Chagigah 9

לא שנו אלא שלא גמר אבל גמר חוזר ומקריב

They taught that one may sacrifice the Festival peace-offering on the first Festival day but not on all seven days, as recorded in the baraita on this amud below, only in a case where he did not finish. However, if he finished, he may go back and sacrifice.

מאי גמר אילימא גמר קרבנותיו מאי מקריב אלא שלא גמר היום אבל גמר היום חוזר ומקריב

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: Finish, in this context? If we say it means that he finished sacrificing all of his offerings, what is he going back to sacrifice? Rather, it means that if the day did not end and he still has offerings left over, he may not return to sacrifice those on other Festival days. However, if the day ended and he had not finished sacrificing his offerings, he may go back and sacrifice them. This shows that Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes that in these circumstances it is permitted to sacrifice Festival peace-offerings during the remaining days of the Festival.

מתני׳ מי שלא חג ביום טוב הראשון של חג חוגג את כל הרגל ויום טוב האחרון של חג

MISHNA: With regard to one who did not celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, he may celebrate and bring it during the entire remaining days of the pilgrimage Festival, and even on the final day of the Festival, i.e., on the Eighth Day of Assembly.

עבר הרגל ולא חג אינו חייב באחריותו על זה נאמר מעוות לא יוכל לתקון וחסרון לא יוכל להמנות

If the pilgrimage Festival passed and one did not celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering, he is not obligated to pay restitution for it. Even if he consecrated an animal for this purpose and it was lost, once the Festival is over he has no obligation to replace it, as he has missed the opportunity for performing this mitzva. And about this it is stated: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered” (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

רבי שמעון בן מנסייא אומר איזהו מעוות שאינו יכול להתקן זה הבא על הערוה והוליד ממנה ממזר אם תאמר בגונב וגוזל יכול הוא להחזירו ויתקן

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Who is the crooked that cannot be made straight? This verse is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. This individual is unable to rectify his sin, because the status of the illegitimate child is permanent. And if you say that it is referring to one who steals or robs, although he is crooked he can return what he stole and in this manner his sin will be rectified.

רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר אין קורין מעוות אלא למי שהיה מתוקן בתחילה ונתעוות ואי זה זה תלמיד חכם הפורש מן התורה

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One calls crooked only someone who was initially straight and subsequently became crooked. And who is this? This is a Torah scholar who leaves his Torah study. Here is an example of something straight that became crooked.

גמ׳ מנהני מילי אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל נאמר עצרת בשביעי של פסח ונאמר עצרת בשמיני של חג מה להלן לתשלומין אף כאן לתשלומין

GEMARA: The mishna taught that if one did not bring his Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, he may bring it even on the Eighth Day of Assembly, despite the fact that it is a separate Festival. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy. It is stated: “Assembly” (Deuteronomy 16:8), with regard to the seventh day of Passover, and it is stated: “Assembly” (Leviticus 23:36), with regard to the eighth day of the festival of Sukkot. Just as there, with regard to Passover, the day of assembly, i.e., the seventh day of Passover, is available for redress, as it is certainly part of the Festival, so too here, in the case of Sukkot, the Eighth Day of Assembly is available for redress.

מופנה דאי לאו מופנה איכא למיפרך מה לשביעי של פסח שכן אינו חלוק משלפניו תאמר בשמיני של חג שחלוק משלפניו

The Gemara adds that the term assembly in each of these contexts is free for this verbal analogy, i.e., it is superfluous in both contexts. As, if it is not free the verbal analogy can be refuted, because each context in which the term appears contains features that do not apply to the other one. What can one say about the seventh day of Passover? That it is not distinct from the days preceding it with regard to the Festival offerings and the prohibition against eating leavened bread. Can you say the same with regard to the eighth day of the festival of Sukkot, which is distinct from the days preceding it, i.e., that the Eighth Day of Assembly does not involve the same mitzvot as the festival of Sukkot?

לאיי אפנויי מופנה מכדי מאי עצרת עצור בעשיית מלאכה הכתיב לא תעשה מלאכה עצרת דכתב רחמנא למה לי אלא שמע מינה לאפנויי

However, this is not so [la’ei], as the term assembly is certainly free. Now, what is the meaning of: “assembly [atzeret]”? It means that one is stopped [atzur], i.e., prohibited, from performing labor. But isn’t it already written: “You shall not perform labor” (Deuteronomy 16:8)? Why then do I need this term atzeret that the Merciful One writes? Rather, learn from here that it is free for the verbal analogy.

ותנא מייתי לה מהכא דתניא וחגותם אותו חג לה׳ שבעת ימים יכול יהא חוגג והולך כל שבעה תלמוד לומר אותו אותו אתה חוגג ואי אתה חוגג כל שבעה אם כן למה נאמר שבעה לתשלומין

The Gemara comments: And a tanna cites proof from here, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to a verse that deals with the festival of Sukkot: “And you shall keep it a feast to the Lord seven days” (Leviticus 23:41). One might have thought that one may continue to celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering all seven days of the Festival. Therefore, the verse states: “It,” which teaches: It, i.e., the first day of the Festival, you shall celebrate with these offerings, and you may not celebrate all seven days. If so, why is “seven” stated? For redress, i.e., if one failed to bring an offering on the first day he may do so all seven days.

ומנין שאם לא חג יום טוב הראשון של חג שחוגג והולך את כל הרגל ויום טוב האחרון תלמוד לומר בחדש השביעי תחגו אותו אי בחדש השביעי יכול יהא חוגג והולך החדש כולו תלמוד לומר אותו אותו אתה חוגג ואי אתה חוגג חוצה לו

And from where is it derived that if one did not celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot that he may continue to celebrate throughout the pilgrimage Festival and even on the last festival day of Sukkot, which is the Eighth Day of Assembly? The verse states: “You shall keep it in the seventh month” (Leviticus 23:41), which indicates that one may bring the Festival offerings even after the seven days of the Festival. If the verse said only: “In the seventh month,” one might have thought that one may continue to celebrate by bringing the offering at any time during the rest of the entire month. Therefore, the verse states: “It,” indicating that you celebrate it, i.e., any of the Festival days, and you may not celebrate outside of these days.

ומאי תשלומין רבי יוחנן אמר תשלומין לראשון ורבי אושעיא אמר תשלומין זה לזה

§ The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the concept of redress mentioned in the baraita? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The other days are redress for the first day. If one did not bring the Festival offering on the first day, he may still do so on the remaining days of the Festival. And Rabbi Oshaya said: The days are redress for one another. Each day can be considered the main day of obligation, i.e., if one did not bring the offering on the first available day he may do so on the remaining days.

מאי בינייהו אמר רבי זירא חיגר ביום ראשון ונתפשט ביום שני איכא בינייהו רבי יוחנן אמר תשלומין לראשון כיון דלא חזי בראשון לא חזי בשני ורבי אושעיא אמר תשלומין זה לזה אף על גב דלא חזי בראשון חזי בשני

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? Rabbi Zeira said: The practical difference between them is in a case of one who was lame on the first day of the Festival and was healed on the second day. Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the other days are redress for the first day; since he was not fit, i.e., was not qualified to sacrifice his offerings on the first day, he is not fit to do so even on the second, as the second day is redress for the first. The second day is not for those who were completely exempt on the first, but for those who were obligated to sacrifice but neglected to do so. And Rabbi Oshaya said that the days are redress for one another. Consequently, even though he was not fit to bring the offering on the first day, he is fit to do so on the second. Since a separate obligation applies on each day, even if one was unfit to bring the offering on the first day he must do so when he becomes fit.

ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? Rabbi Yoḥanan was involved in a dispute with regard to a nazirite. A nazirite who becomes ritually impure as a result of contact with a corpse must undergo a seven-day process of ritual purification, after which he must bring a set of offerings and restart counting the days of his nazirite period. Usually, a nazirite may bring one set of offerings even for many occurrences of ritual impurity. However, if he came into contact with a corpse for a second time on the eighth day after he first became ritually impure he must bring two sets of offerings, as the second impurity occurred at a time when he could have begun counting the days of his nazirite vow again. The amora’im dispute the details of this halakha.

והאמר חזקיה נטמא ביום מביא בלילה אינו מביא

The Gemara continues. Didn’t Ḥizkiya say that if a nazirite became ritually impure on the eighth day itself, he brings a second set of offerings? However, if he became ritually impure on the previous night he does not bring an additional set of offerings, because he could not have brought the offering at night. Although seven complete days have passed, as he did not yet have the opportunity to bring the offering, it is as though his seven days were not yet complete. Consequently, he may still bring one set of offerings for the two instances of ritual impurity.

ורבי יוחנן אמר אף בלילה נמי מביא

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if the nazirite became ritually impure on the night on which the eighth day begins, he also brings a second set of offerings. Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that this nazirite is effectively ready to begin counting the days of his vow again, as only the technicality that one may not bring offerings at night prevents him from doing so. This shows that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, even when one is incapable of sacrificing his offerings, his obligation remains intact. So too, in the case of a lame person, his obligation to bring the Festival offering applies in theory even on the first day, which means that he should be able to bring the offerings at a later date during the Festival.

אמר רבי ירמיה שאני טומאה דיש לה תשלומין בפסח שני

Rabbi Yirmeya said: The case of one who cannot bring an offering due to ritual impurity is different. He is not completely disqualified, as there is redress for ritual purity. This can be demonstrated from the halakha of the second Pesaḥ. Just as one who is ritually impure and may not sacrifice the Paschal offering has the opportunity to redress the situation by means of the second Pesaḥ, so too, anyone who cannot bring an offering due to impurity may redress this at a later date.

מתקיף לה רב פפא הניחא למאן דאמר פסח

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this reasoning: This works out well according to the one who said that the second Pesaḥ

שני תשלומין דראשון הוא אלא למאן דאמר שני רגל בפני עצמו הוא מאי איכא למימר

is redress for the first Paschal offering. According to this opinion, it is clear that ritual impurity does not nullify one’s obligation. However, according to the one who said that the second Pesaḥ is a separate pilgrimage Festival, established for those who were unable to sacrifice the Paschal offering at the proper time, what is there to say? In that case, Rav Yirmeya’s answer does not apply, and therefore it remains unclear that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that one who is not obligated in the Festival offerings on the first day is exempt during the remaining days.

אלא אמר רב פפא קסבר רבי יוחנן לילה אינו מחוסר זמן ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי

Rather, Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that night is not considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived. Although one may not sacrifice offerings at night, the date itself has arrived and his period of impurity is complete, which is why any further impurity requires a second set of offerings. Consequently, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion with regard to a lame person does not contradict his ruling concerning a nazirite. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this, that night is not considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived?

והאמר רבי יוחנן ראה אחת בלילה ושתים ביום מביא

But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: A zav at the end of his seven-day purification process who saw that he experienced one emission at night and then two in the day brings additional offerings for the second impurity? Had he experienced the emissions before he became ritually pure, he would have been required to bring only one set of offerings. However, once his purification is complete he must bring a separate set. In this case, the first emission occurred before he was able to sacrifice the offerings for his initial period of impurity. Nevertheless, as the two subsequent sightings occurred during the day, and they alone would suffice to confer upon him the status of a zav, they combine with the one from the previous night and he is required to bring new offerings.

שתים בלילה ואחת ביום אינו מביא ואי סלקא דעתך קסבר רבי יוחנן לילה אינו מחוסר זמן אפילו שתים בלילה ואחת ביום מביא

However, if he saw two emissions at night and one in the day, he does not bring additional offerings, because at night he could not yet sacrifice the offerings owed due to his current status, and without those two new sightings he would not become a zav again. And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that night is not considered a date whose time has not yet arrived, then even in the case where he saw two emissions at night and one in the day he should have to bring another set of offerings. He already reached the date of sacrificing the previous offerings before these new emissions occurred. This indicates that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived.

כי קאמר רבי יוחנן לדברי האומר לילה מחוסר זמן לדברי האומר פשיטא שתים ביום ואחת בלילה אצטריכא ליה

The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yoḥanan said this statement, he spoke according to the one who says that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived. However, he himself maintains that even if a zav saw all three emissions at night he must bring another offering. The Gemara asks: If he spoke only according to the one who says that opinion, it is obvious that no new offerings are required; what novel idea did Rabbi Yoḥanan intend to express? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it was necessary for him to teach the case of a zav who saw two in the day and one at night.

סלקא דעתך אמינא כאתקפתא דרב שישא בריה דרב אידי קא משמע לן כדרב יוסף

The Gemara elaborates: It was necessary for Rabbi Yoḥanan to say this, lest it enter your mind to say in the manner of the strong objection of Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi (see Keritot 8a), who holds that there is no reason to distinguish between a zav seeing one or two emissions at night. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, that the first sighting confers merely the status of ritual impurity of one who has a seminal emission, and he is not yet classified as a zav. Consequently, there is a difference between one who experienced one emission at night and one who experienced two.

עבר הרגל ולא חג אינו חייב באחריותו ועל זה נאמר ׳מעות לא יוכל לתקון וחסרון לא יוכל להימנות׳

§ The mishna taught that if the pilgrimage Festival passed and one did not celebrate it by sacrificing a Festival peace-offering, he is not obligated to pay restitution for it. And about this it is stated: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered” (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

אמר ליה בר הי הי להלל האי להימנות להמלאות מיבעי ליה אלא זה שמנוהו חביריו לדבר מצוה והוא לא נמנה עמהן

The Sage bar Hei Hei said to Hillel that if this is the correct interpretation of the verse, this term: “Be numbered [lehimanot]” is apparently inappropriate. It should have said: Be filled. Rather, this verse is referring to one whose friends reached a consensus [manuhu] with regard to a matter of a mitzva and he was not part of their consensus, and therefore he missed his opportunity to join them in the performance of the mitzva.

תניא נמי הכי מעות לא יוכל לתקון זה שביטל קריאת שמע של שחרית או קריאת שמע של ערבית או שביטל תפלה של שחרית או תפלה של ערבית וחסרון לא יוכל להימנות זה שנמנו חביריו לדבר מצוה והוא לא נמנה עמהן

This explanation is also taught in a baraita. The meaning of the verse “That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered” is as follows: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight” is referring to one who omitted the recitation of the morning Shema or the recitation of the evening Shema, or who omitted the morning prayer or the evening prayer. “And that which is wanting cannot be numbered” is referring to one whose friends reached a consensus with regard to a matter of a mitzva and he was not part of their consensus.

אמר ליה בר הי הי להלל מאי דכתיב ושבתם וראיתם בין צדיק לרשע בין עובד אלהים לאשר לא עבדו היינו צדיק היינו עובד אלהים היינו רשע היינו אשר לא עבדו אמר ליה עבדו ולא עבדו תרוייהו צדיקי גמורי נינהו ואינו דומה שונה פרקו מאה פעמים לשונה פרקו מאה ואחד

The Gemara records another discussion between bar Hei Hei and Hillel. Bar Hei Hei said to Hillel: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Then you shall again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between he who serves God and he who does not serve Him” (Malachi 3:18). There are two redundancies here: “The righteous” is the same as “he who serves God,” and “the wicked” is the same as “he who does not serve Him.” Hillel said to him: The one “who serves Him” and the one “who does not serve Him” are both referring to completely righteous people. But the verse is hinting at a distinction between them, as one who reviews his studies one hundred times is not comparable to one who reviews his studies one hundred and one times.

אמר ליה ומשום חד זימנא קרי ליה לא עבדו אמר ליה אין צא ולמד משוק של חמרין עשרה פרסי בזוזא חד עשר פרסי בתרי זוזי

Bar Hei Hei said to him: And due to one extra time that he did not review, the verse calls him a person “who does not serve Him”? He said to him: Yes. Go and learn from the market of donkey drivers. One can hire a driver to travel up to ten parasangs for one dinar. However, he will travel eleven parasangs only for two dinars. This shows that any departure beyond the norm is considered a significant difference.

אמר ליה אליהו לבר הי הי ואמרי לה לרבי אלעזר מאי דכתיב הנה צרפתיך ולא בכסף בחרתיך בכור עוני מלמד שחזר הקדוש ברוך הוא על כל מדות טובות ליתן לישראל ולא מצא אלא עניות אמר שמואל ואיתימא רב יוסף היינו דאמרי אינשי יאה עניותא ליהודאי כי ברזא סומקא לסוסיא חיורא

The Gemara relates that Elijah the Prophet said to bar Hei Hei, and some say that he said this to Rabbi Elazar: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction [oni]” (Isaiah 48:10)? This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought after all good character traits to impart them to the Jewish people, and He found only poverty [aniyut] capable of preventing them from sin. Shmuel said, and some say it was Rav Yosef: This explains the folk saying that people say: Poverty is good for the Jewish people like a red bridle [barza] for a white horse. Just as a red bridle accentuates the white color of the horse, so the challenge of poverty draws out the purity of the Jewish people.

רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר אי זה הוא מעות לא יוכל לתקון זה הבא על הערוה והוליד ממנה ממזר” וכו׳ הוליד אין לא הוליד לא

§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Who is the crooked that cannot be made straight? This verse is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. The Gemara infers from the mishna: If he fathers a child, yes, this verse applies, as he cannot remedy the situation; if he does not father a child, no, the verse does not apply, as he can make amends.

והא תניא רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר גונב אדם אפשר שיחזיר גנבו ויתקן גוזל אדם אפשר שיחזיר גזלו ויתקן אבל הבא על אשת איש ואסרה לבעלה נטרד מן העולם והלך לו

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: If a person steals it is possible that he might return his stolen property and be made straight; if a person robs from another it is possible that he might return his robbed property and be made straight. However, one who has sexual relations with a married woman with her consent and thereby renders her forbidden to her husband is banished from the world and passes away. There is no way for him to rectify the situation and achieve atonement, because a married woman who willingly has sexual relations with another man is permanently forbidden to her husband.

רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר אין אומר בקרו גמל בקרו חזיר אלא בקרו טלה ואי זה זה תלמיד חכם שפירש מן התורה

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Someone who wants to examine an animal for blemishes to bring it as an offering does not say: Inspect the camel, or: Inspect the pig, as these are inherently disqualified for the altar. Rather, he says: Inspect the lamb. Similarly, the term: “Crooked,” applies only to one who was previously straight. And who is this? This is a Torah scholar who leaves his Torah study.

רבי יהודה בן לקיש אמר כל תלמיד חכם שפירש מן התורה עליו הכתוב אומר כצפור נודדת מן קנה כן איש נודד ממקומו ואומר מה מצאו אבותיכם בי עול כי רחקו מעלי

Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: Any Torah scholar who leaves the Torah, about him the verse says: “As a bird that wanders from her nest, so is a man who wanders from his place” (Proverbs 27:8). And it says: “What unrighteousness have your fathers found in Me, that they are gone far from Me?” (Jeremiah 2:5). This indicates that the punishment is greater for one who was close to God and became distant from Him. In any case, there is a contradiction here, as in the mishna Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says that the act of one who fathers an illegitimate child is crooked and cannot be straightened, whereas in the baraita he says the same applies to anyone who has forbidden sexual relations, regardless of whether or not he fathers a child.

לא קשיא כאן באחותו פנויה כאן באשת איש ואי בעית אימא הא והא באשת איש ולא קשיא כאן

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is dealing with a case where he had forbidden sexual relations with his unmarried sister. Although the intercourse itself is a severe sin, if he does not sire a child it can be rectified through repentance. There, in the baraita, it is referring to a case where he sinned with a married woman, causing irreparable damage to her marriage. And if you wish, say instead: This and that are both referring to a married woman. And it is not difficult. Here, the mishna is dealing