Taanit 28a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains:

The case there is different [because the situation there is different]: When one recites it on the other days of the year,

where, when he reads during the other days of the year,

he has room to continue [he has sufficient space], because he can continue reading from another passage

, and therefore he adds and continues reading. For initially, one should not skip or stop; rather, it is preferable to continue reading from the next passage.

But with the reading of the ma'amadot—the representative groups—one cannot do this, because the reading consists only of the passage of Creation and the passage “Let there be a firmament,” which together contain only five verses. Therefore, he has no choice but to skip or stop.

We learned in our Mishna:

A long passage is read by two people.

In the morning, in the additional prayer, and in the afternoon prayer, they recite it from memory, and so on [as they recite the Shema].

as one recites the Shema.]

The meaning of the Mishna is that during some of the day’s prayers they read from a Torah scroll, while during some of them they recite the passage from memory. But it was not clearly explained which prayers follow one practice and which follow the other.

They raised a question: What did the tanna mean?

[What did the tanna of our Mishna intend?]

Did he mean that

in

the

morning and in

the

additional prayer they read it from a scroll

of the Torah,

and in

the

afternoon prayer they recite it from memory,

as

they recite the Shema,

or perhaps this is how it was taught:

[Or perhaps the Mishna was taught in this way, and this is what the tanna intended:]

In

the

morning prayer they read it from a scroll.

And in

the

additional prayer and in

the

afternoon prayer they recite it from memory, as they recite the Shema?

Come and hear a proof, as it was taught

[as we learned explicitly in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna]:

In the morning and in the additional prayer, they enter the synagogue and read in the manner in which they read throughout the year,

from the scroll.

And in the afternoon prayer, an individual recites it from memory.

This is difficult, for

Rabbi Yosei said: Can an individual recite words of Torah from memory in the presence of a congregation

[that is, enable the congregation to fulfill its obligation in this way]? After all, with regard to written matters of Torah, one may not recite them from memory?!

Rather,

this is how the beraita must be revised:

They all enter

the synagogue,

and recite it

each one individually

from memory, as they recite the Shema.

The reason for this is that, because of the burden of the fast, they did not want to require reading from a Torah scroll. Therefore, they instituted that each person should recite it individually from memory.

We learned in our Mishna:

On every day on which there is a recitation of Hallel, there is no ma'amad, and so on.

This is how Rabbi Yehoshua would teach it: “The additional offering—there is no afternoon prayer. The wood offering—there is no closing prayer,” and so on.

The Gemara asks:

What is the difference

[What is the distinction]

between this,

the ma'amad of the closing prayer,

and that, the ma'amad of the afternoon prayer,

such that the wood offering overrides only the ma'amad of the closing prayer, but not that of the afternoon prayer? And the Gemara explains: The reason is that

the former,

the afternoon prayer, consists of

words of Torah.

For our forefather Isaac instituted the afternoon prayer, as it is stated: “And Isaac went out to converse in the field toward evening.” Since this is so, the wood offering does not override it.

And

if

the latter,

the closing prayer, is

a rabbinic matter

[a rabbinic enactment], then the wood offering overrides it.

We learned in our Mishna:

The time of the wood offering of the priests and the people, and so on

[the continuation of the Mishna, which states that there were nine times when particular families donated wood for the altar fire].

The Sages taught: Why did they need to state the times of the wood offering of the priests and the people?

Why was this matter included in the Mishna?

They said: When the exiles went up

to the Land of Israel,

they found no wood in the chamber

for the offering of the sacrifices.

These people,

those families mentioned in the Mishna,

came forward and donated

wood for the altar fire

from their own property.

And the prophets stipulated

that

among them

[among the exiles who went up to the Land of Israel]

that even

if, at the time designated for those families, the

chamber is full of wood,

nevertheless,

these people will donate from their own property,

and they will use the wood that they donate.

As it is stated

in the Book of Nehemiah:

“And we cast lots concerning the wood offering, among the priests, the Levites, and the people, to bring it to the House of our God, to the House of our fathers, at designated times year by year, to burn on the altar of the Lord our God,

as it is written in the Torah.”

This matter was therefore included in the Mishna, to teach that the prophets among them instituted that these families should not be displaced from their designated times.

We learned in our Mishna:

And with them were priests, Levites, and anyone else, and so on.

The Sages taught: Who were

those families that were known by these names:

“the descendants of the Stealers of Pestles” and “the descendants of the Choppers of Dried Figs”?

They said:

This is what happened:

Once the wicked kingdom

issued a decree of persecution against Israel,

prohibiting them from observing the commandments of the Torah. And this is what they decreed against them:

that the Israelites should not bring

wood

for the altar fire

on the altar,

and that they should not bring first fruits

to Jerusalem.

And they stationed guards

[watchmen]

on the roads,

to prevent the Israelites from going up and bringing wood and first fruits to Jerusalem,

just as Jeroboam ben Nabat had stationed

guards on the roads—he was the king of Israel and was wicked—

watchmen

on the roads, in order

that the Israelites should not go up

to Jerusalem

for the pilgrimage.

Что сделали достойные и боящиеся греха в том поколении?

What did the virtuous and those who feared sin in that generation do?

They brought baskets of first fruits and covered them

[concealed them]

with dried figs

[dried figs], so that it would not be apparent that the baskets contained first-fruit produce,

and they carried them

in their hands.

And a pestle

[the wooden log used to pound figs in order to press them together and make a round cake of dried figs] was placed

.

And when they reached

those

guards, they said to them

the watchmen:

Where are you going?

They answered and

said to them,

those who feared sin: We are going

to make two cakes of dried figs in a mortar that

is located elsewhere, on the road

ahead of us, and

there we will pound the figs

with this pestle

that is

which

is placed

on our shoulders.

The guards accepted their explanation and allowed them to pass with the baskets in their hands.

When they had passed them,

those guards, and had passed all the guard posts,

they decorated them with the baskets

[they decorated the first fruits inside the baskets]—

and brought them to Jerusalem.

This is why the members of that family were called “the Stealers of Pestles”: They would sneak past those guard posts by means of the ruse involving the pestle.

A tanna taught: They are the descendants of Salmai the Netophatite.

Those who were called “the descendants of Salmai the Netophatite” also carried out an act similar to that of the Stealers of Pestles, in order to outwit the guards of the wicked kingdom.

The Sages taught: Who were the descendants of Salmai the Netophatite,

and why were they called by this name?

They said: Once the wicked kingdom issued a decree of persecution against Israel, prohibiting them from bringing wood for the altar fire.

And they stationed guards on the roads, just as Jeroboam ben Nabat had stationed guards on the roads, so that the Israelites should not go up for the pilgrimage.

What did the people who feared sin in that generation do?

They brought their cut pieces of wood

[pieces of wood that they had prepared for the altar fire],

and made

from them

ladders

, and placed

them

on their shoulders—

and went on their way.

[Note: the source segment’s closing bracket is incorporated in the preceding translation.]

When they reached them

[those guard posts],

they said to them

the guards:

Where are you going?

They said to them: To bring young doves from a dovecote that

is located on the road

ahead of us, and

we will bring them down from the dovecotes

using

the

ladders on our shoulders.

When they had passed them,

those guard posts,

they dismantled them

[they dismantled the ladders into their separate parts]—

and brought them and carried them up to Jerusalem.

Because of this act, in which the members of that family outwitted the guards by means of ladders, they were called “the descendants of Salmai the Netophatite.”

And concerning them,

the descendants of the Stealers of Pestles and the descendants of Salmai the Netophatite,

and concerning those like them, it says: “May the memory of the righteous be for a blessing.”

They were given names recalling their good deeds, so that they would be remembered forever.

But

by contrast,

concerning Jeroboam ben Nabat and his associates,

who sinned and caused Israel to sin,

it says: “And the name of the wicked shall rot.”

We learned in our Mishna:

On the twentieth of it, the sons of Pachat-Moav son of Judah.

A tanna

we learned in a beraita:

“The sons of Pachat-Moav son of Judah”—

they are indeed

the same family that was mentioned above:

the sons of David

king of Israel

son of Judah,

who brought a wood-offering on the fifteenth of Av. And they were also called by the name “the sons of Pachat-Moav,” on account of David, who came from Ruth the Moabite woman.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yose says:

“The sons of Pachat-Moav son of Judah”—

they are indeed

the family mentioned in the Mishna:

the sons of Joab son of Zeruiah,

who came from Ruth the Moabite woman, for Zeruiah, the mother of Joab, was David’s sister.

We learned in our Mishna:

On the twentieth of Elul, the sons of Adino son of Judah, etc.

The Sages taught: “The sons of Adino son of Judah”—

they are indeed the sons of David son of Judah

who were mentioned above. For David is called in the Book of Samuel “Adino the Etzanite,” because when he was engaged in Torah, he made himself delicate like a worm; and when he went out to war, he hardened himself like wood.

These are the words of Rabbi

Judah.

Rabbi Yose says:

“The sons of Adino son of Judah”—

they are indeed the sons of Joab son of Zeruiah.

For there is an opinion that “Adino the Etzanite” is Joab.

We learned in our Mishna:

On the first of Tevet, the sons of Peraosh [brought wood] a second time, etc.

The Gemara asks:

According to whom is our Mishna?

According to which of the opinions that we have just mentioned was our Mishna taught?

For apparently it is impossible to establish the Mishna

neither

according to the method of

Rabbi Meir, nor

according to the method of

Rabbi Judah, nor

according to the method of

Rabbi Yose!

For

if

we establish it according to the method of

Rabbi Meir,

who holds that the sons of Pachat-Moav are the sons of David, then why did the tanna teach: “On the twentieth of it, the sons of Pachat-Moav,” implying that this was the first time they brought wood?

Let the tanna teach

in this manner: “On the twentieth of it

the sons of David son of Judah returned a second time,”

that is, at that time they brought for the second time in that year, just as the tanna taught concerning the sons of Peraosh, who brought twice in the year: “On the first of Tevet, the sons of Peraosh returned a second time.”

And why was it necessary for the tanna to teach it in this manner? For Rabbi Meir holds that “the sons of Pachat-Moav” are the sons of David son of Judah, who had already brought [wood] on the twentieth of Tammuz, as the tanna taught at the beginning. If so, the bringing of wood by the sons of Pachat-Moav is the second bringing of the sons of David son of Judah!

And likewise it is impossible to establish our Mishna according to the method of Rabbi Judah. For

if

our Mishna is according to the method of

Rabbi Judah,

who holds that the sons of Adino son of Judah are the sons of David son of Judah,

let the tanna teach

that the tanna teach in this wording:

“The sons of David son of Judah returned a second time!”

For he holds that the sons of Adino son of Judah are the sons of David son of Judah, whom the tanna mentioned as having already brought [wood] on the twentieth of Tammuz. And if so, what they bring now, on the twentieth of Av, is their second time!

And likewise, apparently, it is impossible to establish our Mishna according to the method of Rabbi Yose. For

if

our Mishna is according to the method of

Rabbi Yose,

who holds that the sons of Pachat-Moav are the sons of Joab son of Zeruiah, and that the sons of Adino son of Judah are the sons of Joab son of Zeruiah, and according to his method the sons of Joab son of Zeruiah brought [wood] twice, except that one time the tanna calls them “the sons of Pachat-Moav,” and the second time he calls them “Adino,” then

let the tanna teach

that the tanna teach:

“The sons of Joab son of Zeruiah returned

and offered a

second time!”

The Gemara answers:

Actually,

our Mishna is according to the method of

Rabbi Yose

it is.

But

And in truth, Rabbi Yose does not hold as we had thought until now, that both the sons of Pachat-Moav and Adino are the sons of Joab son of Zeruiah, as is implied by the beraitot.

Rather,

two tannaim [speak] according to Rabbi Yose

they are the words of two tannaim who disputed regarding the opinion of Rabbi Yose.

One tanna holds regarding the opinion of Rabbi Yose that the sons of Pachat-Moav are the sons of Joab son of Zeruiah. But the sons of Adino are the sons of another family.

And another tanna holds regarding the opinion of Rabbi Yose that the sons of Adino son of Judah are the sons of Joab son of Zeruiah. But the sons of Pachat-Moav are the sons of another family.

We learned in our Mishna:

On the first of Tevet there was no maamad on it, etc.