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 Succos - up to and including Shemini Atzeres.

(b)According to the Tana Kama, the Pasuk in Koheles "Me'uvas Lo Yuchal li'Sekon, v'Chesaron Lo Yuchal l'Himanos" refers to someone who failed to bring his Chagigah after the final date.

(c)According to Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya - "v'Chesaron Lo Yuchal l'Himanos" refers to someone who committed incest with a forbidden woman, who bore him a son. It cannot refer to a Ganav and to a Gazlan - who are always able to pay back what they stole.

2)

(a)Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai infers from the word "li'Sekon"- that the Torah must be referring to someone who was previously without sin, in which case it must be speaking about a Talmid-Chacham who stopped learning Torah.

(b)Consequently, the phrase can only be speaking about a Talmid-Chacham who goes astray, in his opinion.

3)

(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 Succos (just like the seventh day of Pesach for the first day of Pesach).

(b)This 'Gezeirah-Shavah' must be Mufneh (superfluous), the Gemara explains, because otherwise, we could query it. The principle is - that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufneh (meaning that the word is superfluous) from both sides is final and cannot be queried. Otherwise, even if only one of the words is needed for another Derashah, the Gezeirah-Shavah is acceptable, but the Chachamim have the authority to query it.

(c)In our case, if either word was 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 an independent Yom Tov.

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

4)

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

1. ... "v'Chagosem Oso Chag la'Hashem" - that the obligation of Chagigah is confined to the first day of Succos 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) on which 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 Tishrei.

(c)We have already learned that, Rebbi Yochanan considers all the days of Yom Tov Tashlumin for the first day, whilst Rebbi Oshaya, considers each day a new Chiyuv for someone who did not yet bring his Chagigah Consequently - according to R. 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.

5)

(a)The Mishnah in Nazir rules that a Nazir can sometimes bring one Korban for many Tum'os. This is possible in a case where - 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 eighth night, then according to Chizkiyah, he brings only one Korban, - because (although the eighth day has arrived) he cannot bring his Korban at night-time.

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

6)

(a)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) - Rebbi Yirmeyahu suggests 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 Sheni (where one is Chayav to bring Pesach Sheni, despite the fact that at the time of the original Chiyuv, he was not a bar Chiyuva).

(b)We refute Rebbi Yirmeyahu's answer however - due to the opinion that ascribes to Pesach Sheni the status of an independent Yom Tov (for the benefit of anyone who did not bring Pesach Rishon, and not that of Tashlumin).

(c)Rav Papa resolves the problem by explaining that Rebbi Yochanan obligates a Nazir who became Tamei a second Korban on the night of the eighth - because the fact that he cannot bring a Korban does not detract from the fact that it is the eighth day. Consequently, night-time is not considered 'Mechusar Zman'.

7)

(a)We query Rav Papa's answer from another statement of Rebbi Yochanan (in Menachos), where he 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)Rav Yosef reconciles this with our previous conclusion (that Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Laylah Eino Mechusar Zman') - by establishing his statement in Menachos according to those who hold 'Laylah Mechusar Zman' (even though he himself does not concur with them).

(d)Rebbi Yochanan himself will therefore 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)The problem with establishing Rebbi Yochanan in Menachos like the opinion of those who hold 'Laylah Mechusar Zman is - that his entire statement is then superfluous (since it is obvious that that is how that opinion holds).

(b)We answer that Rebbi Yochanan needs to issue his former ruling ('Achas ba'Laylah u'Shtayim ba'Yom') to uphold Rav Yosef's explanation, and to preclude Rav Shisha Brei d'Rav Idi's Kashya - as to how Rav Yosef (whom we just cited) can 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 Petur (like it is here).

(c)Rav Yosef answers like we explained in 6b.

9)

(a)bar Hey Hey's problem with the Tana Kama's interpretation of "v'Chisaron Lo Yuchal l'Himanos" (in the context of someone who failed to bring his Chagigah in its right time) is - that the Pasuk should then have written (not "Lo Yuchal l'Himanos", but) "Lo Yuchal l'Himal'os"!

(b)He therefore explains - that the Pasuk pertains to someone whose friends invited him to join their group to perform a Mitzvah ("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'Sekon" - 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).

10)

(a)Malachi seemingly repeats himself, when he first differentiates between a Tzadik and a Rasha, and then between someone who serves Hash-m and someone who does not. bar Hey Hey explained to Hillel - that 'both someone who serves Hash-m 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 v'Lo b'Chesef, Bechartich b'Kur Oni" - to mean that Hash-m could not find a better quality to give Yisrael than poverty (because it makes them humble and brings them closer to Hash-m, 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'.

11)

(a)We reconcile Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah in the Beraisa, who establishes "Me'uvas Lo Yuchal li'Sekon" by someone who commits adultery with a married woman (irrespective of whether they have children or not), with his own opinion in our Mishnah, where he establishes the same Pasuk by someone who commits adultery and fathers a Mamzer - by establishing the former in the case of a married woman (whom he causes irreversible damage by separating her from her husband, to whom she has become permanently forbidden), and the latter in a case of incest, where the damage only becomes irreversible when they have a baby.

(b)We learned in our Mishnah that, according to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, "Me'uvas Lo Yuchal li'Sekon" refers to a Talmid-Chacham who forsook his learning. He illustrates this by adding 'Ein Omer "Bakru Gamal, Bakru Chazir!", Ela "Bakru Tleh!" - 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).

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

12)

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

(b)On the other hand, 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'Sekon" - if the Tana is speaking about someone who raped the wife of a Kohen, who is forbidden to her husband in any case.

13)

(a)We have three ways of explaining the Pasuk in Zecharyah "ul'Yotzei ul'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).