Previous daf

1)

(a) Someone who failed to bring his Chagigah ...

1. ... on the first day of Pesach, may bring it - up to and including the last day of Yom-Tov.
2. ... on the first day of Sukos - up to and including Shemini Atzeres.

(b) According to the Tana Kama, the Pasuk in Koheles "Me'uvas Lo Yuchal li'S'kon ve'Chesaron Lo Yuchal le'Himanos" refers to someone who failed to bring his Chagigah after the final date. According to Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya - "ve'Chesaron Lo Yuchal le'Himanos" refers to someone who committed incest with a forbidden woman who bore him a son.

(c) Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai infers from the word "li'S'kon" - that the Torah must be referring to someone who was previously without sin; it must therefore be speaking about a Talmid-Chacham who stopped learning Torah.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Yishmael learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Atzeres" (by Shemini Atzeres) "Atzeres" (by the seventh day of Shavu'os) - that Shemini Atzeres can serve as a Tashlumin for the first day of Sukos (just like the seventh day of Pesach for the first day of Pesach).

(b) This 'Gezeirah-Shavah' must be Mufneh, the Gemara explains, because otherwise, we could ask a Kashya on it. The principle is - that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufneh (meaning that the word is superfluous) from both sides is acceptable, irrespective of any Kashya that one asks on it, but if even one of the words is needed for another Derashah, the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is not accepted, if there is a Kashya on it.

(c) In our case, if both words were not Mufneh - we would be able to ask that whereas the seventh day of Pesach is connected to the six previous days of Yom-Tov, Shemini Atzeres is not.

(d) "Atzeres" means held back from working - rendering the Gezeirah-Shavah Mufneh, since the Torah has already written "Lo Sa'aseh Melachah".

(a) The Tana learns that Shemini Atzeres serves as a Tashlumin for Sukos, from a Pasuk in Emor. He learns from ...

1. ... "ve'Chagosem *Oso* Chag la'Hashem" - that the obligation of Chagigah is confined to the first day of Sukos and not to all seven days.
2. ... "Shiv'as Yamim" - that someone who failed to bring it on the first day, has seven days (of Tashlumin) to bring it.
3. ... "ba'Chodesh ha'Shevi'i Tachogu *Oso*" - that he also has Shemini Atzeres on which to bring it.

(b) Had the Torah omitted the second "Oso" from the end of the Pasuk - the Tana would have extended the time period for Tashlumin until the end of Tishri.

(c) We have already learned that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, all the days are Tashlumin for the first day, and according to Rebbi Oshaya, each day is a new Chiyuv for someone who did not yet bring his Chagigah. According to Rebbi Yochanan, someone who was lame on the first day but healed on the second, remains Patur from bringing a Chagigah then, since he was Patur on the first day - whereas according to Rebbi Oshaya, he becomes Chayav as soon as his leg heals.

(a) The Mishnah in Nazir teaches that a Nazir can sometimes bring one Korban for many Tum'os - if, after becoming Tamei once (and overturning his Nezirus) he becomes Tamei again any time during the first seven days (before his Korban for the first Tum'ah falls due), he brings only one Korban.

(b) This will not apply if the second Tum'ah occurred on the eighth day - because the time to bring his Korban for the first Tum'ah has already fallen due.

(c) If it occurred on the night before the eighth however, then according to Chizkiyah, he brings only one Korban, - because (although the eighth day has arrived) he cannot bring his Korban at night-time.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan - even if the Nazir's second Tum'ah occurred on the *night* of the eighth day, he is still obligated to bring a second Korban.

(b) In spite of what Rebbi Yochanan said earlier (that someone who is not actually Chayav to bring the Chagigah on the first day of Yom-Tov is not considered a bar Chiyuva) - we initially contend that he nevertheless obligates a second Korban here (despite the fact that at night-time one is not obligated to bring a Korban), because Tum'ah, which has a precedent on Pesach Sheini (where one is Chayav [the Tashlumin of] Pesach Sheini, despite the fact that at the time of the original Chiyuv, he was not a bar Chiyuva.

(c) According to those who hold that Pesach Sheini is an independent Chiyuv for the benefit of anyone who did not bring Pesach Rishon (and not a Tashlumin at all) - Rebbi Yochanan obligates a Nazir who became Tamei a second time on the night of the eighth, not because Tum'ah is different, but because night-time is not considered 'Mechusar Z'man' (since, when all's said and done, it *is* the eighth day, only one cannot bring a Korban then for some reason).

6)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan (in Menachos) discusses the Din of a Zav who had three sightings between the eighth night and the eighth day after his first Zivus. If, after counting seven clean days, he saw Zivus again ...

1. ... once on the eighth night and twice in the day - he brings two Korbanos.
2. ... twice in the night and once in the day - he brings one Korban.

(b) Rav Yosef (in Menachos) explains that, in the first Halachah, Rebbi Yochanan does not contend with the fact that his first sighting was still made within the time of his *first* Korban - because the first sighting is really Keri, not Zivus, in which case it merely combines with the other two sightings of the following day (just like it always combines with the two subsequent sightings to obligate a Korban).

(c) True, we just concluded that Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Laylah Eino Mechusar Z'man'. Nevertheless - Rebbi Yochanan in Menachos made his statement according to those who hold 'Laylah Mechusar Z'man'.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan himself will hold - that even in a case where the Zav saw all three sightings on the eighth *night* following his first Zivus - he brings two Korbanos.

8)

(a) If, like the Tana Kama says, we explain "ve'Chesaron Lo Yuchal *le'Himanos*" in the context of someone who failed to bring his Chagigah in its right time - then the Pasuk should have written, not "Lo Yuchal *le'Himanos*", but Lo Yuchal *le'Himal'os*", asks Bar Hey Hey?

(b) *He* therefore explains - that the Pasuk pertains to someone whose friends invited him to join their group ("Himanos" from a Lashon of Minyan), and he declined.

(c) According to the Beraisa which corroborates bar Hey Hey's explanation, when the Pasuk writes "Me'uvas Lo Yuchal li'S'kon" - it refers to someone who failed to recite the Shema or to Daven the Tefilah in the morning or in the evening (though it is unclear why he cannot make up for the omission by Davenning the following Tefilah twice, as we learned in Berachos).

(a) Mal'achi seemingly repeats himself, when he first differentiates between a Tzadik and a Rasha, and then between someone who serves Hashem and someone who does not. bar Hey Hey explained to Hillel - that 'both someone who serves Hashem and someone who does not' refer to complete Tzadikim; the sole difference between them is that, whereas the latter learns his Gemara only a hundred times (and stops), the former learns it a hundred and one times (without fixing limits to his learning).

(b) He then explained to the surprised Hillel the fact that one time can make so much difference - with a Mashal to someone who rents a donkey-driver, who is charged one Zuz for ten Parsah, but two Zuz for eleven (because the eleventh Parsah is the beginning of a second journey of another ten Parsah; likewise, the hundred and first time is not the tail end of the first hundred times, but the beginning of the second hundred).

(c) Eliyahu explained to bar Hey Hey (others say that it was to Rebbi Elazar) the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Hinei Tzeraftich ve'Lo be'Chesef, Bechartich be'Kur Oni" - to mean that Hashem could not find a better quality to give Yisrael than poverty (because it makes them humble and brings them closer to Hashem, as opposed to wealth, which makes them proud and causes them to forget Him).

(d) Eliyahu's explanation gives rise to - the folk-saying 'Poverty is good for the Jews like a red strap on a white horse'.

(a) The Pasuk "Me'uvas Lo Yuchal li'S'kon" cannot refer to someone who steals or robs - because he is able to rectify his sin by returning what he stole.

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah in the Beraisa establishes the Pasuk by someone who commits adultery with a married woman (irrespective of whether they have children or not) because he causes her irreversible damage by separating her from her husband, to whom she has become permanently forbidden - whereas in our Mishnah, when he establishes the same Pasuk by someone who commits adultery and fathers a Mamzer, he is speaking about incest, where the damage only becomes irreversible when they have a baby.

(c) We learned in our Mishnah that, according to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, "Me'uvas Lo Yuchal li'S'kon" refers to a Talmid-Chacham who forsook his learning. He illustrates this by adding 'Ein Omer "Bakru Gamal, Bakru Chazir!", Ela "Bakru T'leh!" - one does not examine a camel or a pig (which are not Kasher) to see whether it is fit for a Korban, but one examines a lamb (which *is*).

(d) When the Pasuk in Mishlei writes "ke'Tzipor Nodedes min Kanah, Kein Ish Noded mi'Mekomo" - it refers to a Talmid-Chacham who has stopped learning Torah.

(a) We just established Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah in our Mishnah, who in turn, establishes the Pasuk "Me'uvas Lo Yuchal li'S'kon" by incest (rather than by adultery with a married woman). One could however, establish it even by adultery, if it was a case of rape - because rape does not forbid a woman to her husband.

(b) It is possible to establish the Beraisa by a man who raped a married woman, and still not require children to be born for it to fall into the category of "Me'uvas Lo Yuchal li'S'kon" - by someone who raped the wife of a Kohen, who is forbidden to her husband even when she is raped.

(a) The Gemara has three ways of explaining the Pasuk in Zecharyah "u'le'Yotzei u'le'Va Ein Shalom". According to Rav, the Pasuk refers to someone who goes from Talmud to Chumash (whose teachings are totally obscure without the Gemara) - Shmuel explains that it refers to someone who goes from Talmud to Mishnah (which can also not be understood without the Gemara's clarification).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan explains it to pertain to someone who goes from Shas to Shas - meaning from the Yerushalmi (which is concise and clear) to the Bavli (which is deep and complex).