Parallel
תענית 27
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
[If so, why not also argue]: Just as an officiating priest may not be blemished so too may a priest reciting the benediction not be blemished. — Surely he is compared to the Nazirite. Why do you choose to make your analogies more lenient [for the priest]? Why not make your analogies more strict [for him]! — These analogies are but supports for a Rabbinical law and they must therefore incline towards the side of leniency. THE FOLLOWING ARE [THE DETAILS CONCERNING] THE MA'AMADOTH. BECAUSE IT IS SAID, COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL etc. What does [this Mishnah] mean to say? — This is what it means to say: THE FOLLOWING ARE [THE DETAILS CONCERNING] THE MA'AMADOTH. AND WHY WERE THE MA'AMADOTH INSTITUTED? BECAUSE IT IS SAID, COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: MY FOOD WHICH IS PRESENTED UNTO ME. HOW CAN A MAN'S OFFERING BE BROUGHT [ON THE ALTAR] AND HE IS NOT PRESENT? [THEREFORE] THE EARLIER PROPHETS INSTITUTED TWENTY-FOUR MISHMAROTH; EACH MISHMAR WAS REPRESENTED [AT THE TEMPLE] IN JERUSALEM BY ITS OWN MA'AMAD OF PRIESTS, LEVITES AND ISRAELITES. WHEN THE TIME CAME FOR THE MISHMAR TO GO UP, THE PRIESTS AND LEVITES WENT UP TO JERUSALEM. Our Rabbis have taught: ‘There were twenty-four Mishmaroth in Palestine and twelve in Jericho’. [You say] there were [also] twelve in Jericho, then there were actually far more [than twenty-four]! — It must therefore be understood to mean that twelve of them [of the twenty-four] were in Jericho. When the time came for the Mishmar to go up [to Jerusalem] one half of the Mishmar went up from [their homes] in Palestine to Jerusalem and the other half went up to Jericho in order to provide their brethren in Jerusalem with water and food. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The absence of the Priests, Levites and Israelites is a bar to [the offering of] the sacrifices. A Tanna taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: The absence of Priests, Levites and musical instruments is a bar to [the offering of] the sacrifices. On what question does their dispute turn? — The one [Rab Judah] holds the view that the principal music of the Temple was vocal, and the other that it was with an instrument. R. Hama b. Guria said in the name of Rab: Moses instituted for Israel eight Mishmaroth, four from [the family of] Eleazar and four from [the family of] Ithamar; Samuel came and increased them to sixteen; David came and increased them to twenty-four, as it is said, In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found among them mighty men of valour at Jazer of Gilead. An objection was raised against this: Moses instituted for Israel eight Mishmaroth, four from [the family of] Eleazar and four [from the family of] Ithamar; David and Samuel came and increased them to twenty-four, as it is said, Whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set office! — This is what the passage means: From their institution by David and Samuel the Ramathite they were increased to twenty-four. Another [Baraitha] taught: Moses instituted for Israel sixteen Mishmaroth, eight from [the family of] Eleazar and eight from [the family of] Ithamar; but when the descendants of Eleazar increased in number above those of Ithamar, [the Mishmaroth] were again divided and they were increased to twenty-four, as it is said, And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar; and thus were they divided: of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers’ houses, and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers’ houses, eight. And it says further, One father's house being taken for Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar. What is the force of the additional verse cited? Should you say, that just as the descendants of Eleazar increased in number, so also those of Ithamar increased from their original four into eight. Then come and hear: ‘One father's house being taken for Eleazar, and proportionately [we-ahuz ahuz] for Ithamar.’ This [Baraitha] will then refute the opinion of R. Hama b. Guria — R. Hama b. Guria will answer by saying: Tannaim are divided on the question and I accept the opinion of the Tanna [who says that Moses instituted only] eight Mishmaroth. Our Rabbis have taught: Four Mishmaroth returned from the [Babylonian] exile, and they were: Jedaiah, Harim, Pashhur and Immer. The prophets amongst them
—
arose and divided them and increased them to twenty-four. [Lots were prepared] and mixed and placed in an urn. First came Jedaiah and took his portion and the portions of his colleagues, six [in all]; then came Harim and took his portion and the portions of his colleagues six [in all]; and likewise Pashhur; and likewise Immer. And the prophets amongst them stipulated that even if Jehoiarib, who was the chief of the Mishmaroth should go up to [Jerusalem] Jedaiah should not be ousted from his place, but Jedaiah should have precedence and Jehoiarib should be subordinate [to him]. AND THE ISRAELITES OF THE MISHMAR ASSEMBLED IN THEIR CITIES AND READ [FROM THE LAW] THE STORY OF CREATION, On what is this based? — R. Jacob b. Aha said in the name of R. Assi: Were it not for the Ma'amadoth heaven and earth could not endure, as it is said, And he said: O Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? Abraham said: Master of the Universe, should Israel sin before Thee wilt Thou do unto them [as Thou hast done] to the generation of the Flood and to the generation of the Dispersion? [God] replied to him: No. He then said to him: Master of the Universe, ‘Let me know whereby I shall inherit it’. [God] answered: Take Me a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old etc. Abraham then continued: Master of the Universe! This holds good whilst the Temple remains in being, but when the Temple will no longer be what will become of them? [God] replied: I have already long ago provided for them in the Torah the order of sacrifices and whenever they read it I will deem it as if they had offered them before me and I will grant them pardon for all their iniquities. Our Rabbis have taught: The men of the Mishmar prayed over the sacrifice of their brethren that it may be favourably accepted, whilst the men of the Ma'amad assembled in their synagogues and observed four fasts, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of that week. On Monday [they fasted] for those that go down to the sea; on Tuesday for those who travel in the deserts; on Wednesday that croup may not attack children; on Thursday for pregnant women and nursing mothers, that pregnant women should not suffer a miscarriage, and that nursing mothers may be able to nurse their infants; on Friday they did not fast out of respect for the Sabbath; and certainly not on the Sabbath. Why did they not fast on Sunday? — R. Johanan said: Because of the Nazareans. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: Because it is the third day after the creation of Man. Resh Lakish said: Because of the additional soul. For Resh Lakish said: Man is given an additional soul on Friday, but at the termination of the Sabbath it is taken away from him, as it is said, He ceased from work and rested [shabat wa-yinafash] that is to say, Once the rest had ceased, woe! that soul is gone. ON SUNDAY [THEY READ], ‘IN THE BEGINNING’, AND, ‘LET THERE BE A FIRMAMENT’. It has been taught: Two persons read [the section] ‘In the beginning’, and one ‘Let there be a firmament’. I can understand one person reading, ‘Let there be a firmament’, as it contains three verses, but how can two persons read, ‘In the beginning’, seeing that it contains only five verses? Has it not been taught: He who reads the Law should not read less than three verses? — Rab answered: [The third verse] is repeated. Samuel said: It is divided into two. Rab who says that the third verse is repeated why does he not agree that it is divided? — He is of the opinion that any verse which Moses did not divide, we may not divide. And as for Samuel who says that it is divided, may it then be divided? Did not R. Hanina, the Bible teacher, declare, I endeavoured hard to get permission from R. Hanina the elder to divide a verse into two and he would permit me only in the case of teaching children, because it is merely for teaching practice! — To this Samuel can reply: There [in the case of school children] the reason why [R. Hanina permitted the verse to be divided] was because it is not possible [for them to read the whole verse at one stretch], here too it is not possible. And as for Samuel who said, ‘It is divided’, why should he not agree that it be repeated? — In order to prevent any misunderstanding on the part of those who may enter or leave [the synagogue]. An objection was raised: [A section of] six verses is read by two, but [a section of] five verses by one; should, however, the first person have read three verses then the second person reads the [remaining] two and one verse from the following section; some say, he reads three verses [from the following section] because we do not read from a [new] section less than three verses. Now in accordance with the view of him who says that it should be repeated,let then [the third verse of the first section] be repeated; and in accordance with the view of him who says that it should be divided, let the verse be divided? — There the position is different
—