The Gemara Taanit Daf Kaf Zayin, a tractate dedicated by the Jamal brothers, Norman, Joseph, and Jacob, in memory of their grandparents Sally and Norman Jamal, may they rest in peace, and Vicky and Joseph Beyda, may they rest in peace. May the spirit of God grant them rest in Gan Eden. Amen. We begin today's page on Kaf Zayin Amud Rishon. We have some Tosafot that we didn't cover yesterday, so let's review our current position.
The first Tosafot stated, "I-ma mesharet baal mum lo, af mevarech baal mum lo." We are learning the laws of the priestly blessing, Birkat Kohanim. We derived a law from the concept of a "mesharet," one who serves. A mesharet is permitted to eat hartzanim, the pits and peels of grapes. From this, we learned that someone who performs the priestly blessing, Nesiyat Kapayim, is allowed to eat these items, just as a mesharet is. We then asked, if a mesharet cannot serve if he has a physical blemish (baal mum), then it should follow that someone with a blemish should not be able to perform Nesiyat Kapayim. This is the point Tosafot addresses. The explanation is, "since we are learning a gezerah shavah from mesharet, one who serves, we should say, just like a mesharet, a mesharet baal mum lo." That is, someone with a blemish cannot serve. "Af mevarech u-mesharet itchish le-nazir." The Gemara answers that we already have an established gezerah shavah from a Nazir. Just as a Nazir, even with a blemish, can obviously be a Nazir, so too, for Nesiyat Kapayim, a Kohen with a blemish can perform it. "From here we see that a baal mum can make Birkat Kohanim." "Mi-de-ka-hazinan de-ha-shatz rotzeh lilmod mevarech mi-mesharet ul-baal mum ve-dahinan leh, im ken nir-eh de-le-inyan Nesiyat Kapayim kohen baal mum noseh kapav." Here, Tosafot provides the halachic ruling (psak). "From here it can be proven that a Kohen who converted out of Judaism, and then returned through repentance, can perform Nesiyat Kapayim and is fit to be called to the Torah, as if he had not converted." The implication is that conversion is a blemish, similar to a physical blemish. The proof comes from the Kohanim who served in Beit Chonyo. These Kohanim, who served in Beit Chonyo (a temple built in Alexandria), were not permitted to serve in the Beit HaMikdash in Jerusalem. However, "they are allowed to take a share of the sacrifices (korbanot), like those with blemishes." They have the status of a baal mum, who is able to divide korbanot. "Mi-de-ka-amar she-hem ke-baalei mumim mashma de-chol avodah she-baal mum ra-uy laasot yaasu ve-kohen baal mum noseh kapav." As such, a Kohen from Beit Chonyo, even though blemished in a certain sense for having served there, can perform any service a baal mum can, and therefore should be able to perform Nesiyat Kapayim. This is akin to an avaryon (sinner). Unless it's a Kohen who committed specific priestly transgressions (Kohanim aveirot), why should we prevent a Kohen who committed one transgression from performing Birkat Kohanim, thereby causing him to commit another transgression? That is correct in that case.
The next Tosafot asks, "Why did you lean towards leniency?" The Gemara questioned why we made a comparison (hekkesh) towards leniency (le-kula). Instead of saying a baal mum is permissible, why not derive that a baal mum is forbidden (asur) from a mesharet, and also derive that grape pits and peels should be forbidden from a Nazir? Why not learn both ways towards stringency (le-chumra)? Instead, we learned both ways towards leniency: pits and peels are permissible (mutar) from a mesharet, and a baal mum is permissible from a Nazir. Why choose leniency? Tosafot now clarifies this. "Explanation: Why did you compare a Kohen to a Nazir to be lenient? And to say, just as a Nazir can have a blemish, so too a Kohen with a blemish is fit. And you compared to a mesharet to say, just as a mesharet is permitted with pits, so too a Kohen who blesses is permitted with pits. Why not compare to stringency?" The explanation continues: "And let us say, just as a Nazir is forbidden with pits, so too a Kohen is forbidden with pits. And just as a Kohen mesharet is forbidden with a blemish, so too a Kohen who blesses with a blemish is forbidden." The Gemara responds that it is an asmakhta (a scriptural support, not a primary derivation), and therefore we follow the lenient interpretation. That concludes yesterday's Tosafot.
Now we continue the Gemara: "These are the Ma'amadot." The Mishnah was somewhat abrupt, so the Gemara seeks to understand what the Mishnah was trying to teach us regarding the verse "Command the Children of Israel." Thus, we have the Ma'amadot. The Gemara explains: "This is what it means: These are the Ma'amadot. And what is the reason they instituted Ma'amadot?" This is the part the Gemara adds to the Mishnah. Why was this concept of Ma'amadot established? "Because it is stated: 'Command the Children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My food for My fire.'" This refers to the daily public sacrifice (korban tamid), which must be brought by the community (tzibur). "And how can a person's sacrifice be offered if he is not standing by it?" The early prophets (Nevi'im Rishonim), such as Shmuel HaNavi and David HaMelech, instituted twenty-four priestly watches (mishmarot). For each mishmar, there was a Ma'amad in Jerusalem. This Ma'amad, or Anshei Ma'amad (men of the Ma'amad), was composed of Kohanim, Levi'im, and Yisraelim. Their purpose was to represent their group by standing by the korban in Jerusalem. "When the time came for a mishmar to ascend," it was a rotation, so when a specific mishmar's turn arrived to go up to Jerusalem, "the Kohanim and Levi'im would go up to Jerusalem."
The Gemara then states: "Our Rabbis taught: There were twenty-four mishmarot in the Land of Israel, and twelve in Jericho." This sounds like a total of thirty-six. Twenty-four in the Land of Israel and an additional twelve in Jericho. "Twelve in Jericho?" The Gemara questions this, as it implies too many, given that the magic number is twenty-four. "Rather, twelve of them were in Jericho." This means twelve of the twenty-four mishmarot originated from Jericho. "When the time came for the mishmar to ascend," the rule was as follows: when it was a mishmar's turn to go up to Jerusalem, "half the mishmar would go up from the Land of Israel to Jerusalem, and half the mishmar would go up to Jericho." Or, perhaps, "to Jericho," which is close to Jerusalem. Why? This implies they would divide the mishmarot. Half would go up to Jerusalem, and the other half to Jericho. What were they doing in Jericho? "So that they would supply water and food for their brethren in Jerusalem." They were responsible for the logistical support for those in Jerusalem. So, it was not that there were twelve separate mishmarot in Jericho, but rather that the existing mishmarot were divided. Thus, it was as if twelve were in Jerusalem and twelve were in Jericho, because whenever a mishmar would be active, this opinion holds that they would split it.
Let's read the Rashi on the phrase "Our Rabbis taught." "Twenty-four mishmarot were in the Land of Israel, and twelve in Jericho." "Twelve in Jericho?" Incredulously, "because there were too many." "Rather, say: and twelve of them were in Jericho." "Initially, it implies that in addition to the twenty-four in the Land of Israel, there were twelve in Jericho." In the initial assumption (havah amina), it sounds like 24 plus 12, totaling thirty-six. "And 'twelve of them' implies that from those twenty-four, twelve were in Jericho." The Gemara answers: "This is how we learn it: When the time came for a mishmar, half the mishmar would go up to Jerusalem, and half the mishmar would go up to Jericho, so that they would supply water and food for their brethren in Jerusalem." "Meaning, how were there twelve in Jericho? When the time came for the mishmar to ascend to Jerusalem on Shabbat, the men of the mishmar would divide, half going to Jerusalem for the service, and half going to Jericho, which is close to Jerusalem, and there they would prepare water and food for their brethren. And all twenty-four mishmarot would do this. Thus, twelve would end up in Jericho." This means twelve would end up in Jericho because if you're dividing the mishmar, it's like a war—you need logistical people to ensure everyone gets food and supplies. They would be the "back office" in Jericho, handling the logistics.
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: "Kohanim, Levi'im, and Yisraelim are indispensable for the sacrifice." This means Kohanim, Levi'im, and Yisraelim are essential (me'akeiv) for the korban. What does it mean they are indispensable? Rashi explains: "If there is no Ma'amad from all of them in Jerusalem, as we learned, 'Each mishmar had a Ma'amad in Jerusalem.'" So, you need representation. You need representation from Kohanim, Levi'im, and Yisraelim. If one of these groups is not represented, it's not a valid korban. "Each mishmar had a Ma'amad in Jerusalem, composed of Kohanim, Levi'im, and Yisraelim. Since we require all of them to be owners, we need all of them to be present for the service." They must be represented. That is the first opinion of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel. The teaching of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states: "Kohanim, Levi'im, and musical instruments are indispensable." This means not only Kohanim, Levi'im, and Yisraelim are indispensable, but also musical instruments (kli shir) are indispensable for the korban. The first opinion did not mention kli shir. The first opinion only said you need Anshei Ma'amad to be standing there. The second opinion says you need Anshei Ma'amad plus kli shir. Rashi explains: "Kli shir are indispensable for it." This is discussed in Sukkah Nun Aleph, in the chapter "HaChalil," at the end of Tractate Sukkah, and is explained in Aruchim. The Gemara asks: "What is their dispute?" "One master holds that the essence of song is with the mouth, and the other master holds that the essence of song is with instruments." How do you fulfill this commandment (mitzvah) of song (shira)? The first opinion says the essence of shira is with the mouth (ikar shira bapeh). So, you don't necessarily need a Levi to do the singing; you just need a mouth. This is not the case if you hold that the essence of shira is with instruments (ikar shira bichli); then the instrument (kli) is a sacred vessel (kli shareit). A kli shareit can only be used by Levi'im. Therefore, you need Levi'im to perform the shira. That's how Tosafot understands it. The Tosafot at the bottom states: "One master holds the essence of song is with the mouth, and therefore all are fit, even disqualified individuals (pesulin), even mamzerim, to sing. Because it is only with the mouth. And the master who says the essence of song is with instruments, then it requires Kohanim or Levi'im, because the musical instrument was holy." The musical instrument (kli zemer) is a holy vessel (kli kadosh), and an ordinary person (stam guy) cannot hold a holy vessel. That's how Tosafot understands it.
Rav Chama bar Guria said in the name of Rav: "Moshe instituted eight mishmarot for Israel." Now we will learn the history of how the mishmarot began. In Moshe's time, there were obviously not many Kohanim. As the Kohanim expanded and grew, more mishmarot had to be added. In Moshe's time, there were only eight mishmarot. How were they divided? "Four from Elazar and four from Itamar." Nadav and Avihu had obviously died. The Gemara says: "Shmuel came." Shmuel HaNavi doubled them, making sixteen. "David came," as the Kohanim again grew, "and established them at twenty-four." So, it's eight, sixteen, twenty-four. That's the system. "As it is stated," by David, "In the fortieth year of David's reign, they were sought out and found among them mighty men of valor in Yaezer Gilad." This verse, in context, was referring to the institution of mishmarot. The Gemara challenges this (meitivei): "Moshe instituted eight mishmarot for Israel, four from Elazar and four from Itamar." That's fine. Moshe Rabbeinu made eight, as stated in the original statement. "David and Shmuel came, and established them at twenty-four." This sounds like both of them together went from eight to twenty-four. "As it is stated: 'They,' meaning David and these mishmarot, 'established David and Shmuel the Seer in their faithfulness.'" So, it sounds like it was an establishment by both David and Shmuel, the twenty-four. The Gemara says: "This is what it means: From the foundation of David and Shmuel HaRamati, they established them at twenty-four." Meaning, between David and Shmuel, they reached the twenty-four, each contributing respectively. Meaning, Shmuel brought it to sixteen, and then David brought it to twenty-four, so there is no contradiction. We were just saying that David and Shmuel ultimately brought the number to twenty-four. The Gemara then says: "From the foundation of Shmuel HaRamati, who established them at sixteen, David came and established them at twenty-four." That's all we need to know.
The Gemara then states: "It was taught in another Baraita: Moshe instituted sixteen mishmarot for Israel." Oh, now we have a different statement here. This opinion says that Moshe Rabbeinu actually established sixteen mishmarot. "Eight from Elazar and eight from Itamar." Eight and eight. "And when the sons of Elazar multiplied over the sons of Itamar," it seems that the sons of Elazar grew faster than Itamar, "they divided them and established them at twenty-four." Ultimately, they just divided Elazar into another eight mishmarot to reach twenty-four. "As it is stated," there were sixteen originally, and then they made another eight from Elazar. They doubled Elazar, exactly. "As it is stated: 'And the sons of Elazar were found to be many,' they found that they had increased. 'For the heads of the mighty men from the sons of Itamar, and they divided them for the sons of Elazar, heads for the house of their fathers, sixteen.'" So, they made them sixteen. "And for the sons of Itamar, for the house of their fathers, eight." And they remained at eight. "And it says," and another verse says: "One father's house was allotted to Elazar," which means one father's house (beit av echad), a one-to-two ratio for Elazar, "and one and one was allotted to Itamar." So, I guess it's a one-to-two ratio, as you're saying that for every one of Itamar, you had two of Elazar. Now, what do you need that for? We said in the first verse that there was eight and eight, and then you doubled Elazar to make it sixteen and eight. So, what is the second verse adding that you didn't know? The Gemara says: "What does 'and it says' mean? And lest you say, just as the sons of Elazar multiplied, so too the sons of Itamar multiplied." You would have thought that maybe both families grew. "From the beginning, there were four." And I would have thought that maybe initially it wasn't eight and eight from the mishmarot, maybe originally they were four and therefore, "come and hear: one father's house was allotted to Elazar, and one and one was allotted to Itamar," to come and tell me that the doubling was actually Elazar, Itamar was always eight from the beginning and stayed eight, and they doubled. We'll see Rashi now, I'll explain exactly what we just said. Read inside. Read "And they found." "The sons of Elazar were many for the heads of the mighty men, meaning the heads of the mighty men of the sons of Elazar were many more than Itamar." "And this 'and they found' implies that before this, they were fixed, and now they added to them." "And they found" implies they found now that they were more. Sounds like originally they were set, eight and eight, and since they found that they were more, they had to double them. "And now they added to them and divided them into sixteen. One father's house was allotted to Elazar, which was initially eight, one portion by lot, which was also eight, and they became sixteen." So, they doubled them, basically. They took one portion (achuz) and made it two portions (achuzim). Therefore, they went from eight to sixteen. Now the Gemara says: "And one and one was allotted to Itamar, what was initially allotted to Itamar, they remained allotted from the beginning." Very good, that's what "one and one was allotted to Itamar" means—they stayed. "One and one" means what they were, they were "one and one," they didn't change. They didn't double Itamar, but "one and one was allotted to Itamar" means whatever they were holding onto, that's what they held onto; they remained steady. They remained at their number eight. You see how Rashi is learning the verse? "That they did not add any father's house to them." Beautiful. So, they stayed stagnant, and the others doubled. So, what do you need that for? We know that already, sixteen to eight is he stayed stagnant and he doubled, so we know that from the first verse. "What does 'and it says' mean? And lest you say, initially there were four for Elazar and four for Itamar." Ah, that's the initial assumption (havah amina). The havah amina was, I would have thought that it wasn't eight and eight, I would have thought that ultimately it was four and four. And therefore, what would I have said? "And just as the sons of Elazar multiplied, so too the sons of Itamar multiplied." And I would say they both increased. "And yet, the sons of Elazar more so." And maybe I would just say that the sons of Elazar increased more than Itamar. So both got doubled, so therefore, exactly, so they both started at four and then you made Itamar eight and you made them sixteen. Maybe that's the way it worked and therefore it's double. So it says no, Itamar never changed, "one and one" whatever they were holding in the beginning, they were holding at the end. So therefore they must have been eight from the beginning and eight at the end, they never increased. The increase only was on Elazar's side. "For to Itamar, they only established them at eight, and to Elazar, at sixteen." Very good. "Come and hear: 'and one and one was allotted to Itamar,' implying that they remained as they were." Right, they stayed where they were. "And it implies from this." And it implies from this, here's the question. By the way, all this is to bring you to a question. What's the question here? Moshe Rabbeinu instituted sixteen mishmarot. And we said earlier that Moshe Rabbeinu instituted eight, four and four. So that's a question against the rabbi from a Baraita. That's what we're doing this. "And it implies from this that Moshe instituted sixteen for them, eight from this and eight from this." "And it is a difficulty for Rav Chama bar Guria." Now, with all due respect, Rav Chama cannot argue on a Baraita. This is a Baraita here. "And that which is written above, 'and in the fortieth year,' etc., refers to what they added to them until twenty-four, but Moshe instituted sixteen mishmarot for them." Okay, now let's go back to the question. The Gemara says: "It is a refutation of Rav Chama bar Guria." That bringing this down in a verse sounds like the number has to be stagnant. It doesn't mean like in this "one and one." But that's the stagnant on Itamar's side. Right. And it was. That it was, stayed eight. And Elazar, it says in the beginning of that verse it was doubled. One for two. If we're going forward now, let's say the third Beit HaMikdash, would we have more than twenty-four mishmarot? If there are more people? We see that that number is not, you know, it's not set. It's a number of necessity, it sounds like. There's no verse that says you have to have twenty-four. It sounds like you just have to divide the Kohanim up. It sounds like you just have to divide the Kohanim up equally. So he says here: "It is a refutation of Rav Chama bar Guria." I have a question against Rav Chama bar Guria because he says Moshe Rabbeinu originally established eight. "Rav Chama bar Guria said: It is a dispute of Tannaim." What do you want from me? It is a dispute of Tannaim (machlokes tannaim). "And I say according to this Tanna, who says eight." I follow the Tanna who says eight. There you go. "It is a dispute of Tannaim." "According to his reasoning, for there is a Tanna above who teaches that Moshe instituted eight mishmarot from both of them, and I say like him." Okay, so if it is a machlokes tannaim, exactly. This family never got mishmarot. He means Elazar and Itamar? He is Elazar, no? So Elazar. He is part of Elazar. He is part of whatever, you know, put them in the families.
The Gemara says: "Our Rabbis taught: Four mishmarot ascended from the exile." Now, when the Beit HaMikdash was rebuilt after the Babylonian exile (Galus Bavel), during the Second Temple era, not everyone wanted to return. Many people stayed in Babylon; they were comfortable. Even some Kohanim. So, only four out of the twenty-four families returned to serve. "And these are they: Yedayah, Charim, Pashchur, and Immer." Rashi explains: "They ascended from the exile in the Second Temple, and the rest did not ascend, for many from Israel remained and did not wish to ascend." "Pashchur and Immer, and it is difficult for me, for Pashchur is not written among the twenty-four mishmarot." Yes, he has a problem. Where is this Pashchur? He is not listed in the list. Where did he come from? So, Rashi is simply bothered that he cannot identify Pashchur. Nonetheless, we will see a Maharsha. "Charim, Pashchur, and Immer. The prophets among them stood up." Now, the prophets who were around at the time, turn to Amud Beis, "and divided them and established them at twenty-four." Now, they divided them into twenty-four, meaning they turned the four families into twenty-four families. They wanted to create a rotation similar to what they had in ancient times. Therefore, they reverted to the custom (minhag) of twenty-four. But from four families, so each one was divided into six. Each family became divided into six. How did they do that? "They mixed them." What does "bilelum" mean? They made a lottery. "And they put them in a ballot box." "Yedayah came," family number one, "and took his share and the share of his companions, six." So, he got six lottery picks. And therefore, he has six weeks. "Charim came and took his share and the share of his companions, six, and so did Pashchur, and so did Immer." That's it. Now you have twenty-four mishmarot, six each. "And so the prophets among them stipulated." Now they made an additional enactment (takkana). "That even if Yehoyariv, the head of the mishmarot, ascends." Now, let's say Yehoyariv, who was mishmar number one in the old list, decides to return, we will give him a chance. We are not going to penalize him by saying he cannot serve. "Yedayah will not be displaced from his position." Yedayah is still the first mishmar. This means that because he came back, you go after Yedayah. We are not saying, "Okay, you're back, Yedayah, we're putting you in number two and he's going to be number one." No. Positions remain. And we push back Yehoyariv. "Rather," yes, we will take away one, that is your question, yes, we will take away one of the families of Yedayah and we will give it to Yehoyariv, but we are not putting Yehoyariv first. We are putting him second. "Yedayah is primary, and Yehoyariv is secondary to him." That is the point. Secondary to him. And now you will see your question. Read Rashi, third line. Actually, second line. "They wrote on twenty-four pieces of parchment the names of the heads of the mishmarot that were divided from those four." Right. "Yedayah came," the mishmar of Yedayah. "One of them came and took his share and the share of five pieces of parchment, so they became six." Good. "And whoever came up first in his hand, that was for the first Shabbat, and so in order as they came up, one after another." Right. In the order that he picked it, that is the order that they went. "Thus they would serve on their Sabbaths, one after another." Beautiful. So you have Yedayah one, two, three, four, five, six. The guy who picked one goes one, two, three, four, five, six. That is the way they worked. "And so they stipulated that even if Yehoyariv, who was the head of the mishmarot in the First Temple, ascends from the exile, Yedayah will not be displaced." "Since Yehoyariv did not ascend initially, all the mishmarot made from Yedayah precede Yehoyariv in service." "And Yehoyariv comes and serves after them in place of another mishmar." "And the six of Yedayah make five of them." This is your question. "And the six of Yedayah make five of them from the four mishmarot." So this is to your point, Mark two. They didn't want to go past twenty-four at this point because that was the custom (minhag) they had until then. So what did they do? They took one from Yedayah, the sixth one let's say, and they gave it to Yehoyariv. So therefore they kept it at twenty-four, just that Yehoyariv would be the tail end of Yedayah. Now normally they should have put him first, but they didn't, because they penalized him (knas'd him), because he didn't come back.
The Gemara continues: "And they read Maaseh Bereishit." The Anshei Ma'amad would come to Jerusalem, or they would stay in their cities wherever they were, and they would have special prayer gatherings (minyanim). These minyanim were called the Anshei Ma'amad minyan. What would they do in this minyan? They would read from a Torah scroll (Sefer Torah). What part of the Torah would they read? "Maaseh Bereishit" (the account of Creation). "From where do we know these things?" Where do we know this concept that you read Maaseh Bereishit in a Ma'amad minyan? Obviously, it was not the weekly Torah portion of Bereishit. Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha said in the name of Rav Assi: "Were it not for the Ma'amadot, heaven and earth would not have endured." Amazing! If it wasn't for the Ma'amadot of the sacrifices (korbanot), the heaven and earth (shamayim va'aretz) would not exist. The world would not exist. "As it is stated: 'And the Lord God said'"—this is by Avraham Avinu at the Covenant of the Pieces (Brit Bein Habtarim). Remember he asked God, "How shall I know that I shall inherit it?" which means how do I know that my children will be worthy to inherit the land? "Avraham said: 'Master of the Universe, perhaps Israel will sin before You, and You will do to them as to the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion.'" What's the insurance? If the Jewish people are going to sin, you might do to them what you did to the Generation of the Flood (Dor Hamabul) and the Generation of the Dispersion (Dor Hapallaga). How do I know what my children do to guarantee that the world and they will continue to exist? "He said to him: 'No.'" No, it's not going to happen. "He said before Him: 'Master of the Universe, let me know by what I shall inherit it.'" How do I know? What are they going to do? "He said to him: 'Take for Me a three-year-old heifer, and a three-year-old she-goat, etc.'" This means, tell them to bring animals. These are the animals that we use for korbanot. "He said before Him: 'Master of the Universe, it is well when the Beit HaMikdash stands.'" Okay, that's fine, as long as there's a Beit HaMikdash, we can bring korbanot. But what do you see—we just want the proof here, by the way. So you see, in the merit (zchut) of the korbanot, heaven and earth endured. Without the korbanot, God would destroy the world like the Dor Hamabul and the Dor Hapallaga. That's why we read Sefer Bereishit in the Ma'amadot because in the merit (bizchut) of these korbanot, the world is in existence. So he said, okay, that's good when there's a Beit HaMikdash, but what about the post-Beit HaMikdash era? "When the Beit HaMikdash does not stand, what will become of them?" "He said to him: 'I have already instituted for them the order of the sacrifices.'" I have the order of the sacrifices (seder korbanot), which means let them read it. Lip service. "When they read them before Me, I will consider it as if they offered them before Me, and I will forgive them for all their sins." Now, the Gemara—skip that, yeah. "Blessed is He who spoke." Skip it. It's not that important. It's not that important. "For all their sins." It's amazing though. "Our Rabbis taught." "Anshei Mishmar." Just read "Rabbi Assi said: For were it not for the Ma'amadot"—"the matter of sacrifices that Israel performs, they would perish in their sins, and from them, the earth, heaven, and earth, which stand in their merit, would not endure, and so on, like the people of the generation of the Flood, for after they perish, the world does not endure." That's the point. Once you destroy, once you get rid of the generation (dor), there's no world. So therefore you see Ma'amadot and korbanot and the world go together. "And since the world stands on account of the sacrifices, so the Anshei Ma'amad read Maaseh Bereishit in their cities." So literally when you learn the first Mishnah, whatever, the Mishnah Pirkei Avot, "The world stands on three things"—"Avodah" (service) is literal. You're going to start saying, well, Avodah refers to heart, Avodah is literal. According to this Gemara, Avodah is one of the pillars that the world stands on. "I have already instituted for them, etc., as long as they read them." "And from where does it derive this hesitation?" Yes, Rashi is bothered, which you know what we could do the Maharsha right on this one now. Where do you see in this verse that lip service works? "And we will pay the bulls of our lips." No, no. Where do you see, where do you see in the verse of Brit Bein Habtarim that "it is well when the Beit HaMikdash stands," but when there's no Beit HaMikdash, they'll come to the korbanot and read them. So Rashi is saying, I don't know where the Gemara sees that in the text of Brit Bein Habtarim—"He said to them, 'as long as they read them,' from where does he derive this?" Where do they learn that from? I don't know what the derivation (limud) is here for this hesitation (gimgum). It's a gimgum to Rashi. Open the Maharsha. The Maharsha answers that gimgum that Rashi has and he has an unbelievable simple explanation (pshat) just in Brit Bein Habtarim which is, you know, worthwhile to see it. So let's see here. We have to do all the Maharsha, but we'll just do the one that's relevant (noge'ah) to this piece here in Rashi. Okay. Start from Kaf-Zayin Amud Bet, which is the first Maharsha. "How shall I know that I shall inherit it?" "Avraham said." Now, "And according to the plain meaning of the verse, as Rashi's commentary in the Chumash explains." Again, you always have to deal with these scriptural portions (parashiyot) on two levels. You have Rashi in the Gemara, the way he explained them, and then you have Rashi in the Chumash, the way he explained them. It's the same rabbi. So Rashi in the Chumash doesn't always explain it the same way he explained it in the Gemara. So he says: "That he asked for a sign about his good tidings." Give me a contract. "And so it is in the fourth chapter of Nedarim." And that's why he got punished, if you remember, in the Gemara Nedarim, where he asks "how shall I know." I told you that you're going to get the land, what do you need a sign for? Because you asked that question, "for your offspring shall be a stranger in a land not theirs, and they shall enslave them and afflict them for four hundred years." It was a punishment for Avraham questioning God's promise. "For there are those who say that he was punished for this, as explained there." So, a difficulty arises: "But it is written: 'And he believed in the Lord.'" The problem with that Gemara, the Maharsha says, is that it does say in the verse there, by Brit Bein Ha-Besarim, "And he believed in the Lord." So how do you say "And he believed in the Lord" and then you're saying he didn't have faith (emunah)? "For if he believed in the tidings of offspring," which means he trusted God that he's going to have a child when God told him at a hundred years old he's going to have a child, he didn't say "how shall I know." So if he could trust God that He can give him offspring (zera) at a hundred, "why did he not believe in the tidings of the land?" I mean, one miracle is not better than the next one. So therefore, according to that, "therefore they expounded here." So this Gemara is at odds with that other Gemara in Nedarim. This Gemara holds that Avraham did not question God's ability to give him the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael). But he was just trying to protect the entire Jewish people (Klall Yisrael). What merit (zchut) do we need not to be destroyed? So he says: "For in 'how shall I know,' he was not challenging." "How shall I know" was not a challenge, it was not, he didn't have a question on God "to ask for a sign," "but rather he asked to know by what merit they would endure." They just wanted to know the rules of engagement. "So that He would not make an end as with the generation of the Flood." And he's quoting Rashi word for word in the Chumash. "And the verse would be inverted." Now, according to this, Rashi in Chumash is bringing a simple explanation (pshat). "How shall I know that I shall inherit it?" Sounds like "how shall I know," how am I going to know, I need a sign, I need a sign. But he said no, you have to read the verse like this. "And the verse would be inverted." "I shall know by what I shall inherit it." Which means "I shall know," let me know "by what" what I have to do to be an inheritor (yoresh) of it. Right. "And now it is well with 'And he believed in the Lord.'" And what's "And he believed in the Lord"? It's not that he lacked faith (chasur le-emunah). He wants to know what merits (zechuyos) do I need. "That is, he did not ask for a sign at all." I don't need a sign (ot), I trust you, "neither concerning the tidings of the land nor concerning the tidings of offspring." So what did God answer him? "He said to him: 'Take for Me a three-year-old heifer.'" "This is his answer," "that by the merit of the sacrifices" that they'll be bringing "from these species," from these exact species, "which are the general categories of all sacrifices." Ox, sheep, goat (shor, keves, ez). Doves, young pigeons (torim, benei yonah). The Torah also says birds he brought, fowl (of). So therefore he basically told him every brand of sacrifice (korban) that we brought as a sin offering (korban chatas) in the Beit HaMikdash, and that's your answer. "They will endure." "And in Rashi 15:8 it is explained that he mentioned here all the sacrifices that come for atonement." "Camels, bulls, see there." "And Rashi brought it in the Chumash." "And there is no need to elaborate here on the words of the Talmud, for it only mentioned the general categories of all the species brought for sacrifices." Fine. Now, here's the point that we need. And then Avraham asked God, "It is well when the Beit HaMikdash stands, but when the Beit HaMikdash does not stand," what are we going to do? So read it. So Rashi said where do you see in Brit Bein Ha-Besarim this whole conversation? So he brings down Rashi in the Gemara: "From here he derives this hesitation." "Thus far are his words." So he says this Gemara is "megumgam," it's hard to understand. "And it seems that this exposition came to them that he also asked about the time of exile." No, we have an exposition (derash) on this. "How will they endure? For it is written the phrase 'that I shall inherit it.'" Now, the word "irashenah" could either mean "and how do I know that we're going to inherit it" like "irashenah" inherit, "how do we know we're going to be an inheritor (yoresh) of it," meaning get this. But it could also mean something else. "And it is not written 'how shall I know that You will give it to me.'" Why did Avraham use a simple language? How do I know you're going to give it to me? "You will give it to me" (titnenah li). "What is this 'irashenah'?" It's a more sophisticated word. "Like the language that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him." By the way, he says even more so. When God promised him to give him the land, He didn't say "you shall inherit it" (lecha irashenah), He said "I will give it to you" (lecha etnenah). So therefore use the same word that God told you, "I will give it to you," so he should ask back "how shall I know that I will give it" (bameh eda ki etnenah). Instead he says no, "how shall I know that I shall inherit it" (bameh eda ki irashenah). He switched the word on Him. So the Maharsha is saying, oh, from that switched word, from there you see he was asking a different type of question. Well, what do you see? "I will give it to you" and "to give to you." "Also, it is written in the language 'take for Me,' and 'they shall take for Me.'" And what does God answer? "Take for Me." Take for Me a three-year-old heifer (eglah meshuleshet) and all that. He's questioning God's word. Why did God use the word "take for Me"? The word "irashenah" can also mean to be exiled and to be thrown out. Where do we see that word used like that? "Like 'for He dispossessed nations from before you.'" I will get rid of the nations (goyim) "from before you." "Horish" (dispossessed). "Horish" doesn't mean inherit. "Horish" means I will oust them from, chase them out from the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael). So he's saying "how shall I know that I shall inherit it" (bame eda ki irashena) when we are chased out, when we are going to be ousted, how am I going to know that we're going to be a merit (zchut)? Oh, that you're not going to do it to us. Oh, when we're going to be ousted, "that I shall inherit it." He didn't say "that You will give it" (ki etnenah), because "etnenah" would only have one implication. But he's saying and at the time of "irashenah," what's our insurance at that point? "Ki" is when also, right? Right, exactly. Exactly. "And many like it." "For at the time that I shall be dispossessed from the land," when you're going to oust us from the land, "in exile," "I shall know by what they will endure." I need to know what merit (zchut) Klal Yisrael is going to have. "And the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: 'Take for Me.'" Now why didn't He say "offer for Me"? Because you can't say "offer for Me" because there's no korbanot at that time. So He says "take for Me." If you remember when we learned in the Torah portion (parsha) of Shabbat Shuva, what does the verse say? The prophet (navi) says: "Take with you words." So you see that "take" (kchu) refers to "words" (devarim). "And return to the Lord." So therefore God used a similar word of "take" (kach), not "offer" (krav). "Take for Me, for without their sacrifices of these species, these will be through reading and speaking words." "As it is written: 'Take with you words.'" Take words. Lip service... "They will endure in exile, and the verse alludes to: 'For the matter is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do it.'" Like it says in the verse, "in your mouth." "According to its plain meaning, it should have been written 'and in your doing,' but the entire context of the portion is about exile, meaning that the matter is near to you through reading with the mouth." That at the time of exile (galut), "the matter is near to you in your mouth." And "in your mouth" is a law (din) of "to do it." As if you did it. "And the intention of the teaching in the heart is that it should be to do it in the Name, so that it will be in place of the sacrifices, as the fulfillment of the deed." Beautiful. So that's exactly the way he fixes this item. Okay, let's go back to the Gemara. So again, we have this hesitation (gimgum) fixed by a beautiful Maharsha. "Our Rabbis taught." "Irashenah," Rabbi, is like "oust." Right, for that. But also "irashenah" is something that happens one way or another automatically (mimeila). Automatically. Father dies, kid gets inheritance. The kid gets it, so he like switched it on somewhat like on Hashem. And Hashem says I'll give it to you. Giving is a giving. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But if he says "irashenah," then it's automatic. It's automatic. Right, so that's basically, if you say according to the Maharsha, it's one question that has two aspects, two sides to that same question. It's talking about two different times in history. And from the word "irashenah," you can learn the simple way like we always... how do I know my kids are going to be inheritors (yoresh)? I'll just bring korbanot and you'll be an inheritor (yoresh). It seems that it's a stipulative inheritance (yerusha). Right, so because an inheritance (yerusha) that comes from a father to a son, you can't stop that. But this is like God's saying I'm giving it to you. Well, giving it to you, why should you be the inheritor (yoresh) and not him the inheritor (yoresh)? Why don't we, we're not everybody's considered children of a living God (bnei el chai). Explanation is, you're going to bring korbanot. That's why you get this. Now why would that word be used? Because it has a different meaning. "Irashenah" also means when we're ousted. So therefore the double option, the double answer. Right, right, by both. It's unbelievable. So the word has a double meaning, and when God answered, He meant both also. "For take" (Ki kchu) means "you shall offer" (tikrav) at the time of the Beit HaMikdash. But the reason why He didn't say "you shall offer" (tikrav) is because then you're asking Me also at the time when there's no Beit HaMikdash, so "take" (kchu) could also mean "take with you words" (kchu imachem devarim). Double question, double answer. Unbelievable. It's like what the Rabbi explained that "terror and dread shall fall upon them." That was all exile (galut). 100 percent. Very good, very good. Simmy is not so sure about that.
Okay, "Our Rabbis taught." "Anshei Mishmar." What does he change that to? Anything? Anshei Ma'amad, I think. "Our Rabbis taught: You should have said Anshei Ma'amad, for the Anshei Ma'amad are with you." Very good. That's right. Anshei Ma'amad. Because the mishmar guys don't pray. It's the Ma'amad guys that pray. "Our Rabbis taught: Anshei Ma'amad." And now she's going to learn, let's go and learn Ma'amad. "They would pray for the sacrifice of their brethren, that it be accepted favorably." "And the Anshei Ma'amad," therefore, what did they do? "They would gather in the synagogue and sit." "And they would observe four fasts." Okay, they fast from Monday to Thursday. "On Monday, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, and on Thursday." Now, each day they would fast and pray for a certain situation in the Jewish people (Klal Yisrael). "On Monday, for those who go down to the sea." On Monday, they pray for the travelers on the water. "On Tuesday, for those who travel in deserts," the travelers by land. "On Wednesday, for askara," God forbid, that's like asthma or a breathing disorder, "that it should not fall upon the children," the children should not have it. Praying basically for the health of the children, the kids. "And on Thursday, for pregnant women and nursing women." "Pregnant women, that they should not miscarry." "Nursing women, that they should nurse their children," that they should have milk. "And on Friday eve, they would not fast," on Friday they didn't fast, "out of respect for Shabbat." "All the more so on Shabbat itself." All the more so they didn't fast on Shabbat. "On Sunday, what is the reason they did not?" Now, why didn't they fast on Sunday? It's an unbelievable Gemara. The Gemara says: Number one, Rabbi Yochanan said: "Because of the Christians." They don't want to be like the gentiles (goyim). Goyim have Sunday as a holiday. So therefore what's the problem? If you're going to fast on that day, the goyim are going to say, "Hey, you're disrespecting (mezalzel) our day? You're fasting on our day?" Therefore it's going to cause antisemitism. So therefore, in order that the goyim don't, you know, charge us for mistreating their day in the fast—otherwise why are we fasting? So you fast because it's our holiday? That's why you fast? Because it's like Tisha B'Av, our holiday? So therefore "because of the Christians" that we shouldn't get beaten from them. So that's why, that's one reason. "And Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said: Because it is the third day from creation." It's an amazing answer. This answer is an amazing thing. Why is Sunday a lazy day? For everybody Sunday's a lazy day. The nine o'clock minyan on Sunday, people are slow to get up, people just loaf around all day long. Because you thought it was because it's a day off work, it's a weekend. The Gemara gives you an answer right here. Sunday is the third day from creation. Man was created on Friday, and we know it was an operation to be created, and the third day of any operation you're the weakest. So therefore on Sundays people are sluggish, people are tired, people are slow on Sundays. That's why they didn't fast in the times of the Beit HaMikdash, because Sunday's a weak day. It's a, people are weak. It's an amazing thing. Until today you see it in creation (beriah). We look at it from the superficial standpoint: oh, it's a day off work, therefore people are going to pray later. No, it's the opposite! That day itself is designated to be a slow day on people, at least where we live, because of the third day. So no fast on Sunday. Exactly. Resh Lakish said: "Because of the additional soul." That what? The additional soul (neshamah yetirah) that left you. So you just went through a big change. You had a neshamah yetirah and then they took it out, so therefore you're weak on Sundays. "For Resh Lakish said: An additional soul is given to a person on Friday eve." You got a soul (neshamah) on Friday eve (erev Shabbat), meaning going into Shabbat, erev Shabbat going into Shabbat, like the Ha'Ari z"l says you get her on erev Shabbat, you start getting the upgrades. "And at the conclusion of Shabbat, it is taken from him," they take it away from the conclusion of Shabbat (motzaei Shabbat), "as it is stated: 'He rested and was refreshed.'" Now, how do you learn this exposition (derashah)? "He rested and was refreshed": "Since he rested," once we learn like this, "since he rested," once Shabbat is over, "since he rested," once you have rested, meaning Shabbat is behind you, "woe, the soul is lost." "Vayinnafash" (and was refreshed) we say "vai" (woe), "avdah nefesh" (the soul is lost). Although, if you read the simple plain meaning (pshat) of the verse, "he rested and was refreshed" sounds like Shabbat comes in, Shabbat itself. And then "vayinnafash." So the Ba'al Shem Tov asked the question: What do you mean "he rested and was refreshed"? It should say "at the conclusion of Shabbat, he was refreshed," not once Shabbat comes in. So the Gemara has to squeeze and say: "Since he rested"—when it's done already. When it's done. But that's not the simple pshat in the verse. But simple pshat in the verse is "he rested and was refreshed." So Ba'al Shem Tov says something unbelievable. He says as follows. He says like this. He said that a person who knows that something is going to be taken away from him, so he takes advantage as long as he has it. But if a person knows that he's going to have something forever, he neglects it. So he says it's like this: Where do we live during the six days of the week? We live from the holiness (kedushah) of the Shabbat. But it's taken away from us. So therefore the verse says like this: "Shabbat," once Shabbat comes in, you have to know from the beginning of Shabbat, "woe, the soul is lost." That it's going to be taken away. And once you know it's going to be taken away you'll take advantage of Shabbat the right ways. You understand? You have to know that "woe, the soul is lost" going in. When I know... know it's gonna be taken away from me, then already I'll take advantage of Shabbat and commemorate it in the right way, because I know this gift that you're giving me is a 25-hour gift. So therefore you have to "khaper ayn" like they say in Arabic. You gotta, you gotta grab onto it and take advantage of it before, before they take it away. So that's "and the soul is lost" going in. Okay, we continue on Kaf Zayin Amud Bet.
So it says: "On the first day, Bereishit and Vayehi Rakia." So we're talking here about the prayers (tefillot) or the Torah reading (kriat hatorah), I'm sorry, that the Anshei Ma'amad used to say. There are three callers (olim). And we know the rule is that a minimum caller (oleh) has to read at least three verses (pesukim). So we're going to have to figure out now how to divvy up these portions (parshiyot) so we can send three olim with three pesukim. So the Tanna taught: "Bereishit with two." Now, the portion of Bereishit (Parshat Bereishit) only has five pesukim, but it says you divide it amongst two. "Vayehi Rakia with one." So the Gemara says: "It is well that Vayehi Rakia is with one, for there are three verses." It's no difficulty to divide Vayehi Rakia amongst one oleh because there are three pesukim. "But Bereishit with two," how do you divide Parshat Bereishit with two olim? "There are five verses." It's only five pesukim. "And it was taught," and we learned: "One who reads from the Torah should not read less than three verses." And we know already that you're not allowed to read less than three pesukim. So we have a dispute (machloket) on this. Rav said: "He skips." Rav says you repeat verse number three. So therefore you read one, two, three and then three, four, five. And Shmuel said: "He divides." That you actually split verse number three into two pesukim. So you're reading one, two, and a half and then a half and four, five. "And Rav who said he skips, what is the reason he did not say he divides?" Why doesn't he say that you should split the verse into two? "He holds that any verse that Moshe did not divide, we do not divide it." Because he holds you can't make up your own pesukim. Any verse that Moshe Rabbeinu did not make an end of verse (sof pasuk) on, you're not allowed to make your own sof pasuk. "And Shmuel said he divides." And Shmuel says yeah, you divide (posek), you have no choice. "And do we divide?" Is that allowed? "And Rabbi Chanina Kara said," Rabbi Chanina was the reading teacher. They called him Rabbi Chanina Kara. "I had great difficulty with Rabbi Chanina HaGadol" why he wanted to teach the kids and it was too hard to teach the kids full pesukim. So he wanted to break the pesukim up into two. So he says I had a difficult time trying to convince Rabbi Chanina HaGadol to give me a leniency. "And he only permitted me to divide for schoolchildren, since they are meant for learning." And he only gave me a permission (hetter) to cut the pesukim up to teach the little children because I have no choice, I have to teach them. So the Gemara says: "And Shmuel, what is the reason there? Because it is impossible." The reason why he got a hetter is because it was no choice, you had no choice but to break up the pesukim so the children will be able to learn. "Here too it is impossible." So he says here also you have no choice because I guess to him "skipping" (doleg) is not an option as we'll see. So therefore since "skipping" (doleg) is not an option the only option you have is to divide (posek) just like the rabbi gave him a leniency in excruciating circumstances. So he believes that this is also an excruciating circumstance that you have no choice but to divide (posek). "And Shmuel said he divides, what is the reason he did not say he skips?" Why doesn't Shmuel say to skip (doleg) just to repeat a verse (pasuk)? "A decree because of those who enter and a decree because of those who leave." So we have a decree (gezeira). What's the gezeira for the people that are going to come in? If you're going to come along and read the second caller's (oleh) verses (pesukim) three, four, and five, the people that are going to come in late are going to say the guy before it looks like he only read two pesukim. Now also there's a gezeira for the people that are going to leave. If you're reading verse (pasuk) one, two, three, so the people are going to think who leave at that point that they're all going to read the next oleh two pesukim because there's only two pesukim left that portion (parasha). So therefore because of that gezeira, skipping (doleg) is not going to be an option because we're worried about the people that are going to either leave early or come in late.
Rashi comes along and says, if you look at Rashi, "Bereishit with two," "and they and he brought read," hold on, hold on, hold on, slow down, slow down, slow down, close this guy up over here, okay, the Rashi over here. Here that we're talking about that we want to read is: "Here too it is impossible, and skipping is impossible because of those who enter and those who leave." "If the second one skips," if the second guy is going to skip, "and begins with the verse where the first one ended," meaning he's going to start reading verse three, "people who enter," a guy that comes in "who did not hear the reading of the first one," who didn't hear the first aliyah, "will think that the first one only read two verses." They're going to think that the first guy only read two verses. So what? Why? Let him think. What do I care what he thinks? Rashi says, "and from this, damage will result," because now a damage is going to come because he's going to think that's Jewish law (halacha). And when he opens his own synagogue (shul), he's going to say, "I saw it, they only read two verses," and that's not allowed. "And when the first one reads three verses," when the first one (rishon) reads three verses, "and he leaves only two," hold on, because I'm muting them so I could hear myself. So he says, "And when the first one reads three verses and leaves only two, there is a decree concerning those who leave," "that they will think that this second one is sufficient with two verses." They're going to think that they're only going to read for the next guy two verses. Tosafot speaks this out clearly again if you look at the bottom Tosafot, "A decree because of those who enter and those who leave. Explanation: that those who enter who did not see the first ones," the guys that come in late that didn't see the first caller (oleh) "who read three verses," he didn't see that he read three verses, "and they will see the second one reading one verse from above," they see the second guy starting from verse three, "they will say that the first one only read two verses." They'll think the first guy only read verse one and two. "And those who leave," "when the first one reads three verses," one, two, three, and then the guy walks out, what is he going to think? "And he leaves only two verses" to the portion (parashah), "there is a decree concerning those who leave," "that they will think that this second one is sufficient with two verses," that they're only going to read two verses. So because of these decrees (gezerot), skipping or repeating a verse is not an option, so his option only is what? To divide (posek). The Gemara asks on both opinions the following question from a Baraita. "A challenge from a Baraita: A portion of six verses, they read it with two." So we have a portion (parashah) of six verses (pesukim), so you could split it up with two readers, two callers (olim), each one will take three pesukim. "And of five," but if you have a parashah of five, "with one." Now hold it, that's the question right there. Why are you telling me that if you have a parashah of five, you can only send up one person? Initially (lechatechilah), we just learned if you have five, you can either skip (doleg) or you can divide (posek) and you could turn five into six. That's where the question is. Now it says, "And of five with one. And if the first one reads three," now if the first one (rishon), if the first guy went up and read three, "the second one reads two from this portion and one from another portion." So if the first one did three, let the next guy read the remaining two and then one from the beginning of the next parashah. "And some say three," and some say let him read the two from the remaining parashah and then three from the following parashah, "because one does not begin a portion with less than three verses," because you're not allowed to start a new parashah unless you read at least three pesukim. But what do you see from here? The question is when it comes to five pesukim, the Gemara says you can only send up one. Why? "According to him who says to skip, he should skip." If you hold skipping (doleg), read a verse over again and you can fit two people. "And according to him who says to divide, he should divide." And according to the opinion that says dividing (posek), be dividing (posek). Now, you can't be dividing (posek) once you read three pesukim already. Once you read three pesukim, then it's too late. But we're talking about initially. Why are you telling me that when it comes to a parashah of five, you can only divide it into one person? Initially (lechatechilah) you should be able to divide it into two. So if you look at the bottom Rashi says, "According to him who says to skip, he should skip. According to him who says to divide, he should divide. Meaning, a portion of five verses, why should the second one read three verses from another portion?" which means the way the Rashi learns it here at least is, "Meaning, a portion of five verses," this parashah that has five, "why should the second one read," why are you telling me the second guy should read "three verses from another portion," which means why do you have to read... three pesukim in the next parashah. Let them read two in the first parashah, either using the system of skipping (doleg) or dividing (posek). The Gemara answers: "It is different there," it's different over there, "for he has leeway." There you have space. There you have the ability to read more. So therefore if you have a choice where you're able to read more, I'm not going to repeat pesukim or split up pesukim, just read more. "This is not the case" in the parashah of the Ma'amadot, you can only read that item. Rashi says on top: "He has leeway," "that he can read another portion." "But here he has no leeway," "for he can only read Bereishit and Vayehi Rakia." On day one of Ma'amadot, you're only reading Bereishit and Vayehi Rakia. So I have no choice but to skip (doleg) or divide (posek). But if I have leeway, of course you can take advantage of that leeway. And if you look at the Tosafot, Tosafot in Kaf Zayin Amud Bet says: "Rav said he skips." What does "doleg" mean? "Explanation: The first one reads three verses from the beginning of the portion, and the second one, who has only two verses left." There are only two pesukim left in that parashah. "He skips." "Medaleg" means he repeats one verse and reads from what the first one read. "And so too, on Rosh Chodesh, we skip," exactly like we do on Rosh Chodesh. We repeat a verse. "And Rav Yehuda bar Natan challenged: And why do we skip? Why does he not read from above in the portion?" Why do you have to skip (medaleg)? On Rosh Chodesh, why don't you just start from a few pesukim before the parashah of Rosh Chodesh? And therefore you'll get extra pesukim and therefore you don't have a problem. "For on Shabbat and Chol HaMoed," we do that. On Shabbat Chol HaMoed, "he reads 'See, you say to me,'" even though the essence of the portion only begins from "Carve for yourself." We're really supposed to read "Carve for yourself" (Pesol lecha), but we need more pesukim, so what do we do? We go back a few paragraphs. We go to "See" (Re'eh). So therefore the same thing we should do on Rosh Chodesh. "And it can be said that this is why he reads 'See' in the portion above, because that entire portion speaks about one subject." You can go back on Chol HaMoed because the whole parashah is really one subject. So therefore it's not out of context. "But the portion of Rosh Chodesh, above it, does not speak at all about one subject." But to go read extra pesukim before the Rosh Chodesh parashah, it's a different subject, it's got nothing to do with Rosh Chodesh. "And therefore he does not read in the portion above, but rather skips." That's why you don't have an option to start earlier, you just have to skip (doleg). "And from this," he says a beautiful explanation to our custom (minhag), "a proof for our custom that we do not read on every Shabbat the portion of Shabbat, as we do on a holiday, where we read portions according to the event." Why don't we read the Musaf portion (Parashat Musaf) on Shabbat? Every holiday (Yom Tov) we take out a second Torah scroll (Sefer). And what's the second Sefer? The Musaf, the korbanot. But on Shabbat there's a Musaf sacrifice (Korban Musaf). How come we don't have a second Sefer Torah on Shabbat and read the pesukim of Musaf? "Because there are not three verses in the portion of Shabbat." Because if you look in the parashah, there are only two pesukim. So therefore you can't take out... "Because one cannot say that we should skip upwards, for it is not about one subject." And you can't tell me, well, start a few pesukim before because it's got nothing to do with the subject. So therefore you're in a catch-22. You can't read the parashah itself because it's only two pesukim. You can't start before because it's a different subject (inyan). So therefore that's why we don't take a second Sefer Torah out on Shabbat. A very important Tosafot explaining our custom (minhag).
Now let's go to the Maharsha for a minute and finish up some of these Maharsha's that we didn't do. If you look at the Maharsha, start the Maharsha on "four fasts." It says they fasted four days. They fasted Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. "And on Monday, for those who go down to the sea." And each day they fasted for a different, God forbid, potential calamity that should not befall. "It is explained according to what he said in the chapter 'HaRoeh,' that four types of people must give thanks." Right? We learned that there are four people who have to thank God "upon being saved from their distress," when they were saved from their trouble. "And these are those who go down to the sea," those that went on the high seas, "and those who travel in the desert," those who went through the field, the desert and traveling, "and a sick person who was healed," and a sick person that got better, "and one who came out of prison," and somebody that came out of prison. "And here too we say here." So he wants to learn the Maharsha these four items that the Gemara mentioned are corresponding the four items that they have to be thankful (modeh) for. "That is, the Anshei Mishmar fast four fasts to save anyone who is in one of these four troubles." "On Monday, for those who go down to the sea." Okay, that's clearly "those who go down to the sea in ships." "And on Tuesday, for those who travel in the desert." "They wandered in the desert in a desolate way," that's referring to the people in the desert. "On Wednesday, for the illness of askara." That's the sick people. "And on Thursday, for pregnant women, that they should not miscarry, for a difficult birth is like one coming out of prison." A child that's born is like he's coming out of prison because he's in a confined area. So therefore the four items are corresponding to the four who must give thanks. "And Rashi's explanation gives a reason for each of the four fasts on its day." "And one must examine this, for if so, what does it mean: 'And on Friday eve they would not fast'?" If you look at Rashi, Rashi by us, Rashi by us explains why each day they made a prayer for that item. Rashi says, for example, "on Monday, those who go down to the sea." What's the reason he says? Because it says on the second day of creation: "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters." Oh, so Monday's a water (mayim) day. "Tuesday, those who travel in deserts." Because what does it say in the Torah on the third day (Yom Shlishi)? "And let the dry land appear." "Wednesday, askara." Because that's the day the sun was hung. And therefore it says "Let there be luminaries," and it's missing a "vav" so it's "me'erat" (curse), which is the day of curse. That's why askara comes from. "And for pregnant women," because on Thursday it says: "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures." So therefore that's giving birth. The point is, Rashi explained why each day is suitable for that prayer. So says the Maharsha: "And on Friday eve they would not fast, and so too on Shabbat, and so too on Sunday." "What is the reason they do not fast? Are there reasons for fasts like the four days, for which reasons for fasts for troubles were given?" Which means according to Rashi the Gemara doesn't have to give a reason why you don't fast on Friday. You don't fast on Friday because there's no reason to. The only reason why you fast is because there's reasons to fast on those days. Monday is water, Tuesday is dry land (yabasha), Friday is nothing, Shabbat is nothing. So therefore the Gemara, according to the way Rashi is learning, does not have to give us a new reason why you didn't, the four, that's it. "And for each one on its day. And it can be said that the Talmud knew that there was some suitable reason for fasts also on these three days." The Gemara knew, it didn't tell it to us, but it knew there would be a reason why we should fast on Friday, Shabbat and Sunday. And nonetheless we don't because of Friday's eve of Shabbat (erev Shabbat), Shabbat is Shabbat and Sunday because we're weak. As in the Gemara knew that there are reasons that the Gemara didn't tell it to us but the reasons that are unbeknownst but knownst to the Gemara "were it not for these reasons that it states which override not to fast on them." So very good. Then it says: "And because of the Galileans." That was referred to the Christians (Notzrim). Rashi's explanation: "They make that day their holiday." So what's the reason that Rashi said when it came to Christians (Notzrim)? So we explained because it's going to cause anti-Semitism. They're going to beat us up if we're fasting on their day. Rashi said: "Christians who make that day their holiday." Now he doesn't give the reason Rashi, just says they make it a holiday (Yom Tov). So Maharsha says: "One should not explain it as because they will accuse us that we are fasting on their holiday." Says don't say the reason that Rashi is telling us because they're going to hurt us because we're fasting on their day. "For we are established in the time when the Beit HaMikdash stands, and our hand is strong over them." Right we're talking about the times of the Beit HaMikdash. If we're talking about the times of the Beit HaMikdash, "our hand is strong" (yadenu takifa), our hand, we had the stronger upper hand against the gentiles (goyim). So clearly we're not going to be worried about them abusing us because we're fasting on their holiday. "And it can be said that it is because they do not do work on their fast day." They didn't work either on those days. "So that they should not say that it is because they also consider it a holiday." So therefore what are they going to say? The gentiles (goyim) are treating Sunday like a holiday (Yom Tov) like the Christians (Notzrim). That's the reason why they didn't fast on Sundays. Understand? On the day that they fast they didn't work and if they're not going to work on the Sunday it's going to look like they're respecting Sunday as a holiday (Yom Tov) "on which work is forbidden." "And from this, it appears that idol worshipers had this custom before the Galileans existed," "for it implies that in the First Temple, they would fast on the first day for this reason, and the Galileans did not exist until the Second Temple era." Okay, just giving some history that it must be the gentiles (goyim) had this custom even in the First Temple (Bayit Rishon).
The next Maharsha says: "But Bereishit with two, what is the reason? There are five verses, and we learned that one who reads should not read less than three." But the Gemara said Bereishit you read two. Why? Because you have five verses (pesukim) and we know that you can only read a minimum of three pesukim per person. "This should not be difficult for us from what was taught in the chapter 'HaKoreh Omed' that one does not read less than ten verses in the synagogue." Hold it. Forget about that point. You should have another question here. In this portion (parashah) you have five and three. You only have eight verses (pesukim). And we have a law that says you're not allowed to read... in a synagogue (beit knesset) a minimum of ten. So that's also a question on this Gemara. Parshat Bereishit how many verses is five. Vayehi Rakia is how many, three. So I don't care how you're going to divide it up. You're still going to end up only with nine pesukim. I would have thought you probably have to have a minimum of ten. "And one can ask, as Tosafot asked there, that Parshat Amalek has only nine verses, because the subject matter is interrupted, one should not be concerned about this." That if the portion (parashah) ends and you only have nine, you're okay. Like the portion, we repeated it to be good. "What Tosafot wrote," Parshat Amalek at the end of Beshalach, it only has nine verses. "War with the Lord against Amalek from generation to generation." That is the subject, it ends. So you're okay with nine. So therefore the same thing here, the subject ends at that point. So that's that. So we did all these Maharshas, we did the earlier ones too. We can go just to the earlier one on Kaf Zayin Amud Rishon. It says "David came," or do this one here, "four mishmarot." "They ascended: Pashchur and Immer. Rashi's explanation: And the work of Pashchur is not written among the twenty-four mishmarot." Remember Rashi was bothered he didn't find Pashchur. Pashchur is one of the four that came back from Babylon (Bavel). And Rashi said, I didn't see Pashchur in the list. "And it can be answered that we found Pashchur among Immer the Kohen in the days of Jeremiah." Okay, so Maharsha basically says we found them somewhere, we found them hiding in Jeremiah (Yirmeyahu) somewhere. "And Immer is written among the twenty-four mishmarot, but in the Second Temple, the sons of Pashchur became a large family." Right? "For they said there were four thousand servants belonging to Pashchur, and they were defiled, and indeed Pashchur separated from the rest of the sons of Immer." He was part of Immer but then they divided the Immer family and the Immer family became Pashchur as well. "For one mishmar, but it is difficult for me concerning this matter, for they said here that only these four mishmarot ascended." And it says he has a question, the Maharsha. If you learn the end of Tractate Sukkah (Masechet Sukkah), it says that there was at the times of the Greeks, there was Miriam bat Bilgah "who was in the Second Temple in the days of the Greeks." We can't get out of the Greeks. "And they said there that they closed her window," "of the mishmar of Bilgah." "And some say that Yeshbab entered," and some say that they took her out and put Yeshbab instead. "And it implies that the mishmarot of Bilgah and Yeshbab, who were among the twenty-four mishmarot, existed until the Second Temple." Right? It sounds like these mishmarot were there. Here it sounds like only four came back, but from Masechet Sukkah it sounds like in the Second Temple (Bayit Sheni) you had Yeshbab and you even had Bilgah. Unless you say that initially only four came back, but then later on some others came back as well and therefore, you know, they gave them a slot. But the Maharsha is not assuming that, the Maharsha is assuming that these were the four that came back and they divided them into 24 and this or that. So he just has a question from the end of Masechet Sukkah that sounds like there were other mishmarot that were there at Bayit Sheni as well. Okay, then he just has one comment (ha'ara) on the Rashi. If you look at Rashi, the opening phrase "will not be displaced" on Amud Bet Rashi, Kaf Chet Amud Bet, "will not be displaced." Look at that Rashi. He says, it's on the top that even if Yedayah will come back, or Yehoyariv will come back, we're not going to move Yedayah from his place. Yedayah remains in his place. Now initially it called these, that mishmar Yedayah. Okay, so Rashi says: "Yedayah will not be displaced, since Yehoyariv did not ascend initially, rather when he came, they made those of Yedayah precede, which is better." Fine, "and Yehoyariv came and served in place of another mishmar, and the six of Yedayah we made five of them," "his mishmarot." Fine, and the six of Yedayah we make five because we're going to add Yehoyariv. That's the way Rashi learns it. So what does Maharsha say here? He says, "Rashi's explanation: 'And he will not be displaced, and the six of Yedayah we made five.' His intention in this is not clear to me." Now why doesn't he understand the intention (kavana)? He doesn't understand what Rashi wants. Initially (Me-ikara) we explained what Rashi wants. Rashi says that they still want to have 24 and if Yehoyariv is going to come back and Yedayah already has six, and you're going to add Yehoyariv to the roster, it's going to be 25 mishmarot, so you gotta take one away from Yedayah and add Yehoyariv. But it sounds very self-explanatory. So the note (yud) on the bottom, the glosses (hagahot) here says: "In my humble opinion, Rashi's intention is simple: that Yehoyariv is secondary to Yedayah, but not to all the mishmarot." Which means first of all we're going to... Which means first of all we're going to put him, we're going to put Yedayah in Yehoyariv's, we're going to put Yehoyariv in Yedayah's mishmar, "and also it is not proper to combine Yehoyariv with one of Yedayah's portions," "and not to divide from six portions, or that he explained from six portions of Yedayah," "for this is its explanation: they make five from Yedayah's six portions," right, you're going to turn Yedayah back into five groups, "and Yehoyariv will be the sixth portion," "and he infers that it says 'secondary.'" So that's the way we understand it, right? That's the way Maharsha, none of this, five weeks in a row, it's not a spread. Right, you're going to go five, five of them. You turn this six back into five and you make the sixth one Yehoyariv. Okay. Thus far, blessed is God forever, amen and amen.