לא שנו אלא שלא גמר אבל גמר חוזר ומקריב
They taught that one may sacrifice the Festival peace-offering on the first Festival day but not on all seven days, as recorded in the baraita on this amud below, only in a case where he did not finish. However, if he finished, he may go back and sacrifice.
מאי גמר אילימא גמר קרבנותיו מאי מקריב אלא שלא גמר היום אבל גמר היום חוזר ומקריב:
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: Finish, in this context? If we say it means that he finished sacrificing all of his offerings, what is he going back to sacrifice? Rather, it means that if the day did not end and he still has offerings left over, he may not return to sacrifice those on other Festival days. However, if the day ended and he had not finished sacrificing his offerings, he may go back and sacrifice them. This shows that Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes that in these circumstances it is permitted to sacrifice Festival peace-offerings during the remaining days of the Festival.
מתני׳ מי שלא חג ביו"ט הראשון של חג חוגג את כל הרגל ויו"ט האחרון של חג
MISHNA: With regard to one who did not celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, he may celebrate and bring it during the entire remaining days of the pilgrimage Festival, and even on the final day of the Festival, i.e., on the Eighth Day of Assembly.
עבר הרגל ולא חג אינו חייב באחריותו על זה נאמר (קהלת א, טו) מעוות לא יוכל לתקון וחסרון לא יוכל להמנות
If the pilgrimage Festival passed and one did not celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering, he is not obligated to pay restitution for it. Even if he consecrated an animal for this purpose and it was lost, once the Festival is over he has no obligation to replace it, as he has missed the opportunity for performing this mitzva. And about this it is stated: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered” (Ecclesiastes 1:15).
ר' שמעון בן מנסייא אומר איזהו מעוות שאינו יכול להתקן זה הבא על הערוה והוליד ממנה ממזר א"ת בגונב וגוזל יכול הוא להחזירו ויתקן
Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Who is the crooked that cannot be made straight? This verse is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. This individual is unable to rectify his sin, because the status of the illegitimate child is permanent. And if you say that it is referring to one who steals or robs, although he is crooked he can return what he stole and in this manner his sin will be rectified.
ר"ש בן יוחי אומר אין קורין מעוות אלא למי שהיה מתוקן בתחילה ונתעוות ואיזה זה תלמיד חכם הפורש מן התורה:
Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One calls crooked only someone who was initially straight and subsequently became crooked. And who is this? This is a Torah scholar who leaves his Torah study. Here is an example of something straight that became crooked.
גמ׳ מנהני מילי אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל נאמר עצרת בשביעי של פסח ונאמר עצרת בשמיני של חג מה להלן לתשלומין אף כאן לתשלומין
GEMARA: The mishna taught that if one did not bring his Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, he may bring it even on the Eighth Day of Assembly, despite the fact that it is a separate Festival. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy. It is stated: “Assembly” (Deuteronomy 16:8), with regard to the seventh day of Passover, and it is stated: “Assembly” (Leviticus 23:36), with regard to the eighth day of the festival of Sukkot. Just as there, with regard to Passover, the day of assembly, i.e., the seventh day of Passover, is available for redress, as it is certainly part of the Festival, so too here, in the case of Sukkot, the Eighth Day of Assembly is available for redress.
מופנה דאי לאו מופנה איכא למיפרך מה לשביעי של פסח שכן אינו חלוק משלפניו תאמר בשמיני של חג שחלוק משלפניו
The Gemara adds that the term assembly in each of these contexts is free for this verbal analogy, i.e., it is superfluous in both contexts. As, if it is not free the verbal analogy can be refuted, because each context in which the term appears contains features that do not apply to the other one. What can one say about the seventh day of Passover? That it is not distinct from the days preceding it with regard to the Festival offerings and the prohibition against eating leavened bread. Can you say the same with regard to the eighth day of the festival of Sukkot, which is distinct from the days preceding it, i.e., that the Eighth Day of Assembly does not involve the same mitzvot as the festival of Sukkot?
לאיי אפנויי מופנה מכדי מאי עצרת עצור בעשיית מלאכה הכתיב (דברים טז, ח) לא תעשה מלאכה עצרת דכתב רחמנא למה לי אלא שמע מינה לאפנויי
However, this is not so [la’ei], as the term assembly is certainly free. Now, what is the meaning of: “assembly [atzeret]”? It means that one is stopped [atzur], i.e., prohibited, from performing labor. But isn’t it already written: “You shall not perform labor” (Deuteronomy 16:8)? Why then do I need this term atzeret that the Merciful One writes? Rather, learn from here that it is free for the verbal analogy.
ותנא מייתי לה מהכא דתניא (ויקרא כג, מא) וחגותם אותו חג לה' שבעת ימים יכול יהא חוגג והולך כל שבעה ת"ל אותו אותו אתה חוגג ואי אתה חוגג כל שבעה אם כן למה נאמר שבעה לתשלומין
The Gemara comments: And a tanna cites proof from here, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to a verse that deals with the festival of Sukkot: “And you shall keep it a feast to the Lord seven days” (Leviticus 23:41). One might have thought that one may continue to celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering all seven days of the Festival. Therefore, the verse states: “It,” which teaches: It, i.e., the first day of the Festival, you shall celebrate with these offerings, and you may not celebrate all seven days. If so, why is “seven” stated? For redress, i.e., if one failed to bring an offering on the first day he may do so all seven days.
ומנין שאם לא חג יו"ט הראשון של חג שחוגג והולך את כל הרגל ויום טוב האחרון ת"ל (ויקרא כג, מא) בחדש השביעי תחגו אותו אי בחדש השביעי יכול יהא חוגג והולך החדש כולו ת"ל אותו אותו אתה חוגג ואי אתה חוגג חוצה לו
And from where is it derived that if one did not celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot that he may continue to celebrate throughout the pilgrimage Festival and even on the last festival day of Sukkot, which is the Eighth Day of Assembly? The verse states: “You shall keep it in the seventh month” (Leviticus 23:41), which indicates that one may bring the Festival offerings even after the seven days of the Festival. If the verse said only: “In the seventh month,” one might have thought that one may continue to celebrate by bringing the offering at any time during the rest of the entire month. Therefore, the verse states: “It,” indicating that you celebrate it, i.e., any of the Festival days, and you may not celebrate outside of these days.
ומאי תשלומין ר' יוחנן אמר תשלומין לראשון ור' אושעיא אמר תשלומין זה לזה
§ The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the concept of redress mentioned in the baraita? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The other days are redress for the first day. If one did not bring the Festival offering on the first day, he may still do so on the remaining days of the Festival. And Rabbi Oshaya said: The days are redress for one another. Each day can be considered the main day of obligation, i.e., if one did not bring the offering on the first available day he may do so on the remaining days.
מאי בינייהו א"ר זירא חיגר ביום ראשון ונתפשט ביום שני איכא בינייהו רבי יוחנן אמר תשלומין לראשון כיון דלא חזי בראשון לא חזי בשני ור' אושעיא אמר תשלומין זה לזה אע"ג דלא חזי בראשון חזי בשני
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? Rabbi Zeira said: The practical difference between them is in a case of one who was lame on the first day of the Festival and was healed on the second day. Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the other days are redress for the first day; since he was not fit, i.e., was not qualified to sacrifice his offerings on the first day, he is not fit to do so even on the second, as the second day is redress for the first. The second day is not for those who were completely exempt on the first, but for those who were obligated to sacrifice but neglected to do so. And Rabbi Oshaya said that the days are redress for one another. Consequently, even though he was not fit to bring the offering on the first day, he is fit to do so on the second. Since a separate obligation applies on each day, even if one was unfit to bring the offering on the first day he must do so when he becomes fit.
ומי א"ר יוחנן הכי
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? Rabbi Yoḥanan was involved in a dispute with regard to a nazirite. A nazirite who becomes ritually impure as a result of contact with a corpse must undergo a seven-day process of ritual purification, after which he must bring a set of offerings and restart counting the days of his nazirite period. Usually, a nazirite may bring one set of offerings even for many occurrences of ritual impurity. However, if he came into contact with a corpse for a second time on the eighth day after he first became ritually impure he must bring two sets of offerings, as the second impurity occurred at a time when he could have begun counting the days of his nazirite vow again. The amora’im dispute the details of this halakha.
והאמר חזקיה נטמא ביום מביא בלילה אינו מביא
The Gemara continues. Didn’t Ḥizkiya say that if a nazirite became ritually impure on the eighth day itself, he brings a second set of offerings? However, if he became ritually impure on the previous night he does not bring an additional set of offerings, because he could not have brought the offering at night. Although seven complete days have passed, as he did not yet have the opportunity to bring the offering, it is as though his seven days were not yet complete. Consequently, he may still bring one set of offerings for the two instances of ritual impurity.
ורבי יוחנן אמר אף בלילה נמי מביא
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if the nazirite became ritually impure on the night on which the eighth day begins, he also brings a second set of offerings. Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that this nazirite is effectively ready to begin counting the days of his vow again, as only the technicality that one may not bring offerings at night prevents him from doing so. This shows that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, even when one is incapable of sacrificing his offerings, his obligation remains intact. So too, in the case of a lame person, his obligation to bring the Festival offering applies in theory even on the first day, which means that he should be able to bring the offerings at a later date during the Festival.
א"ר ירמיה שאני טומאה דיש לה תשלומין בפסח שני
Rabbi Yirmeya said: The case of one who cannot bring an offering due to ritual impurity is different. He is not completely disqualified, as there is redress for ritual purity. This can be demonstrated from the halakha of the second Pesaḥ. Just as one who is ritually impure and may not sacrifice the Paschal offering has the opportunity to redress the situation by means of the second Pesaḥ, so too, anyone who cannot bring an offering due to impurity may redress this at a later date.
מתקיף לה רב פפא הניחא למאן דאמר פסח
Rav Pappa strongly objects to this reasoning: This works out well according to the one who said that the second Pesaḥ