืš ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื ื—ืชื™ืš ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื™ ืœืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ืœื ื›ืš ื›ืชื‘ืช ื‘ื™ ื•ืžืฉืจืชื• ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืŸ ื ืขืจ ืœื ื™ืžื™ืฉ ืžืชื•ืš ื”ืื”ืœ ืžื™ื“ ืชืฉืฉ ื›ื—ื• ืฉืœ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ื ืฉืชื›ื—ื• ืžืžื ื• ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ื•ื ื•ืœื“ื• ืœื• ืฉื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ืกืคื™ืงื•ืช ื•ืขืžื“ื• ื›ืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื”ืจื’ื•

ยง Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Just before the time when Moses, our teacher, left this world and went to the Garden of Eden, he said to Joshua: Ask from me all the cases of uncertainty in matters of halakha that you have, so that I can clarify them for you. Joshua said to him: My teacher, did I ever leave you for even one moment and go to another place? Didnโ€™t you write this about me in the Torah: โ€œBut his minister, Joshua, son of Nun, a young man, did not depart out of the tentโ€ (Exodus 33:11)? If I would have had any case of uncertainty I would have asked you earlier. Immediately after he said this, Joshuaโ€™s strength weakened, and three hundred halakhot were forgotten by him, and seven hundred cases of uncertainty emerged before him, and the entire Jewish people arose to kill him, as he was unable to teach them the forgotten halakhot.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืš ื•ื˜ื•ืจื“ืŸ ื‘ืžืœื—ืžื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืื—ืจื™ ืžื•ืช ืžืฉื” ืขื‘ื“ ื”ืณ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Joshua: It is impossible to tell you these halakhot, as the Torah is not in Heaven. But to save yourself from the Jewish people who want to kill you, go and exhaust them in war, so that they will leave you alone. As it is stated: โ€œNow it came to pass after the death of Moses, the servant of the Lord, that the Lord spoke to Joshua, son of Nun, Mosesโ€™ minister, saying: Moses My servant is dead, now therefore arise, go over this Jordanโ€ (Joshua 1:1โ€“2). This shows that immediately after the death of Moses, God commanded Joshua to lead the nation into battle.

ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืชื ื ืืœืฃ ื•ืฉื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ืงืœื™ืŸ ื•ื—ืžื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื’ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื•ื•ืช ื•ื“ืงื“ื•ืงื™ ืกื•ืคืจื™ื ื ืฉืชื›ื—ื• ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืื‘ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžืฉื”

ยง It is taught in a baraita: One thousand and seven hundred a fortiori inferences, and verbal analogies, and minutiae of the scribes were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ื›ืŸ ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจืŸ ืขืชื ื™ืืœ ื‘ืŸ ืงื ื– ืžืชื•ืš ืคืœืคื•ืœื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืœื›ื“ื” ืขืชื ื™ืืœ ื‘ืŸ ืงื ื– ืื—ื™ ื›ืœื‘ ื•ื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืช ืขื›ืกื” ื‘ืชื• ืœืืฉื” ื•ืœืžื” ื ืงืจื ืฉืžื” ืขื›ืกื” ืฉื›ืœ ื”ืจื•ืื” ืื•ืชื” ื›ื•ืขืก ืขืœ ืืฉืชื•

Rabbi Abbahu says: Even so, Othniel, son of Kenaz, restored them through his sharp mind [pilpulo], as it is stated: โ€œAnd Caleb said: To he who smites Kiriath Sefer, and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter as a wife. And Othniel, son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter as a wifeโ€ (Joshua 15:16โ€“17).The name โ€œKiriath Sefer,โ€ which literally means the village of the book, is homiletically interpreted as a reference to those parts of the Torah that were forgotten, while the phrase โ€œtook itโ€ is referring to Othnielโ€™s acumen and learning. The baraita adds: And why is she called Achsah? The reason is that anyone who sees her became angry [koโ€™es] about his own wife, who was not as beautiful as Achsah.

ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื‘ื‘ื•ืื” ื•ืชืกื™ืชื”ื• ืœืฉืืœ ืžืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืฉื“ื” ื•ืชืฆื ื— ืžืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื•ืชืฆื ื— ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืžื” ื—ืžื•ืจ ื–ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžืื›ืœ ื‘ืื‘ื•ืกื• ืžื™ื“ ืฆื•ืขืง ื›ืš ืืฉื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืชื‘ื•ืื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื” ืžื™ื“ ืฆื•ืขืงืช

The Gemara relates another incident involving Achsah. The verse states: โ€œAnd it came to pass, when she came to him, that she persuaded him to ask of her father a field; and she alighted from off her donkey; and Caleb said to her: What do you want?โ€ (Joshua 15:18). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: โ€œAnd she alighted [vatitznaแธฅ],โ€ which can also be understood as crying out? Rava says that Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: Achsah said to Caleb: Just as in the case of this donkey, when it has no food in its trough it immediately cries out, so too in the case of a woman, when she has no produce in her house she immediately cries out.

ื•ืชืืžืจ ืชื ื” ืœื™ ื‘ืจื›ื” ื›ื™ ืืจืฅ ื”ื ื’ื‘ ื ืชืชื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžื ื•ื’ื‘ ืžื›ืœ ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ื•ื ืชืชื” ืœื™ ื’ืœืช ืžื™ื ืื“ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืืœื ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ื•ื™ืชืŸ ืœื” ื›ืœื‘ ืืช ื’ืœืช ืขืœื™ื•ืช ื•ืืช ื’ืœืช ืชื—ืชื™ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืœื” ืžื™ ืฉื“ืจ ืขืœื™ื•ื ื™ื ื•ืชื—ืชื•ื ื™ื ื™ื‘ืงืฉ ืžืžื ื• ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

The Gemara cites yet another verse involving Achsah: โ€œAnd she said: Give me a blessing; for that you have set me in the land of the South [negev], and you have given me springs of water. And he gave her the upper springs and the lower springsโ€ (Joshua 15:19). She said to her father: You have given me a home dried [menugav] of all goodness. โ€œAnd you have given me springs of waterโ€; this is referring to a man who has nothing other than Torah, which is metaphorically called water. But as he is unable to provide me with food, how can I live? โ€œAnd gave her the upper springs and the lower springs.โ€ Caleb said to her: Does someone learned in Torah, who dwells in the upper worlds and the lower worlds, require that sustenance be requested for him? He certainly does not need it, as God will provide for him in merit of his Torah studies.

ื•ื›ืœื‘ ื‘ืŸ ืงื ื– ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืœื ื›ืœื‘ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืคื•ื ื” ื”ื•ื ืžืื™ ื™ืคื•ื ื” ืฉืคื ื” ืžืขืฆืช ืžืจื’ืœื™ื

The Gemara asks: And Caleb, was he the son of Kenaz? Wasnโ€™t he Caleb, son of Jephunneh (Joshua 15:13)? The Gemara explains that Jephunneh was not the name of his father, but a description of Caleb. What does the word Jephunneh mean? It means that he turned [sheppana] from the advice of the spies and did not join with them in their negative report about Eretz Yisrael.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ื‘ืŸ ืงื ื– ื”ื•ื ื‘ืŸ ื—ืฆืจื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืœื‘ ื‘ืŸ ื—ืฆืจื•ืŸ ื”ื•ืœื™ื“ ืืช ืขื–ื•ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื—ื•ืจื’ื™ื” ื“ืงื ื– ื”ื•ื

The Gemara further asks: But still, was he the son of Kenaz? He was the son of Hezron, as it is written: โ€œAnd Caleb, son of Hezron, begot children of Azubah his wife, and of Jerioth, and these were her sons: Jesher, and Shobab, and Ardonโ€ (Iย Chronicles 2:18). Rava said: Caleb was actually the son of Hezron, but after his father passed away his mother remarried Kenaz, and consequently he was the stepson of Kenaz. Othniel, son of Kenaz, was therefore his maternal half brother.

ืชื ื ื”ื•ื ืขืชื ื™ืืœ ื”ื•ื ื™ืขื‘ืฅ ื•ืžื” ืฉืžื• ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื—ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉืžื• ืขืชื ื™ืืœ ืฉืขื ืื• ืืœ ื™ืขื‘ืฅ ืฉื™ืขืฅ ื•ืจื™ื‘ืฅ ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ

A tanna taught in a baraita: The same person is known as Othniel and he is also known as Jabez. And what is his actual name? Judah, brother of Simeon, is his name. He was known as Othniel, as God answered [anaโ€™o El] his prayer. He was also known as Jabez [yabetz] because he advised and spread [yaโ€™atz veribetz] Torah among the Jewish people.

ื•ืžื ืœืŸ ืฉืขื ืื• ืืœ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืงืจื ื™ืขื‘ืฅ ืœืืœื”ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืืžืจ ืื ื‘ืจืš ืชื‘ืจื›ื ื™ ื•ื”ืจื‘ื™ืช ืืช ื’ื‘ื•ืœื™ ื•ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื“ืš ืขืžื“ื™ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืจืขืชื™ ืœื‘ืœืชื™ ืขืฆื‘ื™ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืืœื”ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืจ ืฉืืœ

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that God answered him? As it is written: โ€œAnd Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying: If You will bless me indeed, and enlarge my border, and that Your hand may be with me, and that You will work deliverance from evil, that it may not pain me! And God granted him that which he requestedโ€ (Iย Chronicles 4:10).

ืื ื‘ืจืš ืชื‘ืจื›ื ื™ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื”ืจื‘ื™ืช ืืช ื’ื‘ื•ืœื™ ื‘ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ื•ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื“ืš ืขืžื“ื™ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืชื›ื— ืชืœืžื•ื“ื™ ืžืœื‘ื™ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืจืขืชื™ ืฉื™ื–ื“ืžื ื• ืœื™ ืจื™ืขื™ื ื›ืžื•ืชื™ ืœื‘ืœืชื™ ืขืฆื‘ื™ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉื’ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฆืจ ื”ืจืข ืžืœืฉื ื•ืช ืื ืืชื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ื•ืื ืœืื• ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื”ื•ืœืš ืœื ืกื™ืกื™ ืœืฉืื•ืœ ืžื™ื“ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืืœื”ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืจ ืฉืืœ

The Gemara interprets this verse. The phrase: โ€œIf You will bless me indeed,โ€ means that he prayed for a blessing with regard to Torah. โ€œAnd enlarge my border,โ€ means that he prayed for a blessing with regard to students. โ€œAnd that Your hand be with me,โ€ that my studies not be forgotten from my heart. โ€œAnd that You will work deliverance from evil [meraโ€™ati],โ€ that I will find friends [reโ€™im] like me. โ€œThat it may not pain me,โ€ that the evil inclination should not grow stronger and prevent me from studying Torah. Othniel further prayed: If You do so, good; and if not, I will go depressed [linsisi] to my grave and the netherworld. Immediately, God answered him, as the verse states: โ€œAnd God granted him that which he requested.โ€

ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืจืฉ ื•ืื™ืฉ ืชื›ื›ื™ื ื ืคื’ืฉื• ืžืื™ืจ ืขื™ื ื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื”ืณ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื”ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื”ื•ืœืš ืืฆืœ ืจื‘ื• ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืœืžื“ื ื™ ืชื•ืจื” ืื ืžืœืžื“ื• ืžืื™ืจ ืขื™ื ื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื”ืณ ื•ืื ืœืื• ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ืจืฉ ื ืคื’ืฉื• ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื ื”ืณ ืžื™ ืฉืขืฉืื• ื—ื›ื ืœื–ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืื•ืชื• ื˜ื™ืคืฉ ื˜ื™ืคืฉ ืœื–ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืื•ืชื• ื—ื›ื ื–ื• ืžืฉื ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ

On a similar note, you say likewise with regard to the following verse: โ€œThe poor man and the oppressor [tekhakhim] meet together; the Lord gives light to the eyes of both of themโ€ (Proverbs 29:13). When the student, who is poor in his knowledge, goes to his teacher, i.e., one who knows enough to teach but requires further enlightenment himself, as he is a man between [tokh] the levels of a Sage and a commoner, and says to him: Teach me Torah, if the teacher agrees to teach him, then the Lord gives light to the eyes of both of them, as they both become greater as a result. But if the teacher will not teach the student, then โ€œthe rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them allโ€ (Proverbs 22:2). This verse teaches that He Who made this one wise now makes him foolish, and He Who made that one foolish now makes him wise. This is the exposition of Rabbi Natan.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ืฉื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื‘ืจืš ืชื‘ืจื›ื ื™ ื‘ืคืจื™ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ืจื‘ื™ืช ืืช ื’ื‘ื•ืœื™ ื‘ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ื‘ื‘ื ื•ืช ื•ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื“ืš ืขืžื“ื™ ื‘ืžืฉื ื•ื‘ืžืชืŸ ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืžืจืขืชื™ ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ื‘ื™ ืžื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืจืืฉ ื•ืžื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืื–ื ื™ื ื•ืžื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืขื™ื ื™ื ืœื‘ืœืชื™ ืขืฆื‘ื™ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉื’ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฆืจ ื”ืจืข ืžืœืฉื ื•ืช ืื ืืชื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ื•ืื ืœืื• ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื”ื•ืœืš ื‘ื ืกื™ืกื™ ืœืฉืื•ืœ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืœื• ืืœื”ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืจ ืฉืืœ

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says an alternative interpretation of the prayer of Jabez: โ€œIf You will bless me indeedโ€ means with procreation. โ€œAnd enlarge my borderโ€ refers to blessing with sons and with daughters. โ€œAnd that Your hand may be with me,โ€ indicates in business. โ€œAnd that You will work deliverance from evil,โ€ so that I will not have a headache or an earache or an eye ache. โ€œThat it may not pain me,โ€ that the evil inclination will not grow strong against me and prevent me from studying Torah. Jabez then said to God: If you do so, good; and if not, I will go depressed to my grave and the netherworld. Immediately, God answered him: And God granted him that which he requested.

ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืจืฉ ื•ืื™ืฉ ืชื›ื›ื™ื ื ืคื’ืฉื• ืžืื™ืจ ืขื™ื ื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื”ืณ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืขื ื™ ื”ื•ืœืš ืืฆืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืืžืจ ืคืจื ืกื ื™ ืื ืžืคืจื ืกื• ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ื•ืื ืœืื• ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ืจืฉ ื ืคื’ืฉื• ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื ื”ืณ ืžื™ ืฉืขืฉืื• ืขืฉื™ืจ ืœื–ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืื•ืชื• ืขื ื™ ืขื ื™ ืœื–ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืื•ืชื• ืขืฉื™ืจ

On a similar note, you say an interpretation with regard to the verse: โ€œThe poor man and the oppressor meet together; the Lord gives light to the eyes of both of themโ€ (Proverbs 29:13). When a poor person goes to a homeowner and says: Provide for me, if he provides for him, that is good. But if not, then it is stated: โ€œThe rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them allโ€ (Proverbs 22:2). This verse indicates that He Who made this one wealthy now makes him poor, and He Who made that one poor now makes him wealthy.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื” ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon says: Just as we found with regard to the offspring of a sin offering, and the substitute for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner died, that these matters apply to an individual sin offering but not to a communal sin offering, so too, with regard to a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering, and a sin offering whose year has passed, these matters are stated with regard to an individual sin offering but not with regard to a communal sin offering.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืžืฉ ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ืžืชื•ืช ื•ืœื“ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืชืžื•ืจืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉื›ืคืจื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืขื™ื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื”

The Sages taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Five types of sin offerings are left to die, and one may not sacrifice them, and they are: An offspring born to a sin offering, i.e., if a female animal that was consecrated as a sin offering gave birth, its offspring is sacred but cannot be brought as an offering itself; and the substitution of a sin offering, if one substituted another animal for a sin offering, the same sanctity applies to it, but it cannot be sacrificed; and a sin offering whose owner has died; and a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement by sacrificing another offering; and a sin offering whose first year has passed, as a sin offering must be within its first year.

ืื™ ืืชื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืœื“ ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ื ืงื‘ื” ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชืžื•ืจืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืจื” ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžืชื™ื

Rabbi Shimon continues: You cannot say that there could be an offspring of a sin offering in the case of a community, because there are no female sin offerings separated by the community. And likewise you cannot say that there could be a substitution for a sin offering in the case of a community, because a community cannot render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for its consecrated one as a substitute. And furthermore, you cannot say that there could be a sin offering whose owners have died in the case of a community, because a community cannot die.

ืฉื›ื™ืคืจื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื” ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื• ื ื•ื”ื’ื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ

With regard to communal offerings whose owners already achieved atonement and a communal offering whose first year has passed, we have not found a similarly clear indication of the halakha. Therefore, one might have thought that these two cases are in effect both for the offering of an individual and a communal offering.

ืืžืจืช ื™ืœืžื“ ืื“ื ืกืชื•ื ืžืžืคื•ืจืฉ ืžื” ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืœื ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืืฃ ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืคืจื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื” ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ

But you must say: A person can learn with regard to a case in which certain details are not specified from a similar case where these details are specified. Just as with regard to those offerings whose details are specified, i.e., an offspring of a sin offering, a substitution for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner has died, the halakha that it dies applies only to an offering of an individual and not to a communal offering, so too, with regard to a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement, and a sin offering whose first year has passed, these matters are said with regard to the offering of an individual, but not with regard to a communal offering.

ื•ื›ื™ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืืคืฉืจ ืžืฉืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ื—ื“ ืžืงื•ื ื’ืžื™ืจ ืœื”ื•

The Gemara asks: But can one derive the possible from the impossible? Those other cases include offerings that by definition do not apply to a community; how can one learn from them with regard to cases where they are possible? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon learns this tradition as one unit, i.e., all the cases of sin offerings left to die are given as one halakha, and therefore there is no difference in their application.

ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื ืชื ื• ืœื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืขืžื™ื“ื•ื ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื ืš ืžื™ ืื™ืชื ื”ื• ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืืœื ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื™ืš ื™ืœืžื“ ืกืชื•ื ืžืžืคื•ืจืฉ

Reish Lakish says in explanation of this matter: When Moses received this tradition at Sinai, the halakhot of four sin offerings that must be left to die were given to the Jewish people, whereas the fifth sin offering is left to graze until it develops a blemish. But as they did not know which of the sin offerings was the one that should be left to graze, they established these halakhot with regard to all five sin offerings, that they are all left to die. And if it enters your mind that the four cases of sin offerings that must be left to die, as stated to Moses, referred to communal offerings, are all of these four sin offerings possible as communal offerings? Rather, perforce one must derive the cases that are unspecified in terms of their halakhot from those cases that are specified.

ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ืช ื ืชื ื” ืœื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืขืžื™ื“ื•ื” ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ

Rabbi Natan says: Only one case of a sin offering that must be left to die was given to them at Sinai, while the other four sin offerings are left to graze until they develop a blemish. But as they did not know which was the sin offering that must be left to die, the Jewish people established it as applying to all five kinds of sin offering.

ื•ืœื™ื—ื–ื™ ื‘ื”ื™ ืกื™ื“ืจื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื”ื• ืื™ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืื™ ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ

The Gemara interrupts Rabbi Natanโ€™s statement to raise a difficulty with regard to his explanation: But why didnโ€™t the Jewish people first see with regard to which category they learned that a sin offering must be left to die, whether in reference to one of the three cases that are found only in the offering of an individual, or to one of the two cases that are also found in the offering of a community? If they knew which group of sin offerings must be left to die, they could have kept the other group in accordance with its original halakha, that it is left to graze.

ืฉืชื™ ืฉื›ื—ื™ื•ืช ืฉื›ื—ื• ื•ืงืฉื™ื ืœื”ื•

The Gemara answers: They forgot two matters. They did not remember which of the five sin offerings must be left to die, and they also forgot to which category it applied, whether to a communal offering or an offering of an individual. And for this reason it was difficult for them, and they were forced to rule that all of these sin offerings must be left to die.

ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื ืš ืžื™ ืื™ืชื ื”ื• ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื™ืœืžื“ ืกืชื•ื ืžืžืคื•ืจืฉ ืžื” ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืœื ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืืฃ ืกืชื•ื ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืœื ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ

The Gemara returns to its citation of the statement of Rabbi Natan, who proceeds to explain Rabbi Shimonโ€™s opinion in the mishna in a similar manner to Reish Lakish: And if it enters your mind that the four cases of sin offerings that are left to graze, which were stated to Moses as one unit, involved communal offerings, are all of these five sin offerings applicable in the case of communal offerings? Rather, conclude from it that one learns the cases that are unspecified from those cases that are specified: Just as the specified cases apply only to an offering of an individual and not to a communal offering, so too, the cases that are not specified apply only to an offering of an individual, but not to a communal offering.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ืฉื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืจื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืจื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื”ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื”ืฉื•ืชืคื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืงื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ืขื•ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืื‘ืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ

MISHNA: There is greater stringency with regard to sacrificial animals than there is with regard to a substitute, and greater stringency with regard to a substitute than there is with regard to sacrificial animals. The Mishna explains: There is greater stringency with regard to sacrificial animals than there is with regard to a substitute, as sacrificial animals render a non-sacred animal exchanged for them a substitute, but a substitute does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. Furthermore, the community and the partners consecrate animals as offerings, but they do not substitute non-sacred animals for their offerings. And one consecrates fetuses in utero and one can consecrate an animalโ€™s limbs, but one cannot substitute non-sacred animals for them.

ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื”ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื—ืœื” ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœืช ืžื•ื ืงื‘ื•ืข ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืฆื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ

There is greater stringency with regard to a substitute than there is with regard to sacrificial animals, as, if one substituted a non-sacred blemished animal for an unblemished sacrificial animal, then the animal with a permanent blemish is imbued with inherent sanctity, which is not the case with regard to consecration. And in addition, those blemished animals consecrated through substitution do not emerge from their consecrated status to assume non-sacred status by means of redemption,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Temurah 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 16

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื“ื•ืคื™ ืฉืœ ืกืžื™ื›ื” ืงืชื ื™

Rav Yosef said in response: The baraita is not referring to a flaw due to some sin; rather, it is teaching about the flaw of the early dispute over the halakha of placing hands on the head of an animal brought as a Festival peace offering, as taught in tractate แธคagiga (16a).

ื•ื”ื ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืขื–ืจ ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืžื™ืคืœื™ื’ ืคืœื™ื’ ื‘ืกืžื™ื›ื” ื›ื™ ืื™ืคืœื™ื’ ื‘ื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉื ื™ื” ื“ื‘ืฆืจ ืœื™ื‘ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Yosef ben Yoโ€™ezer himself disputed the halakha of placing hands on the head of an offering. The first Sages to dispute this issue were Yosef ben Yoโ€™ezer and Yosef ben Yoแธฅanan. The Gemara answers: When they disputed it, that was at the end of the years of Yosef ben Yoโ€™ezerโ€™s life, when the understanding of his heart was limited, due to old age. Therefore, the dispute is considered as though it occurred after his lifetime.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉืœืฉืช ืืœืคื™ื ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ื ืฉืชื›ื—ื• ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืื‘ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžืฉื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืœื ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara returns to the matter itself. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Three thousand halakhot were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses. The Jewish people said to Joshua: Ask for guidance from Heaven so that you can reacquire the forgotten halakhot. Joshua said to them: โ€œIt is not in heavenโ€ (Deuteronomy 30:12). Once the Torah was given on Sinai, the Sages of each generation must determine the halakha. No new halakhot may be added or subtracted by heavenly instruction or through prophecy.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืืœื” ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื ื‘ื™ื ืจืฉืื™ ืœื—ื“ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ืžืขืชื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื ืคื—ื ืืฃ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื ืฉืชื›ื—ื” ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืื‘ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžืฉื”

Many years later the Jewish people again said to Samuel: Ask for halakhic guidance from Heaven. He said to them: This is not possible, as the Torah states: โ€œThese are the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses to tell the children of Israel at Mount Sinaiโ€ (Leviticus 27:34). The word โ€œtheseโ€ indicates that from now on a prophet is not permitted to introduce any new element related to the Torah and its mitzvot through prophecy. With regard to the topic of the chapter, Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa says: Also, the halakha of a sin offering whose owner has died was one of those forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses.

ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื—ืก ืฉืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ื”ื™ื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืืœืขื–ืจ ืฉืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืืœื” ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ื‘ื™ื ืจืฉืื™ ืœื—ื“ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ืžืขืชื”

At the time of Mosesโ€™ death, the people said to Pinehas: Ask for halakhic guidance from Heaven so that you can relearn the forgotten halakhot. Pinehas said to them: โ€œIt is not in heavenโ€ (Deuteronomy 30:12). The people said to Elazar: Ask for halakhic guidance from God. He said to them that the verse states: โ€œThese are the commandments,โ€ to teach that a prophet is not permitted to introduce any new element from now on.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื ืคื˜ืจ ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื’ืŸ ืขื“ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืœื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืืœ ืžืžื ื™ ื›ืœ ืกืคื™ืงื•ืช ืฉื™ืฉ ืœืš ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื ื—ืชื™ืš ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื™ ืœืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ืœื ื›ืš ื›ืชื‘ืช ื‘ื™ ื•ืžืฉืจืชื• ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืŸ ื ืขืจ ืœื ื™ืžื™ืฉ ืžืชื•ืš ื”ืื”ืœ ืžื™ื“ ืชืฉืฉ ื›ื—ื• ืฉืœ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ื ืฉืชื›ื—ื• ืžืžื ื• ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ื•ื ื•ืœื“ื• ืœื• ืฉื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ืกืคื™ืงื•ืช ื•ืขืžื“ื• ื›ืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื”ืจื’ื•

ยง Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Just before the time when Moses, our teacher, left this world and went to the Garden of Eden, he said to Joshua: Ask from me all the cases of uncertainty in matters of halakha that you have, so that I can clarify them for you. Joshua said to him: My teacher, did I ever leave you for even one moment and go to another place? Didnโ€™t you write this about me in the Torah: โ€œBut his minister, Joshua, son of Nun, a young man, did not depart out of the tentโ€ (Exodus 33:11)? If I would have had any case of uncertainty I would have asked you earlier. Immediately after he said this, Joshuaโ€™s strength weakened, and three hundred halakhot were forgotten by him, and seven hundred cases of uncertainty emerged before him, and the entire Jewish people arose to kill him, as he was unable to teach them the forgotten halakhot.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืš ื•ื˜ื•ืจื“ืŸ ื‘ืžืœื—ืžื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืื—ืจื™ ืžื•ืช ืžืฉื” ืขื‘ื“ ื”ืณ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Joshua: It is impossible to tell you these halakhot, as the Torah is not in Heaven. But to save yourself from the Jewish people who want to kill you, go and exhaust them in war, so that they will leave you alone. As it is stated: โ€œNow it came to pass after the death of Moses, the servant of the Lord, that the Lord spoke to Joshua, son of Nun, Mosesโ€™ minister, saying: Moses My servant is dead, now therefore arise, go over this Jordanโ€ (Joshua 1:1โ€“2). This shows that immediately after the death of Moses, God commanded Joshua to lead the nation into battle.

ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืชื ื ืืœืฃ ื•ืฉื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ืงืœื™ืŸ ื•ื—ืžื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื’ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื•ื•ืช ื•ื“ืงื“ื•ืงื™ ืกื•ืคืจื™ื ื ืฉืชื›ื—ื• ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืื‘ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžืฉื”

ยง It is taught in a baraita: One thousand and seven hundred a fortiori inferences, and verbal analogies, and minutiae of the scribes were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ื›ืŸ ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจืŸ ืขืชื ื™ืืœ ื‘ืŸ ืงื ื– ืžืชื•ืš ืคืœืคื•ืœื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืœื›ื“ื” ืขืชื ื™ืืœ ื‘ืŸ ืงื ื– ืื—ื™ ื›ืœื‘ ื•ื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืช ืขื›ืกื” ื‘ืชื• ืœืืฉื” ื•ืœืžื” ื ืงืจื ืฉืžื” ืขื›ืกื” ืฉื›ืœ ื”ืจื•ืื” ืื•ืชื” ื›ื•ืขืก ืขืœ ืืฉืชื•

Rabbi Abbahu says: Even so, Othniel, son of Kenaz, restored them through his sharp mind [pilpulo], as it is stated: โ€œAnd Caleb said: To he who smites Kiriath Sefer, and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter as a wife. And Othniel, son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter as a wifeโ€ (Joshua 15:16โ€“17).The name โ€œKiriath Sefer,โ€ which literally means the village of the book, is homiletically interpreted as a reference to those parts of the Torah that were forgotten, while the phrase โ€œtook itโ€ is referring to Othnielโ€™s acumen and learning. The baraita adds: And why is she called Achsah? The reason is that anyone who sees her became angry [koโ€™es] about his own wife, who was not as beautiful as Achsah.

ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื‘ื‘ื•ืื” ื•ืชืกื™ืชื”ื• ืœืฉืืœ ืžืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืฉื“ื” ื•ืชืฆื ื— ืžืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื•ืชืฆื ื— ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืžื” ื—ืžื•ืจ ื–ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžืื›ืœ ื‘ืื‘ื•ืกื• ืžื™ื“ ืฆื•ืขืง ื›ืš ืืฉื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืชื‘ื•ืื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื” ืžื™ื“ ืฆื•ืขืงืช

The Gemara relates another incident involving Achsah. The verse states: โ€œAnd it came to pass, when she came to him, that she persuaded him to ask of her father a field; and she alighted from off her donkey; and Caleb said to her: What do you want?โ€ (Joshua 15:18). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: โ€œAnd she alighted [vatitznaแธฅ],โ€ which can also be understood as crying out? Rava says that Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: Achsah said to Caleb: Just as in the case of this donkey, when it has no food in its trough it immediately cries out, so too in the case of a woman, when she has no produce in her house she immediately cries out.

ื•ืชืืžืจ ืชื ื” ืœื™ ื‘ืจื›ื” ื›ื™ ืืจืฅ ื”ื ื’ื‘ ื ืชืชื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžื ื•ื’ื‘ ืžื›ืœ ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ื•ื ืชืชื” ืœื™ ื’ืœืช ืžื™ื ืื“ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืืœื ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ื•ื™ืชืŸ ืœื” ื›ืœื‘ ืืช ื’ืœืช ืขืœื™ื•ืช ื•ืืช ื’ืœืช ืชื—ืชื™ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืœื” ืžื™ ืฉื“ืจ ืขืœื™ื•ื ื™ื ื•ืชื—ืชื•ื ื™ื ื™ื‘ืงืฉ ืžืžื ื• ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

The Gemara cites yet another verse involving Achsah: โ€œAnd she said: Give me a blessing; for that you have set me in the land of the South [negev], and you have given me springs of water. And he gave her the upper springs and the lower springsโ€ (Joshua 15:19). She said to her father: You have given me a home dried [menugav] of all goodness. โ€œAnd you have given me springs of waterโ€; this is referring to a man who has nothing other than Torah, which is metaphorically called water. But as he is unable to provide me with food, how can I live? โ€œAnd gave her the upper springs and the lower springs.โ€ Caleb said to her: Does someone learned in Torah, who dwells in the upper worlds and the lower worlds, require that sustenance be requested for him? He certainly does not need it, as God will provide for him in merit of his Torah studies.

ื•ื›ืœื‘ ื‘ืŸ ืงื ื– ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืœื ื›ืœื‘ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืคื•ื ื” ื”ื•ื ืžืื™ ื™ืคื•ื ื” ืฉืคื ื” ืžืขืฆืช ืžืจื’ืœื™ื

The Gemara asks: And Caleb, was he the son of Kenaz? Wasnโ€™t he Caleb, son of Jephunneh (Joshua 15:13)? The Gemara explains that Jephunneh was not the name of his father, but a description of Caleb. What does the word Jephunneh mean? It means that he turned [sheppana] from the advice of the spies and did not join with them in their negative report about Eretz Yisrael.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ื‘ืŸ ืงื ื– ื”ื•ื ื‘ืŸ ื—ืฆืจื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืœื‘ ื‘ืŸ ื—ืฆืจื•ืŸ ื”ื•ืœื™ื“ ืืช ืขื–ื•ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื—ื•ืจื’ื™ื” ื“ืงื ื– ื”ื•ื

The Gemara further asks: But still, was he the son of Kenaz? He was the son of Hezron, as it is written: โ€œAnd Caleb, son of Hezron, begot children of Azubah his wife, and of Jerioth, and these were her sons: Jesher, and Shobab, and Ardonโ€ (Iย Chronicles 2:18). Rava said: Caleb was actually the son of Hezron, but after his father passed away his mother remarried Kenaz, and consequently he was the stepson of Kenaz. Othniel, son of Kenaz, was therefore his maternal half brother.

ืชื ื ื”ื•ื ืขืชื ื™ืืœ ื”ื•ื ื™ืขื‘ืฅ ื•ืžื” ืฉืžื• ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื—ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉืžื• ืขืชื ื™ืืœ ืฉืขื ืื• ืืœ ื™ืขื‘ืฅ ืฉื™ืขืฅ ื•ืจื™ื‘ืฅ ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ

A tanna taught in a baraita: The same person is known as Othniel and he is also known as Jabez. And what is his actual name? Judah, brother of Simeon, is his name. He was known as Othniel, as God answered [anaโ€™o El] his prayer. He was also known as Jabez [yabetz] because he advised and spread [yaโ€™atz veribetz] Torah among the Jewish people.

ื•ืžื ืœืŸ ืฉืขื ืื• ืืœ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืงืจื ื™ืขื‘ืฅ ืœืืœื”ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืืžืจ ืื ื‘ืจืš ืชื‘ืจื›ื ื™ ื•ื”ืจื‘ื™ืช ืืช ื’ื‘ื•ืœื™ ื•ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื“ืš ืขืžื“ื™ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืจืขืชื™ ืœื‘ืœืชื™ ืขืฆื‘ื™ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืืœื”ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืจ ืฉืืœ

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that God answered him? As it is written: โ€œAnd Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying: If You will bless me indeed, and enlarge my border, and that Your hand may be with me, and that You will work deliverance from evil, that it may not pain me! And God granted him that which he requestedโ€ (Iย Chronicles 4:10).

ืื ื‘ืจืš ืชื‘ืจื›ื ื™ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื”ืจื‘ื™ืช ืืช ื’ื‘ื•ืœื™ ื‘ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ื•ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื“ืš ืขืžื“ื™ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืชื›ื— ืชืœืžื•ื“ื™ ืžืœื‘ื™ ื•ืขืฉื” ืžืจืขืชื™ ืฉื™ื–ื“ืžื ื• ืœื™ ืจื™ืขื™ื ื›ืžื•ืชื™ ืœื‘ืœืชื™ ืขืฆื‘ื™ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉื’ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฆืจ ื”ืจืข ืžืœืฉื ื•ืช ืื ืืชื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ื•ืื ืœืื• ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื”ื•ืœืš ืœื ืกื™ืกื™ ืœืฉืื•ืœ ืžื™ื“ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืืœื”ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืจ ืฉืืœ

The Gemara interprets this verse. The phrase: โ€œIf You will bless me indeed,โ€ means that he prayed for a blessing with regard to Torah. โ€œAnd enlarge my border,โ€ means that he prayed for a blessing with regard to students. โ€œAnd that Your hand be with me,โ€ that my studies not be forgotten from my heart. โ€œAnd that You will work deliverance from evil [meraโ€™ati],โ€ that I will find friends [reโ€™im] like me. โ€œThat it may not pain me,โ€ that the evil inclination should not grow stronger and prevent me from studying Torah. Othniel further prayed: If You do so, good; and if not, I will go depressed [linsisi] to my grave and the netherworld. Immediately, God answered him, as the verse states: โ€œAnd God granted him that which he requested.โ€

ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืจืฉ ื•ืื™ืฉ ืชื›ื›ื™ื ื ืคื’ืฉื• ืžืื™ืจ ืขื™ื ื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื”ืณ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื”ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื”ื•ืœืš ืืฆืœ ืจื‘ื• ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืœืžื“ื ื™ ืชื•ืจื” ืื ืžืœืžื“ื• ืžืื™ืจ ืขื™ื ื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื”ืณ ื•ืื ืœืื• ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ืจืฉ ื ืคื’ืฉื• ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื ื”ืณ ืžื™ ืฉืขืฉืื• ื—ื›ื ืœื–ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืื•ืชื• ื˜ื™ืคืฉ ื˜ื™ืคืฉ ืœื–ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืื•ืชื• ื—ื›ื ื–ื• ืžืฉื ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ

On a similar note, you say likewise with regard to the following verse: โ€œThe poor man and the oppressor [tekhakhim] meet together; the Lord gives light to the eyes of both of themโ€ (Proverbs 29:13). When the student, who is poor in his knowledge, goes to his teacher, i.e., one who knows enough to teach but requires further enlightenment himself, as he is a man between [tokh] the levels of a Sage and a commoner, and says to him: Teach me Torah, if the teacher agrees to teach him, then the Lord gives light to the eyes of both of them, as they both become greater as a result. But if the teacher will not teach the student, then โ€œthe rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them allโ€ (Proverbs 22:2). This verse teaches that He Who made this one wise now makes him foolish, and He Who made that one foolish now makes him wise. This is the exposition of Rabbi Natan.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ืฉื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื‘ืจืš ืชื‘ืจื›ื ื™ ื‘ืคืจื™ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ืจื‘ื™ืช ืืช ื’ื‘ื•ืœื™ ื‘ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ื‘ื‘ื ื•ืช ื•ื”ื™ืชื” ื™ื“ืš ืขืžื“ื™ ื‘ืžืฉื ื•ื‘ืžืชืŸ ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืžืจืขืชื™ ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ื‘ื™ ืžื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืจืืฉ ื•ืžื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืื–ื ื™ื ื•ืžื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืขื™ื ื™ื ืœื‘ืœืชื™ ืขืฆื‘ื™ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉื’ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฆืจ ื”ืจืข ืžืœืฉื ื•ืช ืื ืืชื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ื•ืื ืœืื• ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื”ื•ืœืš ื‘ื ืกื™ืกื™ ืœืฉืื•ืœ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืœื• ืืœื”ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืจ ืฉืืœ

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says an alternative interpretation of the prayer of Jabez: โ€œIf You will bless me indeedโ€ means with procreation. โ€œAnd enlarge my borderโ€ refers to blessing with sons and with daughters. โ€œAnd that Your hand may be with me,โ€ indicates in business. โ€œAnd that You will work deliverance from evil,โ€ so that I will not have a headache or an earache or an eye ache. โ€œThat it may not pain me,โ€ that the evil inclination will not grow strong against me and prevent me from studying Torah. Jabez then said to God: If you do so, good; and if not, I will go depressed to my grave and the netherworld. Immediately, God answered him: And God granted him that which he requested.

ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืจืฉ ื•ืื™ืฉ ืชื›ื›ื™ื ื ืคื’ืฉื• ืžืื™ืจ ืขื™ื ื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื”ืณ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืขื ื™ ื”ื•ืœืš ืืฆืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืืžืจ ืคืจื ืกื ื™ ืื ืžืคืจื ืกื• ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ื•ืื ืœืื• ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ืจืฉ ื ืคื’ืฉื• ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื ื”ืณ ืžื™ ืฉืขืฉืื• ืขืฉื™ืจ ืœื–ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืื•ืชื• ืขื ื™ ืขื ื™ ืœื–ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืื•ืชื• ืขืฉื™ืจ

On a similar note, you say an interpretation with regard to the verse: โ€œThe poor man and the oppressor meet together; the Lord gives light to the eyes of both of themโ€ (Proverbs 29:13). When a poor person goes to a homeowner and says: Provide for me, if he provides for him, that is good. But if not, then it is stated: โ€œThe rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them allโ€ (Proverbs 22:2). This verse indicates that He Who made this one wealthy now makes him poor, and He Who made that one poor now makes him wealthy.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื” ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon says: Just as we found with regard to the offspring of a sin offering, and the substitute for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner died, that these matters apply to an individual sin offering but not to a communal sin offering, so too, with regard to a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering, and a sin offering whose year has passed, these matters are stated with regard to an individual sin offering but not with regard to a communal sin offering.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืžืฉ ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ืžืชื•ืช ื•ืœื“ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืชืžื•ืจืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉื›ืคืจื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืขื™ื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื”

The Sages taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Five types of sin offerings are left to die, and one may not sacrifice them, and they are: An offspring born to a sin offering, i.e., if a female animal that was consecrated as a sin offering gave birth, its offspring is sacred but cannot be brought as an offering itself; and the substitution of a sin offering, if one substituted another animal for a sin offering, the same sanctity applies to it, but it cannot be sacrificed; and a sin offering whose owner has died; and a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement by sacrificing another offering; and a sin offering whose first year has passed, as a sin offering must be within its first year.

ืื™ ืืชื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืœื“ ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ื ืงื‘ื” ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชืžื•ืจืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืจื” ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžืชื™ื

Rabbi Shimon continues: You cannot say that there could be an offspring of a sin offering in the case of a community, because there are no female sin offerings separated by the community. And likewise you cannot say that there could be a substitution for a sin offering in the case of a community, because a community cannot render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for its consecrated one as a substitute. And furthermore, you cannot say that there could be a sin offering whose owners have died in the case of a community, because a community cannot die.

ืฉื›ื™ืคืจื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื” ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื• ื ื•ื”ื’ื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ

With regard to communal offerings whose owners already achieved atonement and a communal offering whose first year has passed, we have not found a similarly clear indication of the halakha. Therefore, one might have thought that these two cases are in effect both for the offering of an individual and a communal offering.

ืืžืจืช ื™ืœืžื“ ืื“ื ืกืชื•ื ืžืžืคื•ืจืฉ ืžื” ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืœื ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืืฃ ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืคืจื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื” ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ

But you must say: A person can learn with regard to a case in which certain details are not specified from a similar case where these details are specified. Just as with regard to those offerings whose details are specified, i.e., an offspring of a sin offering, a substitution for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner has died, the halakha that it dies applies only to an offering of an individual and not to a communal offering, so too, with regard to a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement, and a sin offering whose first year has passed, these matters are said with regard to the offering of an individual, but not with regard to a communal offering.

ื•ื›ื™ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืืคืฉืจ ืžืฉืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ื—ื“ ืžืงื•ื ื’ืžื™ืจ ืœื”ื•

The Gemara asks: But can one derive the possible from the impossible? Those other cases include offerings that by definition do not apply to a community; how can one learn from them with regard to cases where they are possible? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon learns this tradition as one unit, i.e., all the cases of sin offerings left to die are given as one halakha, and therefore there is no difference in their application.

ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื ืชื ื• ืœื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืขืžื™ื“ื•ื ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื ืš ืžื™ ืื™ืชื ื”ื• ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืืœื ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื™ืš ื™ืœืžื“ ืกืชื•ื ืžืžืคื•ืจืฉ

Reish Lakish says in explanation of this matter: When Moses received this tradition at Sinai, the halakhot of four sin offerings that must be left to die were given to the Jewish people, whereas the fifth sin offering is left to graze until it develops a blemish. But as they did not know which of the sin offerings was the one that should be left to graze, they established these halakhot with regard to all five sin offerings, that they are all left to die. And if it enters your mind that the four cases of sin offerings that must be left to die, as stated to Moses, referred to communal offerings, are all of these four sin offerings possible as communal offerings? Rather, perforce one must derive the cases that are unspecified in terms of their halakhot from those cases that are specified.

ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ืช ื ืชื ื” ืœื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืขืžื™ื“ื•ื” ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ

Rabbi Natan says: Only one case of a sin offering that must be left to die was given to them at Sinai, while the other four sin offerings are left to graze until they develop a blemish. But as they did not know which was the sin offering that must be left to die, the Jewish people established it as applying to all five kinds of sin offering.

ื•ืœื™ื—ื–ื™ ื‘ื”ื™ ืกื™ื“ืจื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื”ื• ืื™ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืื™ ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ

The Gemara interrupts Rabbi Natanโ€™s statement to raise a difficulty with regard to his explanation: But why didnโ€™t the Jewish people first see with regard to which category they learned that a sin offering must be left to die, whether in reference to one of the three cases that are found only in the offering of an individual, or to one of the two cases that are also found in the offering of a community? If they knew which group of sin offerings must be left to die, they could have kept the other group in accordance with its original halakha, that it is left to graze.

ืฉืชื™ ืฉื›ื—ื™ื•ืช ืฉื›ื—ื• ื•ืงืฉื™ื ืœื”ื•

The Gemara answers: They forgot two matters. They did not remember which of the five sin offerings must be left to die, and they also forgot to which category it applied, whether to a communal offering or an offering of an individual. And for this reason it was difficult for them, and they were forced to rule that all of these sin offerings must be left to die.

ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื ืš ืžื™ ืื™ืชื ื”ื• ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื™ืœืžื“ ืกืชื•ื ืžืžืคื•ืจืฉ ืžื” ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืœื ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืืฃ ืกืชื•ื ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืœื ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ

The Gemara returns to its citation of the statement of Rabbi Natan, who proceeds to explain Rabbi Shimonโ€™s opinion in the mishna in a similar manner to Reish Lakish: And if it enters your mind that the four cases of sin offerings that are left to graze, which were stated to Moses as one unit, involved communal offerings, are all of these five sin offerings applicable in the case of communal offerings? Rather, conclude from it that one learns the cases that are unspecified from those cases that are specified: Just as the specified cases apply only to an offering of an individual and not to a communal offering, so too, the cases that are not specified apply only to an offering of an individual, but not to a communal offering.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ืฉื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืจื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืจื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื”ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื”ืฉื•ืชืคื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืงื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ืขื•ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืื‘ืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžืžื™ืจื™ืŸ

MISHNA: There is greater stringency with regard to sacrificial animals than there is with regard to a substitute, and greater stringency with regard to a substitute than there is with regard to sacrificial animals. The Mishna explains: There is greater stringency with regard to sacrificial animals than there is with regard to a substitute, as sacrificial animals render a non-sacred animal exchanged for them a substitute, but a substitute does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. Furthermore, the community and the partners consecrate animals as offerings, but they do not substitute non-sacred animals for their offerings. And one consecrates fetuses in utero and one can consecrate an animalโ€™s limbs, but one cannot substitute non-sacred animals for them.

ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื”ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื—ืœื” ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœืช ืžื•ื ืงื‘ื•ืข ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืฆื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ

There is greater stringency with regard to a substitute than there is with regard to sacrificial animals, as, if one substituted a non-sacred blemished animal for an unblemished sacrificial animal, then the animal with a permanent blemish is imbued with inherent sanctity, which is not the case with regard to consecration. And in addition, those blemished animals consecrated through substitution do not emerge from their consecrated status to assume non-sacred status by means of redemption,

Scroll To Top