Chagigah 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

But

this works well according to the one who says: The second Pesaḥ

is—

a completion of the first,

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:

Pesaḥ

Second—

is an independent festival,

and is not a completion of the first, we have not found in the case of Pesaḥ any completion for ritual impurity; according to him,

what can be said?!

Rather, he said:

the one who resolves the difficulty,

Rav Pappa:

Rabbi Yoḥanan is of the opinion that night is not

considered

“a lack of time”.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said that an impure person completes his offering only when he became impure in the middle of the night, since a portion of the night that was fit for the offering had already passed, as he said: “He became impure at night.” For once the festival night arrived, the person was already considered obligated to bring the offering of the Festival peace-offering and the appearance-offering; it was only the night that prevented him from actually offering it, since offerings may be sacrificed only during the day. This is not like one whose time for the Festival offering had not yet arrived. [Rashi, Menaḥot 100a, at the end of the page].

But we still ask:

Did Rabbi Yoḥanan really say this,

that night is not considered “a lack of time”?

But Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

a. One who experiences a single discharge of zav is subject only to the law of an ordinary seminal emission; he immerses immediately and becomes pure at sunset.

b. One who experiences two discharges counts seven clean days free of zav discharges, immerses on the seventh day, and becomes pure at sunset.

c. One who experiences three discharges counts seven clean days, immerses on the seventh day, becomes pure at sunset, and when the eighth day dawns, brings an offering.

d. If he experienced three discharges, counted seven clean days, immersed on the seventh day, and sunset passed for him, and he again became a zav at night, experiencing three distinct discharges on the night preceding the eighth day, all three occurring at night before the time arrived when a zav was fit to bring an offering, he counts again and becomes pure from his second period of zav impurity.

He brings only one offering for his two periods of zav impurity, because we regard the two periods as one period of zav impurity.

But if he became a zav from the morning of the eighth day onward, after the time fit for bringing an offering had already arrived, they are two periods of zav impurity.

Even if he had not yet brought the offering for the first period of zav impurity, he does not discharge his obligation for the second period with it; rather, he must bring a separate offering for the second period.

e. If, during the second period of zav impurity, he experienced one of the three discharges at night, on the night preceding the eighth day, before the time fit for bringing an offering had arrived—which is during the day—and then experienced two discharges during the day, the first discharge that he experienced at night is attributed to the second period of zav impurity. The nighttime discharge joins the two discharges of the eighth day to constitute a new period of zav impurity, obligating him to bring a separate offering.

And this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since offerings may be sacrificed only during the day, “the time fit for bringing an offering” applies only to the day.

Therefore, if he

experienced

a zav discharge

one at night,

on the night preceding the eighth day,

and two during the day,

since the two discharges of zav occurred after the time fit for bringing an offering had already arrived, the nighttime discharge joins them to constitute three discharges of a new period of zav impurity—and he

brings

a separate offering for his second period of zav impurity.

It is possible to join the first nighttime discharge to the two daytime discharges, even though the nighttime discharge occurred at a time fit for the first offering and not for the second, as we find with every first discharge of a zav: it has no status of zav impurity and is like an ordinary seminal emission, yet if he experiences another discharge after it, the first discharge joins the second to make him a zav.

But if he experienced

two

discharges

at night,

on the night preceding the eighth day, which is not a time fit for an offering, and he had already become a zav at night,

and

afterward experienced another discharge

during the day

of the eighth day—he

does not bring

an offering for the second period of zav impurity.

The reason is that since two of the three discharges that make him a zav occurred before the time fit for bringing an offering had arrived, and two discharges already have the status of a zav’s discharge at the time fit for the first offering, they belong to the first period of zav impurity.

There is therefore only one discharge of zav impurity on the eighth day, which is merely like an ordinary seminal emission.

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yoḥanan is of the opinion that night “is not a lack of time”,

it follows that from the beginning of the night of the eighth day he is considered as one who is “fit to bring an offering.” If so,

even

if he

experienced two

discharges

at night and one during the day,

Rabbi Yoḥanan should have said: He

brings

a separate offering for his second period of zav impurity, since all his discharges occurred after the time fit for bringing an offering.

And we answer:

When Rabbi Yoḥanan stated

his ruling concerning zav impurity, he said it

according to the view that “night is a lack of time”;

that is the view according to which he spoke.

But Rabbi Yoḥanan himself maintains that night is not a lack of time. Therefore, even if he experienced all of them at night, he brings a separate offering, and certainly if he experienced two at night and one during the day.

And we ask: But

according to the view

that night is a lack of time,

is this not obvious?!

That is to say: It would be understandable if Rabbi Yoḥanan were stating his own view, for he would thereby teach us that night is a lack of time. But if he said this only according to the view that night is a lack of time, what did Rabbi Yoḥanan teach us? And we answer: The case of one who experienced

two during the day

of the eighth day

and one at night

before it, on the night preceding the eighth day,

was necessary for him to teach.

The principal novelty of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is that even if he experienced the first discharge before the time fit for bringing an offering had arrived, he nevertheless brings a separate offering for his purification.

And this is novel because

it might enter your mind to say, as in the challenge [

the difficulty]

of Rav Shisha [

in Keritot the reading is “Sheshet”]

son of Rav Idi

against Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement—

He is of the opinion that since his first discharge occurred before the time fit for bringing an offering had arrived, it should be considered a continuation of the first period of zav impurity.

He teaches us

Rabbi Yoḥanan

in accordance with Rav Yosef,

who said: Just as we find with every zav who experiences three discharges, that the first discharge, although it does not have the status of zav impurity and is merely like an ordinary seminal emission, nevertheless subsequently joins two additional discharges of zav impurity to make him a zav with three discharges, so too here: although the first discharge occurred at night, before the time when he became liable to bring an offering, and at that time it was considered a continuation of the first period of zav impurity, nevertheless it subsequently joins the two discharges of the new period of zav impurity, and he is considered as one who experienced three discharges of a new period of zav impurity.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the Festival passed and he did not celebrate it, he is not liable for it. And concerning this it is stated: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is lacking cannot be counted.”

He said

the following difficulty

to Hillel, Bar Hei Hei:

How can it be said that the verse’s intent in the phrase “that which is lacking cannot be counted” is one who did not celebrate the Festival at its proper time?

This phrase “cannot be counted” [

could the verse have needed to say “counted”?]

Surely

“filled” should have been stated

to say that which is lacking cannot be filled, since the opposite of “lacking” is “fullness,” not “counting”!

Rather,

this is the explanation of “that which is lacking cannot be counted”:

This refers to one whose companions counted him among those performing a mitzva,

saying to him, “Come with us,”

but he did not join them!

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

It was taught likewise: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight”—this refers to one

who

failed to recite the morning Shema or the evening Shema.

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

“And that which is lacking cannot be counted”—this refers to one whose companions counted themselves among those performing a mitzva, but he did not join them.

He said

the following difficulty

to Hillel, Bar Hei Hei:

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

But

“the righteous” is identical with “one who serves God,

and

“the wicked” is identical with “one who has not served Him”?!

He said to him,

Hillel to Bar Hei Hei:

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

Rather, both

“served Him” and

both

“has not served Him”—

are completely righteous!

But one who reviews his chapter one hundred times

only, and is called “one who has not served Him,”

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

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

Bar Hei Hei said to him

to Hillel:

And

is it

because of a single time [

because he reviewed it only once less, he is not like one who serves God] that

he is called “one who has not served Him”?

Hillel said to him

to Bar Hei Hei:

Yes,

indeed this is 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 parasangs [

parasangs], they will be hired by you

for one zuz,

whereas to travel

eleven parasangs,

which is only one parasang more than ten, they will be hired by you

for two zuzim,

double the price of ten parasangs.

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 as silver; I have chosen you in the furnace of affliction”

[not through the fire of Gehenna, as silver is refined in fire; rather, I chose affliction for you—the furnace, the vessel in which one refines metal—in order to refine you through it].

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

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

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

Poverty suits the Jews like a red strap [Tosafot] on a white horse, for it is manifest and known before the Holy One, blessed be He, that when they acquire great wealth, they rebel against Him. As it is stated: “Jeshurun grew fat and kicked.” [Rabbeinu Ḥananel].

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: What is that which is crooked and cannot be made straight? It is one who has relations with a forbidden relative and fathered a mamzer through her.

And we infer:

If he fathered

a mamzer,

yes,

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

did not father

a child, but merely caused her to become forbidden to her husband,

no,

it is not said of him that he has no remedy.

But it was taught

otherwise:

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: If a person steals, it is possible for him to return what he stole and rectify his deed; if a person robs, it is possible for him to return what he robbed and rectify his deed. But one who has relations with a married woman and makes her forbidden to her husband—

is banished from the world and gone;

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

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: A person does not say

to his servants:

“Examine this camel

or

“Examine this pig

as a sacrifice, lest it have developed a blemish and become unfit. Since these animals are unfit for an offering from the outset, the meaning is that one who is crooked and defective from the outset is not “that which is crooked” that cannot be made straight.

Rather,

this is what he says:

“Examine the lamb!”

Since the lamb is fit for an offering, one should examine it to see whether it has developed a blemish and become unfit.

That is to say: Crookedness and defect apply only to one who was good from the outset and then became defective.

And what is

the “crooked” thing that cannot be made straight?

It is a Torah scholar who has separated himself from Torah.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: Concerning every Torah scholar who has separated himself 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 thus learned that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, even if he merely made her forbidden to her husband and did not father a mamzer through her, 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 through her he has a remedy—the case is

of

one who had relations with

his sister,

who is indeed a forbidden relative to him, but is

unmarried,

so his relations with her do not make her forbidden to anyone.

Here—where we said that even if he did not father a child through her he has no remedy—the case is

of

one who had relations with

a married woman,

who thereby becomes forbidden to her husband.

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

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