QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which relates that when Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah traveled to Rome, he was told that there was a beautiful Jewish child incarcerated in prison. He stood at the entrance of the prison and said the words, "Who made it that Yakov should be despoiled, that Yisrael should be to the plunderers?" (the first half of Yeshayah 42:24). The child responded, "For is it not Hash-m, He to Whom we have sinned, and we did not desire to go in His ways and did not listen to His Torah."

Rebbi Yehoshua declared, "I am sure that this child will issue forth a Torah ruling (Moreh Hora'ah). I swear that I will not leave until I redeem him for any amount that they demand."

He redeemed the child for a large sum of money. The boy grew up to be the great Torah sage, Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha (see following Insight).

How did Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah see from the words of the child that he would become a great Torah sage? Was is so unusual that a child should simply be able to finish a verse which one starts?

(a) The Gemara makes no mention of the age of the child. Perhaps he was only two or three years old. Such a young child who is able to complete a verse in Yeshayah certainly possesses unusual wisdom, particularly one who was held captive, possibly alone, in a foreign prison where his conditions were likely unbearable. One who is able to retain his Torah learning under such conditions certainly has a promising future in the Torah world.

Nevertheless, it is unclear what knowledge of Tanach has to do with becoming a Moreh Hora'ah. The CHESHEK SHLOMO asks this question, and he also asks why Rebbi Yehoshua predicted that the boy would be a "Moreh Hora'ah" ("Hora'ah" in the singular), and not "Moreh Hora'os."

The Cheshek Shlomo therefore explains that Rebbi Yehoshua's prediction was based not on the child's answer but on Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. He foresaw that this child would one day issue a triple ruling in one statement (with regard to the Mitzvah of Chalitzah), demonstrating deep wisdom in so doing.

The reason why Rebbi Yehoshua called out the first half of the verse may have been to ascertain that the Jewish child was indeed located in that prison, without the Romans becoming aware of his intention.

It is interesting to note that the Yerushalmi in Horayos (3:4) records the same incident but with a number of changes. One of those changes is the omission of Rebbi Yehoshua's prediction that the child would become a "Moreh Hora'ah." (See the MAR'EH HA'PANIM there.) (E. Chrysler)

(b) The VILNA GA'ON (in Kol Eliyahu) asks this question. He cites the Gemara in Berachos (4a) and Sotah (36a) which teaches that during the redemption from the Galus in Bavel, the Jewish people were destined to witness miracles as great as those they witnessed during the redemption from Mitzrayim. However, these miracles did not transpire due to the sins of the people which made them less deserving of miracles.

This is derived from the verse, "Ad Ya'avor Amcha Hash-m, Ad Ya'avor Am Zu Kanisa" (Shemos 15:16). The first "Ad Ya'avor" refers to the crossing of the Reed Sea and Jordan River during the redemption from Mitzrayim. At that time, the Jewish nation was called "Amcha Hash-m" -- "Your nation, Hash-m." The second "Ad Ya'avor" refers to their return to Eretz Yisrael during the redemption from Bavel. At that time, however, the Jewish nation was called "Am Zu Kanisa" -- "this nation that You have acquired." They were not called "Your nation, Hash-m," as they were called at the time of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim. "This nation that You have acquired" means that even if the Jews sin again and must be sent into Galus, they will be redeemed; Hash-m will not forsake them because He has "acquired" them. However, if they will be sinless and be worthy of the title of "Your nation, Hash-m," they will be redeemed miraculously with a full redemption, like the redemption from Mitzrayim at the time of the first "Ad Ya'avor." If they will not be worthy, they will be redeemed but without miracles, and the redemption will not be an absolute one.

This was the theme of the interchange between Rebbi Yehoshua and the child. Rebbi Yehoshua cited the verse which asks the question, "Who made it that Yakov (a reference to the Jewish people when they sinned) should be despoiled (and sent to Galus in Bavel), that Yisrael (a reference to the Jewish people when they were more worthy and were redeemed from Bavel) should be to the plunderers (with the destruction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash)?" That is, why was the second Beis ha'Mikdash destroyed and the redemption from Bavel not a full and lasting Ge'ulah?

The child replied, "Ha'Lo Hash-m Zu" -- "For is it not 'Hashem Zu,' for we have sinned to Him." The child meant that the difference between the redemption from Mitzrayim and the redemption from Bavel was the difference between "Amcha Hash-m" and "Am Zu" in the verse; the reason why the redemption from Bavel was not a full redemption was that instead of being "Amcha Hash-m," the Jewish people were only "Am Zu" and were not deserving of a full redemption (as the Gemara in Berachos says). That is why they suffered another exile.

In the verse, an "Esnachta" appears under the word "Hash-m," and "Zu" begins the next phrase ("Zu Chatanu Lo"). The wisdom of the child was to juxtapose the words "Hash-m" and "Zu," and place the break after the word "Zu." This reading alludes to the Derashah of the Chachamim on the verse in Shemos and utilizes that Derashah to explain why the Jews did not merit a full redemption when they were redeemed from Bavel and why the second Mikdash was destroyed. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which relates that when Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah traveled to Rome, he was told that there was a beautiful Jewish child incarcerated in prison. Rebbi Yehoshua spoke to the child and saw that he was destined to teach Torah to the Jewish people, and therefore he redeemed him for a very high ransom (see Insights to 45:1 as to why he was permitted to redeem the boy for such a large sum). The Gemara states that, indeed, not long passed until the boy grew up to be the great Torah sage, Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha.

TOSFOS (45a, DH d'Lo) states that this incident occurred at the time of the destruction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. Tosfos' assertion seems difficult to reconcile with the Beraisa recorded by the Gemara in Berachos (7a). The Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha who related that he once entered the Kodesh ha'Kodashim to offer the incense offering on Yom Kippur. If Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha was a young boy at the time of the destruction, how could he have served as Kohen Gadol in the Beis ha'Mikdash?

(a) The MAHARAM SHIF suggests, but refutes, the possibility that Tosfos refers not to actual destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash but to the exile of the Sanhedrin which took place forty years before the Churban.

The Maharam Shif instead answers this question based on the words of TOSFOS in Yevamos (104a, DH Amar). The Gemara in Yevamos there cites a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yishmael ben Rebbi Yosi mentions that he saw Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha. Tosfos asks how is it possible that the son of Rebbi Yosi saw Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha? Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha was one of the ten martyrs killed by the Romans. Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha was killed before Rebbi Akiva was killed. The Gemara in Shabbos (51a) says that Rebbi Yishmael ben Rebbi Yosi was a disciple of Rebbi, and the Gemara in Kidushin (72b) says that Rebbi was born on the day that Rebbi Akiva died. Accordingly, Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha was not alive at the time Rebbi Yishmael ben Rebbi Yosi was born!

Tosfos answers in the name of the RI that there were two sages named Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha. The sage who was murdered by the Romans was the grandfather of the sage Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha.

This answers the question here as well. It is possible that the Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha who served as Kohen Gadol in the Beis ha'Mikdash was the grandfather of the Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha who was redeemed from captivity by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah. (See also CHESHEK SHLOMO.)

(b) RABEINU NISIM GA'ON clearly does not agree with this approach. The Gemara in Berachos (57b) states that a person who sees Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha in a dream should fear an impending misfortune. Rabeinu Nisim (DH Rebbi Yishmael) explains that this is because in Rebbi Yishmael's days the Jewish people suffered sorrows, decrees, and wars at the end of the period of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. Rabeinu Nisim writes that Rebbi Yishmael was captured in his youth and redeemed by Rebbi Yehoshua, as the Gemara here relates. This was the same Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha who served as Kohen Gadol in the Beis ha'Mikdash. He was killed before the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash together with Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabeinu Nisim cites the Mechilta (Shemos 22:22) which says that when Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Shimon were martyred, Rebbi Akiva told his disciples to expect further disaster.

Rabeinu Nisim Ga'on apparently disagrees with the explanation of Tosfos that the redemption of the young Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha occurred at the time of the destruction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. Alternatively, perhaps Rabeinu Nisim Ga'on agrees with Tosfos but accepts the resolution which the Maharam Shif rejects (that the episode mentioned here occurred during the exile of the Sanhedrin, the prelude to the Churban).

(c) TOSFOS RABEINU YEHUDAH SIRLEON in Berachos (57b) also maintains that there were two sages named Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha, a grandfather and his grandson. He asserts that the correct text of the Gemara in Berachos reads, "He who sees Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha [in a dream] should expect to attain wisdom" (as Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha was very wise). He proves at length that this refers to the colleague of Rebbi Akiva, whose grandfather was the Kohen Gadol who was killed as one of the ten martyrs.

Although Tosfos Rabeinu Yehudah and the Ri agree that there were two Rebbi Yishmael ben Elishas, they clearly disagree about when the second one lived. The Ri understands that the second Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha lived long after Rebbi Akiva, while Tosfos Rabeinu Yehudah maintains that he was a colleague (not a student) of Rebbi Akiva. It is unclear how Tosfos Rabeinu Yehudah will answer Tosfos' question in Yevamos (104a, DH Amar).

(Although it is possible that Rebbi Akiva's colleague outlived him to the point that Rebbi (who was born on the day Rebbi Akiva died) had a student who saw Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha, it is not likely, particularly considering that Rebbi Akiva died at the age of 120 (see Sifri, end of Parshas Vayechi).)

1. RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY shlit'a, quoted in DERECH SICHAH (p. 337), adds another proof that there were two Rebbi Yishmael ben Elishas. The Gemara in Horayos (11a) derives from the verse, "from the people of the Land" (Vayikra 4:27), that a Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban Chatas when he inadvertently transgresses.

However, the Mishnah in Shabbos (12) sates that one may not read by the light of a candle on Shabbos because he may inadvertently tilt the candle (and transgress the Melachah of Mav'ir) to be able to see better. The Gemara there (12b) states that Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha said, "I will read, and I will not tilt the candle." Rebbi Nasan related that on one occasion Rebbi Yishmael read by the light of a candle on Shabbos, and indeed he tilted the candle. After Shabbos, Rebbi Yishmael wrote in his notebook, "When the Beis ha'Mikdash will be rebuilt, I will sacrifice there a fat [Korban] Chatas for atonement."

According to the Gemara in Berachos (7a) that says that Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha was a Kohen Gadol, he would not bring a Chatas, since a Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban Chatas as derived by the Gemara in Horayos! However, if there were two sages named Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha, the problem is resolved. The one who tilted the candle must have been the grandson who lived after the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash and was not a Kohen Gadol.

(For an extensive debate on this subject, see SEDER HA'DOROS, section Tana'im, "Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha.") (D. Bloom, Y. Montrose)

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that when one buys a field from a "Sikrikon" and afterwards occupies the land for three years in front of the owners and then sells it to someone else, the original owners have no claim on the second buyer.

(RASHI (55b, DH Lo) explains that 'Sikrikon' refers to a murderous idolater who forces a Jew to hand over his field at the threat of his life. The TOSFOS YOM TOV (Gitin 5:6) cites the BARTENURA (Bikurim 1:2) who explains that the root of the word "Sikrikon" is "Sa Karka v'Hanichani" -- "take the land and leave me alone." The field is not legally acquired by the idolater since the Jew did not willingly give him that field. Therefore, someone else who subsequently buys the field from the Sikrikon does not acquire the field.)

The Gemara asks, what is the claim of the second buyer? If he claims that the first buyer bought the field from the original owner, then even the first buyer would win with such a claim. It would not be necessary for the Beraisa to mention a case that involves a second buyer. RASHI (DH Minach) explains that the first buyer gave the original owner one quarter of the real value of the field (the Mishnah (55b) states that a later Beis Din instituted that one who buys a field from a Sikrikon must return a quarter of the value of the field to the original owners). If the second buyer does not argue that the first buyer gave a quarter to the owners, then the field does not belong to the second buyer either. What is the case in which there is specifically no claim on the second buyer?

Rav Sheshes answers that the case is where the second buyer does not argue that the first buyer paid a quarter to the original owner, and nevertheless Beis Din argues the case for him in the case of a Sikrikon. This is in contrast to the first buyer who must make this claim on his own.

Rashi (DH To'anin) explains that the case is where a person bought a field from a Sikrikon and then either died (and his sons inherited the field and occupied it for three years) or sold it to someone else (who then occupied it for three years). If the original owner attempts to claim it back from the heirs or purchaser and he does not know that he should claim that "perhaps the first buyer bought it from you," Beis Din intervenes and makes that argument on behalf of the heir or for the purchaser.

Rashi writes that "even according to the opinion in Bava Basra" that Beis Din generally does not claim for an heir or purchaser that the first buyer must have purchased the field from the original owner will agree that in this case Beis Din helps the defendant with this claim. The reason is that usually one who buys a field from a Sikrikon knows that it was a field originally seized forcibly from its original owner. He therefore will not waste his money and buy it without first consulting with the original owner. Accordingly, Beis Din may assume that the first buyer came to an arrangement with the original owner. This is why Beis Din makes this claim for the second buyer, even if he does not know that he should make this claim. However, Beis Din does not make this claim for the first buyer, because he certainly knows whether or not he bought it from the original owner. If he had indeed bought it from the original owner, he would have made this claim himself.

TOSFOS (DH Kegon) asks that the opinion which Rashi quotes from Bava Basra that Beis Din does not argue on behalf the heir or purchaser does not seem to exist. In fact, the Gemara in Bava Basra (23a) states that the principle that "we make a claim for the buyer" and "we make a claim for the heir" have a solid basis in the Mishnah and no one disagrees. To what opinion does Rashi refer?

(a) The RASHBA answers that Rashi refers to the statement of Rav Bibi in Bava Basra (47b). Rav Bibi states that Beis Din does not accept the claim of a person who is known to have stolen an item, even if he has witnesses that the victim later admitted that the transaction was eventually conducted as a valid purchase and he received the money for his item. The Rashba explains that the Gemara also clearly implies that Beis Din does not make a claim for someone who purchased an object from a thief even though the thief may have converted his theft into a legal transaction. Rashi therefore writes that even according to this opinion, Beis Din does make such a claim for a person who bought or inherited a field from someone who bought the field from a Sikrikon. What, though, is the difference between a Sikrikon and a thief?

The Rashba explains that Rashi answers this question as follows. Since the Chachamim established a way to buy from a Sikrikon (by paying the original owner one quarter of the value), the first buyer must have bought the field in that manner. Accordingly, as long as the heirs established a Chazakah afterwards, Beis Din may assume that the purchase was done in accordance with the way the Chachamim mandated that one deal with a Sikrikon. In contrast, the Chachamim never established a way to deal with other stolen goods in this manner. Therefore, whenever it is known that something was stolen, Beis Din does not assume that it had any "legal" resolution. (See Rashba at length.)

(b) The PNEI YEHOSHUA answers that Rashi refers to a dispute between Rav and Rebbi Chiya in Bava Basra (41b). Although everyone agrees that Beis Din does make claims on behalf of an heir, Rav and Rebbi Chiya disagree about whether Beis Din does so only when the heirs have some sort of proof that the object belongs to them. Rashi explains that in the case of the Gemara here, Beis Din makes the claim for the heirs even though they have no proof that the land is theirs.

The Pnei Yehoshua addresses the obvious question. In the case of the Gemara here, the heirs have a Chazakah (they occupied the field for three years). How can this be called lack of proof? The Pnei Yehoshua answers that since the heirs certainly know that a Sikrikon originally seized the land, they admit that they might have been occupying the land wrongfully for all of these years. Accordingly, the Chazakah is not considered a valid proof in this case. (D Bloom, Y. Montrose)