Taanit 28a (כח.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara explains:

The matter there is different

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

he has room [

meaning, he has sufficient space, since he can continue and read from another passage] . Therefore, he adds and reads, because ideally one should neither skip nor stop; rather, it is preferable to continue and read from the following passage.

But with regard to the reading of the ma'amadot, this cannot be done, since the reading consists only of the passage of Bereshit and the passage “Let there be an expanse,” which together contain only five verses; therefore, he must either skip or stop.

We learned in our Mishna:

A long passage is read by two people.

In the morning, in Musaf, and in Minhah, they read it by heart, etc.

as one recites the Shema.]

The implication of the Mishna’s words is that during some of the day’s prayers they read from a Torah scroll, while during some of them they read by heart. But it was not clarified explicitly during which prayers one practice applies and during which prayers the other applies.

They raised a dilemma: What is it saying

What did the tanna of our Mishna intend?]

Did he intend that

in

the prayer of

Shaharit and in

the prayer of

Musaf, they read it from the scroll

of the Torah,

and in

the prayer of

Minhah, they read it by heart,

just as

they recite the Shema,

or perhaps this is how it is taught

or perhaps the Mishna was taught in this manner, and this is what the tanna intended]:

in

the prayer of

Shaharit, they read it from the scroll.

And in

the prayer of

Musaf and in

the prayer of

Minhah, they read it by heart, as one recites the Shema?

Come and hear, as it was taught

that we learned explicitly in a beraita]:

In the morning and in Musaf, they enter the synagogue and read as they read throughout the year,

from the scroll.

And in Minhah, an individual reads it by heart.

He wondered and

Rabbi Yosei said: Can an individual read words of Torah by heart in public

that is, enable the public to fulfill its obligation in this way]? Surely, matters that are written—you may not recite them by heart?!

Rather,

the beraita must be emended as follows:

They all enter

the synagogue

and read it

each one individually

by heart, as one recites the Shema .

When this is done in a manner that does not enable others to fulfill their obligation, there is no need to be particular about it, as Tosafot wrote in tractate Temura [14b, s.v. "

The reason for this is that, because of the hardship of the fast, they did not wish to require a reading from a Torah scroll. Therefore, they instituted that each person should read individually, by heart.

We learned in our Mishna:

On every day on which Hallel is recited, there is no ma'amad, etc.

This is how Rabbi Yehoshua would teach it: A Musaf offering—there is no ma'amad at Minhah. The offering of wood—there is no ma'amad at Ne'ilah, etc.

The Gemara asks:

What difference is there

what distinction is there]

between this,

the ma'amad of Ne'ilah,

and that, the ma'amad of Minhah,

so that the offering of wood overrides only the ma'amad of Ne'ilah and not that of Minhah? The Gemara explains: The reason is that

the former,

the prayer of Minhah, consists of

words of Torah.

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

And

if

the latter,

the Ne'ilah prayer, is

a rabbinic matter

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

We learned in our Mishna:

The times of the wood of the priests and the people, etc.

This is the continuation of the Mishna, which lists nine times when particular families would contribute wood for the altar fire.]

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

for what purpose was this matter taught in the Mishna?

They said: When the children of the exile went up

to the Land of Israel,

they found no wood in the chamber

for the sacrifices.

And these

families mentioned in the Mishna

came forward and volunteered

wood for the altar

from their own.

] A special chamber existed in the Temple in which they examined wood for worms, for worm-eaten wood is invalid for sacrifice upon the altar. Aside from wood for sacrifice, there were woods there for cooking and baking used in the Temple. All those woods were purchased from the public funds. See tractate Middot ch. 2 Mishna 5, and the Gemara in tractate Yoma [16a].

And the prophets stipulated that

there were

among them

among the children of the exile who went up to the Land of Israel]:

even

if at the time fixed for those families

the chamber should be full of wood,

nevertheless,

these people would volunteer from their own,

and they would use the wood that they contributed.

As it is stated

in the Book of Nehemiah:

“And we cast lots concerning the wood-offering, the priests, the Levites, and the people, to bring it to the House of our God, to our ancestral houses, at appointed times year by year, to burn upon the altar of the Lord our God,

as it is written in the Torah.”

This matter was therefore taught in the Mishna, to say that the prophets among them instituted that these families should not be displaced from their place.

We learned in our Mishna:

And with them were priests and Levites and all those who, etc.

The Sages taught: Who were

those families called by these names:

“The sons of the kidnappers of pestles” and “the sons of the cutters of dried figs”?

They said,

this is what happened:

Once the wicked kingdom issued a decree of religious persecution

against Israel,

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

that Israel should not bring

wood

for the altar fire

on the altar,

and that they should not bring the first fruits

to Jerusalem .

This is what we learned in tractate Bikkurim [chapter 3]: How does one set aside the first fruits? A person goes into his field and sees a fig that has ripened, a cluster of grapes that has ripened, or a pomegranate that has ripened. He ties it with a reed and says: “These are first fruits,” and so on. How are the first fruits brought up? Early in the morning the officer would say: “Rise, and let us go up to Zion, to the House of the Lord our God,” and so on. The ox would walk before them, its horns overlaid with gold and an olive wreath on its head. The flute would play before them until they came close to Jerusalem. When they came close to Jerusalem, they sent messengers ahead, and they decorated their first fruits. The prefects, deputies, and treasurers would go out to meet them, and so on. explained in the name of Iyyun Yaakov explained that they specifically made ladders because there is a law that wood containing a worm is unfit to be brought onto the altar. If they had made other objects from the wood, the guards would have realized what they were doing, since why would they take care to make those objects specifically from wood that was entirely free of worms? But with ladders, it is normal to ensure that the wood contains no worm, so that the rungs will not break, as we find in tractate Makkot [7b]. And Maharsha . The commentator

And they stationed guards

watchmen]

on the roads,

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

just as Jeroboam son of Nebat had stationed

who was king of Israel and was wicked,

guards

on the roads, in order

that Israel should not go up

to Jerusalem

for the pilgrimage festival .

In the Ein Yaakov explained that they specifically made ladders because there is a law that wood containing a worm is unfit to be brought onto the altar. If they had made other objects from the wood, the guards would have realized what they were doing, since why would they take care to make those objects specifically from wood that was entirely free of worms? But with ladders, it is normal to ensure that the wood contains no worm, so that the rungs will not break, as we find in tractate Makkot [7b]. the reading is "

What did the upright and God-fearing people of 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 fruits,

and carried them

in their hands.

And a pestle

a wooden block used to pound the figs so that they would adhere to one another and form a round fig cake ] was placed

on their shoulders.

. It is a round of dried figs crushed and stuck together; when one wishes to eat figs, one cuts from that round and eats.

When they reached

those

guards, they said to them

the watchmen:

“Where are you going?”

They answered and

said to them

those God-fearing people: “We are going

to make two round fig cakes in a mortar that

is located elsewhere, on the road

before us, and

there we will pound the figs

with this pestle

that

is

placed

on our shoulders.”

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

Once they had passed them,

those guards, and had passed all the posts,

they adorned them with baskets

they decorated the first fruits inside the baskets] —

and brought them to Jerusalem.

. As we find in the Mishna in tractate Bikkurim (quoted above) that they adorned the first-fruits.

Therefore, the members of that family were called “the sons of the kidnappers of pestles,” because they would sneak past those guard posts by means of the ruse involving the pestle .

The tanna taught: They are the same as the sons of Salmai the Netophatite.

For those also known as “the sons of Salmai the Netophatite” acted in a manner resembling that of the sons of the kidnappers of pestles, in order to outwit the posts of the wicked kingdom .

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

and why were they called by this name?

They said: Once the wicked kingdom issued a decree of religious persecution against Israel, that they should not bring wood for the altar fire.

And they stationed guards on the roads, just as Jeroboam son of Nebat had stationed them on the roads, so that Israel should not go up for the pilgrimage festival.

What did the God-fearing people of that generation do?

They brought their 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 posts],

they said to them

the guards:

“Where are you going?”

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

is located on the road

before us, and

we will take them down from the dovecotes

with

the

ladders on our shoulders.”

Once they had passed them,

those posts,

they dismantled them

they dismantled those ladders into their component parts]—

and brought them and took them up to Jerusalem.

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

And concerning them,

the sons of the kidnappers of pestles and the sons of Salmai the Netophatite,

and concerning others like them, it is said: “May the memory of the righteous be for a blessing.”

For their names were designated according to their good deeds, as an eternal remembrance .

And

by contrast,

concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat and his associates,

who sinned and caused Israel to sin,

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

We learned in our Mishna:

“On the twentieth of [Av], the descendants of Pahat Moav son of Judah.”

The tanna

taught in a beraita:

“The descendants of Pahat Moav son of Judah”—

they are indeed

the same family mentioned above:

the descendants of David

king of Israel,

son of Judah,

who brought a wood offering on the fifteenth of Av. They were also called “the descendants of Pahat Moav,” after David, who descended from Ruth the Moabite.

This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says:

the descendants of Pahat Moav son of Judah—

they are indeed

the family mentioned in the Mishna:

the descendants of Joab son of Zeruiah,

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

We learned in our Mishna:

“On the twentieth of Elul, the descendants of Adin son of Judah, and so on.”

The Sages taught: The descendants of Adin son of Judah—

they are indeed the descendants of David son of Judah

mentioned above. For David is called in the Book of Samuel “Adino the Etsnite,” because when he was engaged in Torah study, he made himself pliable like a worm; and when he went out to war, he made himself hard like wood.

This is the statement of Rabbi

Judah.

Rabbi Yosei says:

the descendants of Adin son of Judah—

they are indeed the descendants of Joab son of Zeruiah.

For there is an opinion that “Adino the Etsnite” refers to Joab.

We learned in our Mishna:

“On the first of Tevet there was no ma'amad for the descendants of Parosh; on the second, and so on.”

The Gemara asks:

Which is the author of our Mishna

according to which of the approaches just mentioned was our Mishna taught?

For apparently, the Mishna can be established

neither

according to the view of

Rabbi Meir, nor

according to the view of

Rabbi Judah, nor

according to the view of

Rabbi Yosei!

For

if

we establish it according to the view of

Rabbi Meir,

who holds that the descendants of Pahat Moav are the descendants of David, why did the tanna teach: “On the twentieth of [Av], the descendants of Pahat Moav,” implying that this was the first time they brought wood?

He should have taught

the following: “On the twentieth of [Av],

the descendants of David son of Judah brought [wood] a second time,”

meaning that they brought it for the second time that year, just as the tanna taught with regard to the descendants of Parosh, who brought it twice a year: “On the first of Tevet, the descendants of Parosh brought [wood] a second time.”

And why should the tanna have taught it in this manner? After all, Rabbi Meir holds that “the descendants of Pahat Moav” are the descendants 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 wood brought by the descendants of Pahat Moav was the second offering of the descendants of David son of Judah!

Likewise, it is impossible to establish our Mishna according to the view of Rabbi Judah. For

if

our Mishna is according to the view of

Rabbi Judah,

who holds that the descendants of Adin son of Judah are the descendants of David son of Judah,

he should have taught

in the following formulation:

“The descendants of David son of Judah brought [wood] a second time!”

For he holds that the descendants of Adin son of Judah are the descendants of David son of Judah, whom the tanna mentioned as having already brought wood on the twentieth of Tammuz. If so, what they bring now, on the twentieth of Av, is their second offering.

Likewise, apparently it is impossible to establish our Mishna according to the view of Rabbi Yosei. For

if

our Mishna is according to the view of

Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that the descendants of Pahat Moav are the descendants of Joab son of Zeruiah, and that the descendants of Adin son of Judah are also the descendants of Joab son of Zeruiah, then according to his view the descendants of Joab son of Zeruiah brought wood twice; it is only that the tanna calls them “the descendants of Pahat Moav” on one occasion and “the descendants of Adin” on the second occasion. If so,

he should have taught:

“The descendants of

Joab son of Zeruiah

brought an offering a

second time!”

The Gemara answers:

Actually,

our Mishna is according to the view of

Rabbi Yosei.

And

in truth, Rabbi Yosei does not hold as we had assumed until now—that both the descendants of Pahat Moav and the descendants of Adin are the descendants of Joab son of Zeruiah, as is implied by the baraitot.

Rather,

there are

two tannaim according to the view of Rabbi Yosei

—they are the statements of two tannaim who disputed Rabbi Yosei’s opinion.

One tanna holds that, according to Rabbi Yosei, the descendants of Pahat Moav are the descendants of Joab son of Zeruiah, but the descendants of Adin are a different family.

Another tanna holds that, according to Rabbi Yosei, the descendants of Adin son of Judah are the descendants of Joab son of Zeruiah, but the descendants of Pahat Moav are a different family.

We learned in our Mishna:

“On the first of Tevet there was no ma'amad.”