Chagigah 9b — the Talmud in English

But behold,

this works well according to the one who says: the second Pesach ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

second—

is the compensation for the first, then you say well: ritual impurity is different, since it has compensation through the second Pesach.

you are correct in saying: The case of ritual impurity is different, since there is a completion for it through the Second Pesaḥ.

But according to the one who says:

the

second

is a festival in its own right,

and it is not compensation for the first, it follows that we have not found in Pesach compensation for ritual impurity; and according to him,

what can be said?!

Rather, said

one who resolves the difficulty,

Rav Pappa:

He holds that Rabbi Yohanan: the night is not

considered

“lacking its time”.

Rabbi Yohanan did not say that the impure person makes up the obligation except when he became impure in the middle of the night, since an hour of the night suitable for the offering has passed, as he said: “He became impure at night”! For once the festival night arrived, the person was already called “obligated in the offering” of Hagiga and appearance, except that the night prevents him from actually offering it, because offerings are offered only during the day; and this is not like one whose time of obligation for the Hagiga had not yet arrived. [Rashi, Menahot 100a, at the end of the page].

But we still wonder:

Did Rabbi Yohanan say this, that the night is not considered “lacking its time”?!

And did Rabbi Yohanan not say:

A person who sees one sight of gonorrhea:

it is only subject to the law of an ordinary seminal emission, and he immerses immediately and becomes pure at sunset.

A person who sees two sightings: he counts seven clean days from gonorrhea, and on the seventh day he immerses and becomes pure at sunset.

A person who sees three sightings: he counts seven clean days, immerses on the seventh day, and becomes pure at sunset; and when the eighth day dawns, he brings an offering.

A person who saw three sightings, counted seven clean days, immersed on the seventh day and had his sunset, and again became a zav at night, seeing, at the beginning of the eighth day, three separate sightings, all three sightings being at night, before the time suitable for bringing the offering of a zav arrived: he counts again and becomes pure from his second gonorrhea.

But he brings only one offering for his two gonorrheas, because we regard his two gonorrheas as one gonorrhea.

But if he became a zav from the beginning of the eighth day in the morning, after he had already reached the hour suitable for bringing an offering—there are two gonorrheas.

And even if he had not yet brought the offering for the first gonorrhea, he does not thereby discharge his obligation for the second gonorrhea; rather, he is obligated to bring a separate offering for his second gonorrhea.

And if he saw one of the three sightings of the second gonorrhea at night, at the beginning of the eighth day, before he reached the time suitable for bringing an offering [which is during the day], and saw two sightings afterward during the day—the first sighting that he saw at night is assigned to the second gonorrhea, for the sighting at night joins the two sightings during the eighth day to form a new gonorrhea, which obligates him in a separate offering.

And thus Rabbi Yohanan said: Since offerings are offered only during the day, the “time suitable for bringing an offering” is called so only during the day.

Therefore, if he

saw

a sight of gonorrhea

one at night,

at the beginning of the eighth day,

and two during the day,

since the two sightings of gonorrhea were already after the time suitable for bringing an offering had passed, the sighting at night joins them to form three sightings of a new gonorrhea—and behold, he

brings

a separate offering for his second gonorrhea.

And it is possible to join the first sighting at night to the two sightings during the day, despite the fact that the sighting at night occurred at the time suitable for the first offering and not for the second, as we find with every first sighting of a zav, which has no status of gonorrhea at all and is like an ordinary seminal emission; nevertheless, if he sees another gonorrhea after it, the first sighting joins the second sighting to make him a zav.

But if he saw

two

sightings

at night,

at the beginning of the eighth day, which is not a time suitable for an offering, and he had already become a zav at night,

and

afterward saw another sight

one during the day

of the eighth day—behold, he

does not bring

an offering for the second gonorrhea.

And the reason for this is that since two of the three sightings that make him a zav were before the time suitable for bringing an offering had passed, and two sightings are already considered a sighting of a zav at the time suitable for the offering of the first gonorrhea, they belong to the first gonorrhea.

And here there is only one sighting of gonorrhea during the eighth day, which is merely like an ordinary seminal emission.

And if it should enter your mind that Rabbi Yohanan holds: the night “is not lacking its time”,

it follows that from the beginning of the night of the eighth day he is considered one who is “fit for an offering.” And if so,

even

if he saw

two

sightings

at night and one during the day,

Rabbi Yohanan should have said: he

brings

a separate offering for his second gonorrhea, since all his sightings were after the time suitable for an offering.

And we answer:

When Rabbi Yohanan stated

his ruling concerning gonorrhea—he stated it

according to the words of the one who says, “the night is lacking its time”

.

But Rabbi Yohanan himself holds that the night is not lacking its time; therefore, even if he saw all of them at night, he brings a separate offering, and all the more so when he saw two at night and one during the day.

And we wonder: But

according to the words of the one who says

that the night is lacking its time,

is it not obvious?!

That is to say: this is satisfactory if Rabbi Yohanan stated his own view, for he thereby taught us that the night is lacking its time. But if he said this only according to the one who says that the night is lacking its time, then what did Rabbi Yohanan teach us? And we answer: one who saw

two during the day

of the eighth day

and one at night

before it, at the beginning of the eighth day,

was necessary for him.

The principal novelty of Rabbi Yohanan is that even if he saw the first sight before he reached the time suitable for bringing an offering, he nevertheless brings a separate offering for his purification.

And it is a novelty, because

it might enter your mind to say, as the challenge

[as his difficulty]

of Rav Shisha

[in Keritot we read “Sheshet”]

son of Rav Idi

against the words of Rabbi Yohanan—

for he holds that since his first sight was before he reached the time suitable for bringing an offering, it should be judged as a continuation of the first gonorrhea.

He teaches us

Rabbi Yohanan

in accordance with Rav Yosef,

who said: Just as we find with every zav who has three sightings, that the first sighting, although it has no status of gonorrhea and is merely an ordinary seminal emission, nevertheless afterward joins two additional sightings of gonorrhea in order to make him a zav with three sightings, so too here: although the first sighting was at night, before the time at which he became obligated in an offering, and at that time it was considered a continuation of the first gonorrhea, nevertheless afterward it joins the two sightings of the new gonorrhea, and he is like one who saw three sightings of a new gonorrhea.

We learned in the Mishna:

“The festival passed and he did not celebrate it; he is not liable for it. And concerning this it is said: ‘That which is crooked cannot be made straight’

‘and that which is lacking cannot be numbered’”:

He said

challenging

him, Bar Hei Hei, to Hillel:

How can it be said that the meaning of the verse, “and that which is lacking cannot be numbered,” concerns one who did not celebrate the festival at its proper time?

This “numbered”

[and should the verse have said “numbered”?]

For surely

“to be filled” would have been required

to say, since the opposite of “lacking” is “fullness,” and not “numbering”?!

Rather, this is the explanation of “and that which is lacking cannot be numbered”:

This is one whom his fellows counted for a matter of mitzva,

who said to him, “Come with us,”

and he was not counted with them!

He did not go; rather, he removed himself from that counting, and he can no longer be counted with them in order to fill the deficiency that he caused.

It was also taught likewise: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight,” this is one

who

negated the recitation of the morning Shema or the recitation of the evening Shema.

Or who negated the morning prayer or the evening prayer.

Or who failed to recite the morning prayer or the evening prayer.

“And that which is lacking cannot be numbered,” this is one whose fellows counted themselves for a matter of mitzva, and he was not counted with them.

He said

challenging

him, Bar Hei Hei, to Hillel:

What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall return and see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who did not serve Him”?

But

is not “the righteous” identical with “one who serves God”?!

And

is not “the wicked” identical with “one who did not serve Him”?!

He said to him,

Hillel to Bar Hei Hei:

It is not as you say, that only “one who serves God” is the righteous, whereas “one who did not serve Him” is wicked.

Rather: both

“served Him” and

both

“did not serve Him”—

both of them are completely righteous!

And one who reviews his chapter one hundred times

alone, and he is called “one who did not serve Him,”

is not comparable to one who reviews his chapter one hundred and one times,

and he is called “one who serves God,” because he served Him more.

Bar Hei Hei said to him,

Bar Hei Hei to Hillel:

A

re you saying that

because of one time

[only once, that he did not review as much as “one who serves God”]

he is called “one who did not serve Him”?!

He said to him,

Hillel to Bar Hei Hei:

Yes,

that is indeed so!

For

go and learn from the market of donkey-drivers,

who are hired together with their donkeys: if you hire them to travel

ten parsaot

[parsaot], they will be hired for you

for one zuza,

whereas to travel

eleven parsaot

which is only one parsa more than ten, they will be hired for you

for two zuzot,

double the price of ten parsaot.

Elijah said to Bar Hei Hei, and some say to Rabbi Elazar: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Behold, I have refined you”

[purified you]

“but not with silver; I have chosen you in the furnace of poverty”

[not through the fire of Gehinnom, like a refiner refining silver in fire; rather, I chose poverty for you as a furnace—a vessel in which one refines—in order to refine you through it].

This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, reviewed all good qualities to give to Israel, and found only poverty,

so that their hearts would be broken, their intention directed toward Heaven, and their eyes dependent upon His mercy and kindness [Rabbeinu Hananel].

Shmuel said, and some say Rav Yosef: This is what people say: Poverty is fitting for the Jews, like a red strap on a white mare.

Poverty is beautiful for the Jews, like a red strap [Tosafot] on a white horse, for it is revealed and known before the Holy One, blessed be He, that when they increase wealth, they kick. As it is said: “And Jeshurun grew fat and kicked” [Rabbeinu Hananel].

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: What is ‘that which is crooked cannot be made straight’? This is one who had relations with a forbidden woman and fathered a mamzer”:

And we infer:

“fathered”

a mamzer

yes,

indeed he has no remedy through repentance. But one who had relations with a married woman

and did not father,

but merely caused her to become forbidden to her husband,

no,

it was not said about him that he has no remedy.

But was it not taught

otherwise:

“Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: A person steals—he can perhaps return what he stole and make amends; a person robs—he can perhaps return what he robbed and make amends; but one who had relations with a married woman and made her forbidden to her husband”—

is driven from the world and has gone away,

he has no further repentance, because he did something for which there is no remedy.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: A person does not say

to his servants:

“Examine this camel

or

“Examine this pig

for an offering, lest a defect have fallen in it and it became spoiled, because these are not fit for an offering from the outset. That is to say: one who is crooked and spoiled from the outset is not “that which is crooked” that cannot be made straight.

Rather,

this is what he says:

“Examine the lamb!”

For the lamb is fit for an offering, and therefore it should be examined to see whether it has a defect and has become spoiled.

That is to say: crookedness and spoilage apply only to one who was good from the outset and became spoiled.

And what is

the “crooked” that cannot be made straight?

This is a Torah scholar who separated from Torah.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: Concerning every Torah scholar who separated from Torah, the verse says: “As a bird wandering from its nest, so is a man wandering from his place.”

And it says: “What wrong did your fathers find in Me, that they went far from Me?”

We have therefore learned that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, even if he merely made her forbidden to her husband and did not father a mamzer, he has no remedy through repentance.

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here—where we said that if he did not father a child from her, he has a remedy—it is speaking

of

one who had relations with

his sister,

who is indeed forbidden to him, but she is

unmarried,

so through his intercourse she does not become forbidden to anyone.

Here—where we said that even if he did not father a child from her, he has no remedy—it is speaking

of

one who had relations with

a married woman,

who becomes forbidden to her husband.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that concern a married woman, and it is not difficult:

Here—where they said that if he did not father a child from her, he has a remedy—