ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chagigah 9
CHAGIGAH 9 & 10 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah
in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(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.
(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.
2. ... on the first day of Sukos - up to and including Shemini Atzeres.
(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.
(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
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.
(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
(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
(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).
(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 ...
If, as we just explained, Rebbi Yochanan in Menachos, is discussing the
Halachah according to those who hold 'Laylah Mechusar Z'man', then his
entire statement seems obvious. In fact, he is coming to uphold Rav Yosef's
explanation, and to preclude the Kashya of Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi who
asks on Rav Yosef's explanation (see 6b.) - how can Rav Yosef prove his
point from the fact that the first sighting always combines with the two
subsequent sightings to obligate a Korban? Perhaps that is only in a case
when the first sighting was seen at a time of Chiyuv, but not when it was
seen at a time of P'tur (like it is here)?
1. ... once on the eighth night and twice in the day - he brings two
(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).
2. ... twice in the night and once in the day - he brings one 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.
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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).