Dear Rabbi Kornfeld,

You wrote as follows-

>>

_________________________________________________________________

INSIGHTS INTO THE DAILY DAF

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim

daf@dafyomi.co.il, http://www.dafyomi.co.il

_________________________________________________________________

Megilah 30

1) THE NORMAL WEEKLY PARSHAH ON EACH SHABBOS OF THE "ARBA PARSHIYOS"

QUESTION: Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yirmeyah disagree about how each of the Four Parshiyos are read on Shabbos. Rebbi Ami maintains that the normal Parshah of that week is postponed and only the appropriate Parshah from the Four Parshiyos is read. Rebbi Yirmeyah maintains that the normal Parshah of that week is read, and the Parshah from the Four Parshiyos is read as the Maftir by the last Aliyah, who also reads a Haftarah which deals with the same subject.

Abaye adduces proof for the opinion of Rebbi Ami from the wording of the Mishnah (29a). The Gemara refutes his proof.

It is evident from the Gemara here that Abaye sides with the view of Rebbi Ami. However, in the Gemara earlier (30a), Abaye expresses his opinion about how to read Parshas Shekalim when it coincides with the normal weekly reading of Parshas Tetzaveh or Parshas Ki Sisa. Abaye says that the first six Aliyos read the normal Parshah of that week, and the seventh Aliyah reads from Parshas Shekalim. If Abaye rules, like Rebbi Ami, that the only portion read on each Shabbos of the Four Parshiyos is the special Parshah of the Four Parshiyos, then why does he rule that the first six Aliyos read from the normal Parshah of that week?

ANSWER: The VILNA GA'ON (in BI'UR HA'GRA OC 685:2) explains that Abaye must have retracted his original opinion and sided with Rebbi Yirmeyah and not with Rebbi Ami. His final ruling was that six Aliyos read from the normal Parshah of the week and the last Aliyah reads from the Arba Parshiyos. The Poskim rule in accordance with the view of Rebbi Yirmeyah, because both Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha and Abaye in the Gemara earlier agree with him.<<

Since we know that the Minhag of Eretz Israel was NOT an annual reading of the whole Tora, but more like a cycle of three years plus some months; and that their division into Sedarot was NOT our division into Parashot - it seems to me that there is no dispute, but a discussion of the different Minhagim-

Abaye shows that the wording of the Mishna indicates that the Minhag of the Mishna was the Minhag of Eretz Israel, and the Gemara shows that it is possible to to interpret the Mishna to correspond to the Babylonian Minhag. Later Abaye answers the question of "Heichi Avdinan" - in other words "What shall our Minhag be?" and he answers according to the Babylonian Minhag. Since the Babylonian Jewry had an established custom - the Mishna, from Eretz Yisrael, does not require Babylonian Jewry to change the Babylonian Minhag, which is a valid Minhag - the Mishna is just telling us of the Minhag of Eretz Israel. Abaye need not change his reading of the Mishna - he just does not interpret the Mishna as invalidating other valid Minhagim!

Is this a valid interpretation?

Yeshayahu HaKohen Hollander

Dear Rabbi Kornfeld:

Megilah 030b: Abaye defending the three-year cycle of Torah reading I'm sorry I was not explicit enough in my previous note. In the Yerushalmi Megila ch3 h5 p25b: Yirmya Safra asked Rabbi Yirmiya: Rosh Hodesh which falls on Shabbath - what is read? Rabbi Yirmiya answered: we read in Rosh Hodesh. The Korban Ha'edah explains: the question was: do we read only in the Rosh Hodesh portion, or do we read the current parasha and add on the maftir of Rosh Hodesh? The answer was: we read seven in the Rosh Hodesh portion. Rabbi Helbo added, speaking before Rabbi Imi (Ami): Our Mishna also shows this: "Mafsikin" for everything: for Roshei Hodashim, for Hannuka, for Purim The Korban Ha'edah adds (from the Mishna): 'for Taaniyoth and for Maamadoth',and explains: If the meaning of "Mafsikin" was only for Haftaroth - Taaniyoth and Maamadoth do not require Haftaroth, therefore the Mishna surely refers to the Parashiyoth; and on Rosh Hodesh also falls on Shabbath - we read seven in the Rosh Hodesh portion.

With this background - and this interpretation by the same Amoraim mentioned in the Bavli - Rabbi Yirmiya and Rabbi Imi (Ami) - it seems to me that Abaye here is accepting their interpretation of the Mishnah, but not accepting the obligation to change the Babylonian Minhag because of the Mishna.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify to myself this issue.

Yeshayahu HaKohen Hollander