Explanation: His shame is more evident, for the Mamzer is always seen, but other Aveiros, e.g. a murderer or robber, his "witnesses" [of his Aveirah] are not in front of him.

Citation (Yerushalmi - R. Yochanan citing R. Yishmael): It says Chamishah Asar regarding Pesach, and Chamishah Asar regarding Sukos;

Citation (cont.): Just like there, Yom Tov Acharon is Tashlumin for [Yom Tov] Rishon, also here, Yom Tov Acharon is Tashlumin for Rishon.

Observation: Against this, we cannot ask like the Bavli asked, for it is an absolute Gezeirah Shavah, like we learn from it in Sukah (27a).

Citation (cont. - Yehudah bar Safra citing R. Oshaya) Question: "V'Chagosem Oso Chag la'Shem Shivas Yamim" - is it only seven days?! It is eight days!

Citation (cont.) Answer (Yehudah): Rather, we exclude Shabbos, so there are seven days [to offer Chagigah].

Citation (cont. - R. Yosi) Question #1: Is this the source that Chagigah is not Docheh Shabbos?! We learn from elsewhere!

Citation (cont. - R. Yochanan the brother of Rav Safra) Question #2 (Beraisa): The same applies to Pesach;

Citation (cont.): When we exclude Shabbos [from Pesach], there are [only] six days [to offer Chagigah]! (Rashash - this is a Beraisa in Mechilta. A second verse regarding Sukos says "Shivas Yamim Tachog. It is not needed for Sukos", so we apply it to Pesach. We cannot say that it excludes Shabbos!)

Citation (cont.) Question #3: Reason for yourself! If Yom Tov Rishon and Acharon [of Sukos] were on Shabbos, we exclude these two days, and there are six [left]!

Citation (cont. - Yehudah bar Safra citing R. Oshaya): "V'Chagosem Oso Chag la'Shem Shivas Yamim" excludes Shabbos, for we already learned that Chagigah does not override Shabbos;

Citation (cont.) Rhetorical question: Why does it say "Techaguhu"? This includes Yom Tov Acharon for Tashlumin for the Rishon. (Rashash - in this version, we do not learn Tashlumin on Yom Tov Acharon from Shivas Yamim, only from Techaguhu.)

Observation: All of these Drashos are not here, but in Pesachim (70b) it brings the Drashah of Yehudah Safra, and challenges it from the case when Yom Tov Rishon and Acharon are on Shabbos.

Assertion: Below (17a) we learn seven days Tashlumin for Shavuos from Pesach. There, it is unreasonable to say that they are Tashlumin for each day, since [after the first day] it is totally Chol.

Question: If one was healthy on the first day and lame on the second day, do we say that once he was obligated on the first day, his Chiyuv does not leave, even though now he is not proper [for Re'iyah]?

Or, perhaps since they are Tashlumin for each other according to R. Oshaya, he is not obligated.

Distinction: However, if he became Tamei [on the second day], since now he is not obligated, he cannot bring;

Since he may not enter [the Mikdash], he has no Mitzvah to bring [a Korban].

Explanation: This refers to a Nazir who became Tamei;

We find that Rebbi and R. Yosi bar Yehudah (Nazir 18a) argue only about one who became Tamei on the eighth day, for there already was a time when he was able to bring the Korban;

However, on the eighth night, which was not proper to bring the Korban, no (all agree that he does not bring another Korban).

Implied question: Why did R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah discuss one who became Tamei on the seventh day? (This implies that if he became Tamei on the eighth night, he would be liable another Korban!)

Answer: He did not mention it due to bringing Korbanos, rather, because he considers it like several Tum'os when he became Tamei on the seventh day [each time, for he holds that Nezirus Taharah starts on day seven].

Question (my Rebbi): If R. Yochanan holds that one who became Tamei on the first day and is proper [to offer] on the second day, brings Chagigah...

If so, we should say at the beginning of our Maseches [that everyone is obligated in Chagigah] includes one who was Tamei on the first day, and became Tahor on the second day!

Answer: Indeed, we could have said so. However, since according to Rav Papa below we could not say so, we gave an explanation that both can agree to.

Explanation: R. Noson holds like this. The one who holds that it is an independent Regel is Rebbi.

Implied question: Why does [Rav Papa] challenge [R. Yirmeyah's defense of R. Yochanan]? A Tana supports him!

Answer: He properly challenges him. Presumably, he (R. Yochanan) does not argue with Rebbi there, for we hold like Rebbi against one of his colleagues;

However, it is unreasonable to answer [that Rav Papa challenges him] because he wants to establish R. Yochanan like all opinions.

Explanation #1: This is like the opinion that Tefilas Arvis is obligatory.

Assertion: Even according to the opinion that it is Reshus, one should not be Mevatel it if not due to [at least] a small Ones.

Support #1 - Citation (Berachos 26a): If one erred and did not pray Ma'ariv, he prays Shacharis twice.

Note: In our text, R. Yochanan said so, and he holds that Ma'ariv is Chovah! Below, in Support #2, Tosfos says "he did not distinguish at all between the opinions that Ma'ariv is Reshus or Chovah." It seems that this refers also to Support #1. However, why did Tosfos wait until below to say that he did not distinguish? Support #2 cites Rav's opinion, and Rav holds that Ma'ariv is Reshus!

Support #2 - Citation (Berachos 30b): If one forgot to mention Rosh Chodesh in Ma'ariv, he need not repeat [Shemoneh Esre], since we are not Mekadesh the month at night.

Inference: If we were Mekadesh at night, he would repeat [Shemoneh Esre].

He did not distinguish at all between the opinions that Ma'ariv is Reshus or Chovah. This implies that no one argues about this.

Implied question #1 - Citation (Shabbos 9b): If one already untied his belt, we do not burden him [to gird himself again to pray].

Implied question #2 - Citation (Yerushalmi): If one ascended onto his bed, he need not descend [to pray].

Answer: These are considered a small Ones.

Observation: These [two sources] refute Bahag.

Explanation #2 (Bahag): Even according to the opinion that Ma'ariv is Reshus, if he accepted it like a Chovah upon himself, it is like a Chovah. (All hold that omitting Ma'ariv is "crooked that cannot be fixed" in such a case.)

Rejection: Surely, we discuss [in Shabbos and the Yerushalmi, even] if he prayed on other nights [and accepted it like a Chovah. Even so, he need not exert himself to pray!]

Possibility: Perhaps Bahag means that he accepted it like a Chovah on that night (i.e. he prayed that night. Bahag teaches that he made it a Chovah, and if for some reason he was not Yotzei, he must pray again.)

This could explain one who erred and did not mention Rosh Chodesh at night. (He need not pray again only because we are not Mekadesh at night.)

Reference: In Berachos I elaborated, and I brought the Sugya in Yoma (87b) about Tefilas Ne'ilah exempts Ma'ariv.

Explanation: Some say that Bar Hei Hei was a convert. [His name alludes to] a son of Avraham and Sarah, who had the letter Hei added their names.

The same applies to [Ben] Bag Bag, whenever he appears in the Gemara. The Gematriya [of "Bag"] is like Hei (five).

Explanation: This is a strap. This is like "initially it was [called] hide, and now it is [called] straps (Bava Kama 66b).

It says in Bereishis Rabah "poverty befits a daughter of Yakov like red straps on a white house."

Explanation: The words connote that it is clear that there is a Mamzer from Chayavei Kerisos, since he mentioned a sister more than other Arayos [for which there is Misas Beis Din];

This is like Shimon ha'Teimani (Kidushin 68b).