The Eri B. Sitt Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli. The Settel Begila has been dedicated by our good friends Mr. Stephen and his wife, Gila Israel, a charter member of our Daf Yomi class, for the success of both sets of parents and, of course, for the sake of their dear children. May Hashem protect them and grant them continued success, prosperity, and blessing in all their endeavors. This tractate has also been dedicated by Stephen and his wife for the elevation of the souls of Adel bat Roza and Sara bat Adel. May their souls rest in Gan Eden, together with all the righteous women of Israel, and may there be rest, mercy, and forgiveness. Amen.
We begin today’s study of Chagigah on the first side of the page, at the beginning of the first line, with a quotation from the Mishnah.
The Mishnah says that on a Festival, five people are called to the Torah; on Yom Kippur, six; and on Shabbat, seven. A person may not call fewer than those numbers, and he may not add to them. These are the words of Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva says that on a Festival there are five, on Yom Kippur seven, and on Shabbat six. According to him, one may not call fewer than those numbers, but one may add to them.
Thus, according to the first opinion, the numbers are five, six, and seven: five on a Festival, six on Yom Kippur, and seven on Shabbat. One may not call fewer people, and one may not add more. According to Rabbi Akiva, the numbers are five on a Festival, seven on Yom Kippur, and six on Shabbat. One may not call fewer, but one may add.
The Gemara asks: Who is the author of our Mishnah? It cannot be Rabbi Ishmael, because although the numbers in the first part of the Mishnah are five, six, and seven, the Mishnah says that one may not add. Rabbi Ishmael’s position is that one may not add to the required number. Nor can it be Rabbi Akiva, because Rabbi Akiva has six for Shabbat and seven for Yom Kippur, whereas our Mishnah has seven for Shabbat and six for Yom Kippur.
The Gemara therefore says that our Mishnah follows the teaching of a tanna from the academy of Rabbi Ishmael. A baraita states: On a Festival there are five, on Yom Kippur six, and on Shabbat seven. One may not call fewer than those numbers, but one may add more. This is exactly the position of our Mishnah, and it is being quoted in the name of a student of Rabbi Ishmael.
The Gemara then raises a contradiction in the teachings of Rabbi Ishmael. The first teaching attributed to Rabbi Ishmael says five, six, and seven, but says that one may not add. The second teaching also says five, six, and seven, but says that one may add. The Gemara answers that two different tannaim heard different versions of Rabbi Ishmael’s teaching, and each transmitted the version that he had heard.
Let us now examine some of the commentaries on the statement that one may add to the number of people called to the Torah. Rashi explains that the only time one does not add is on a day when people have work to do. We do not want to delay them from their work. This applies, for example, on Mondays and Thursdays, on Rosh Chodesh, and on Chol HaMoed. On those days, the required number of people called to the Torah remains three or four, as the case may be.
According to Rashi, the possibility of adding additional people depends on whether the day is a workday. The only day on which one may certainly add, according to this explanation, is Shabbat. Why can one add on Shabbat, but not on a Festival or on Yom Kippur? If one adds people on those days, the service becomes similar to the service of Shabbat. We want Shabbat to remain distinct and to have the greatest number.
Shabbat is the highest of the three categories. If one adds to Yom Kippur, its number becomes like Shabbat. If one adds to a Festival, it also becomes like Shabbat. We want Shabbat to remain special. Therefore, according to Rashi, the word “add” in the Mishnah refers only to Shabbat. According to the other explanation, however, it refers to all three days: a Festival, Yom Kippur, and Shabbat.
Ravina raises a question about this. According to Rashi, Rabbi Akiva says that Yom Kippur has seven people called to the Torah. If so, Rabbi Akiva should be the one who maintains that people may not add on Shabbat, because we want Yom Kippur to remain special. On Yom Kippur, one should be able to add as much as one wants, while on Shabbat one should not add, so that Shabbat will retain its unique status.
When we examine the baraita that quotes Rabbi Akiva, however, it states that on a Festival there are five, on Yom Kippur seven, and on Shabbat six, and then it says that one may not call fewer but may add. The placement of the statement seems to imply that one may add only on Shabbat. Why, then, did Rabbi Akiva arrange the baraita in that way? According to Rashi’s reasoning, one should be able to add on Yom Kippur rather than on Shabbat. The Gemara leaves this question unresolved.
The Gemara continues by asking: Who is the author of the following baraita? On a Festival, the congregation comes late to the synagogue and leaves early. The phrase “they come late” means that the synagogue service begins later than usual. Rashi explains that this is because people must prepare the Festival meal. On a Festival, one is permitted to cook and prepare food, so the Sages gave people a certain dispensation to begin the service later, allowing them time to prepare the meal.
They also leave early. On a Festival, one does not want to keep people in the synagogue for an unnecessarily long time. Thus, on a Festival they arrive late and leave early.
On Shabbat, by contrast, they arrive early and leave late. Why do they arrive early? There is no food preparation to be done on Shabbat, because one may not cook on Shabbat. The food has already been prepared before Shabbat, so there is no reason to begin the service late. Rashi says that this is also an appropriate time to arrive early in order to recite the Shema at the time of the vatikin. This provides support for the practice of early Shabbat prayer services.
They also leave late on Shabbat because of the joy and delight of Shabbat. Thus, the schedule is the opposite of the Festival schedule: on a Festival one comes late and leaves early, whereas on Shabbat one comes early and leaves late.
The Gemara asks who is the author of this teaching. Since it says that on Yom Kippur they come late, one might say that it follows Rabbi Akiva, who requires seven people called to the Torah on Yom Kippur. The additional aliyah makes the service longer, and that is why the congregation comes late.
The Gemara rejects this possibility. It could also follow Rabbi Ishmael. Even without the additional aliyah, the Yom Kippur service is very long because of the Musaf prayer and the extensive prayers of the day. Therefore, the statement that the congregation comes late on Yom Kippur could follow either Rabbi Ishmael or Rabbi Akiva.
The Penei Yehoshua asks a question on Rashi’s explanation. Rashi says that the reason people come late on a Festival is that they are preparing the food for the meal. But how can a person take care of personal needs before prayer? One generally may not attend to such matters before praying. The Penei Yehoshua answers that preparation for a mitzvah is different. Just as, on Friday, if someone failed to prepare for Shabbat and the only opportunity to purchase what is needed is before prayer—because the stores will close afterward—he may go before prayer to buy the food, so too the needs of Shabbat or Yom Tov are not considered merely personal needs. Since the preparation is for the mitzvah of the day, it is permitted.
The Gemara now returns to the first white line and asks about the numbers of people called to the Torah. We have three on Mondays and Thursdays, five on a Festival, six on Yom Kippur, and seven on Shabbat. Where did these numbers come from?
The Gemara records a dispute between Rabbi Yitzchak and Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani. The one who accompanied Rabbi Yitzchak was Rabbi Shmuel bar Pazi. One opinion says that the numbers correspond to the priestly blessing. The first verse of the priestly blessing contains three words, the second contains five words, and the third contains seven words. Therefore, the numbers of aliyot on the respective days are three, five, and seven.
One may ask: What is the connection between reading from the Torah and the priestly blessing? The commentators explain that when ten people listen to the Torah and occupy themselves with Torah study, they are blessed from Heaven. We have learned previously that when ten people sit and engage in Torah, the Divine Presence is among them. Therefore, when a group reads from the Torah, the aliyot correspond to the three, five, and seven words of the priestly blessing.
Another opinion explains the numbers through the protocol of a king’s palace. There are three people who stand at the threshold as guards. There are five who are permitted to enter farther inside and see the king. Then there are seven who are even closer to him and see him constantly, like his advisers. Thus, the numbers three, five, and seven reflect the protocol of a royal palace.
Rashi connects this to the verse that speaks of the seven officers of Persia and Media. Of the seven, five were considered particularly important, while the seven represented the broader group. Since God is the King, the numbers of aliyot were established in correspondence with the numbers associated with a king’s palace.
Tosafot brings another explanation, based on the seven officers who saw the king’s face. It emerges that the five were more important than the seven. The seven constituted the general group, while five of them were the more prominent officials. Tosafot also connects the numbers to the six provinces of Persia under Ahasuerus.
In any event, the question remains: If we are establishing the practice based on the custom of Ahasuerus, what kind of basis is that? We have other sources for the numbers three, five, and seven, based on the Prophets, so why would we follow the practice of a Persian king?
The Gemara conspicuously leaves out the number six. It gives a source for three, five, and seven, but what about six? Tosafot says that the six of Yom Kippur will be discussed later in the Gemara. That explains the six.
What about the four on Rosh Chodesh and Chol HaMoed? The Gemara can give a reason for four, because on those days there is a Musaf prayer. Since there is something additional in the service, it makes sense to add one aliyah, moving from three to four.
But that does not explain why we move from three to five on a Festival, or from three to seven on Shabbat. The fact that there is a Musaf prayer can explain adding one aliyah, but it does not by itself explain adding two, three, or four. We therefore need a source for those larger numbers.
The Beit Yosef offers a very interesting explanation for why seven people were established for Shabbat. It is possible that a person was unable, for whatever reason, to attend the synagogue during the week. As a result, he did not hear the response to Barechu for seven days. Therefore, seven aliyot were established on Shabbat, enabling him to make up the seven responses to Barechu that he may have missed. This demonstrates the importance of Barechu and allows a person to make up what he missed by not being part of a minyan during the week.
The Gemara then quotes another teaching of Rabbi Yosef: The three, five, and seven correspond to the three who stand at the threshold, the five who see the king, and the seven who see him more closely. When Rabbi Yosef heard this interpretation, he said that until then Rabbi Yosef had never offered it to them. He asked why this explanation had been withheld from them.
Rabbi Yosef replied that he was not withholding information. He simply did not know that they did not already know it. Had they ever asked him a question to which he had refused to give an answer? He gave them all of his explanations and insights. He had not mentioned this one because he did not realize that they needed it.
The Gemara then says, “I said to Yaakov of Mina.” Tosafot does not accept the reading “Mina,” because it sounds as though the person was a heretic. The Gemara would not ordinarily call such a person by his name, since there is a principle that the name of the wicked should not be perpetuated. Instead, Tosafot changes the reading to “Matzah,” explaining that he may have been a maker of matzah, or that he came from a place called Matzah. Some say that he came from a place called Mina, but the reading “Mina” could also suggest that he was an apostate, which is why Tosafot prefers another reading.
His question concerned the six aliyot of Yom Kippur. He said that in one of his speeches there were six people standing on his right and six standing on his left. He stood on the platform, and the people next to him were Mattithiah, Shema, Hananiah, Uriah, Hilkiah, Maaseiah, Mishael, Malchiah, Hashum, Hashbaddana, Zechariah, and Meshullam. There were six on each side. The same person is being described, and his deeds were complete. If one examines the verse, each name is accompanied by a verb, implying that the individuals were standing on either side of him. This is the source for the six people who stood at the side of the leader, corresponding to the six aliyot on Yom Kippur.
The Gemara now discusses the halachah of who may be called to the Torah. Everyone may be called as one of the seven aliyot on Shabbat, even a minor and even a woman. However, the Sages said that a woman should not read from the Torah because of the honor of the congregation.
One might ask: How can we say that a woman may technically be called to the Torah? A woman is also included in the mitzvah of Torah study in some respect. What is the logic of this ruling?
The Meiri explains that the essential mitzvah of the Torah reading is not necessarily that the person called to the Torah must be obligated in the mitzvah of Torah study. The mitzvah is for the congregation to hear the Torah. Therefore, even if the person reading is not obligated in precisely the same way, the congregation has still heard the Torah. This does not follow the ordinary rule that a person cannot discharge someone else’s obligation unless he is obligated himself. The Torah reading has a different set of rules.
The Rivash offers another explanation. It is difficult to find people who know how to read from the Torah properly. Not everyone knows how to read. In earlier times, it was already difficult to find seven adults who could read, so the Sages broadened the pool of possible readers. If a minor knows how to read, he may read. Perhaps one will not be able to find seven adult readers, so the practice was made easier.
The Gemara then discusses whether a minor can be counted among the required number. The phrase “a minor may be counted” seems to imply that a minor can be used merely to complete the seven. The Rif says that a minor may complete the seven, but a congregation may not consist entirely of minors. The Meiri adds that whenever a minor is called, an adult must be placed between minors; two minors may not be called consecutively.
Tosafot and other early authorities use this passage to address a broader question: In the case of a mitzvah that is limited by time, may women, who are exempt from such a mitzvah, recite the blessing when they choose to perform it? This is a major dispute. Tosafot maintains that they may. For example, although women are exempt from the mitzvah of lulav, if they wish to take the lulav, they may recite the blessing.
Tosafot brings a proof from our Gemara. The Gemara says that even a woman may be called to the Torah. When she is called, she recites the blessings over the Torah, even though she is not obligated in the same way. This would seem to show that a person who is exempt from a mitzvah may nevertheless recite its blessing.
However, Tosafot rejects that proof. The blessing over the Torah is not necessarily a blessing over the mitzvah of Torah reading. It is a blessing of praise. We recite the blessings over Torah in the morning, and yet when we are called to the Torah we recite another blessing. The blessing said over the Torah reading is therefore a blessing of praise, not a blessing on the performance of a mitzvah.
If it were a blessing over the mitzvah of Torah reading, the morning blessing would already have fulfilled that obligation. Therefore, there is no proof from the case of a woman being called to the Torah that a woman may recite the blessing over a time-bound mitzvah. We would need a proof from a case in which the person is reciting the blessing specifically because of the mitzvah, rather than because of the honor associated with the Torah reading.
Tosafot offers an additional qualification. Perhaps the passage is speaking of the period before the later enactment that everyone called to the Torah recited a blessing. Originally, the first person called to the Torah recited the opening blessing and the final person recited the concluding blessing. The people called in between did not recite blessings. If women were called to the Torah during that earlier period, they did not recite any blessing, and therefore there is no proof from this passage regarding blessings recited by women on time-bound mitzvot.
The Sefer Eshkol offers another explanation for why a woman cannot discharge the obligation of men through the Torah reading. He says that the real issue is not the honor of the congregation but the problem of a woman’s voice, which is considered a form of forbidden singing. If a woman stands before the congregation and reads from the Torah with the cantillation, she is singing the verses. This raises the question of whether the congregation may listen to a woman’s voice in that manner.
If that is the reason, the Gemara’s reference to the honor of the congregation seems unnecessary. One answer is that there are cases in which the issue of a woman’s voice does not apply. For example, a single woman who is not a menstruant and who has immersed in a ritual bath would not have that particular status. In such a case, the issue of a woman’s voice would not apply, and the remaining issue would be the honor of the congregation. That is what the Gemara is including.
Other early authorities disagree with this explanation. We know that, according to some authorities, women may read the Book of Esther and discharge men’s obligation through the reading. If so, the concern regarding a woman’s voice would apparently not apply when the person is involved in a mitzvah. They explain that when a person is engaged in a mitzvah, the concern about forbidden singing does not apply in the same way. The congregation is listening to the reading of verses and is focused on the mitzvah, not on singing or similar matters.
The Gemara now raises a question about the maftir. Is the maftir included among the seven aliyot on Shabbat, or is the maftir in addition to the seven? In other words, are there eight people called to the Torah—seven and then an additional maftir—or are there only seven, with the seventh person serving as the maftir?
One opinion says that the maftir is included in the number. What is the reasoning behind the dispute? The opinion that says the maftir counts reasons that he reads from the Torah, so why should he not be counted? The opposing opinion says that the maftir does not count as one of the aliyot. The maftir reads from the Prophets, and the reason he first reads from the Torah is because of the honor of the Torah.
Since the maftir is fundamentally being called in order to read the haftarah, it would not be respectful to have him recite a blessing only over the haftarah. That could make it appear that the haftarah is on the same level as the Torah. Just as those called to the Torah recite a blessing before reading, the maftir recites a blessing before reading from the Prophets, and this might suggest that the two are equivalent.
Therefore, he first reads a passage from the Torah, so that it will be clear that he is going up in honor of the Torah. He then reads the haftarah. The reading from the Torah is not an independent aliyah; it is only for the honor of the Torah. According to this opinion, after seven people have been called to the Torah, the maftir is added, and the maftir is not counted among the seven.
The Rivash asks: What did they do in the synagogues in the time of the Sages? Did they count the maftir or not? What was done on the previous Shabbat? How many people were called to the Torah? The Rivash says that in the synagogue of the scholars of Tiberias, they certainly called seven people and then an additional maftir.
However, the Sages wanted to know what motivated that practice. Were they following the halachah that the maftir is not counted, or were they acting stringently because they were uncertain about the halachah? If they did not know whether the maftir counted, they may have called seven plus the maftir simply to cover both possibilities. Therefore, the practice of calling seven and then a maftir does not necessarily prove that the maftir does not count; perhaps they did so only as a precaution. The question is which position is ultimately accepted as the halachah.
Tosafot discusses this question in a broader way. The principle that the maftir either counts or does not count is not limited to the seven aliyot on Shabbat. The same issue applies on a public fast, when there are three aliyot. For example, on Tisha B’Av there is a maftir. The last person called to the Torah, the third, reads the haftarah. The question is whether there are three aliyot, with the third serving as maftir, or whether there are three aliyot followed by an additional maftir.
The Maharsha asks a question on Tosafot. Earlier, we learned a baraita concerning a public fast that occurs on a Monday or Wednesday. One opinion says that one person is called to the Torah and he serves as the maftir. Another opinion says that three people are called to the Torah, and the third person serves as the maftir. What is clear from that baraita? The maftir counts among the required number. If three are called and the third is the maftir, there is no additional fourth person. The Maharsha therefore brings this as a proof that the maftir is included in the number.
The Maharsha also explains that in the time of the Gemara, the maftir read a new passage from the Torah. He did not merely repeat a passage that had already been read. Thus, even according to the opinion that the maftir does not count among the required number, he still read an additional section that had not been read by the earlier aliyot.
According to the practice today, however, the maftir repeats a passage that has already been read. Tosafot explains that the reason the maftir is not counted is that the reading is not a new, independent reading. The entire purpose of the maftir’s reading from the Torah is to preserve the honor of the Torah before he reads from the Prophets.
Since the maftir is reading only a repetition, he does not count among the required number. In the time of the earlier Sages, however, he read a separate and new passage, which is why the earlier practice may have looked different.
Tosafot explains the historical development of the practice. Originally, there was no Kaddish between the people who read from the Torah and the maftir. The last person called to the Torah was the final aliyah, and there was no Kaddish after the person we would call the mashlim. Later, a Kaddish was instituted between the earlier aliyot and the maftir.
Once a Kaddish was recited after the required number of aliyot, it became clear that those aliyot constituted the obligation of the day. The maftir came afterward and repeated a passage only because of the honor of the Torah. He therefore did not count among the required number.
This is similar to other practices in which an additional verse or passage is recited to show that the prayer is not the regular obligatory prayer. For example, Ashkenazic communities have a custom to add a particular verse in certain prayers. The additional verse demonstrates that this is not the ordinary prayer itself. Similarly, the Kaddish placed after the required aliyot shows that the required Torah reading has concluded, while the maftir is an additional reading for the honor of the Torah.
Tosafot also discusses the fact that, even when two Torah scrolls were available, the maftir would repeat a passage. In our practice, when two scrolls are taken out, the seven aliyot are read from the first scroll and the maftir reads from the second scroll. In earlier communities, however, the practice was that the maftir repeated a passage even when two scrolls were available. This was the custom in Europe as well.
Thus, according to Tosafot, the reason we repeat a passage for the maftir today is that the required seven aliyot are completed, a Kaddish is recited to mark their conclusion, and the maftir then reads only as a repetition for the honor of the Torah. He does not count among the seven.
Tosafot raises another question. Why do we not take out two Torah scrolls every Shabbat? Every day on which an additional offering was brought ordinarily has a reading connected to that offering. On a Festival, for example, one scroll is used for the weekly portion and the second for the Festival reading. Shabbat also had an additional offering. Why, then, do we not read the weekly portion from one scroll and the passage beginning “On the day of Shabbat” from a second scroll?
Tosafot answers that the passage concerning Shabbat contains only two verses, and we do not take out a Torah scroll to read only two verses. One might suggest reading more, but the next passage concerns the beginning of the month and has nothing to do with Shabbat. We cannot simply continue reading unrelated verses merely to create a longer reading. Since the Shabbat passage consists of only two verses, we do not take out a second scroll for it.
Tosafot gives a second answer. The haftarah always follows the final Torah reading of the day. If we took out a second scroll every Shabbat to read the Shabbat offering, the haftarah would always have to follow that passage. We would then be locked into the same haftarah every week. Since we want a variety of haftarot, we do not take out a second scroll for the Shabbat offering.
A third answer is that a second scroll is taken out only when the additional offerings are offerings of atonement. On a Festival, the additional offering has that character, so we read its passage from a second scroll. The Shabbat offerings, however, are not offerings of atonement, and therefore we do not read them from a second scroll.
There are other explanations as well. The Maharam of Rothenburg says that since Shabbat occurs every week, there is no need to mention the offerings each week. The additional offerings of the Festivals occur only occasionally, so we remind the congregation of them on those occasions. Shabbat is different because it occurs every week, and there is no need for that reminder.
Returning to the question of the maftir, the Gemara presents another discussion. The maftir, who reads from the Prophets, must read at least twenty-one verses. Where does the number twenty-one come from? It corresponds to the seven people who read from the Torah, with three verses corresponding to each person.
If you were to say that the maftir does not count among the seven, then the haftarah should contain twenty-four verses. There would be eight readers—the seven aliyot and the additional maftir—and three verses should correspond to each one. The Gemara answers that even if the maftir does not count among the required number, we do not add verses to the haftarah for him. His reading from the Torah is only because of the honor of the Torah. It is not an obligatory reading in its own right, and therefore it does not generate an additional three verses in the haftarah.
Nevertheless, we learn from this discussion that the minimum haftarah is twenty-one verses. If the subject concludes before twenty-one verses, however, one reads the entire subject even if it contains fewer than twenty-one verses. Once the subject has been completed, there is no requirement to continue reading.
The Gemara then challenges this principle. Rabbi Yochanan said that on certain occasions they read only ten verses, and the reading was considered sufficient. How can that be, if the minimum is twenty-one verses?
The Gemara answers that the rule is different in a place where there is a translator. In some places, the haftarah was translated after it was read. Each verse was read in Hebrew and then translated. Since the congregation heard the passage twice, the Sages did not trouble them with twenty-one verses. Ten verses were sufficient in a place where the translation was being given.
In a place where there was no translator, however, one had to read the full minimum. Rav Taklifa bar Shmuel said that he would go only to a place where there was no translation, because in that place the complete reading was recited.
Tosafot uses this discussion to show that the practice of translating the haftarah was a custom rather than an absolute law. Some communities had the custom and some did not. Where the custom existed, the Sages reduced the required number of verses so as not to impose an unnecessary burden on the congregation. Therefore, when there is a translator, ten verses are sufficient.
The Gemara then begins the next Mishnah, which lists various parts of the prayer service and other communal practices that require a minimum of ten people.
According to Rashi, the first case is a person who missed the communal response of Barechu. This does not mean that he missed the entire minyan or the Amidah; it means that he did not hear Barechu. If he later gathers together with nine other people, one of them can recite Kaddish, Barechu, and the first blessing of the evening Shema, the blessing of the Creator of light. The congregation responds, “Holy, holy, holy,” and completes the blessing.
This practice is called breaking apart the Shema. The term means that they are reciting only one of the blessings associated with the recitation of the Shema rather than the complete set of blessings. Why would they do this? The novelty is that if a person wants to recite Barechu, he may do so in this manner.
Why must he recite the blessing of the Creator of light as well? Why not simply say Kaddish and Barechu and then go home? Rashi’s position is that the response of “Holy, holy, holy” requires a minyan. If ten people had already prayed but had not recited Barechu together, they must recite this blessing as well so that they can say “Holy, holy, holy” together with the leader and fulfill the requirement.
Tosafot offers a different understanding. According to Tosafot, the number does not necessarily have to be ten people who entirely missed Barechu. It may be sufficient to have seven who did not recite it and three who already did. Another opinion among the early authorities says that even one person who did not hear Barechu can join nine others and recite it in this manner. The dispute is therefore whether the required group consists of ten people who all missed it, seven who missed it together with three who did not, or even one who missed it together with nine who did not.
The Be’er explains Rashi’s interpretation. The term means a portion or a part. These people did not recite Kaddish, Barechu, and the blessing of the Creator of light together with the congregation. One of them therefore stands and recites Kaddish, Barechu, and the blessing of the Creator of light aloud.
The Aran adds that each of them had already recited the blessing of the Creator of light privately. They had all recited the blessings, but because they had prayed individually or without the required group, they had not said Kaddish, Barechu, and the response of “Holy, holy, holy” together. Therefore, they repeat the blessing in order to recite the response together with a minyan.
The Mishnah continues: There is no public Torah reading with fewer than ten people, and there is no reading from the Prophets with fewer than ten. The public repetition of the additional prayer also requires ten.
The Mishnah then mentions the practice of standing and sitting during a funeral procession. When a person passed away, the mourners and those accompanying them would walk from the funeral to the cemetery or from the cemetery toward the mourners’ home. Along the way, they would stop seven times. At each stop, the people would sit, and someone would deliver a eulogy. Then they would say, “Stand up, precious ones,” and continue walking. At another location, they would stop again, sit down, and hear another eulogy. This was called standing and sitting.
Why did this practice require ten people? The Gemara explains that the attendant would address the group as “precious ones.” It is not respectful to use that form of address for fewer than ten people. If fewer than ten were called “precious ones,” what would remain to be said when there were more than ten? The terminology was intended for a proper public gathering. Therefore, the practice of standing and sitting was performed only with ten people.
The Mishnah next mentions the blessing of the mourners and the consolation of the mourners. The blessing of the mourners is not the ordinary blessing recited after a meal. Tosafot explains that these were special blessings recited in the street while people were consoling the mourners. The mourners would stand in rows, and the mourners would walk between them while the people offered words of consolation.
Each row required at least ten people. The mourners themselves were not counted as part of that group, because the blessing of the mourners was a blessing directed to the people who had come to console them.
The blessing that the mourners recited to the consolers was: “May the One who gives reward repay you for your good deeds.” The consolers then recited a blessing for the mourners. Since that blessing was directed toward the mourners, the mourners were not counted among the ten for that blessing either. The visitors were blessing the mourners, and the mourners were blessing the visitors.
The Mishnah also mentions the blessings of the bridegrooms. These are the seven blessings recited at a wedding and during the week following the wedding. Ten people are required for those blessings. The bridegroom himself is not counted as part of the ten, because he is included in the joy and is one of the people for whom the blessings are being recited. The blessings concern the joy of the bridegroom and bride, and therefore the bridegroom cannot be counted as one of the ten required participants.
The Mishnah then says that the invitation to Grace after Meals with the mention of God’s name requires ten people. When one says, “Let us bless our God, of whose food we have eaten,” there must be at least ten people. One may not mention God’s name in that formula with fewer than ten.
Finally, the Mishnah discusses the assessment of consecrated land. If a person owns a piece of property and consecrates it, and then wishes to redeem it, the value of the land must be assessed. He gives the assessed amount to the Temple treasury. How many people are required for the assessment? Nine ordinary Israelites and one priest—nine plus a priest, making ten.
The same applies when a person consecrates his Canaanite servant and then wishes to redeem him, or when a person says, “My valuation is upon me,” meaning that he wishes to give his monetary value to the Temple treasury. An assessment is required in those cases as well. The person is assessed according to the amount that could be obtained for him as a servant. That assessment also requires nine people and one priest.
The Gemara now begins to derive the requirement of ten. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: “I will be sanctified among the Children of Israel.” This teaches that sanctification requires a quorum of the Jewish people. The verse itself does not tell us how many that quorum contains, but the Gemara derives the number through a verbal analogy.
There is a teaching of Rabbi Chiya that links the word “among” in the verse concerning sanctification to the word “among” in the verse concerning the spies. The verse says, “Separate yourselves from among this congregation,” and the congregation of the spies consisted of ten, after excluding Joshua and Caleb. The same word is used in the verse concerning sanctification. Through this verbal analogy, just as “congregation” there refers to ten, so too the sanctification of God’s name requires ten.
Many commentators do not accept these verses as ideal sources, because they question why the number should be derived from the spies or from the rebellion of Korah. Why should we learn the requirement of a minyan from people who were not righteous? Why not derive it from the righteous people instead?
I saw one of the teachers of ethical instruction offer an explanation. The purpose is to show that when ten people gather, the Divine Presence rests among them even if they are not all righteous. When there is a minyan, we do not examine each individual to determine whether he is righteous, intermediate, or wicked. Once ten people come together for the minyan, they are all included in the community.
This is similar to the principle that even ingredients that are not independently significant can be counted as part of the communal offering. The Creator counts the community as a whole. A minyan consists of righteous people, ordinary people, and people who may be less than righteous. Once they gather together, they are all part of the minyan, and the Divine Presence rests among them.
The Gemara returns to the practice of standing and sitting at a funeral. The attendant would say, “Stand up, precious ones,” and the group would continue walking. The verse indicates that fewer than ten are not included in this practice, because the attendant would not address fewer than ten people with the term “precious ones.” The language implies a public gathering, and therefore ten are required.
The Mishnah also mentions the blessing of the mourners. The Gemara asks what this blessing is. It answers that it is the blessing recited in the street while the mourners were being consoled. Tosafot explains that this is not the blessing of the mourners themselves in the sense of a blessing they recite after a meal. Rather, it refers to the special blessings recited when people stood in the street and consoled the mourners.
The mourners would say a blessing to the consolers: “May the One who gives reward repay you for your good deeds.” The consolers would then say a blessing to the mourners. The mourners were not counted among the ten for the blessing directed to the consolers, and the consolers were the ones who constituted the required group.
The blessings of the bridegrooms require ten, but the bridegroom is not counted among the ten. Since he is the person experiencing the joy for which the blessings are being recited, he is included in the subject of the blessings and is not counted as part of the quorum.
Regarding the invitation to Grace after Meals with the mention of God’s name, the reason ten are required is that one is mentioning God’s name. One may not say, “Let us bless our God,” with fewer than ten people.
Regarding the assessment of land, the Mishnah requires nine and a priest. The Torah’s section on valuations uses the word “priest” three times in the passage concerning personal valuations. It also uses the word “priest” three times in the passage concerning the valuation of an animal, and four times in the passage concerning the consecration of property. Altogether, the word “priest” appears ten times in the passages dealing with valuations.
From the fact that the word appears ten times, the Gemara derives that ten people are required for an assessment. The Gemara then asks how we know that one of the ten must be a priest rather than all ten being Israelites.
The first occurrence of the word “priest” teaches that a priest is required. The remaining occurrences are treated through the principle of a limitation followed by another limitation. The first mention limits the requirement to a priest and excludes everyone else. The next mention is another limitation. When two limitations appear consecutively, they combine to broaden the rule, so that the other participants may be Israelites. Thus, one priest and nine Israelites are sufficient.
The Gemara challenges this derivation. If the principle of one limitation followed by another limitation is applied in the usual way, the pattern should alternate. The first limitation would exclude the Israelites, the second would broaden the rule to include them, and a third limitation would again restrict it. According to that reasoning, the result should be five priests and five Israelites rather than one priest and nine Israelites.
The Gemara leaves this as a difficulty. One could argue that consecutive limitations do not necessarily alternate in that fashion. Once the text has established the principle through consecutive limitations, the remaining occurrences continue to broaden the rule, resulting in one priest and nine Israelites. Nevertheless, the Gemara presents the question.
The final case is the valuation of a person. The Gemara asks: What does it mean that a person can be consecrated? One can consecrate an animal or property, but one does not ordinarily consecrate a human being.
The Gemara explains that the case is one in which a person says, “My valuation is upon me.” He is not asking for the fixed valuation that the Torah assigns according to age and gender. That valuation is already defined by the Torah and does not require an appraisal. Rather, he is offering his actual monetary value to the Temple treasury—the amount that could be obtained by selling him as a servant. That value requires an assessment by the Sages.
Why are ten people needed for this assessment? The Torah compares a person’s valuation to land. We know that land is inherited by a person’s children, but a human being is not inherited in the ordinary sense. The Torah nevertheless says regarding a Canaanite servant that he may be bequeathed to one’s children like an inheritance of property. This shows that such a servant is treated as property for this purpose.
Therefore, just as the valuation of land requires nine people and one priest, the valuation of a person who offers his monetary value to the Temple treasury also requires nine people and one priest. This concludes the Gemara’s explanation of the requirement of ten for the various matters listed in the Mishnah.