Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Sukah 54

1) "MAI SHAYAR D'HAI SHAYAR" -- WHAT DID THE TANA LEAVE OUT

QUESTION: Rebbi Acha bar Chanina says that when more than one Korban Musaf are offered, a separate Shir is said for each one, and a separate set of Teki'os are sounded for each. The Gemara asks several questions on his opinion. One question is from our Mishnah (53b), which lists only one day on which 48 Teki'os are blown in the Mikdash, that day being Chol ha'Mo'ed Sukos which falls on Erev Shabbos. According to Rebbi Acha, the Mishnah should also have mentioned Rosh Hashanah which falls on Shabbos, since on that day, too, 48 Teki'os are sounded (the 21 Teki'os of every day, and an additional 27 Teki'os for the three different Musaf offerings brought on that day). The Gemara answers for Rebbi Acha and says that the Tana simply left out that case. The Gemara asks "what else did the Tana leave out," because usually, when the Tana leaves something out from a list, he leaves out more than just one case.

The Gemara answers that the Tana also left out Erev Pesach, on which they blow an additional 27 Teki'os (9 for each of the three groups into which the Jewish people were divided when bringing the Korban Pesach). However, the Gemara ultimately rejects this answer and says that the case of Erev Pesach is not considered a case which the Tana left out, because the Tana of our Mishnah might hold like Rebbi Yehudah regarding Erev Pesach. Rebbi Yehudah holds that the last of the three groups on Erev Pesach did not complete the recitation of Hallel even once, and thus they had, at most, only one set of Teki'os. Consequently, the maximum number of Teki'os on Erev Pesach, according to Rebbi Yehudah, is only 42 (21 normal Teki'os, 9 for the first group, 9 for the second group, and 3 for the third group).

The Gemara answers that even if the Mishnah holds like Rebbi Yehudah, there is still another case which it left out. On Erev Pesach that falls on Erev Shabbos, 48 Teki'os are blown according to Rebbi Yehudah (42 as described above, 3 to warn the people to stop their Melachah, and 3 to announce the onset of Shabbos). The Mishnah does not contradict Rebbi Acha, because it left out a few cases.

Why is the Gemara asking a question on Rebbi Acha based on such a conjecture? Who forced the Gemara to say that the Mishnah holds like Rebbi Yehudah? Let it be the Rabanan, who argue with Rebbi Yehudah, and thus Erev Pesach has 48 Teki'os and that is the additional case which the Mishnah left out, in addition to the case of Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos! This way, the Mishnah poses no problem to the opinion of Rebbi Acha, so why insist that the Mishnah is like Rebbi Yehudah in order to create a problem?

ANSWERS:

(a) The RA'AVAD (cited in Shitah Mekubetzes, Bava Kama 15a) and the RITVA offer a new understanding of the common phrase, "What else did the Tana leave out." Most people would translate "Mai Shayar d'Hai Shayar" to mean that it is not the manner of the Tana to leave out just one case from a list of cases; the Tana leaves something out only when there are two or more cases to leave out. This is how Rashi appears to explain this expression in Ta'anis (13b, DH Mai).

The Ra'avad and Ritva explain that this is not the correct meaning of the phrase. Rather, "Mai Shayar d'Hai Shayar" is a rhetorical question, a statement declaring that we cannot assume that the Tana left out anything. The only way to propose that something was left out of the Mishnah is by *proving* that this Mishnah was not intending to list everything. This is done by demonstrating that there is at least one other case which the Tana undeniably left out even though it belongs on his list. From that other, unquestionable omission, we can assume that the Tana was not intending to list everything, and thus we can assume that the case in question was also left out.

Therefore, the only way to prove that the Mishnah left out the case of Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos is if it can be proven that the Mishnah definitely left out another case. The Gemara says that the Mishnah must have left out Erev Pesach, and then it responds that it is *not certain* that it left out Erev Pesach, because it is *possible* that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.

(b) The SEFAS EMES explains that we can understand the expression, "Mai Shayar d'Hai Shayar," in the usual manner, and explain our Sugya as follows.

In general, why is it that a Tana does not leave out single cases from his lists? The Tana is afraid that he will be misunderstood. People might think that he is writing a comprehensive statement, and they will not think that he left anything out (as a consequence, they will assume that the case which he omitted was omitted because it does not *belong* on the list). If the Tana leaves something out, then he leaves a number of cases out, so that everyone will know that he was not listing everything, and no incorrect conclusions can be drawn about his omissions.

In our Sugya, the Gemara is saying that just like it is not the style of the Tana to leave out a single case if there is no other case being left out, it is also not the style of the Tana to leave out a case when that case depends on a Machlokes Tana'im. He does not leave out such a case for the same reason as mentioned above -- the Tana is afraid that he will be misunderstood, and that people will think that he holds like the other Tana, assuming that this case was not left out because the Tana was not listing all of the cases, but because it inherently does not belong in the Mishnah, for the Mishnah holds like one side of the Machlokes Tana'im. Therefore, if such a case does belong in the list, the Tana will definitely include it , in order to avoid such an error.

54b