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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 18, 2022 | 讬状讝 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chagigah 9

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Anne Mirsky in loving memory of her mother, Rhoda Polachek z”l. 鈥淪he supported Jewish education and many organizations in Israel and the United States.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Bracha Stuart in loving memory of her dear brother, Aryeh Leib ben Simcha HaKohen (shlita) on his first yahrzeit which will be on聽 Shabbat. May his neshama have an Aliya and his memory be for a blessing.

How does a make-up for a Chagigah sacrifice work? From where do we know that the Sukkot one can be made up even on Shmini Atzeret. The Gemara grapples with Rabbi Yochanan’s approach to understanding the makeup of the Chagigah sacrifice based on other sugyot including a nazir and a zav. There are certain things that can’t be rectified, such as, making up a Chagigah sacrifice once the holiday has ended. This is connected to a verse from Kohelet 1:15 that discussed things that can’t be fixed and mixed opportunities. Other tanaim bring other examples that can be learned from this verse.

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讙诪专 讗讘诇 讙诪专 讞讜讝专 讜诪拽专讬讘

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.

诪讗讬 讙诪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讙诪专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 诪讗讬 诪拽专讬讘 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讙诪专 讛讬讜诐 讗讘诇 讙诪专 讛讬讜诐 讞讜讝专 讜诪拽专讬讘

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 Yo岣nan concedes that in these circumstances it is permitted to sacrifice Festival peace-offerings during the remaining days of the Festival.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖诇讗 讞讙 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讞讜讙讙 讗转 讻诇 讛专讙诇 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙

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.

注讘专 讛专讙诇 讜诇讗 讞讙 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 诪注讜讜转 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇转拽讜谉 讜讞住专讜谉 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讛诪谞讜转

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: 鈥淭hat which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered鈥 (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬讝讛讜 诪注讜讜转 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转拽谉 讝讛 讛讘讗 注诇 讛注专讜讛 讜讛讜诇讬讚 诪诪谞讛 诪诪讝专 讗诐 转讗诪专 讘讙讜谞讘 讜讙讜讝诇 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讛讞讝讬专讜 讜讬转拽谉

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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 拽讜专讬谉 诪注讜讜转 讗诇讗 诇诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诪转讜拽谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜谞转注讜讜转 讜讗讬 讝讛 讝讛 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讛驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i 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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讗诪专 注爪专转 讘砖讘讬注讬 砖诇 驻住讞 讜谞讗诪专 注爪专转 讘砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇 讞讙 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉

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 Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy. It is stated: 鈥淎ssembly鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:8), with regard to the seventh day of Passover, and it is stated: 鈥淎ssembly鈥 (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.

诪讜驻谞讛 讚讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讜驻谞讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇砖讘讬注讬 砖诇 驻住讞 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讜 讞诇讜拽 诪砖诇驻谞讬讜 转讗诪专 讘砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞诇讜拽 诪砖诇驻谞讬讜

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?

诇讗讬讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讛 诪讻讚讬 诪讗讬 注爪专转 注爪讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转注砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 注爪专转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

However, this is not so [la鈥檈i], as the term assembly is certainly free. Now, what is the meaning of: 鈥渁ssembly [atzeret]鈥? It means that one is stopped [atzur], i.e., prohibited, from performing labor. But isn鈥檛 it already written: 鈥淵ou shall not perform labor鈥 (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.

讜转谞讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讞讙讜转诐 讗讜转讜 讞讙 诇讛壮 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讞讜讙讙 讜讛讜诇讱 讻诇 砖讘注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转讜 讗讜转讜 讗转讛 讞讜讙讙 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讞讜讙讙 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 砖讘注讛 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd you shall keep it a feast to the Lord seven days鈥 (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: 鈥淚t,鈥 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 鈥渟even鈥 stated? For redress, i.e., if one failed to bring an offering on the first day he may do so all seven days.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 诇讗 讞讙 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞讜讙讙 讜讛讜诇讱 讗转 讻诇 讛专讙诇 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 讛砖讘讬注讬 转讞讙讜 讗讜转讜 讗讬 讘讞讚砖 讛砖讘讬注讬 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讞讜讙讙 讜讛讜诇讱 讛讞讚砖 讻讜诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转讜 讗讜转讜 讗转讛 讞讜讙讙 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讞讜讙讙 讞讜爪讛 诇讜

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: 鈥淵ou shall keep it in the seventh month鈥 (Leviticus聽23:41), which indicates that one may bring the Festival offerings even after the seven days of the Festival. If the verse said only: 鈥淚n the seventh month,鈥 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: 鈥淚t,鈥 indicating that you celebrate it, i.e., any of the Festival days, and you may not celebrate outside of these days.

讜诪讗讬 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇专讗砖讜谉 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛

搂 The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the concept of redress mentioned in the baraita? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讞讬讙专 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜谞转驻砖讟 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇专讗砖讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 讞讝讬 讘砖谞讬 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讞讝讬 讘砖谞讬

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檌m dispute the details of this halakha.

讜讛讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 谞讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗

The Gemara continues. Didn鈥檛 岣zkiya 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 讘诇讬诇讛 谞诪讬 诪讘讬讗

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan, 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讬砖 诇讛 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘驻住讞 砖谞讬

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 Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣, so too, anyone who cannot bring an offering due to impurity may redress this at a later date.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻住讞

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

砖谞讬 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讚专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 专讙诇 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

is redress for the first Paschal offering. According to this opinion, it is clear that ritual impurity does not nullify one鈥檚 obligation. However, according to the one who said that the second Pesa岣 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鈥檚 answer does not apply, and therefore it remains unclear that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that one who is not obligated in the Festival offerings on the first day is exempt during the remaining days.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬

Rather, Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion with regard to a lame person does not contradict his ruling concerning a nazirite. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this, that night is not considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived?

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讗讛 讗讞转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖转讬诐 讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗

But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

砖转讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖转讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗

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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan holds that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived.

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 诇讬诇讛 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 驻砖讬讟讗 砖转讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讜讗讞转 讘诇讬诇讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讗转拽驻转讗 讚专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘 讬讜住祝

The Gemara elaborates: It was necessary for Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

注讘专 讛专讙诇 讜诇讗 讞讙 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讜注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 壮诪注讜转 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇转拽讜谉 讜讞住专讜谉 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讛讬诪谞讜转壮

搂 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: 鈥淭hat which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered鈥 (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 讛讬 讛讬 诇讛诇诇 讛讗讬 诇讛讬诪谞讜转 诇讛诪诇讗讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讝讛 砖诪谞讜讛讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讜讛讜讗 诇讗 谞诪谞讛 注诪讛谉

The Sage bar Hei Hei said to Hillel that if this is the correct interpretation of the verse, this term: 鈥淏e numbered [lehimanot]鈥 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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪注讜转 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇转拽讜谉 讝讛 砖讘讬讟诇 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 砖诇 砖讞专讬转 讗讜 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 砖诇 注专讘讬转 讗讜 砖讘讬讟诇 转驻诇讛 砖诇 砖讞专讬转 讗讜 转驻诇讛 砖诇 注专讘讬转 讜讞住专讜谉 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讛讬诪谞讜转 讝讛 砖谞诪谞讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讜讛讜讗 诇讗 谞诪谞讛 注诪讛谉

This explanation is also taught in a baraita. The meaning of the verse 鈥淭hat which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered鈥 is as follows: 鈥淭hat which is crooked cannot be made straight鈥 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. 鈥淎nd that which is wanting cannot be numbered鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 讛讬 讛讬 诇讛诇诇 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讘转诐 讜专讗讬转诐 讘讬谉 爪讚讬拽 诇专砖注 讘讬谉 注讜讘讚 讗诇讛讬诐 诇讗砖专 诇讗 注讘讚讜 讛讬讬谞讜 爪讚讬拽 讛讬讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 讗诇讛讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 专砖注 讛讬讬谞讜 讗砖专 诇讗 注讘讚讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讘讚讜 讜诇讗 注讘讚讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 爪讚讬拽讬 讙诪讜专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 砖讜谞讛 驻专拽讜 诪讗讛 驻注诪讬诐 诇砖讜谞讛 驻专拽讜 诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚

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: 鈥淭hen you shall again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between he who serves God and he who does not serve Him鈥 (Malachi聽3:18). There are two redundancies here: 鈥淭he righteous鈥 is the same as 鈥渉e who serves God,鈥 and 鈥渢he wicked鈥 is the same as 鈥渉e who does not serve Him.鈥 Hillel said to him: The one 鈥渨ho serves Him鈥 and the one 鈥渨ho does not serve Him鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 注讘讚讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪砖讜拽 砖诇 讞诪专讬谉 注砖专讛 驻专住讬 讘讝讜讝讗 讞讚 注砖专 驻专住讬 讘转专讬 讝讜讝讬

Bar Hei Hei said to him: And due to one extra time that he did not review, the verse calls him a person 鈥渨ho does not serve Him鈥? 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讬讛讜 诇讘专 讛讬 讛讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讛谞讛 爪专驻转讬讱 讜诇讗 讘讻住祝 讘讞专转讬讱 讘讻讜专 注讜谞讬 诪诇诪讚 砖讞讝专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诇 讻诇 诪讚讜转 讟讜讘讜转 诇讬转谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 讗诇讗 注谞讬讜转 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讬讗讛 注谞讬讜转讗 诇讬讛讜讚讗讬 讻讬 讘专讝讗 住讜诪拽讗 诇住讜住讬讗 讞讬讜专讗

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: 鈥淏ehold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction [oni]鈥 (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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬 讝讛 讛讜讗 诪注讜转 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇转拽讜谉 讝讛 讛讘讗 注诇 讛注专讜讛 讜讛讜诇讬讚 诪诪谞讛 诪诪讝专” 讜讻讜壮 讛讜诇讬讚 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讜诇讬讚 诇讗

搂 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.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讙讜谞讘 讗讚诐 讗驻砖专 砖讬讞讝讬专 讙谞讘讜 讜讬转拽谉 讙讜讝诇 讗讚诐 讗驻砖专 砖讬讞讝讬专 讙讝诇讜 讜讬转拽谉 讗讘诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗住专讛 诇讘注诇讛 谞讟专讚 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讜讛诇讱 诇讜

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专 讘拽专讜 讙诪诇 讘拽专讜 讞讝讬专 讗诇讗 讘拽专讜 讟诇讛 讜讗讬 讝讛 讝讛 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖驻讬专砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i 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: 鈥淐rooked,鈥 applies only to one who was previously straight. And who is this? This is a Torah scholar who leaves his Torah study.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讻诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖驻讬专砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讻爪驻讜专 谞讜讚讚转 诪谉 拽谞讛 讻谉 讗讬砖 谞讜讚讚 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讜讗讜诪专 诪讛 诪爪讗讜 讗讘讜转讬讻诐 讘讬 注讜诇 讻讬 专讞拽讜 诪注诇讬

Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: Any Torah scholar who leaves the Torah, about him the verse says: 鈥淎s a bird that wanders from her nest, so is a man who wanders from his place鈥 (Proverbs 27:8). And it says: 鈥淲hat unrighteousness have your fathers found in Me, that they are gone far from Me?鈥 (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.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 驻谞讜讬讛 讻讗谉 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉

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

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Chagigah: 7-13- Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 3 sacrifices that must be brought when coming to Jerusalem for the Festival...
talking talmud_square

Chagigah 9: Second Chances – Sometimes

Tashlumin - making things up, from sacrifices and beyond. What happens if you can't make it up? Plus, how tashlumin...

Chagigah 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 9

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讙诪专 讗讘诇 讙诪专 讞讜讝专 讜诪拽专讬讘

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.

诪讗讬 讙诪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讙诪专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 诪讗讬 诪拽专讬讘 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讙诪专 讛讬讜诐 讗讘诇 讙诪专 讛讬讜诐 讞讜讝专 讜诪拽专讬讘

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 Yo岣nan concedes that in these circumstances it is permitted to sacrifice Festival peace-offerings during the remaining days of the Festival.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖诇讗 讞讙 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讞讜讙讙 讗转 讻诇 讛专讙诇 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙

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.

注讘专 讛专讙诇 讜诇讗 讞讙 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 诪注讜讜转 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇转拽讜谉 讜讞住专讜谉 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讛诪谞讜转

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: 鈥淭hat which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered鈥 (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬讝讛讜 诪注讜讜转 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转拽谉 讝讛 讛讘讗 注诇 讛注专讜讛 讜讛讜诇讬讚 诪诪谞讛 诪诪讝专 讗诐 转讗诪专 讘讙讜谞讘 讜讙讜讝诇 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讛讞讝讬专讜 讜讬转拽谉

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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 拽讜专讬谉 诪注讜讜转 讗诇讗 诇诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诪转讜拽谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜谞转注讜讜转 讜讗讬 讝讛 讝讛 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讛驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i 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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讗诪专 注爪专转 讘砖讘讬注讬 砖诇 驻住讞 讜谞讗诪专 注爪专转 讘砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇 讞讙 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉

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 Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy. It is stated: 鈥淎ssembly鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:8), with regard to the seventh day of Passover, and it is stated: 鈥淎ssembly鈥 (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.

诪讜驻谞讛 讚讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讜驻谞讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇砖讘讬注讬 砖诇 驻住讞 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讜 讞诇讜拽 诪砖诇驻谞讬讜 转讗诪专 讘砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞诇讜拽 诪砖诇驻谞讬讜

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?

诇讗讬讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讛 诪讻讚讬 诪讗讬 注爪专转 注爪讜专 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转注砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 注爪专转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

However, this is not so [la鈥檈i], as the term assembly is certainly free. Now, what is the meaning of: 鈥渁ssembly [atzeret]鈥? It means that one is stopped [atzur], i.e., prohibited, from performing labor. But isn鈥檛 it already written: 鈥淵ou shall not perform labor鈥 (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.

讜转谞讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讞讙讜转诐 讗讜转讜 讞讙 诇讛壮 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讞讜讙讙 讜讛讜诇讱 讻诇 砖讘注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转讜 讗讜转讜 讗转讛 讞讜讙讙 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讞讜讙讙 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 砖讘注讛 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd you shall keep it a feast to the Lord seven days鈥 (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: 鈥淚t,鈥 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 鈥渟even鈥 stated? For redress, i.e., if one failed to bring an offering on the first day he may do so all seven days.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 诇讗 讞讙 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞讜讙讙 讜讛讜诇讱 讗转 讻诇 讛专讙诇 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 讛砖讘讬注讬 转讞讙讜 讗讜转讜 讗讬 讘讞讚砖 讛砖讘讬注讬 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讞讜讙讙 讜讛讜诇讱 讛讞讚砖 讻讜诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转讜 讗讜转讜 讗转讛 讞讜讙讙 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讞讜讙讙 讞讜爪讛 诇讜

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: 鈥淵ou shall keep it in the seventh month鈥 (Leviticus聽23:41), which indicates that one may bring the Festival offerings even after the seven days of the Festival. If the verse said only: 鈥淚n the seventh month,鈥 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: 鈥淚t,鈥 indicating that you celebrate it, i.e., any of the Festival days, and you may not celebrate outside of these days.

讜诪讗讬 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇专讗砖讜谉 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛

搂 The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the concept of redress mentioned in the baraita? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讞讬讙专 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜谞转驻砖讟 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇专讗砖讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 讞讝讬 讘砖谞讬 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讞讝讬 讘砖谞讬

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檌m dispute the details of this halakha.

讜讛讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 谞讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗

The Gemara continues. Didn鈥檛 岣zkiya 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 讘诇讬诇讛 谞诪讬 诪讘讬讗

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan, 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讬砖 诇讛 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘驻住讞 砖谞讬

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 Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣, so too, anyone who cannot bring an offering due to impurity may redress this at a later date.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻住讞

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

砖谞讬 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讚专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 专讙诇 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

is redress for the first Paschal offering. According to this opinion, it is clear that ritual impurity does not nullify one鈥檚 obligation. However, according to the one who said that the second Pesa岣 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鈥檚 answer does not apply, and therefore it remains unclear that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that one who is not obligated in the Festival offerings on the first day is exempt during the remaining days.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬

Rather, Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion with regard to a lame person does not contradict his ruling concerning a nazirite. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this, that night is not considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived?

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讗讛 讗讞转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖转讬诐 讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗

But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

砖转讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖转讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗

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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan holds that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived.

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 诇讬诇讛 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 驻砖讬讟讗 砖转讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讜讗讞转 讘诇讬诇讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讗转拽驻转讗 讚专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘 讬讜住祝

The Gemara elaborates: It was necessary for Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

注讘专 讛专讙诇 讜诇讗 讞讙 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讜注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 壮诪注讜转 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇转拽讜谉 讜讞住专讜谉 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讛讬诪谞讜转壮

搂 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: 鈥淭hat which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered鈥 (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 讛讬 讛讬 诇讛诇诇 讛讗讬 诇讛讬诪谞讜转 诇讛诪诇讗讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讝讛 砖诪谞讜讛讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讜讛讜讗 诇讗 谞诪谞讛 注诪讛谉

The Sage bar Hei Hei said to Hillel that if this is the correct interpretation of the verse, this term: 鈥淏e numbered [lehimanot]鈥 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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪注讜转 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇转拽讜谉 讝讛 砖讘讬讟诇 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 砖诇 砖讞专讬转 讗讜 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 砖诇 注专讘讬转 讗讜 砖讘讬讟诇 转驻诇讛 砖诇 砖讞专讬转 讗讜 转驻诇讛 砖诇 注专讘讬转 讜讞住专讜谉 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讛讬诪谞讜转 讝讛 砖谞诪谞讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讜讛讜讗 诇讗 谞诪谞讛 注诪讛谉

This explanation is also taught in a baraita. The meaning of the verse 鈥淭hat which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered鈥 is as follows: 鈥淭hat which is crooked cannot be made straight鈥 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. 鈥淎nd that which is wanting cannot be numbered鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 讛讬 讛讬 诇讛诇诇 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讘转诐 讜专讗讬转诐 讘讬谉 爪讚讬拽 诇专砖注 讘讬谉 注讜讘讚 讗诇讛讬诐 诇讗砖专 诇讗 注讘讚讜 讛讬讬谞讜 爪讚讬拽 讛讬讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 讗诇讛讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 专砖注 讛讬讬谞讜 讗砖专 诇讗 注讘讚讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讘讚讜 讜诇讗 注讘讚讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 爪讚讬拽讬 讙诪讜专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 砖讜谞讛 驻专拽讜 诪讗讛 驻注诪讬诐 诇砖讜谞讛 驻专拽讜 诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚

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: 鈥淭hen you shall again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between he who serves God and he who does not serve Him鈥 (Malachi聽3:18). There are two redundancies here: 鈥淭he righteous鈥 is the same as 鈥渉e who serves God,鈥 and 鈥渢he wicked鈥 is the same as 鈥渉e who does not serve Him.鈥 Hillel said to him: The one 鈥渨ho serves Him鈥 and the one 鈥渨ho does not serve Him鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 注讘讚讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪砖讜拽 砖诇 讞诪专讬谉 注砖专讛 驻专住讬 讘讝讜讝讗 讞讚 注砖专 驻专住讬 讘转专讬 讝讜讝讬

Bar Hei Hei said to him: And due to one extra time that he did not review, the verse calls him a person 鈥渨ho does not serve Him鈥? 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讬讛讜 诇讘专 讛讬 讛讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讛谞讛 爪专驻转讬讱 讜诇讗 讘讻住祝 讘讞专转讬讱 讘讻讜专 注讜谞讬 诪诇诪讚 砖讞讝专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诇 讻诇 诪讚讜转 讟讜讘讜转 诇讬转谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 讗诇讗 注谞讬讜转 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讬讗讛 注谞讬讜转讗 诇讬讛讜讚讗讬 讻讬 讘专讝讗 住讜诪拽讗 诇住讜住讬讗 讞讬讜专讗

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: 鈥淏ehold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction [oni]鈥 (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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬 讝讛 讛讜讗 诪注讜转 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇转拽讜谉 讝讛 讛讘讗 注诇 讛注专讜讛 讜讛讜诇讬讚 诪诪谞讛 诪诪讝专” 讜讻讜壮 讛讜诇讬讚 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讜诇讬讚 诇讗

搂 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.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讙讜谞讘 讗讚诐 讗驻砖专 砖讬讞讝讬专 讙谞讘讜 讜讬转拽谉 讙讜讝诇 讗讚诐 讗驻砖专 砖讬讞讝讬专 讙讝诇讜 讜讬转拽谉 讗讘诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗住专讛 诇讘注诇讛 谞讟专讚 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讜讛诇讱 诇讜

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专 讘拽专讜 讙诪诇 讘拽专讜 讞讝讬专 讗诇讗 讘拽专讜 讟诇讛 讜讗讬 讝讛 讝讛 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖驻讬专砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i 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: 鈥淐rooked,鈥 applies only to one who was previously straight. And who is this? This is a Torah scholar who leaves his Torah study.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讻诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖驻讬专砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讻爪驻讜专 谞讜讚讚转 诪谉 拽谞讛 讻谉 讗讬砖 谞讜讚讚 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讜讗讜诪专 诪讛 诪爪讗讜 讗讘讜转讬讻诐 讘讬 注讜诇 讻讬 专讞拽讜 诪注诇讬

Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: Any Torah scholar who leaves the Torah, about him the verse says: 鈥淎s a bird that wanders from her nest, so is a man who wanders from his place鈥 (Proverbs 27:8). And it says: 鈥淲hat unrighteousness have your fathers found in Me, that they are gone far from Me?鈥 (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.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 驻谞讜讬讛 讻讗谉 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉

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

Scroll To Top