Search

Taanit 27

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

English
עברית
podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




Summary

Is the prohibition for kohanim to bless the people while drunk derived from laws of nazir or from a juxtaposition in the verse Devraim 10:8 between serving in the Temple and blessing the people? Why were the maamadot instituted? A braita states that 24 mishmarot of kohanim were in Israel and 12 were in Jericho. Does that mean there were 36!? And what exactly is meant in Israel/in Jericho? Kohanim and levites are essential for sacrifices. Are the maamadot also? What about the musical instruments? Is the important part of the music the voices or the instruments? Moshe set up eight rotations of kohanim but a different source says sixteen. Also, there are contradictory statements about how and when it became twenty-four. Which families of kohanim that were in the first Temple came back to Israel when the second Temple was built and served there as well. Why do we read the Torah portion of the creation of the world during the maamadot? The people in the maamadot would fast from Monday-Thursday of that week. Regarding the Torah portion, in a case where there are five verses in one part (one day of creation) and three in the other, the three are all read on one Aliya. But there is a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding the five – is one verse is repeated in both aliyot or split in half, as one must read a minimum of three verses for each aliya. Difficulties are raised against the different opinions.

Today’s daily daf tools:

Taanit 27

אִי מָה מְשָׁרֵת — בַּעַל מוּם לָא, אַף כֹּהֵן מְבָרֵךְ — בַּעַל מוּם לָא! הָא אִיתַּקַּשׁ לְנָזִיר.

The Gemara asks: If so, then just as a priest who ministers in the Temple may not be physically blemished, so too, a priest who recites the benediction may not be blemished. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The priest who recites the benediction is also juxtaposed to a nazirite, who is not affected by a blemish.

וּמַאי חָזֵית דְּמַקְּשַׁתְּ לְקוּלָּא? אַקֵּישׁ לְחוּמְרָא! אַסְמַכְתָּא נִינְהוּ מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּלְקוּלָּא.

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that you juxtaposed the cases in favor of a leniency? Perhaps you should juxtapose for a stringency, by comparing the priest who recites the benediction to a nazirite with regard to grape pits, and comparing him to a priest ministering in the Temple in relation to the prohibition against reciting the benediction if he has a physical blemish. The Gemara explains: These proofs are cited merely as support for halakhot that apply by rabbinic law, and consequently, they are interpreted as a leniency, not a stringency.

אֵלּוּ הֵן מַעֲמָדוֹת. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״צַו אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כּוּ׳״. מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵלּוּ הֵן מַעֲמָדוֹת. וּמָה טַעַם תִּיקְּנוּ מַעֲמָדוֹת, לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״צַו אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם אֶת קׇרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי לְאִשַּׁי״.

§ The mishna taught that these are the non-priestly watches: Since it is stated: “Command the children of Israel.” The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying about the non-priestly watches? How does the verse relate to the watches? The Gemara explains that the mishna is saying as follows: These are the non-priestly watches, which will be explained later. And what is the reason that they instituted non-priestly watches? Since it is stated: “Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering of food, which is presented to Me made by a fire, of a sweet savor to Me, you shall observe to sacrifice to Me in their due season” (Numbers 28:2).

וְהֵיאַךְ קׇרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קָרֵב וְהוּא אֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו? הִתְקִינוּ נְבִיאִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מִשְׁמָרוֹת. עַל כָּל מִשְׁמָר וּמִשְׁמָר הָיָה מַעֲמָד בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים וְשֶׁל לְוִיִּם וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרְאֵלִים. הִגִּיעַ זְמַן מִשְׁמָר לַעֲלוֹת, כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם עוֹלִין לִירוּשָׁלַיִם.

The mishna continues: But how can a person’s offering be sacrificed when he is not standing next to it? The early prophets, Samuel and David, instituted twenty-four priestly watches. For each and every priestly watch there was a corresponding watch in Jerusalem of priests, Levites, and Israelites. When the time arrived for the members of a certain priestly watch to ascend, the priests and Levites of that watch would ascend to Jerusalem.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מִשְׁמָרוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה בִּירִיחוֹ. שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה בִּירִיחוֹ?! נְפִישָׁן לְהוּ טוּבָא! אֶלָּא: שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה מֵהֶן בִּירִיחוֹ. הִגִּיעַ זְמַן הַמִּשְׁמָר לַעֲלוֹת, חֲצִי הַמִּשְׁמָר הָיָה עוֹלֶה מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וַחֲצִי הַמִּשְׁמָר הָיָה עוֹלֶה מִירִיחוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּסַפְּקוּ מַיִם וּמָזוֹן לַאֲחֵיהֶם שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.

The Sages taught: There were twenty-four priestly watches in Eretz Yisrael, and twelve in Jericho. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Twelve in Jericho? In that case there are too many of them, as this makes a total of thirty-six watches. Rather, the baraita should be read as follows: There were twenty-four in total, twelve of which were in Jericho. How so? When the time arrived for the members of a certain priestly watch to ascend, half the priestly watch would ascend from all over Eretz Yisrael to Jerusalem, and half the priestly watch would ascend from Jericho, in order to provide water and food to their brothers in Jerusalem from Jericho.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַקׇּרְבָּן. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם וּכְלֵי שִׁיר מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַקׇּרְבָּן. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בַּפֶּה, וּמָר סָבַר: עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בִּכְלִי.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Priests, Levites, and Israelites are all indispensable for the offering, and consequently, they all must be present when the daily offering is sacrificed. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Priests, Levites, and musical instruments are indispensable for the offering. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? One Sage, Shmuel, holds that the main aspect of the Levites’ song that accompanied the offerings is vocal, and one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, holds that the main aspect of their song is instrumental, performed with a vessel, and therefore both the Levites and their instruments must be present for the daily offering.

אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: מֹשֶׁה תִּיקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמוֹנָה מִשְׁמָרוֹת, אַרְבָּעָה מֵאֶלְעָזָר וְאַרְבָּעָה מֵאִיתָמָר. בָּא שְׁמוּאֵל וְהֶעֱמִידָן עַל שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה, בָּא דָּוִד וְהֶעֱמִידָן עַל עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בִּשְׁנַת הָאַרְבָּעִים לְמַלְכוּת דָּוִיד נִדְרָשׁוּ וַיִּמָּצֵא בָהֶם גִּבּוֹרֵי חַיִל בְּיַעְזֵיר גִּלְעָד״.

Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: Moses initially instituted for the Jews eight priestly watches, four from the descendants of Elazar and four from the descendants of Itamar. Samuel came and established them as sixteen, and David came and established them as twenty-four, as it is stated, after the watches are listed: “In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found among them mighty men of valor at Jazer of Gilead” (I Chronicles 26:31).

מֵיתִיבִי: מֹשֶׁה תִּיקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמוֹנָה מִשְׁמָרוֹת, אַרְבָּעָה מֵאֶלְעָזָר וְאַרְבְּעָה מֵאִיתָמָר, וּבָא דָּוִד וּשְׁמוּאֵל וְהֶעֱמִידָן עַל עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֵמָּה יִסַּד דָּוִיד וּשְׁמוּאֵל הָרֹאֶה בֶּאֱמוּנָתָם״! הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִיִּסּוּדוֹ שֶׁל דָּוִד וּשְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי הֶעֱמִידוּם עַל עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע.

The Gemara raises an objection against this opinion from a baraita. Moses instituted for the Jews eight priestly watches, four from Elazar and four from Itamar. And David and Samuel came and established them as twenty-four, as it is stated: “Whom David and Samuel the seer ordained in their set office” (I Chronicles 9:22). This baraita indicates that David and Samuel together established the twenty-four watches. The Gemara explains: This is what the baraita is saying: Through their ordination by David and Samuel of Rama the priestly watches incrementally increased in number until they established them as twenty-four.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: מֹשֶׁה תִּיקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִשְׁמָרוֹת, שְׁמוֹנָה מֵאֶלְעָזָר וּשְׁמוֹנָה מֵאִיתָמָר. וּכְשֶׁרַבּוּ בְּנֵי אֶלְעָזָר עַל בְּנֵי אִיתָמָר, חִלְּקוּם וְהֶעֱמִידוּם עַל עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּמָּצְאוּ בְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר רַבִּים לְרָאשֵׁי הַגְּבָרִים מִן בְּנֵי אִיתָמָר וַיַּחְלְקוּם לִבְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר רָאשִׁים לְבֵית אָבוֹת שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר וְלִבְנֵי אִיתָמָר לְבֵית אֲבוֹתָם שְׁמוֹנָה״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״בֵּית אָב אֶחָד אָחֻז לְאֶלְעָזָר וְאָחֻז אָחֻז לְאִיתָמָר״.

It is taught in another baraita: Moses instituted for the Jews sixteen priestly watches, eight from Elazar and eight from Itamar. And when the descendants of Elazar grew more numerous than the descendants of Itamar, he divided the descendants of Elazar and established them together with the descendants of Itamar as twenty-four watches, as it is stated: “And there were more chief men found of the sons of Elazar than of the sons of Itamar, and they were divided thus: Of the sons of Elazar there were sixteen heads of fathers’ houses, and of the sons of Itamar, according to their fathers’ houses, eight” (I Chronicles 24:4). And it says: “One father’s house taken for Elazar, and proportionately for Itamar” (I Chronicles 24:6).

מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: כִּי הֵיכִי דִּנְפִישִׁי בְּנֵי אֶלְעָזָר, הָכָא נָמֵי דִּנְפִישִׁי בְּנֵי אִיתָמָר — שְׁמוֹנָה, מֵעִיקָּרָא אַרְבָּעָה הֲווֹ, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״בֵּית אָב אֶחָד אָחֻז לְאֶלְעָזָר וְאָחֻז אָחֻז לְאִיתָמָר״. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא!

The Gemara asks: What is: And it says? Why was it necessary to quote a second verse? The Gemara explains: And if you would say that just as the descendants of Elazar increased, so too, the descendants of Itamar increased, and the eight watches were initially four, as claimed by Rav Ḥama bar Gurya, then come and hear: “One father’s house taken for Elazar, and proportionately for Itamar,” which indicates that the descendants of Itamar remained as they were. This verse is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Ḥama bar Gurya, who says that Moses established only eight priestly watches.

אָמַר לְךָ רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, וַאֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוֹנָה.

The Gemara responds: Rav Ḥama bar Gurya could have said to you that the initial order of the priestly watches is a dispute between tanna’im, as indicated by the previous baraita, and I stated my opinion in accordance with that tanna who said that Moses instituted eight priestly watches.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַרְבָּעָה מִשְׁמָרוֹת עָלוּ מִן הַגּוֹלָה, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: יְדַעְיָה, חָרִים, פַּשְׁחוּר, וְאִימֵּר. עָמְדוּ נְבִיאִים שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם,

The Sages taught: Only four priestly watches ascended from the Babylonian exile, while the other twenty stayed in Babylonia. And these are the watches who returned: The descendants of Jedaiah, Harim, Pashhur, and Immer. The prophets among those who returned arose

וְחִלְּקוּם וְהֶעֱמִידוּם עַל עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה, בְּלָלוּם וּנְתָנוּם בְּקַלְפִּי. בָּא יְדַעְיָה וְנָטַל חֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק חֲבֵרָיו שֵׁשׁ, בָּא חָרִים וְנָטַל חֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק חֲבֵרָיו שֵׁשׁ, וְכֵן פַּשְׁחוּר, וְכֵן אִימֵּר.

and divided them and established them as twenty-four watches. They achieved this by writing the names of these new twenty-four watches on pieces of paper, mixing them up, and putting them in a receptacle [kalfei] from which lots were drawn. A representative from the family of Jedaiah came and drew his portion and the lot of five other watches, for a total of six. Harim came and also drew his portion and the lot of five other watches, a total of six. And likewise Pashhur, and likewise Immer.

וְכֵן הִתְנוּ נְבִיאִים שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם: שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ יְהוֹיָרִיב רֹאשׁ מִשְׁמֶרֶת עוֹלֶה — לֹא יִדָּחֶה יְדַעְיָה מִמְּקוֹמוֹ. אֶלָּא יְדַעְיָה עִיקָּר, וִיהוֹיָרִיב טָפֵל לוֹ.

And likewise the prophets among them stipulated that even if the descendants of Jehoiarib, who originally headed the priestly watches, ascended to Eretz Yisrael, Jedaiah would not be demoted from its place as the first of the watches. Rather, the watch of Jedaiah would retain precedence, and Jehoiarib would be subordinate to it.

וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מִשְׁמָר מִתְכַּנְּסִין בְּעָרֵיהֶן וְקוֹרִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַחָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אִלְמָלֵא מַעֲמָדוֹת לֹא נִתְקַיְּימוּ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֱלֹהִים בַּמָּה אֵדַע כִּי אִירָשֶׁנָּה״,

§ The mishna taught: And the Israelites of that priestly watch assembled in their towns and read the act of Creation. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that they must read this specific portion, derived? Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa said that Rav Asi said: Were it not for the non-priestly watches and the Temple service, heaven and earth would not continue to exist, as it is stated: “And he said: Lord God, by what shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (Genesis 15:8).

אָמַר אַבְרָהָם: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! שֶׁמָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל חוֹטְאִין לְפָנֶיךָ, אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶם כְּדוֹר הַמַּבּוּל וּכְדוֹר הַפְּלַגָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו. אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! הוֹדִיעֵנִי בַּמֶּה אִירָשֶׁנָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״קְחָה לִי עֶגְלָה מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת וְעֵז מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת וְגוֹ׳״.

The Gemara explains this verse. Abraham said: Master of the Universe, perhaps the Jews will sin before You. Will You treat them as You did the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion, and destroy them? God said to him: No. Abraham said before God: Master of the Universe, tell me, with what shall I inherit it? How can my descendants ensure that You will maintain the world? God said to Abraham: “Take for Me a three-year-old heifer, and a three-year-old goat, and a three-year-old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon” (Genesis 15:9). God was alluding to the offerings, in whose merit the Jewish people, and through them the entire world, will be spared divine punishment.

אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! תִּינַח בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים. בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים מָה תְּהֵא עֲלֵיהֶם? אָמַר לוֹ: כְּבָר תִּקַּנְתִּי לָהֶם סֵדֶר קׇרְבָּנוֹת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁקּוֹרְאִין בָּהֶן לְפָנַי — מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עֲלֵיהֶם כְּאִילּוּ הִקְרִיבוּם לְפָנַי וַאֲנִי מוֹחֵל לָהֶם עַל כׇּל עֲוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם.

Abraham said before God: Master of the Universe, this works out well when the Temple is standing, but when the Temple is not standing, what will become of them? God said to him: I have already enacted for them the order of offerings. When they read them before Me, I will ascribe them credit as though they had sacrificed them before Me and I will pardon them for all their transgressions. Since the offerings ensure the continued existence of the Jewish people and the rest of the world, the act of Creation is read in their honor.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר הָיוּ מִתְפַּלְּלִין עַל קׇרְבַּן אֲחֵיהֶם שֶׁיִּתְקַבֵּל בְּרָצוֹן. וְאַנְשֵׁי מַעֲמָד מִתְכַּנְּסִין לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, וְיוֹשְׁבִין אַרְבַּע תַּעֲנִיּוֹת: בַּשֵּׁנִי בַּשַּׁבָּת, בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי, בָּרְבִיעִי, וּבַחֲמִישִׁי. בַּשֵּׁנִי — עַל יוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם. בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי — עַל הוֹלְכֵי מִדְבָּרוֹת.

§ The Sages taught: The members of the priestly watch would pray for the offerings of their brothers, the daily offering, that it should be accepted with favor. And meanwhile, the members of the non-priestly watch remained in their towns and would assemble in the synagogue and observe four fasts: On Monday of that week, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, and on Thursday. On Monday they would fast for seafarers, that they should be rescued from danger, as the sea was created on Monday. On Tuesday they would fast for those who walk in the desert, as the dry land was created on Tuesday.

בָּרְבִיעִי — עַל אַסְכָּרָא שֶׁלֹּא תִּיפּוֹל עַל הַתִּינוֹקוֹת. בַּחֲמִישִׁי — עַל עוּבָּרוֹת וּמֵינִיקוֹת. עוּבָּרוֹת — שֶׁלֹּא יַפִּילוּ, מֵינִיקוֹת — שֶׁיָּנִיקוּ אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם. וּבָעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לֹא הָיוּ מִתְעַנִּין מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת, קַל וָחוֹמֶר בַּשַּׁבָּת עַצְמָהּ.

On Wednesday they would fast over croup, that it should not befall the children, as on the fourth day the bodies of light [me’orot] were created, a textual allusion to curses [me’erot]. On Thursday they would fast for pregnant women and nursing women, as living beings were first created on this day. For pregnant women they would fast that they should not miscarry, while for nursing women they would fast that they should be able to nurse their children properly. And on Shabbat eve they would not fast, in deference to Shabbat, and a fortiori they would not fast on Shabbat itself.

בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵי הַנּוֹצְרִים. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שְׁלִישִׁי לַיְצִירָה.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they would not fast on Sunday? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Due to the Christians, as Sunday is their day of rest, and they would claim that even the Jews ascribe significance to their special day. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Because it is the third day after the creation of man, who was created on Friday, and the third day of recovery from a wound or sickness, in this case one’s very creation, is considered the most painful.

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי נְשָׁמָה יְתֵירָה, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: נְשָׁמָה יְתֵירָה נִיתְּנָה בּוֹ בָּאָדָם בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שָׁבַת וַיִּנָּפַשׁ״. כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁבַת — וַי אָבְדָה נָפֶשׁ.

Reish Lakish said: They would not fast on Sunday due to the added soul, as Reish Lakish said: An added soul is given to man on Shabbat eve, and at the conclusion of Shabbat it is removed it from him, as it is stated: “He ceased from work and rested [vayinafash]” (Exodus 31:17), which he expounds as follows: Since one has rested and Shabbat has passed, woe for the soul [vai nefesh] that is lost, the added soul that each individual relinquishes. Consequently, one is still weak from this loss on Sunday.

בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן ״בְּרֵאשִׁית״ וִ״יהִי רָקִיעַ״. תָּנָא: ״בְּרֵאשִׁית״ בִּשְׁנַיִם, ״יְהִי רָקִיעַ״ בְּאֶחָד. בִּשְׁלָמָא ״יְהִי רָקִיעַ״ בְּאֶחָד — תְּלָתָא פְּסוּקֵי הָווּ. אֶלָּא ״בְּרֵאשִׁית״ בִּשְׁנַיִם, מַאי טַעְמָא? חַמְשָׁה פְּסוּקֵי הָוַיִין, וְתַנְיָא: הַקּוֹרֵא בַּתּוֹרָה — אַל יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה פְּסוּקִים!

The mishna taught that on Sunday they would read the portions starting with: “In the beginning” (Genesis 1:1–5) and “Let there be a firmament” (Genesis 1:6–8). It is taught in a baraita: The section: “In the beginning” is read by two people, while “Let there be a firmament” is read by one. The Gemara asks: Granted, the passage “Let there be a firmament” is read by one individual, as it is three verses long, and one who is called to the Torah reads at least three verses. However, what is the reason that the section “In the beginning” is read by two individuals? It is five verses long, and it is taught in a mishna (Megilla 22a): One who reads from the Torah may not read fewer than three verses. How, then, are five verses read by two individuals?

רַב אָמַר: דּוֹלֵג. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: פּוֹסֵק. וְרַב דְּאָמַר דּוֹלֵג, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר פּוֹסֵק? קָסָבַר: כׇּל פְּסוּקָא דְּלָא פַּסְקֵיהּ מֹשֶׁה — אֲנַן לָא פָּסְקִינַן לֵיהּ.

The Gemara cites two answers. Rav said: The first reader reads the first three verses, and the second reader repeats the last verse read by the first, and continues with the final two verses. And Shmuel said: They split the middle verse into two, so that each of the pair reads half of it. The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rav, who said that one repeats, what is the reason that he did not say they should split a verse? The Gemara answers that Rav maintains that with regard to any verse that was not divided by Moses, we do not divide it.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר פּוֹסֵק, וּמִי פָּסְקִינַן? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא קָרָא: צַעַר גָּדוֹל הָיָה לִי אֵצֶל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הִתִּיר לִי לִפְסוֹק אֶלָּא לְתִינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן, הוֹאִיל וּלְהִתְלַמֵּד עֲשׂוּיִן. וּשְׁמוּאֵל — הָתָם טַעְמָא מַאי? מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר. הָכָא נָמֵי לָא אֶפְשָׁר.

And Shmuel said that one splits the middle verse into two. The Gemara asks: And may one split a single verse? But didn’t Rabbi Ḥanina Kara, the Bible expert, who taught the Bible to schoolchildren, say: I had great trouble with Rabbi Ḥanina the Great when I asked him this question, and he permitted me to split long verses into two only for the benefit of schoolchildren, since it is performed to help them learn. And Shmuel can respond that what is the reason there, in the case of schoolchildren, that it is permitted to split verses? Because it is not possible to proceed in any other way. Here too, it is not possible for two people to read five verses other than by splitting one of them into two.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר פּוֹסֵק, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר דּוֹלֵג? גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם הַנִּכְנָסִין וּגְזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם הַיּוֹצְאִין.

The Gemara questions this last conclusion. And Shmuel said that one splits the middle verse into two. What is the reason that he did not say that he repeats one of the verses, in accordance with the opinion of Rav? The Gemara explains: It is a rabbinic decree due to those who enter the synagogue in the middle of the reading, and a decree due to those who leave in the middle. If someone entered or exited in the middle of the reading and heard three full verses, he might think that one of the readers had read fewer than three full verses, which might lead him to conclude that it is permitted to read fewer than three verses.

מֵיתִיבִי: פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁל שִׁשָּׁה פְּסוּקִים — קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׁנַיִם, וְשֶׁל חֲמִשָּׁה — בְּיָחִיד. וְאִם הָרִאשׁוֹן קוֹרֵא שְׁלֹשָׁה, הַשֵּׁנִי קוֹרֵא שְׁנַיִם מִפָּרָשָׁה זוֹ וְאֶחָד מִפָּרָשָׁה אַחֶרֶת. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלֹשָׁה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַתְחִילִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה פְּסוּקִין.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A chapter consisting of six verses may be read by two individuals, and a chapter of five verses must be read by one. And if the first individual reads three verses from the five-verse chapter, the second one reads the last two verses of that chapter and one more from another chapter. And some say that three verses are read from the next chapter, as one may not begin to read a chapter for fewer than three verses.

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דּוֹלֵג — לִידְלוֹג, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר פּוֹסֵק — לִיפְסוֹק! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם,

The Gemara explains the objection: According to the one who said that they repeat the middle verse, let the second reader repeat a verse here as well. And according to the one who said that they split a verse, here too, let them split it. Apparently, the baraita contradicts the opinions of both Rav and Shmuel. The Gemara answers: It is different there,

Today’s daily daf tools:

Delve Deeper

Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.

For the Beyond the Daf shiurim offered in Hebrew, see here.

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you. 

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories. 

I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!

Catriella-Freedman-jpeg
Catriella Freedman

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba

Marsha Wasserman
Marsha Wasserman

Jerusalem, Israel

I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Sarene Shanus

Mamaroneck, NY, United States

In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.

Reena Slovin
Reena Slovin

Worcester, United States

It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.

Janice Block
Janice Block

Beit Shemesh, Israel

I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.

Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld

Far Rockaway, United States

I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Judith Shapiro

Minnesota, United States

I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.

Leah Goldford
Leah Goldford

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!

Rhona Fink
Rhona Fink

San Diego, United States

I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!

Pamela Elisheva
Pamela Elisheva

Bakersfield, United States

I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!

Roslyn Jaffe
Roslyn Jaffe

Florida, United States

I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!

Pamela Elisheva
Pamela Elisheva

Bakersfield, United States

I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.

I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.

Janice Block-2
Janice Block

Beit Shemesh, Israel

I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.

IMG_4212
Shoshana Bazini

Long Island, United States

It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.

Jeanne Yael Klempner
Jeanne Yael Klempner

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Sarene Shanus

Mamaroneck, NY, United States

I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.

Medinah Korn
Medinah Korn

בית שמש, Israel

I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.

Krivosha_Terri_Bio
Terri Krivosha

Minneapolis, United States

I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.

Patti Evans
Patti Evans

Phoenix, Arizona, United States

I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Dora Chana Haar

Oceanside NY, United States

Taanit 27

אִי מָה מְשָׁרֵת — בַּעַל מוּם לָא, אַף כֹּהֵן מְבָרֵךְ — בַּעַל מוּם לָא! הָא אִיתַּקַּשׁ לְנָזִיר.

The Gemara asks: If so, then just as a priest who ministers in the Temple may not be physically blemished, so too, a priest who recites the benediction may not be blemished. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The priest who recites the benediction is also juxtaposed to a nazirite, who is not affected by a blemish.

וּמַאי חָזֵית דְּמַקְּשַׁתְּ לְקוּלָּא? אַקֵּישׁ לְחוּמְרָא! אַסְמַכְתָּא נִינְהוּ מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּלְקוּלָּא.

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that you juxtaposed the cases in favor of a leniency? Perhaps you should juxtapose for a stringency, by comparing the priest who recites the benediction to a nazirite with regard to grape pits, and comparing him to a priest ministering in the Temple in relation to the prohibition against reciting the benediction if he has a physical blemish. The Gemara explains: These proofs are cited merely as support for halakhot that apply by rabbinic law, and consequently, they are interpreted as a leniency, not a stringency.

אֵלּוּ הֵן מַעֲמָדוֹת. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״צַו אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כּוּ׳״. מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵלּוּ הֵן מַעֲמָדוֹת. וּמָה טַעַם תִּיקְּנוּ מַעֲמָדוֹת, לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״צַו אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם אֶת קׇרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי לְאִשַּׁי״.

§ The mishna taught that these are the non-priestly watches: Since it is stated: “Command the children of Israel.” The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying about the non-priestly watches? How does the verse relate to the watches? The Gemara explains that the mishna is saying as follows: These are the non-priestly watches, which will be explained later. And what is the reason that they instituted non-priestly watches? Since it is stated: “Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering of food, which is presented to Me made by a fire, of a sweet savor to Me, you shall observe to sacrifice to Me in their due season” (Numbers 28:2).

וְהֵיאַךְ קׇרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קָרֵב וְהוּא אֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו? הִתְקִינוּ נְבִיאִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מִשְׁמָרוֹת. עַל כָּל מִשְׁמָר וּמִשְׁמָר הָיָה מַעֲמָד בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים וְשֶׁל לְוִיִּם וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרְאֵלִים. הִגִּיעַ זְמַן מִשְׁמָר לַעֲלוֹת, כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם עוֹלִין לִירוּשָׁלַיִם.

The mishna continues: But how can a person’s offering be sacrificed when he is not standing next to it? The early prophets, Samuel and David, instituted twenty-four priestly watches. For each and every priestly watch there was a corresponding watch in Jerusalem of priests, Levites, and Israelites. When the time arrived for the members of a certain priestly watch to ascend, the priests and Levites of that watch would ascend to Jerusalem.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מִשְׁמָרוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה בִּירִיחוֹ. שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה בִּירִיחוֹ?! נְפִישָׁן לְהוּ טוּבָא! אֶלָּא: שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה מֵהֶן בִּירִיחוֹ. הִגִּיעַ זְמַן הַמִּשְׁמָר לַעֲלוֹת, חֲצִי הַמִּשְׁמָר הָיָה עוֹלֶה מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וַחֲצִי הַמִּשְׁמָר הָיָה עוֹלֶה מִירִיחוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּסַפְּקוּ מַיִם וּמָזוֹן לַאֲחֵיהֶם שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.

The Sages taught: There were twenty-four priestly watches in Eretz Yisrael, and twelve in Jericho. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Twelve in Jericho? In that case there are too many of them, as this makes a total of thirty-six watches. Rather, the baraita should be read as follows: There were twenty-four in total, twelve of which were in Jericho. How so? When the time arrived for the members of a certain priestly watch to ascend, half the priestly watch would ascend from all over Eretz Yisrael to Jerusalem, and half the priestly watch would ascend from Jericho, in order to provide water and food to their brothers in Jerusalem from Jericho.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַקׇּרְבָּן. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם וּכְלֵי שִׁיר מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַקׇּרְבָּן. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בַּפֶּה, וּמָר סָבַר: עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בִּכְלִי.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Priests, Levites, and Israelites are all indispensable for the offering, and consequently, they all must be present when the daily offering is sacrificed. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Priests, Levites, and musical instruments are indispensable for the offering. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? One Sage, Shmuel, holds that the main aspect of the Levites’ song that accompanied the offerings is vocal, and one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, holds that the main aspect of their song is instrumental, performed with a vessel, and therefore both the Levites and their instruments must be present for the daily offering.

אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: מֹשֶׁה תִּיקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמוֹנָה מִשְׁמָרוֹת, אַרְבָּעָה מֵאֶלְעָזָר וְאַרְבָּעָה מֵאִיתָמָר. בָּא שְׁמוּאֵל וְהֶעֱמִידָן עַל שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה, בָּא דָּוִד וְהֶעֱמִידָן עַל עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בִּשְׁנַת הָאַרְבָּעִים לְמַלְכוּת דָּוִיד נִדְרָשׁוּ וַיִּמָּצֵא בָהֶם גִּבּוֹרֵי חַיִל בְּיַעְזֵיר גִּלְעָד״.

Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: Moses initially instituted for the Jews eight priestly watches, four from the descendants of Elazar and four from the descendants of Itamar. Samuel came and established them as sixteen, and David came and established them as twenty-four, as it is stated, after the watches are listed: “In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found among them mighty men of valor at Jazer of Gilead” (I Chronicles 26:31).

מֵיתִיבִי: מֹשֶׁה תִּיקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמוֹנָה מִשְׁמָרוֹת, אַרְבָּעָה מֵאֶלְעָזָר וְאַרְבְּעָה מֵאִיתָמָר, וּבָא דָּוִד וּשְׁמוּאֵל וְהֶעֱמִידָן עַל עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֵמָּה יִסַּד דָּוִיד וּשְׁמוּאֵל הָרֹאֶה בֶּאֱמוּנָתָם״! הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִיִּסּוּדוֹ שֶׁל דָּוִד וּשְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי הֶעֱמִידוּם עַל עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע.

The Gemara raises an objection against this opinion from a baraita. Moses instituted for the Jews eight priestly watches, four from Elazar and four from Itamar. And David and Samuel came and established them as twenty-four, as it is stated: “Whom David and Samuel the seer ordained in their set office” (I Chronicles 9:22). This baraita indicates that David and Samuel together established the twenty-four watches. The Gemara explains: This is what the baraita is saying: Through their ordination by David and Samuel of Rama the priestly watches incrementally increased in number until they established them as twenty-four.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: מֹשֶׁה תִּיקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִשְׁמָרוֹת, שְׁמוֹנָה מֵאֶלְעָזָר וּשְׁמוֹנָה מֵאִיתָמָר. וּכְשֶׁרַבּוּ בְּנֵי אֶלְעָזָר עַל בְּנֵי אִיתָמָר, חִלְּקוּם וְהֶעֱמִידוּם עַל עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּמָּצְאוּ בְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר רַבִּים לְרָאשֵׁי הַגְּבָרִים מִן בְּנֵי אִיתָמָר וַיַּחְלְקוּם לִבְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר רָאשִׁים לְבֵית אָבוֹת שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר וְלִבְנֵי אִיתָמָר לְבֵית אֲבוֹתָם שְׁמוֹנָה״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״בֵּית אָב אֶחָד אָחֻז לְאֶלְעָזָר וְאָחֻז אָחֻז לְאִיתָמָר״.

It is taught in another baraita: Moses instituted for the Jews sixteen priestly watches, eight from Elazar and eight from Itamar. And when the descendants of Elazar grew more numerous than the descendants of Itamar, he divided the descendants of Elazar and established them together with the descendants of Itamar as twenty-four watches, as it is stated: “And there were more chief men found of the sons of Elazar than of the sons of Itamar, and they were divided thus: Of the sons of Elazar there were sixteen heads of fathers’ houses, and of the sons of Itamar, according to their fathers’ houses, eight” (I Chronicles 24:4). And it says: “One father’s house taken for Elazar, and proportionately for Itamar” (I Chronicles 24:6).

מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: כִּי הֵיכִי דִּנְפִישִׁי בְּנֵי אֶלְעָזָר, הָכָא נָמֵי דִּנְפִישִׁי בְּנֵי אִיתָמָר — שְׁמוֹנָה, מֵעִיקָּרָא אַרְבָּעָה הֲווֹ, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״בֵּית אָב אֶחָד אָחֻז לְאֶלְעָזָר וְאָחֻז אָחֻז לְאִיתָמָר״. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא!

The Gemara asks: What is: And it says? Why was it necessary to quote a second verse? The Gemara explains: And if you would say that just as the descendants of Elazar increased, so too, the descendants of Itamar increased, and the eight watches were initially four, as claimed by Rav Ḥama bar Gurya, then come and hear: “One father’s house taken for Elazar, and proportionately for Itamar,” which indicates that the descendants of Itamar remained as they were. This verse is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Ḥama bar Gurya, who says that Moses established only eight priestly watches.

אָמַר לְךָ רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, וַאֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוֹנָה.

The Gemara responds: Rav Ḥama bar Gurya could have said to you that the initial order of the priestly watches is a dispute between tanna’im, as indicated by the previous baraita, and I stated my opinion in accordance with that tanna who said that Moses instituted eight priestly watches.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַרְבָּעָה מִשְׁמָרוֹת עָלוּ מִן הַגּוֹלָה, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: יְדַעְיָה, חָרִים, פַּשְׁחוּר, וְאִימֵּר. עָמְדוּ נְבִיאִים שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם,

The Sages taught: Only four priestly watches ascended from the Babylonian exile, while the other twenty stayed in Babylonia. And these are the watches who returned: The descendants of Jedaiah, Harim, Pashhur, and Immer. The prophets among those who returned arose

וְחִלְּקוּם וְהֶעֱמִידוּם עַל עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה, בְּלָלוּם וּנְתָנוּם בְּקַלְפִּי. בָּא יְדַעְיָה וְנָטַל חֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק חֲבֵרָיו שֵׁשׁ, בָּא חָרִים וְנָטַל חֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק חֲבֵרָיו שֵׁשׁ, וְכֵן פַּשְׁחוּר, וְכֵן אִימֵּר.

and divided them and established them as twenty-four watches. They achieved this by writing the names of these new twenty-four watches on pieces of paper, mixing them up, and putting them in a receptacle [kalfei] from which lots were drawn. A representative from the family of Jedaiah came and drew his portion and the lot of five other watches, for a total of six. Harim came and also drew his portion and the lot of five other watches, a total of six. And likewise Pashhur, and likewise Immer.

וְכֵן הִתְנוּ נְבִיאִים שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם: שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ יְהוֹיָרִיב רֹאשׁ מִשְׁמֶרֶת עוֹלֶה — לֹא יִדָּחֶה יְדַעְיָה מִמְּקוֹמוֹ. אֶלָּא יְדַעְיָה עִיקָּר, וִיהוֹיָרִיב טָפֵל לוֹ.

And likewise the prophets among them stipulated that even if the descendants of Jehoiarib, who originally headed the priestly watches, ascended to Eretz Yisrael, Jedaiah would not be demoted from its place as the first of the watches. Rather, the watch of Jedaiah would retain precedence, and Jehoiarib would be subordinate to it.

וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מִשְׁמָר מִתְכַּנְּסִין בְּעָרֵיהֶן וְקוֹרִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַחָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אִלְמָלֵא מַעֲמָדוֹת לֹא נִתְקַיְּימוּ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֱלֹהִים בַּמָּה אֵדַע כִּי אִירָשֶׁנָּה״,

§ The mishna taught: And the Israelites of that priestly watch assembled in their towns and read the act of Creation. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that they must read this specific portion, derived? Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa said that Rav Asi said: Were it not for the non-priestly watches and the Temple service, heaven and earth would not continue to exist, as it is stated: “And he said: Lord God, by what shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (Genesis 15:8).

אָמַר אַבְרָהָם: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! שֶׁמָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל חוֹטְאִין לְפָנֶיךָ, אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶם כְּדוֹר הַמַּבּוּל וּכְדוֹר הַפְּלַגָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו. אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! הוֹדִיעֵנִי בַּמֶּה אִירָשֶׁנָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״קְחָה לִי עֶגְלָה מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת וְעֵז מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת וְגוֹ׳״.

The Gemara explains this verse. Abraham said: Master of the Universe, perhaps the Jews will sin before You. Will You treat them as You did the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion, and destroy them? God said to him: No. Abraham said before God: Master of the Universe, tell me, with what shall I inherit it? How can my descendants ensure that You will maintain the world? God said to Abraham: “Take for Me a three-year-old heifer, and a three-year-old goat, and a three-year-old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon” (Genesis 15:9). God was alluding to the offerings, in whose merit the Jewish people, and through them the entire world, will be spared divine punishment.

אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! תִּינַח בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים. בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים מָה תְּהֵא עֲלֵיהֶם? אָמַר לוֹ: כְּבָר תִּקַּנְתִּי לָהֶם סֵדֶר קׇרְבָּנוֹת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁקּוֹרְאִין בָּהֶן לְפָנַי — מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עֲלֵיהֶם כְּאִילּוּ הִקְרִיבוּם לְפָנַי וַאֲנִי מוֹחֵל לָהֶם עַל כׇּל עֲוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם.

Abraham said before God: Master of the Universe, this works out well when the Temple is standing, but when the Temple is not standing, what will become of them? God said to him: I have already enacted for them the order of offerings. When they read them before Me, I will ascribe them credit as though they had sacrificed them before Me and I will pardon them for all their transgressions. Since the offerings ensure the continued existence of the Jewish people and the rest of the world, the act of Creation is read in their honor.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר הָיוּ מִתְפַּלְּלִין עַל קׇרְבַּן אֲחֵיהֶם שֶׁיִּתְקַבֵּל בְּרָצוֹן. וְאַנְשֵׁי מַעֲמָד מִתְכַּנְּסִין לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, וְיוֹשְׁבִין אַרְבַּע תַּעֲנִיּוֹת: בַּשֵּׁנִי בַּשַּׁבָּת, בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי, בָּרְבִיעִי, וּבַחֲמִישִׁי. בַּשֵּׁנִי — עַל יוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם. בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי — עַל הוֹלְכֵי מִדְבָּרוֹת.

§ The Sages taught: The members of the priestly watch would pray for the offerings of their brothers, the daily offering, that it should be accepted with favor. And meanwhile, the members of the non-priestly watch remained in their towns and would assemble in the synagogue and observe four fasts: On Monday of that week, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, and on Thursday. On Monday they would fast for seafarers, that they should be rescued from danger, as the sea was created on Monday. On Tuesday they would fast for those who walk in the desert, as the dry land was created on Tuesday.

בָּרְבִיעִי — עַל אַסְכָּרָא שֶׁלֹּא תִּיפּוֹל עַל הַתִּינוֹקוֹת. בַּחֲמִישִׁי — עַל עוּבָּרוֹת וּמֵינִיקוֹת. עוּבָּרוֹת — שֶׁלֹּא יַפִּילוּ, מֵינִיקוֹת — שֶׁיָּנִיקוּ אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם. וּבָעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לֹא הָיוּ מִתְעַנִּין מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת, קַל וָחוֹמֶר בַּשַּׁבָּת עַצְמָהּ.

On Wednesday they would fast over croup, that it should not befall the children, as on the fourth day the bodies of light [me’orot] were created, a textual allusion to curses [me’erot]. On Thursday they would fast for pregnant women and nursing women, as living beings were first created on this day. For pregnant women they would fast that they should not miscarry, while for nursing women they would fast that they should be able to nurse their children properly. And on Shabbat eve they would not fast, in deference to Shabbat, and a fortiori they would not fast on Shabbat itself.

בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵי הַנּוֹצְרִים. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שְׁלִישִׁי לַיְצִירָה.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they would not fast on Sunday? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Due to the Christians, as Sunday is their day of rest, and they would claim that even the Jews ascribe significance to their special day. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Because it is the third day after the creation of man, who was created on Friday, and the third day of recovery from a wound or sickness, in this case one’s very creation, is considered the most painful.

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי נְשָׁמָה יְתֵירָה, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: נְשָׁמָה יְתֵירָה נִיתְּנָה בּוֹ בָּאָדָם בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שָׁבַת וַיִּנָּפַשׁ״. כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁבַת — וַי אָבְדָה נָפֶשׁ.

Reish Lakish said: They would not fast on Sunday due to the added soul, as Reish Lakish said: An added soul is given to man on Shabbat eve, and at the conclusion of Shabbat it is removed it from him, as it is stated: “He ceased from work and rested [vayinafash]” (Exodus 31:17), which he expounds as follows: Since one has rested and Shabbat has passed, woe for the soul [vai nefesh] that is lost, the added soul that each individual relinquishes. Consequently, one is still weak from this loss on Sunday.

בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן ״בְּרֵאשִׁית״ וִ״יהִי רָקִיעַ״. תָּנָא: ״בְּרֵאשִׁית״ בִּשְׁנַיִם, ״יְהִי רָקִיעַ״ בְּאֶחָד. בִּשְׁלָמָא ״יְהִי רָקִיעַ״ בְּאֶחָד — תְּלָתָא פְּסוּקֵי הָווּ. אֶלָּא ״בְּרֵאשִׁית״ בִּשְׁנַיִם, מַאי טַעְמָא? חַמְשָׁה פְּסוּקֵי הָוַיִין, וְתַנְיָא: הַקּוֹרֵא בַּתּוֹרָה — אַל יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה פְּסוּקִים!

The mishna taught that on Sunday they would read the portions starting with: “In the beginning” (Genesis 1:1–5) and “Let there be a firmament” (Genesis 1:6–8). It is taught in a baraita: The section: “In the beginning” is read by two people, while “Let there be a firmament” is read by one. The Gemara asks: Granted, the passage “Let there be a firmament” is read by one individual, as it is three verses long, and one who is called to the Torah reads at least three verses. However, what is the reason that the section “In the beginning” is read by two individuals? It is five verses long, and it is taught in a mishna (Megilla 22a): One who reads from the Torah may not read fewer than three verses. How, then, are five verses read by two individuals?

רַב אָמַר: דּוֹלֵג. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: פּוֹסֵק. וְרַב דְּאָמַר דּוֹלֵג, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר פּוֹסֵק? קָסָבַר: כׇּל פְּסוּקָא דְּלָא פַּסְקֵיהּ מֹשֶׁה — אֲנַן לָא פָּסְקִינַן לֵיהּ.

The Gemara cites two answers. Rav said: The first reader reads the first three verses, and the second reader repeats the last verse read by the first, and continues with the final two verses. And Shmuel said: They split the middle verse into two, so that each of the pair reads half of it. The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rav, who said that one repeats, what is the reason that he did not say they should split a verse? The Gemara answers that Rav maintains that with regard to any verse that was not divided by Moses, we do not divide it.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר פּוֹסֵק, וּמִי פָּסְקִינַן? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא קָרָא: צַעַר גָּדוֹל הָיָה לִי אֵצֶל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הִתִּיר לִי לִפְסוֹק אֶלָּא לְתִינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן, הוֹאִיל וּלְהִתְלַמֵּד עֲשׂוּיִן. וּשְׁמוּאֵל — הָתָם טַעְמָא מַאי? מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר. הָכָא נָמֵי לָא אֶפְשָׁר.

And Shmuel said that one splits the middle verse into two. The Gemara asks: And may one split a single verse? But didn’t Rabbi Ḥanina Kara, the Bible expert, who taught the Bible to schoolchildren, say: I had great trouble with Rabbi Ḥanina the Great when I asked him this question, and he permitted me to split long verses into two only for the benefit of schoolchildren, since it is performed to help them learn. And Shmuel can respond that what is the reason there, in the case of schoolchildren, that it is permitted to split verses? Because it is not possible to proceed in any other way. Here too, it is not possible for two people to read five verses other than by splitting one of them into two.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר פּוֹסֵק, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר דּוֹלֵג? גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם הַנִּכְנָסִין וּגְזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם הַיּוֹצְאִין.

The Gemara questions this last conclusion. And Shmuel said that one splits the middle verse into two. What is the reason that he did not say that he repeats one of the verses, in accordance with the opinion of Rav? The Gemara explains: It is a rabbinic decree due to those who enter the synagogue in the middle of the reading, and a decree due to those who leave in the middle. If someone entered or exited in the middle of the reading and heard three full verses, he might think that one of the readers had read fewer than three full verses, which might lead him to conclude that it is permitted to read fewer than three verses.

מֵיתִיבִי: פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁל שִׁשָּׁה פְּסוּקִים — קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׁנַיִם, וְשֶׁל חֲמִשָּׁה — בְּיָחִיד. וְאִם הָרִאשׁוֹן קוֹרֵא שְׁלֹשָׁה, הַשֵּׁנִי קוֹרֵא שְׁנַיִם מִפָּרָשָׁה זוֹ וְאֶחָד מִפָּרָשָׁה אַחֶרֶת. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלֹשָׁה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַתְחִילִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה פְּסוּקִין.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A chapter consisting of six verses may be read by two individuals, and a chapter of five verses must be read by one. And if the first individual reads three verses from the five-verse chapter, the second one reads the last two verses of that chapter and one more from another chapter. And some say that three verses are read from the next chapter, as one may not begin to read a chapter for fewer than three verses.

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דּוֹלֵג — לִידְלוֹג, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר פּוֹסֵק — לִיפְסוֹק! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם,

The Gemara explains the objection: According to the one who said that they repeat the middle verse, let the second reader repeat a verse here as well. And according to the one who said that they split a verse, here too, let them split it. Apparently, the baraita contradicts the opinions of both Rav and Shmuel. The Gemara answers: It is different there,

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete