ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafTa'anis 28
TA'ANIS 27, 28, 29, 30 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael
(a) Our Mishnah says 'be'Shachris, u've'Musaf u've'Minchah Korin al Pihen'.
This could mean that at Shachris and at Musaf they Lein the Parshah from a
Seifer-Torah, and at Minchah, they read it by heart; but it could also mean
that at Shachris, they Lein it from a Seifer-Torah, and at Musaf and Minchah,
they read it be heart?
(b) The correct interpretation is - the former one.
(c) Rebbi Yossi in the Beraisa asks the Tana Kama, who says 'u've'Minchah,
Yachid Korei Osah al Peh' - since when is a Yachid permitted to read words
from the written Torah by heart in public?
(d) According to him, at Minchah, they would all recite the Parshah together
by heart, which is permitted.
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua holds that on days when they brought the Korban Musaf,
there was no Ma'amad at Minchah, but there was Ma'amad at Ne'ilah - because
Minchah (although it is not really min ha'Torah), was introduced by Yitzchak
Avinu (even before the Torah was given), and is therefore treated in this
regard, as if it was min ha'Torah; whereas Ne'ilah is purely mi'de'Rabbanan.
(b) The families who donated wood for the Mizbei'ach were entitled to do so,
when their turn arrived - even if there was sufficient wood in the stockpile.
(a) In the days of the Gonvei Ali and the Kotz'ei Ketzi'os, the Romans issued
a decree - that the Jews were not allowed to bring wood to the Ma'arachah,
and Bikurim to Yerushalayim. To enforce their decree, they placed border
guards, just as Yerav'am ben Nevat had done many centuries earlier.
1. The Gonvei Ali and the Kotz'ei Ketzi'os (which were one and the same, as
we explained earlier) outwitted the Roman guards - by carrying baskets of
Bikurim which they covered with dried figs, and a pestle on their shoulders.
When the guards stopped them, they told them that they were only going to
grind the figs in the mortar that was just ahead of them, in order to make
cakes of dried figs. But once they had passed the guards, they rearranged the
fruit in the baskets, in the way that Bikurim were normally arranged, and
took them to the Beis Hamikdash. Note: 'Ali' means pestle, 'Ketzi'os', dried
figs and 'Salma'i' (see next answer), ladders.
(c) The Pasuk in Mishlei "Zeicher Tzadik li'Verachah" refers to these
Tzadikim - and "ve'Sheim Resha'im Yirkav", to Yerav'am ben Nevat.
2. The B'nei Salma'i (also the same family) outwitted the Roman guards - by
constructing the wood for the Mizbei'ach into ladders. When the guards
stopped them, they said that were simply going to fetch young pigeons from
dove-cots that were just ahead of them ...
(a) On the twenty-ninth of Av, the family of Pachas ben Yehudah donated wood
for the Mizbei'ach. According to Rebbi Meir, Pachas ben Yehudah was none
other than David ha'Melech. In the opinion of Rebbi Yossi - it was Yo'av ben
(b) On the twentieth of Elul, the family of Adin ben Yehudah donated wood for
the Mizbei'ach. According to Rebbi Yehudah, Adin ben Yehudah was David
ha'Melech. According to Rebbi Yossi - it was Yo'av ben Tzeruyah.
(c) It now appears that the author of our Mishnah, which states that Par'osh
ben Yehudah donated wood a second time, cannot be Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yehudah
or Rebbi Yossi - because, according to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, the Tana
should have pointed out that also David ben Yehudah donated wood a second
time, and according to Rebbi Yossi, he should have mentioned it with regard
to Yo'av ben Tzeruyah.
(d) We conclude that in fact, the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yossi - and
that the Tana who quotes him as saying that Pachas ben Yehudah was Yo'av ben
Tzeruyah and the Tana who quotes him as saying that Adin ben Yehudah was
Yo'av ben Tzeruyah actually argue (the one who says the one disagrees with
the one says the other). Note that neither can Rebbi Yossi hold that Adin ben
Yehudah was David (because then David will have brought twice, and the Tana
ought to have pointed it out); he must have been someone else.
(a) Our Mishnah says that, whenever they brought a Korban Musaf, there was no
Ma'amad at Minchah. We cannot infer that there was a Ma'amad at Musaf -
because, says Rav Ashi, if the Korban Musaf negated a 'foreign' Ma'amad,
then it would certainly negate its own.
(b) When Mar Keshisha asked Rav Ashi why Hallel negates its own Ma'amad,
whereas Musaf does not - he really meant to ask Musaf (like Hallel) ought to
negate *only* its own Ma'amad (and not that of Minchah).
(c) Rav Ashi replied - that he was in good company, because that is indeed,
the opinion of Rebbi Yossi.
(a) Rebbi Yossi says that whenever there is a Musaf, there is (nevertheless)
a Ma'amad. He cannot have been referring to ...
1. ... the Ma'amad of Shachris - because the Tana Kama of the Beraisa also
agrees with that.
(b) So he must be referring to - the Ma'amad of Minchah and Ne'ilah.
2. ... the Ma'amad of Musaf - because how can it be that the Musaf does not
even negate its own Ma'amad?
(c) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa - the Musaf negates the Ma'amad
of Ne'ilah and of Minchah.
(d) The difference between Rosh Chodesh Teives (which our Mishnah mentions as
a day on which there was no Ma'amad, because they said Hallel on it, as well
as bringing a Korban Eitzim) and Rosh Chodesh Nisan - is the fact that
whereas Hallel on Chanukah (even though it is only mi'de'Rabbanan) is a firm
Takanah (as the Gemara explains in Shabbos), Hallel on Rosh Chodesh is no
more than a Minhag. Regarding reciting a Berachah before Hallel on Rosh
Chodesh, see Tosfos DH 'Amar'.
(a) In Eretz Yisrael, we say the whole Hallel on eighteen days in the year -
one day of Pesach, one day of Shavu'os, eight days of Sukos and eight days of
(b) In Chutz la'Aretz - it is said on three more days: on the second day of
Pesach, on the second day of Sukos and on Simchas Torah.
(a) Rav arrived in Bavel on Rosh Chodesh - In Shul, he heard them begin to
recite Hallel, and was about to stop them, until ...
The Beraisa says - that a Yachid should not recite Hallel on Rosh Chodesh,
but that, having begun, he continues saying it.
(b) ... they began skipping some of the paragraphs - which made him realize
that they were merely following local custom, and not fulfilling a Halachic
(a) According to the Chachamim, the Aseres ha'Dibros were given to Yisrael on
the sixth of Sivan. Moshe ascended Har Sinai - on the seventh. We know this
from tradition, in spite of the Pasuk, which says that the Cloud covered
Moshe for six days and that Hashem called him on the seventh of Sivan
(because according to one opinion in Yoma, that Pasuk speaks after Matan
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi - the Aseres ha'Dibros were given to Yisrael on
the seventh of Sivan, and Hashem called Moshe on the same day - on the
(c) We know that Moshe broke the Luchos on Shiv'ah-Asar-be'Tamuz - because
the Torah records that Moshe spent forty full days on Har Sinai, and the
forty-first day ended on the seventeenth of Tamuz (twenty-four days in Sivan
and seventeen in Tamuz).
(d) We know that the Korban Tamid was stopped on Shiv'ah-Asar-be'Tamuz - from
(a) According to the Tana of our Mishnah, the walls of Yerushalayim were
breached on the *seventeen* of Tamuz, too. We reconcile that with the date
given in the Pasuk in Yirmiyah as the *ninth* - by establish the former by
the *second* Beis Hamikdash, the latter by the *first*. Note: we commemorate
the second Churban, because that is the one from which we still suffering -
see Agados Maharsha, who also cites a Yerushalmi, who answers the Gemara's
They found written on the image that remained whole, the words 'Ant Tzvi
la'Charuvei Beisei, Yadcha Ashleimis Li'. The whole image was saying to the
broken one: 'You wanted to destroy Hashem's House. I made you pay for that
with your hand'!
(b) We know that Apostomus burned the Torah on Shivah-Asar-be'Tamuz - from
(c) Menasheh, the son of Chizkiyahu, placed the image in the Heichal - on the
same day as the Tamid was stopped.
(d) The Pasuk in Daniel refer to *two* images - because Menasheh actually
placed *two* there. One of them however, fell down and broke the other one's
hand, and the Mishnah does not bother to mention the broken one.