Answer (Rav Yosef): Beraisa #1 means, there was no Dofi (argument) about Semichah in the Eshkolos until the death of Yosi ben Yo'ezer.
Question: Yosi ben Yo'ezer himself argued about Semichah (with Yosi ben Yochanan)!
Answer: That was at the end of his life, when Chachmah decreased.
(Rav Yehudah): Three thousand Halachos were forgotten during the mourning over Moshe's death.
They asked Yehoshua to ask Hash-m. He refused, for "Lo va'Shamayim Hi." They asked Shmuel (400 years later) to ask Hash-m. He answered "Eleh ha'Mitzvos" - a Navi may not teach a new (mid'Oraisa) law through prophecy. (Maharsha - Yehoshua did not give this answer, for he had already learned the laws. They would not be new for him.)
(R. Yitzchak Nafcha): One of the forgotten Halachos was a Chatas whose owner died;
They asked Pinchas to ask Hash-m. He refused, for "Lo va'Shamayim Hi." (Bach changes this to "Eleh ha'Mitzvos"; according to our text, we can say that he had already learned it.) They asked Elazar to ask Hash-m. He answered "Eleh ha'Mitzvos" - a Navi may not be Mechadesh Halachos.
(Rav Yehudah): Before Moshe departed to Gan Eden, he asked Yehoshua to ask any doubts he had.
Yehoshua: (I have no doubts, for) I never left you, like you wrote in the Torah "u'Mesharaso Yehoshua... Lo Yamish mi'Toch ha'Ohel"!
Immediately, Yehoshua's strength waned. He forgot 300 Halachos and had 700 doubts. Bnei Yisrael wanted to kill him.
Hash-m: I may not tell the Halachos to you. Go distract Bnei Yisrael by beginning the war - "Acharei Mos Moshe... va'Yomer Hash-m... "
(Beraisa): During the mourning over Moshe's death, they forgot 1,700 Kal va'Chomerim, Gezeiros Shavos and Dikdukei Sofrim (Halachos that were later quantified, e.g. 13 laws of the Neveilah of a bird of a Tahor species).
(R. Avahu): Osni'el ben Kenaz restored all of them through his Pilpul - "va'Yilkedah Osni'el ben Kenaz Achi Kalev va'Yiten Lo Es Achsah Bito l'Ishah";
She was called Achsah because anyone who looked at her would be Ko'es (get angry) at his wife (Tosfos (Ta'anis 4a) - because of her Tzeni'us).
Question: "... Lish'ol me'Es Aviha Sadeh va'Titznach me'Al ha'Chamor" - what does this mean?
Answer (Rava): She said, just like a donkey without food screams, also a woman screams if there is no grain in the house. (I did not find anyone explain how we expound this from "va'Titznach", which means inserting in the ground. Perhaps the Drashah is based on "me'Al". One falls from an animal (e.g. Rivkah - Bereishis 24:64), but one is not inserted from an animal. Therefore, me'Al must mean (that she did something) more than the donkey, i.e. scream - PF.)
"Tenei Li Berachah Ki Eretz ha'Negev Nosatah Li" - you gave to me a house (husband) Menugav (dry, i.e. empty) of any good.
"V'Nosatah Li Gulos Mayim" - you gave me a husband who has only Torah (but no money).
"Va'Yiten Lah Kalev Es Gulos Aliyos v'Es Gulos Tachtiyos" - ask for food from the One who dwells above and below. (Our text; R. Gershom - I give you a husband to whom all secrets above and below are revealed, and you request food!?)
Question: How can Osni'el ben Kenaz be "Achi Kalev"? Kalev's father was Yefuneh!
Answer #1: Really, Kalev's father was Kenaz. Kalev is called "ben Yefuneh" because he was Pinah (veered from) the counsel of the Meraglim.
Objection: Kalev's father was Chetzron - "v'Chalev ben Chetzron Holid Es Azuvah"! (Azuvah is Miryam. She is called Azuvah because no one (until Kalev, who was born 48 years after her) wanted to marry her, because she was sick. For marrying her, Kalev is credited with fathering her.)
Answer #2 (Rava): Kenaz was Kalev's step-father.
(Beraisa): Osni'el is Yabetz. His real name was Yehudah, brother of Shimon (Maharsha - we learn from the verses recounting the conquest of Kiryas Sefer);
He is called Osni'el because On'o Kel (Hash-m answered him). He is called Yabetz because he was Yo'atz and Hirbitz (counseled and spread) Torah.
Question: What is the source that Hash-m answered him?
Answer: "Va'Yikra Yabetz... Im Barech Tevarcheni v'Hirbisa Es Gevuli... va'Yavei Elokim Es Asher Sha'al";
R. Nasan says, "Im Barech Tevarcheni" - in Torah; "v'Hirbisa Es Gevuli" - with Talmidim;
"V'Haysah Yadcha Imi" - that I not forget my learning; "v'Asisa me'Ra'ah" - I should have friends like myself; "l'Vilti Atzvi' - the Yetzer ha'Ra should not divert me from learning;
If You grant this, good. If not, "Atzvi," I will be sad until death;
Hash-m granted all his requests.
We find similarly (Rashi - that Hash-m grants requests for Torah; R. Gershom - that one must agree to teach one who asks to learn, just like Hash-m fulfilled Osni'el's request) "Rash v'Ish Techachim Nifgashu Me'ir Einei Sheneihem Hash-m";
When a Rebbi (who has not yet learned everything) agrees to a Talmid's request to teach him, Hash-m enlightens both of them;
If the Rebbi refuses, "Ashir va'Rash Nifgashu Oseh Chulam Hash-m". Hash-m had made the Rebbi wise, but now He makes him foolish, and vice-versa for the Talmid.
Rebbi says, "Im Barech Tevarcheni" - with children; "v'Hirbisa Es Gevuli" - You will give room for my children;
"V'Haysah Yadcha Imi" - You will prosper my business; "v'Asisa me'Ra'ah" - I should not have aches of the head, ears and eyes (Maharsha - the source of spiritual pains); "l'Vilti Atzvi' - the Yetzer ha'Ra should not divert me from learning;
If You grant this, good. If not, "Atzvi". Hash-m granted all his requests.
We find similarly, "Rash v'Ish Techachim... " - if a Ba'al ha'Bayis agrees to a poor person's request to feed him, good. If he refuses, "Ashir va'Rash Nifgashu Oseh Chulam Hash-m" - Hash-m had made the Ba'al ha'Bayis rich, and now He makes him poor, and vice-versa for the poor person.
(Mishnah - R. Shimon): We find that...
(Beraisa - R. Shimon): There are five Chata'os ha'Mesos: Vlad Chatas, Temuras Chatas, its owner died, she'Kipru Ba'aleha, and it was not offered within its year;
The first three do not apply to the Tzibur (it brings only males, Temurah cannot be made on Korbanos Tzibur, and the Tzibur does not die). The last two do apply to the Tzibur;
We did not learn whether or not "Tamus" applies only to Chata'os Yachid, or even to Chata'os Tzibur. We learn the unknown from the explicit;
Just like we know that for three, "Tamus" applies only to individuals, also for the other two.
Question: Do we learn the possible from what is impossible?! (It is impossible that Chatas Tzibur must die in the three cases, but it is possible in the other two!)
Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): There was a tradition that four Chata'os must die, and one of them is left to graze (Ro'eh). They forgot which is Ro'eh, so they said that all five must die;
The tradition that four must die could not apply to the Tzibur, for only two cases arise! (We learn the unknown from the explicit. The law (Misah) of the child or Temurah of a Chatas, or a Chatas whose owner died, applies only to individuals. Likewise, the law (Misah) of a Chatas for which a replacement was offered, or that was not offered within one year applies only to individuals!
Answer #2 (R. Nasan): There was a tradition that one Chatas must die, and four are Ro'eh. They forgot which must die, so they said that all five must die. (Note: Normally, Amora'im speak in the past tense (Amar), and Tana'im in the present (Omer). However, it is clear that R. Nasan is an Amora arguing with Reish Lakish. Indeed, Tosfos' text reads "R. Nasan Amar" (but most texts say "Omer").)
Interjection: Why did they say that all five must die - they should be stringent only about the category of the one that must die!
If it is among the three (that do not apply to the Tzibur), why must the other two die?!
If it is among the two (that apply to the Tzibur), why must the other three die?!
Answer: They forgot which Chatas must die, they even forgot which category it is in.
(We now resume to explain how R. Nasan answers the question, similarly to Reish Lakish.)
The tradition that four are Ro'eh could not apply to the Tzibur, for only two cases arise!
Even though (the case which) Tamus (theoretically) could apply to the Tzibur, we learn from the Ro'os, which we know do not apply to the Tzibur.
The tradition could not apply to the Tzibur, for there are only two cases that arise (but the tradition says that four are Ro'eh)!
STRINGENCIES OF KODSHIM AND TEMURAH
(Mishnah): There are stringencies of Kodshim (initial Hekdesh) over Temurah, and vice-versa:
The following are stringencies of Kodshim:
Kodshim make Temurah, but Temurah does not make Temurah;
The Tzibur and partners can be Makdish, but they cannot make Temurah;
Hekdesh of limbs and fetuses takes effect, but they cannot become Kodesh through Temurah.
A stringency of Temurah is that Temurah gives Kedushas ha'Guf to a Ba'al Mum Kavu'a. It will never become Chulin to permit shearing it or working with it.
R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, Shogeg is like Zevachim regarding Temurah, but not regarding Hekdesh;
R. Eliezer says, the following animals do not become Kadosh and are not Mekadesh other animals (this will be explained):
Tereifah, Kil'ayim, Yotzei Dofen, Tumtum and Androginus.