Temurà 15

עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים מָלַךְ שְׁמוּאֵל בְּעַצְמוֹ, שָׁנָה אַחַת שֶׁמָּלַךְ שָׁאוּל וּשְׁמוּאֵל, וּשְׁתַּיִם שֶׁמָּלַךְ שָׁאוּל בְּעַצְמוֹ, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וָשֶׁבַע שֶׁמָּלַךְ דָּוִד.

There were ten years during which Samuel reigned alone, from the death of Eli until the coronation of Saul, and one year that Saul reigned and Samuel was still alive, i.e., Saul reigned for one year during the lifetime of Samuel, and two years that Saul reigned by himself, i.e., after the death of Samuel. In addition, there were thirty-seven years during which David ruled, first in Hebron, and later in Jerusalem. This amounts to a total of forty years from when the Jewish people had first requested a king, and Absalom felt it was now his time to rule over the Jewish people.

מַתְנִי׳ חַטַּאת הַיָּחִיד שֶׁכִּפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ — מֵתָה, וְשֶׁל צִבּוּר — אֵינָהּ מֵתָה.

MISHNA: There is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that there are five sin offerings that are unfit for sacrifice on the altar and have no remedy and are therefore left to die. They are: The offspring of a sin offering; the substitute for a sin offering; a sin offering whose owner died; a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering, when the original sin offering was lost or stolen and later recovered; and a sin offering whose year has passed. The mishna continues the discussion of the distinction between individual and communal offerings. An individual sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering after it was lost is left to die, but in the case of a communal sin offering it is not left to die.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: תָּמוּת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מָה מָצִינוּ בִּוְלַד חַטָּאת, וּבִתְמוּרַת חַטָּאת, וּבְחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ — דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּיָחִיד וְלֹא בְּצִבּוּר, אַף שֶׁכִּפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ וְעִיבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ — בְּיָחִיד דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים וְלֹא בְּצִיבּוּר.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even a communal sin offering shall be left to die. Rabbi Shimon says: Just as we found with regard to the offspring of a sin offering, and with regard to the substitute for a sin offering, and with regard to a sin offering whose owner died, that these matters apply to an individual sin offering and not to a communal sin offering, so too, in the cases of a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering, and a sin offering whose first year has passed, the matters are stated with regard to an individual sin offering, and not with regard to a communal sin offering.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַהוּ אוֹמֵר חַטָּאת ״יָבִיא״? מִנַּיִן לְמַקְדִּישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְנִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה קַיֶּימֶת, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת — מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יָבִיא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״חַטָּאת״. יָכוֹל יָבִיא שְׁתֵּיהֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יְבִיאֶנָּה״ — אַחַת וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the verse teaching when it says: “And if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish” (Leviticus 4:32)? From where is it derived with regard to one who separated his sin offering and it was lost, and he separated another in its place and the first one was found alive, and they both stand fit to be sacrificed, from where is it derived that he may bring whichever of them he wishes? The verse states: “A sin offering.” One might have thought that he must bring both of them. Therefore, the continuation of the verse states: “He shall bring it.” This teaches that he must bring one of the animals but not two of them.

וְאוֹתָהּ שְׁנִיָּה מָה תְּהֵא עָלֶיהָ? אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא, תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: תִּרְעֶה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: תָּמוּת.

The Gemara asks: And if so, that second animal, what will be with it? Rav Hamnuna says that it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: It is left to graze until it becomes unfit, and then it is redeemed and the money is used to purchase a gift offering. Rabbi Shimon says: It shall be left to die, as it is an individual sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering.

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה תִּרְעֶה? וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״תָּמוּת״ שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ! אֵיפוֹךְ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: תָּמוּת, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: תִּרְעֶה. וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תִּרְעֶה? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת!

The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yehuda actually say that it is left to graze? But didn’t we hear that Rabbi Yehuda rules in the mishna that the animal shall be left to die? The Gemara answers: Reverse the names in the baraita, so that it reads: Rabbi Yehuda says: It shall be left to die; Rabbi Shimon says: It is left to graze. The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Shimon actually say that it is left to graze? But didn’t Rabbi Shimon say: There are five sin offerings that are left to die, including a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering.

אֶלָּא (אֲמַר לֵיהּ) לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בַּאֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה, כָּאן — בַּאֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה.

Rather, the Gemara explains: Actually, do not reverse the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon in the baraita, and it is not difficult. Here, where Rabbi Yehuda says in the baraita that the second animal must be left to graze, it is referring to an animal lost at the time of the separation of a substitute to take its place, but the original animal was found before the second was sacrificed. Since the animal was found before the other was sacrificed, it is left to graze. There, in the mishna where Rabbi Yehuda says that the animal must be left to die, it is referring to an animal that was still lost at the time of atonement, i.e., when the substitute was sacrificed.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי, הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן.

And if you wish, say instead: Both this baraita and that mishna are referring to an animal that was lost only at the time of the separation of the second animal, and yet it is not difficult. Here in the mishna, Rabbi Yehuda rules that the animal must be left to die in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in a mishna (22b), as he maintains that even if the animal was lost only when the second animal was separated and was found by the time it was sacrificed, it must still be left to die. There in the baraita, Rabbi Yehuda says that the animal is left to graze in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in that same mishna. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and rule that the animal is left to die only if it was not yet found when the replacement animal was sacrificed.

וּמִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חַטַּאת צִיבּוּר שֶׁכִּפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים מֵתָה?

§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even a communal sin offering shall be left to die if the community has already achieved atonement through another animal. The Gemara asks: But is there one who said that a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement with another sin offering after it was lost is left to die?

וְהָתַנְיָא: כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: ״וְהַבָּאִים מֵהַשְּׁבִי בְנֵי הַגּוֹלָה הִקְרִיבוּ עוֹלוֹת... פָּרִים בְּנֵי בָקָר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר... אֵילִים תִּשְׁעִים וְתִשְׁעָה, כְּבָשִׂים שִׁבְעִים וְשִׁבְעָה, שְׂעִירֵי חַטָּאת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר — הַכֹּל עוֹלָה לַה׳״.

But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Similarly, Rabbi Yosei said: It is stated with regard to those who returned from Babylonia in the days of Ezra: “The children of the captivity that came out of exile sacrificed burnt offerings to the God of Israel, twelve bulls for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs, twelve goats for a sin offering; all this was a burnt offering unto the Lord” (Ezra 8:35).

וְחַטָּאת מִי קָרְבָה עוֹלָה? אָמַר רָבָא: כִּי עוֹלָה, מָה עוֹלָה אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת — אַף חַטָּאת אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: עַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֱבִיאוּם, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁעָשׂוּ בִּימֵי צִדְקִיָּהוּ.

The Gemara first analyzes this verse: But is it possible for a sin offering to be sacrificed as a burnt offering? Rava said: The verse means that it was all performed in the manner of a burnt offering: Just as a burnt offering may not be eaten, so too, that sin offering was not eaten. As Rabbi Yosei would say: They brought these twelve sin offerings for the sin of idol worship; and Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They were brought for the sin of idol worship they committed in the days of King Zedekiah.

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין, לְמַאן דְּאִית לֵיהּ חַטַּאת צִבּוּר שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ — מֵתָה, אִית לֵיהּ נָמֵי חַטַּאת צִבּוּר שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ — מֵתָה, וְהָא הָכָא דְּאִיכָּא דְּמֵתוּ בַּעֲלֵיהּ, וְקָא קָרְבָה!

The Gemara explains the difficulty concerning which it cited this verse: It might enter our mind to think that according to the one who holds that a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement with another sin offering is left to die, he also holds that a communal sin offering whose owners died is left to die. But here, with regard to the offerings brought by the returning exiles, this is a case of a communal sin offering whose owners died, as the sin was committed in the time of Zedekiah, in the First Temple period, whereas the offerings were brought several generations later by those returning to rebuild the Second Temple. And yet they were sacrificed. This proves that a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement with another sin offering is not left to die.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חַטַּאת צִבּוּר שֶׁכִּפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ מֵתָה, חַטַּאת צִבּוּר שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ אֵינָהּ מֵתָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַצִּבּוּר מֵתִים.

Rav Pappa said in response: Even according to the one who said that a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement with another sin offering is left to die, he agrees that a communal sin offering whose owners died is not left to die. This is because a community does not die.

מְנָא לֵיהּ לְרַב פָּפָּא הָא? אִי נֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב ״תַּחַת אֲבוֹתֶיךָ יִהְיוּ בָנֶיךָ״, אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ יָחִיד נָמֵי!

The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Pappa derive this statement? If we say it is because it is written: “Your sons shall be instead of your fathers” (Psalms 45:17), i.e., it is considered as though the fathers are alive, if so, then this should apply even to an individual as well. In other words, sons should be able to sacrifice the sin offerings of their late fathers.

אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, שֶׁאֵין הַצִּיבּוּר מֵתִים, מִשְּׂעִירֵי רְגָלִים וְרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: אַיְיתִינְהוּ מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. וְדִלְמָא מִתוּ מָרַיְיהוּ דְּהָנֵי זוּזֵי? אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֵין הַצִּבּוּר מֵתִים.

Rather, this is Rav Pappa’s reasoning for his statement that a community does not die. It is derived from the halakha of the goats sacrificed on pilgrimage Festivals and on New Moons, as the Merciful One states: Bring them from the funds of the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, where they kept the half-shekels donated every year in the month of Adar, with which communal offerings were purchased. The Gemara explains: But perhaps the owners of these coins that were used to purchase these offerings have died in the meantime between the month of Adar and when the offerings are sacrificed throughout the year. If so, how can a sin offering be brought on behalf of some of its owners who have already died? Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this halakha that a community does not die?

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי אַקְרוּבִינְהוּ לְהָנֵי חַטָּאוֹת — אַחַיֵּי אַקְרֻבִינְהוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרַבִּים מֵהַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְרָאשֵׁי הָאָבוֹת הַזְּקֵנִים אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ אֶת הַבַּיִת הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּיׇסְדוֹ זֶה הַבַּיִת... בּוֹכִים בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל וְרַבִּים בִּתְרוּעָה״.

And if you wish, say instead a different answer in response to the earlier difficulty: The sin offerings for idolatry brought by the returning exiles were not in fact sacrificed for people who had died. Rather, when they sacrificed these sin offerings for the idolatry committed in the time of Zedekiah, they sacrificed them for the living, i.e., for those survivors who had worshipped idols in the time of Zedekiah and were still alive many decades later and had returned to rebuild the Second Temple. As it is written: “But many of the priests, Levites, and heads of fathers’ houses, the old men that had seen the first house standing on its foundation, wept with a loud voice when this house was before their eyes; and many shouted aloud for joy” (Ezra 3:12).

וְדִילְמָא הָנָךְ מִיעוּטָא? לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, דִּכְתִיב ״וְלֹא הִכִּירוּ הָעָם בַּתְּרוּעָה וְשִׂמְחָה לְקוֹל בְּכִי הָעָם״.

The Gemara objects: But perhaps those who remained and remembered the First Temple were the minority, in which case they should have each brought individual sin offerings, rather than a communal sin offering. The fact that they brought communal sacrifices indicates that the sin offering was not brought only on behalf of those few who remained. The Gemara explains: You cannot say that they were the minority, as it is written in the following verse: “So that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people; for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard afar off” (Ezra 3:13). This verse shows that the people who cried because they remembered the First Temple were not a small minority.

וְהֵיכִי מַקְרְבִי לְהוּ? וַהֲרֵי מְזִידִין הֲווֹ! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה.

The Gemara asks: But how could they sacrifice sin offerings for the sin of idolatry? After all, they were intentional idol worshippers, and a sin offering is brought only by one who sins unwittingly. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in response: It was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances, according to which they were permitted to bring sin offerings even for intentional sins.

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי — בִּשְׁלָמָא פָּרִים וּשְׂעִירִים כְּנֶגֶד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים, אֶלָּא כְּבָשִׂים כְּנֶגֶד מִי? אֶלָּא הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה.

The Gemara adds that this also stands to reason, as, if you do not say so, one can object as follows: Granted, they sacrificed twelve bulls and goats, since each tribe must bring a communal sin offering, as stated in the Torah (Numbers, chapter 15), and these offerings correspond to the twelve tribes. But to what do the ninety-six sheep correspond? Rather, it must be that it was a provisional edict.

תְּנַן הָתָם: מִשֶּׁמֵּת יוֹסֵף בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵידָה וְיוֹסֵף בֶּן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, בָּטְלוּ הָאֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת. אִישׁ שֶׁהַכֹּל בּוֹ.

§ Earlier the Gemara mentioned the halakha of a sin offering whose owner died, which was one of the halakhot forgotten during the mourning period for Moses (see 16a). On this topic the Gemara says that we learned in a mishna there (Sota 47a): From the time when Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosef ben Yoḥanan of Jerusalem died, the clusters [eshkolot] ceased, i.e., they were the last of the clusters. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of eshkolot? It means a man who contains all [ish shehakol bo], i.e., both Torah and mitzvot.

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל אֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת שֶׁעָמְדוּ לָהֶן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מִימוֹת מֹשֶׁה עַד שֶׁמֵּת יוֹסֵף בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר — הָיוּ לְמֵדִין תּוֹרָה כְּמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — לֹא הָיוּ לְמֵדִין תּוֹרָה כְּמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ.

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: All the clusters who stood at the head of the Jewish people, from the days of Moses until Yosef ben Yo’ezer died, would study Torah in the manner of Moses, our teacher. From that point forward they would not study Torah in the manner of Moses, our teacher.

וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים הֲלָכוֹת נִשְׁתַּכְּחוּ בִּימֵי אֶבְלוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה! דְּאִישְׁתְּכֻח לְהוּ — אִישְׁתְּכֻח, וְדִגְמִירָן לְהוּ — הֲווֹ גְּמִירִי כְּמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ.

The Gemara objects: But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: Three thousand halakhot were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses. This suggests that the Sages who came immediately after Moses did not study Torah in the same manner as Moses. The Gemara answers: Those halakhot that they forgot, were forgotten, but with regard to those halakhot that they studied, they would continue to study in the manner of Moses, our teacher.

וְהָא תַּנְיָא: מִשֶּׁמֵּת מֹשֶׁה, אִם רַבּוּ מְטַמְּאִין — טִמֵּאוּ, אִם רַבּוּ טְהוֹרִין — טִיהֵרוּ!

The Gemara objects: But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the resolution of questions of halakha: From the time when Moses died, if the majority deem an item impure, they have established it as impure, and if the majority deem an item pure, they have established it as pure. If this is the case, then the manner of studying Torah after the death of Moses is based on a majority, whereas when Moses was alive there was no dispute in matters of halakha.

לִיבָּא דְּאִימְּעִיט, מִיגְמָר הֲווֹ גְּמִירִי לְהוּ כְּמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ.

The Gemara explains that this baraita is referring specifically to those halakhot that were forgotten during the mourning period after the death of Moses. Since the understanding of the heart was limited [libba de’ime’it], the Sages were unable to reach a clear ruling on these matters. Consequently, they had to follow the majority. But with regard to all other halakhot they studied, they would study them in the manner of Moses, our teacher.

בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: כׇּל אֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת שֶׁעָמְדוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מִימוֹת מֹשֶׁה עַד שֶׁמֵּת יוֹסֵף בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵידָה — לֹא הָיָה בָּהֶם שׁוּם דּוֹפִי, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — הָיָה בָּהֶן שׁוּם דּוֹפִי.

It was taught in a baraita: All the clusters who stood at the head of the Jewish people from the days of Moses until Yosef ben Yo’ezer died had no flaw in them. From this point forward the clusters, i.e., the leadership of the Jewish people, had flaws in them.

וְהָתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּחָסִיד אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה גּוֹנֵחַ מִלִּבּוֹ, וְשָׁאֲלוּ לָרוֹפְאִים, וְאָמְרוּ: אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה עַד שֶׁיִּינַק חָלָב רוֹתֵחַ שַׁחֲרִית, וְהֵבִיאוּ עֵז וְקָשְׁרוּ לוֹ בְּכַרְעֵי מִיטָּתוֹ, וְהָיָה יוֹנֵק מִמֶּנָּה חֵלֶב.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain pious man who was groaning, i.e., suffering, due to a pain in his heart. And they asked the physicians what to do for him, and they said: There is no other remedy for him but that he should suckle warm milk every morning. And they brought him a goat and tied it to the leg of the bed for him, and he would suckle milk from it.

לְמָחָר נִכְנְסוּ חֲבֵירָיו לְבַקְּרוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ הָעֵז אָמְרוּ: לִיסְטִים מְזוּיָּין בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וְאָנוּ נִכְנָסִים לְבַקְּרוֹ?! יָשְׁבוּ וּבָדְקוּ, וְלֹא מָצְאוּ בּוֹ עָוֹן אֶלָּא שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ הָעֵז בִּלְבַד.

On the following day, his friends entered to visit him. When they saw the goat tied to the leg of the bed they said: There is an armed bandit in this man’s house, and we are entering to visit him? They referred to the goat in this manner because small animals habitually graze on the vegetation of neighbors, stealing their crops. The Sages sat and examined this pious man’s behavior, and they could not find any transgression attributable to him other than the sin of keeping that goat in his house alone.

וְאַף הוּא בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ אָמַר: יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי בְּעַצְמִי שֶׁאֵין בִּי עָוֹן, אֶלָּא שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ הָעֵז בִּלְבַד, שֶׁעָבַרְתִּי עַל דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירַי, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֵין מְגַדְּלִין בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

And that man himself also said at the time of his death: I know for a fact with regard to myself that I have no transgression attributable to me but the sin of keeping that goat in my house alone, as I transgressed the statement of my colleagues, the Sages. As the Sages said in a mishna (Bava Kamma 79b): One may not raise small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep and goats, in inhabited areas of Eretz Yisrael, because they graze on people’s crops.

וְקַיְימָא לַן, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״מַעֲשֶׂה בְּחָסִיד אֶחָד״ — אוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא אוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִילְעַאי, וְרַבָּנַן בָּתַר יוֹסֵף בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵידָה דָּרֵי דָּרֵי הֲווֹ.

And we maintain that anywhere that it says: There was an incident involving a certain pious man, the man in question is either Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava or Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai. And these Sages lived many generations after Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida. If this is the case, then even in later generations there were Sages without a flaw.