ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafTa'anis 27
TA'ANIS 27, 28, 29, 30 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael
(a) Twelve Mishmaros would go to Yerushalayim and twelve, to Yericho - so as
to provide those in Yerushalayim with water and food.
(b) The Ma'amados in Yerushalayim had to comprise Kohanim and Levi'im, as
well as Yisre'eilim - otherwise, the Korban Tamid was Pasul.
(c) This is the opinion of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel. The Beraisa adds musical
instruments to the list. Shmuel did not mention them - because the author of
the Beraisa holds that the instruments (e.g. the flutes) comprised the main
Mitzvah of Shirah, and the singing of the Levi'im was secondary; whereas
Shmuel holds like the Tana in Erchin who holds that the main Mitzvah of
Shirah was the singing (of the Levi'im), and the playing of the instruments
(a) According to Rav Chama bar Guriah Amar Rav, Moshe instituted eight
Mishmaros - four from Elazar and four from Isamar.
(b) According to Rav Chama bar Guriah Amar Rav - Shmuel added another eight.
(c) David later changed it to twenty-four.
(d) The Beraisa which says that Shmuel and David instituted twenty-four -
means that they did did so in stages, Shmuel from eight to sixteen and David
from sixteen to twenty-four.
(a) We ask on Rav from a Beraisa, which specifically states that Moshe
instituted sixteen Mishmaros, eight from Elazar and eight from Isamar.
Shmuel and David then changed it to twenty-four - sixteen from Elazar and
eight from Isamar, because Elazar had grown in numbers to exceed Isamar by
(b) The Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim explicitly says that ultimately there were
sixteen Mishmaros from Elazar and eight from Isamar. We learn from the Pasuk
"Beis Av Echad Achuz le'Elazar ve'*Achuz Achuz* le'Isamar" - that the
Mishmaros belonging to Isamar had not increased, and that, consequently,
Moshe must have instituted eight Mishmaros for Elazar and eight for Isamar
(not like Rav Chama bar Guriah Amar Rav).
(c) Rav Chama bar Guriah Amar Rav reconciles his opinion with the Beraisa -
by pointing out that this is in fact, a Machlokes between two Beraisos, and
that he holds like the other Beraisa (quoted above).
(a) Yedayah, Charim, Pashchur and Imar - are the names of the four Mishmaros
that returned to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel when they built the second Beis
(b) The problem with 'Pashchur' - is that it is not listed among the twenty-
four Mishmaros in Divrei Hayamim. (It is however, mentioned in Ezra - see
(c) They divided each of the four into groups of six, and placed the twenty-
four names in a box. then the four original heads picked six names from the
box to determine the order of the twenty-four groups.
(d) Even if Yehoyariv (the first of the twenty-four Mishmaros during the
first Beis-Hamikdash) would have arrived from Bavel after that - they would
have had to wait until after the entire group of Yedayah had served, before
*they* would be permitted to serve. The six groups of Yedayah would
subsequently be reduced to five (to accomodate Yehoyariv).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the Ma'amados would Lein from Ma'aseh
Bereishis - because of Rav Asi, who is quoted as saying that the world was
only created because of the Ma'amados (i.e. the Korbanos with which Yisrael
(b) When Avraham asked Hashem "ba'Mah Eida Ki Irashenah" - he meant to ask on
what merit Hashem will not destroy Yisrael whenever they sin, like He did
with the generations of the flood and of the tower.
(c) Hashem replied - that it was the merit of the Korbanos that would atone
for their sins (the Tamid shel Shachar for the sins of the night, and the
Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim for the sins of the day).
(d) When there was no Beis Hamikdash (and no Korbanos) - then reading the
Parshah of Korbanos will atone for their sins as if they would have brought
the Korbanos, Hashem replied.
(a) The Beraisa says that the men of the Mishmar would Daven for the Korbanos
of their brothers to be accepted in goodwill - whereas the Anshei Ma'amad
would go into Shul and fast four days in the week (see Hagahos ha'Gra and
also Rashi in our Mishnah 26a. DH 've'ha'Sha'ar').
The men of the Ma'amad fasted ...
1. ... The men of the Mishmar - according to this Tana, refers to the men of
the Ma'amad in Yerushalayim.
2. ... the men of the Ma'amad - to the men of the Ma'amad in the towns.
1. ... on Monday, on behalf of the people who were at sea - because it was on
Monday that Hashem established the sky in the middle of the water, turning
the lower water into the sea.
2. ... on Tuesday, on behalf of desert travelers - because it is on Tuesday
that Hashem ordered the dry land to appear in the middle of the water, and
one needs to pray that the inhabitants of the dry land should be safe from
all the wild animals.
3. ... on Wednesday, on behalf of the babies (that they should not contract
croup) - because plagues are caused by the sun and the moon (seeing as
"Me'oros" [written without a 'Vav'] comprises the same letters as 'Me'eiros'
[curses], and it was on Wednesday that Hashem placed the sun and the moon in
their places in the sky.
4. ... on Thursday, on behalf of pregnant and feeding mothers - because
Hashem ordered the water to produce lots of new-born creatures on Thursday.
(a) The men of the Ma'amad did not fast on Friday and Shabbos - because of
(b) They did not fast on Sunday, according to Rebbi Yochanan, because of the
Notzrim - meaning that it is the day on which the Christians celebrate their
(c) According to Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini, they did not fast on Sunday
because it is the third day of the creation - because Adam was created on
Friday, and every third day leaves a person weak (like we find by the men of
(d) According to Resh Lakish, the men of the Ma'amad do not fast on Sunday -
because every Jew loses his Neshamah Yeseirah (that is with him on Shabbos),
and is too weak to fast on Sunday.
(a) The Beraisa says that on Sunday, the men of the Ma'amad would call up to
the Torah two people for the Parshah of 'Bereishis' (the larger of the two
Parshiyos), and one for that of 'Yehi Raki'a'. The problem with that is -
that the Parshah of 'Bereishis' contains only *five* Pesukim.
(b) Rav answers 'Doleg' - meaning that the Kohen Leined three Pesukim, and
the Levi repeated the third Pasuk that the Kohen Leined.
(c) Shmuel says Posek - meaning that the Kohen stops in the middle of the
third Pasuk (so in effect, they Lein two and half Pesukim each).
1. Rav objects to Shmuel's ruling (of Posek) - because he holds that any
Pasuk which Moshe did not divide, we are not permitted to divide either.
(b) Rebbi Chanina ha'Gadol reluctantly permitted Rebbi Chanina the children's
Rebbe to stop in the middle of the Pasuk when teaching his pupils - because
it was a case of emergency, argues Shmuel. In that case, the Ma'amad on
Sunday, where they only have the one Parshah for two Aliyos, is no less an
emergancy, and one has no choice but to divide the Pasuk into two.
2. Shmuel objects to Rav's ruling (of Doleg) - because of people who come
late to Shul (and when they hear the Levi begin two Pesukim from the
beginning, they will think that the Kohen Leined only two Pesukim; or because
of those who leave early (and when they hear the Kohen stopping two Pesukim
from the end, they will think that the Levi is about to Lein only two
(c) According to the 'Yesh Omrim' in the Beraisa, if the Ba'al Korei
(mistakenly) Leined three out of five Pesukim in a Parshah and stopped (two
short of the end), the next Oleh must conclude the Parshah and Lein at least
three Pesukim into the next Parshah. We do not say 'Doleg' there (according
to Rav) and 'Posek' (according to Shmuel) - because we have the option of
going into the next Parshah, whereas in our case, there is only the one
Parshah for two Aliyos, and Rav and Shmuel are forced to rule 'Doleg' or