ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Megilah 22
MEGILAH 21-24 (3rd-6th days of Sukos 5760) - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann
of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for Torah and those who study it.
(a) When Rava was asked the above She'eilah (concerning the Aliyos on Rosh
Chodesh) by Ula bar Rav - he replied that, although he had not heard an
answer to *that* She'eilah, he had heard an answer to a similar one (which
would resolve it too).
(b) The Anshei Ma'amados were faced with the same problem - each Sunday, when
they called up two people in "Bereishis" and one in "Yehi Raki'a", since
Bereishis consists of only *five* Pesukim?
(c) According to Rav, they solved the problem by employing 'Doleg'; according
to Shmuel, 'Posek'.
1. 'Doleg' means - that the following Aliyah repeats one of the Pesukim that
the previous person Leined (Note: Presumably, Rav was not concerned about
finishing within three Pesukim of a Parshah, because, as we will see at the
foot of the Amud, in Rav's place people only used to come late, but did not
2. 'Posek' means - that the one person would stop in the middle of the Pasuk
(i.e. after two and half Pesukim), and the second one would begin from there
and read the next two and a half Pesukim.
1. Rav does not agree with the concept of 'Posek' - because, in his opinion,
it is not permitted to break any Pasuk in two that Moshe did not break.
2. Shmuel does not agree with the concept of Doleg - because he is afraid of
people who leave Shul early after having heard he first person stop within
three Pesukim of a Parshah, and who will then think that the next person will
only read three Pesukim.
(a) Shmuel reconciles his opinion with Rebbi Chanina, who was reluctant to
permit Rebbi Chanina the Rebbe to break up Pesukim other than for his young
disciples, who were unable to learn whole Pesukim in one go - on the grounds
that, since Rebbi Chanina permitted him to break up the Pesukim on behalf of
his young pupils (because they could otherwise not cope), it follows that
whenever one cannot cope, one may break the Pasuk (Rav however learns, that
Rebbi Chanina restricted his concession of breaking up Pesukim to a Rebbe
learning with his children , but not to a Ba'al Korei in Shul).
(b) With regard to the Anshei Ma'amados, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa in
Ta'anis permits the second Aliyah in a Parshah of five, to Lein one Pasuk
into the next Parshah - Yesh Omrim (Rebbi Nasan) says that he must read
(c) According to Rav, Rebbi Nasan does not permit 'Doleg' in this case -
because one has the choice of continuing (and Doleg is confined to where one
has no choice).
(d) There is there no Kashya also on Shmuel ('Let Rebbi Nasan permit 'Posek')
- because we are speaking here when he already Leined three Pesukim (and
Posek is a Din in Lechatchilah, not is not something that one can go back
(a) The Tana Kama of Yesh Omrim - is more lenient in the case of reading less
than three Pesukim at the beginning which he permits, than in that of
stopping less than three Pesukim from the end (which he does not).
Rav Yosef rules like Rav (that the middle Aliyah is Doleg), because, in the
case of the Ma'amados, if the last Aliyah would be Doleg, it would mean that
the middle Aliyah would already conclude the Parshah (Rahi does not go into
whether, on Rosh Chodesh, it is the second Aliyah or the third which is Doleg
- presumably, it makes no difference).
(b) Based on that and on the fact that Yesh Omrim disagrees with him in that
case, the problem with Rebbi Tanchum Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who, after
ruling like the Yesh Omrim, goes on to say that just as it is forbidden to
read less than three Pesukim *at the beginning* of the Parshah, so too is it
forbidden to stop less than three Pesukim *from the end* is - why should such
a ruling be necessary? If with regard to stopping less than three Pesukim
*from the beginning*, where the Chachamim are *lenient*, Yesh Omrim is
*strict*, then by stopping less than three Pesukim from the end, where the
Chachamim are strict, should we not take for granted that Yesh Omrim will
also be strict?
(c) The answer is - that there is also a logical reason to be more *lenient*
with regard to stopping three Pesukim *from the end* (a reason with which
Yesh Omrim might well agree): because coming to Shul late is far more common
that leaving early (like we indeed find in Rav's town - see foot of Amud).
(d) Nevertheless, the Tana Kama is more lenient with regard to stopping less
than three Pesukim from the beginning (than they are with regard to stopping
three Pesukim from the end), because people who come late will ask those who
were there on time why the previous Aliyah Leined only two Pesukim; whereas
those who leave early, will remain with the assumption that the following
Aliyah will only Lein two Pesukim.
(a) Even though we do not Daven Musaf on a Ta'anis Tzibur, we nevertheless
think that four people may possibly be called up - because there *is* an
extra Tefilah ('Aneinu').
(b) There is no proof (that one calls up *three* people) from the fact that
when our Mishnah lists the occasions on which four are called up, it only
lists Rosh Chodesh and Chol ha'Mo'ed (implying that on a Ta'anis Tzibur one
calls up three) - because from the Reisha we can deduce exactly the opposite:
that it is only on an ordinary Monday and Thursday that three people are
called up - but on a Ta'anis Tzibur (which can occur on other days of the
week), one calls up four.
(c) We try to resolve our She'eilah from the fact that when Rav arrived in
Bavel on a Ta'anis Tzibur, he was called up, and although he recited a
Berachah before reading, he did not recite one afterwards - was that not
because there was still a fourth Aliyah to come?
(d) We base the suggestion that Rav was called up in place of a Kohen - on
the fact that his Talmid Rav Huna was (at a later stage) called up in place
(a) We then contend that, even if Rav Huna was called up in place of a Kohen,
this was not possible in the case of Rav - because whereas Rav Huna would be
called up first even in the presence of Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi, those
illustrious Kohanim from Eretz Yisrael (because he was greater than them),
Rav would pay deference to Shmuel (who was a Kohen), presumably because
Shmuel was greater than him (and, because he would not be called up as Kohen
in Shmuel's presence, he could not be called as Kohen when he was not there
(b) We finally accept the previous suggestion (that Rav was called in place
of a Kohen) as the final answer, in spite of the fact that Rav paid deference
to Shmuel - because the reason that he did so was not because Shmuel was
greater than him, but because he had once cursed him, and wanted to make up
for it. Consequently, he only honored him in his presence, but not in his
presence, Rav remained the most eminent person in his generation (just like
Rav Huna after him), and was able to be called up as Kohen (in spite of
(c) We try to prove that Rav must have been called up in place of a Kohen
(and not for Sh'lishi, as we first presumed) - because otherwise, how will we
explain the fact that Rav recited a Berachah before Leining?
(d) We refute this proof however - on the grounds that this episode took
place after the Takanah that each person had to recite a Berachah before
Leining. The Takanah of reciting a Berachah afterwards was not practiced in
Rav's town, because although people often came late to Davining, they did not
tend to leave early, in which case, they would all hear the final Berachah
that the last person to be called up would recite. Consequently, it is
possible that Rav was called up for Sh'lishi (even though that is not the
outcome of the Gemara).
(a) Based on a Beraisa, we finally rule that on a Ta'anis Tzibur, one calls
up only three people - because whenever there is Bitul Melachah, only three
people are called up.
(b) On Rosh Chodesh we call up four people. There is no Bitul Melachah then,
because women have the Minhag not to work on Rosh Chodesh (though it is
unclear exactly what this means, seeing as it is the *men* who are in Shul,
and as far as *they* are concerned, there *is* Bitul Melachah?)
(c) Rosh Chodesh is a semi-Yom-Tov specifically for women - because they
refused to donate their ornaments for the Eigel ha'Zahav, for which the
Mishkan served as a Kaparah. Now the Mishkan was erected on Rosh Chodesh
Nisan, and because of Rosh Chodesh Nisan, they were given all Roshei
(d) We have a proof from the Haftarah of 'Machar Chodesh' that Rosh Chodesh
is not considered a day of work - because the Pasuk refers to Erev Rosh
Chodesh as "Yom ha'Ma'aseh", from which we can infer that Rosh Chodesh is not
considered a day of work
(a) Rav Ashi tries to prove from 'Zeh ha'K'lal: Kol Yom she'Yesh Bo Musaf
ve'Eino Yom-Tov Korin Arba'ah' in our Mishnah, that the Tana of our Mishnah
disagrees with the above-mentioned Beraisa (with regard to calling up *three*
people on a Ta'anis Tzibur) - because we think that the 'Zeh ha'K'lal' can
only be coming to include a Ta'anis Tzibur in the list of days when one calls
(b) We reject Rav Ashi's contention (that, according to the Tana of our
Mishnah, one calls up *four* people on Tish'ah-be'Av), on the grounds that
this concurs neither with the Tana Kama nor with Rebbi Yossi (of another
Beraisa). According to Rebbi Yossi, on Tish'ah-be'Av one always calls up
three people, and the third one is the Maftir. The Tana Kama says - that one
calls up three people on a Ta'anis Tzibur that falls on Monday and Thursday,
but only one on other days.
(c) If 'Zeh ha'Kl'al ... ' does not come to include a Ta'anis Tzibur (like
Rav Ashi maintains), then it come, not to include anything, but to explain
the sequence of our Mishnah (as we shall now see).
(a) The principle that governs the number of Aliyos on each of the days
mentioned in our Mishnah - is that whatever has an additional feature over
and above its predecessor has one additional Aliyah.
(b) We call up ...
- ... four people on Rosh Chodesh and on Chol ha'Mo'ed - because of the Korban Musaf.
- ... five on Yom-Tov - because of the prohibition of working (which is not forbidden in the previous case.
- ... six on Yom Kipur - because it carries with it a Chiyuv Kareis.
- ... seven on Shabbos - because it carries with it a Chiyuv Sekilah.
(a) When Rav arrived in Bavel, everyone else prostrated themselves (for
Tachanun), but Rav did not. The initial reason we give (for Rav not
prostrating himself) is based on the Pasuk ... "ve'Even Maskis Lo Sitnu
be'Artzechem" (prohibiting prostrating oneself on a stone slab with pictures
- presumably, doing so on any stone at all is a Rabbinical decree).
(b) The other congregants *did* prostrate themselves, because it was only
where Rav stood that had a stone floor. Rav did not want to move across to
another part of the Shul - in order not to trouble all the congregants to
stand up for him.
(c) Alternatively, the entire floor may have comprised stone. Nevertheless,
the other people tended to bow down (perhaps in the way that we do) and it
was only Rav who had the Minhag to prostrate himself (which is forbidden on a
stone floor). Rav could have bowed down like everybody else - but he did not
want to change his Minhag.
(d) Finally, we establish the case even by an earth floor, and Rav did not
prostrate himself because of a statement of Rebbi Elazar - who said that an
eminent person should not fall on his face (in public - see Tosfos DH 'Ein')
unless he is as sure as Yehoshua bin Nun that Hashem will respond (either to
avoid embarrassment or to avoid a Chilul Hashem - when people see that his
prayers go unanswered).
(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
Abaye and Rava were certainly important people. To avoid falling on their
faces in public - they used to turn their faces to the side.
1. ... "va'Tikod Bas-Sheva Apayim Aretz" - that Kidah means to fall on one's
(b) We learn from Ya'akov's words to Yosef that Hishtachavayah means to
prostrate oneself flat on the ground. Ya'akov said to him - "ha'Vo Navo Ani
ve'Imcha ve'Achecha le'Hishtachavos Lecha Artzah?"
2. ... "mi'Ch'ro'a al Birkav" - that K'riy'ah means to go down on one's
(c) When Levi demonstrated Kidah in front of Rebbi - he became lame.
(d) This does not clash with Rebbi Elazar, who attributed Levi's lameness to
the fact that he accused Hashem of not helping Yisrael in their hour of need
- because it was on account of the former that the latter occurred.