1)

(a)When Ula bar Rav asked Rava the above She'eilah (concerning the Aliyos on Rosh Chodesh), he replied - that although he had not heard an answer to that She'eilah, he had heard an answer to a similar one, in connection with the men of the Ma'amados (in the Mishnah in Ta'anis [which we will not cite]).

(b)The Anshei Ma'amados were faced with the same problem - each Sunday, when they called up two people in "Bereishis" and one in "Yehi Raki'a", since Bereishis consists of only five Pesukim.

(c)According to Rav, they solved the problem by employing 'Doleg'; according to Shmuel, 'Posek'.

1. 'Doleg' means - that the second Aliyah repeats one of the Pesukim that the previous person read.

2. 'Posek' means - that the first Aliyah stops in the middle of the Pasuk (i.e. after two and half Pesukim), and the second one begins from there and read the next two and a half Pesukim.

(d)

1. Rav does not agree with the concept of 'Posek' - because, in his opinion, it is not permitted to divide any Pasuk in two if Moshe did not divide it.

2. Shmuel does not agree with the concept of Doleg - because he is afraid of people who leave Shul early after having heard he first Aliyah stop within two Pesukim of a Parashah, and who will then think that the following Aliyah will only read two Pesukim.

2)

(a)Shmuel reconciles his opinion with Rebbi Chanina, who was reluctant to permit Rebbi Chanina the Rebbe to break up Pesukim other than for his young disciples, who were unable to learn whole Pesukim in one go - on the grounds that, since Rebbi permitted Rebbi Chanina to divide the Pesukim on behalf of his young pupils (because they could otherwise not cope), it follows that whenever one cannot cope, one may divide the Pasuk.

(b)Rav will counter - that Rebbi only permitted Posek for children to help them learn, but not in Shul, where one needs to be Yotzei, and where one has the option of Doleg.

(c)With regard to the Anshei Ma'amados, the Tana Kama of the Beraisa in Ta'anis permits the second Aliyah in a Parashah of five, to read one Pasuk into the next Parashah - Yesh Omrim (Rebbi Nasan) says - that he must read a minimum of three.

(d)According to Rav, Rebbi Nasan does not permit 'Doleg' in this case - because one has the choice of continuing (and Doleg is confined to where one has no choice).

(e)We cannot ask the same Kashya on Shmuel (i.e. 'Let Rebbi Nasan permit 'Posek' ') - because we are speaking here when he already read three Pesukim (and Posek is a Din in l'Chatchilah, and is not something that one can go back for).

3)

(a)The Tana Kama of Yesh Omrim - is more lenient in the case of reading less than three Pesukim at the beginning which he permits, than in that of stopping less than three Pesukim from the end (which he does not).

(b)The problem with Rebbi Tanchum Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who, after ruling like Yesh Omrim, goes on to say that just as it is forbidden to read less than three Pesukim at the beginning of the Parashah, so too is it forbidden to stop less than three Pesukim from the end is - why should such a ruling be necessary? If with regard to stopping less than three Pesukim from the beginning, where the Chachamim are lenient, Yesh Omrim is strict, then by stopping less than three Pesukim from the end, where the Chachamim are strict, should we not take for granted that Yesh Omrim will also be strict?!

(c)The answer is - that there is also a logical reason to be more lenient with regard to stopping less than three Pesukim from the end; namely, because coming to Shul late is more common that leaving early (as we shall see).

(d)Nevertheless, the Tana Kama is more lenient with regard to stopping less than three Pesukim from the beginning (than they are with regard to stopping less than three Pesukim from the end), because people who come late (irrespective of how many of them there are) will ask those who were there on time why the previous Aliyah read only two Pesukim; whereas those who leave early, will remain with the assumption that the following Aliyah will only read two Pesukim.

4)

(a)When Rabah brei d'Rava asked Rav Yosef for a ruling, he replied - like Doleg ...

(b)... and that (in the case of the Ma'amados) the middle Aliyah is Doleg.

(c)... because otherwise, he would either have to either leave less than three Pesukim from the end of the first Parashah, or to complete the second one (which only has three Pesukim).

5)

(a)Even though we do not Daven Musaf on a Ta'anis Tzibur, we nevertheless think that four people may possibly be called up - because of the extra Tefilah ('Anenu') that we Daven.

(b)We cannot prove that one calls up three people, from the fact that when our Mishnah lists the occasions on which four are called up, it only lists Rosh Chodesh and Chol ha'Mo'ed (but not a Ta'anis Tzibur) - because from the Reisha, where the Tana does not include a Ta'anis Tzibur together with those who Monday and Thursday, when we call up three people, we can deduce exactly the opposite.

(c)We try to resolve our She'eilah from the fact that when Rav arrived in Bavel on a Ta'anis Tzibur, he was called up, and although he recited a Berachah before reading, he did not recite one afterwards - which we assume was due to the fact that there was still a fourth Aliyah to be called up.

(d)We base the counter-suggestion that Rav was called up in place of a Kohen - on the fact that his Talmid Rav Huna was (at a later stage) called up in place of a Kohen.

6)

(a)We then argue that, even if Rav Huna was called up in place of a Kohen, this was not possible in the case of Rav - because whereas Rav Huna would be called up first even in the presence of Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi, those illustrious Kohanim from Eretz Yisrael (because he was greater than them), Rav tended to pay deference to Shmuel (who was a Kohen), presumably because he considered him (Shmuel) greater than himself, and would therefore not have allowed them to call him up when Shmuel was present (in which, he would not allow them to call him in his place, even when he was not present).

(b)We finally accept the previous suggestion (that Rav was called in place of a Kohen) as the final answer, in spite of the fact that Rav paid deference to Shmuel - because the reason that he did so was not because Shmuel was greater than him, but because he had once cursed him, and wanted to make up for it. Consequently, he only honored him in his presence, but not in his absence. In fact, Rav was the most eminent person in his generation (just like Rav Huna after him), and was able to be called up as Kohen (in spite of Shmuel).

(c)We try to prove that Rav must have been called up in place of a Kohen (and not for Shelishi, as we first presumed) - because otherwise, how will we explain the fact that Rav recited a Berachah before reading?!

(d)We initially think that it cannot have been after the Takanah to recite a Berachah before reading the Parashah - because if it was, then he ought to have recited a Berachah after reading too!

(e)We reject this question however - on the grounds that although people in Rav's town (Sura) often came late to Davening (the reason for each Aliyah being required to recite the Berachah before reading), they did not tend to leave early, in which case, they would all hear the final Berachah that the last Aliyah would recite (and it was not therefore necessary for each Aliyah to recite a Berachah after reading).

7)

(a)Based on a Beraisa, we finally rule that on a Ta'anis Tzibur one calls up only three people. The Tana rules that on a Ta'anis Tzibur and on Tisha b'Av - one calls up three people, but on Rosh Chodesh and Chol ha'Mo'ed - one calls up four.

(b)This is because - in the former case there is Bitul Melachah (a loss of work-time), whereas in the latter, there is not (since not everybody works anyway).

(c)We call up four people on Rosh Chodesh - because women do not work on Rosh Chodesh.

(d)Rosh Chodesh is a semi-Yom Tov specifically for women - because they refused to donate their ornaments for the Egel ha'Zahav, for which the Mishkan served as a Kaparah. Now the Mishkan was erected on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, and because of Rosh Chodesh Nisan, they were given all Roshei Chodashim.

(e)We have a proof from the Haftarah of 'Machar Chodesh' that Rosh Chodesh is not considered a day of work - because the Pasuk refers to Erev Rosh Chodesh as 'Yom ha'Ma'aseh', from which we can infer that Rosh Chodesh is not a Yom Ma'aseh.

8)

(a)Rav Ashi tries to prove from 'Zeh ha'Klal: Kol Yom she'Yesh Bo Musaf v'Eino Yom Tov Korin Arba'ah' in our Mishnah, that the Tana disagrees with the above-mentioned Beraisa (with regard to calling up three people on a Ta'anis Tzibur) - because we think that 'Zeh ha'Klal' comes to include a Ta'anis Tzibur in the list of days when one calls up four people.

(b)We reject Rav Ashi's contention (that, according to the Tana of our Mishnah, one calls up four people on Tisha b'Av), on the grounds that this concurs neither with the Tana Kama (of another Beraisa) nor with Rebbi Yosi. According to Rebbi Yosi, on Tisha b'Av one always calls up three people, and the third one is the Maftir. The Tana Kama says - that one calls up three people on a Ta'anis Tzibur that falls on Monday and Thursday, but only one on other days.

(c)If 'Zeh ha'Klal ... ' does not come to include a Ta'anis Tzibur (like Rav Ashi maintains), then it comes (not to include anything, but - to explain the sequence of our Mishnah (as we shall now see).

9)

(a)The principle that governs the number of Aliyos on each of the days mentioned in our Mishnah - is that whatever has an additional feature over and above its predecessor has one additional Aliyah.

(b)Consequently, we call up ...

1. ... four people on Rosh Chodesh and on Chol ha'Mo'ed - because of the Korban Musaf.

2. ... five on Yom Tov - because of the additional prohibition of working.

3. ... six on Yom Kippur - because it is subject to Kares.

4. ... seven on Shabbos - because it is subject to Sekilah.

10)

(a)When Rav arrived in Bavel, everyone else prostrated themselves (for Tachanun), but Rav did not. The initial reason we give for Rav is based on the Pasuk in Behar - "v'Even Maskis Lo Sitnu b'Artzechem" (prohibiting prostrating oneself on a stone slab).

(b)The other congregants did prostrate themselves, because it was only the section of the Shul where Rav stood that had a stone floor.

(c)Rav did not want to move across to another part of the Shul - in order not to trouble everybody to stand up for him.

(d)If alternatively, the entire floor comprised stone, and the other people tended to bow down (without actually prostrating themselves) and it was only Rav who had the Minhag to prostrate himself, Rav could indeed have bowed down like everybody else - but he did not want to change his Minhag.

(e)Finally, we establish the case even by an earth floor, and Rav did not prostrate himself because of a statement of Rebbi Elazar - who said that an eminent person should not fall on his face (in public - see Tosfos DH 'Ein') unless he is as sure as Yehoshua bin Nun that Hash-m will respond (either to avoid embarrassment or to avoid a Chilul Hash-m - when people see that his prayers go unanswered).

11)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Melachim ...

1. ... "va'Tikod Bas-Sheva Apayim Aretz" - that 'Kidah' means to fall on one's face.

2. ... "mi'Chero'a al Birkav" - that 'Keriy'ah' means to go down on one's knees.

(b)We learn from Yakov's words to Yosef - "ha'Vo Navo Ani v'Imcha v'Achecha l'Hishtachavos Lecha Artzah?" that Hishtachavayah means to prostrate oneself flat on the ground.

(c)When Levi demonstrated Kidah in front of Rebbi - he became lame.

(d)We reconcile this with Rebbi Elazar, who attributed Levi's lameness to the fact that he accused Hash-m of not helping Yisrael in their hour of need - by attributing what happened in the latter to what he said in the former.

12)

(a)Abaye and Rava were certainly important people. Therefore, to avoid falling on their faces in public - they used to turn them to the side whilst prostrating themselves.