Observation: We do not ask about the six who read on Yom Kipur until below.

Question: Why didn't we ask about the four who read on Rosh Chodesh, what they correspond to, and similarly for Chol ha'Mo'ed?

Answer: He knew that the reason is because Musaf is important enough to add one person;

However, to add so many on Yom Tov, Yom Kipur and Shabbos, he held that Kares and stoning [for Chilul Yom Kipur and Chilul Shabbos] do not warrant so many Aliyos, unless we find that they correspond to something.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to people who see Achashverosh.

Objection: It is difficult to say that Chachamim would enact based on that Rasha's protocol!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): It refers to those written in Sefer Yirmeyah (52).

Implied question: In Melachim (2:25), it is written that there are five!

Answer (Yerushalmi): Sefer Melachim does not count the two scribes of the judges.

The text says Matz'ah. If [it said Min'ah, for] he was a heretic, we would not mention his name Yakov, for it says Shem Resha'im Yirkav.

Pesak (R. Tam): We hold like the opinion that says that he counts. Therefore, our custom is that on fasts and Tish'ah b'Av at Minchah, the third is Maftir. The same applies to Yom Kipur at Minchah;

Distinction: However, in Shacharis of Shabbos, Yom Tov and Yom Kipur, the Maftir does not count. Since one may add to them (the number of Aliyos) we can make our custom according to everyone;

If the Halachah follows the opinion that the Maftir does not count, this is fine (we did not count him);

And even if the Halachah follows the opinion that he counts, there is no concern, for one may add! (We added an Aliyah.)

Implied question: Below (29b), we say that if [Parshas Shekalim] fell on [the Shabbos when we read] Parshah Tetzaveh, we read six Aliyos in Tetzaveh, and one (the Maftir, reads the first six verses) in Ki Sisa. (This connotes that Maftir counts towards the seven!)

Conclusion: The custom nowadays is that the Maftir reads eighth. This is according to our custom.

Pesak: If a Ba'al Korei erred and finished the entire Parshah of Shabbos [in six Aliyos], he goes back [and repeats verses] for a seventh [and afterwards the Maftir reads];

Similarly, if it is Yom Tov, and the necessary number read and he forgot to read Chovas ha'Yom, they return a Sefer Torah and one reads in Chovas ha'Yom. The last who read before this, it is as if he is not (among the five who must read);

However, on Shabbos of Chanukah or Rosh Chodesh of Chanukah, we need not [return a Sefer Torah], like it says in [Midrash] Yelamdenu on Chanukah. The Halachah is, we are not concerned for [the reading for] Chanukah at all.

Pesak: On days with a Korban Musaf, one says full Kaddish before taking out the Sefer Torah. On days without a Korban Musaf, he does not finish Kaddish beforehand.

On Shabbos he may not read less than 21 verses for seven people, three for each. At Minchah, and on Monday and Thursday, he must read 10 verses. If he forgot and did not read so much, he returns and reads.

Question: Our custom is that on every Shabbos of the year, the Maftir repeats what previous Olim read. He does not read further at all;

If so, what was the answer, that since this (Maftir reads from the Torah) is for Kevod ha'Torah, we do not need (another three verses of Navi) corresponding to this?

Just the contrary! We should say that since he reads only what the first ones read, we do not require corresponding to him!

Answer: Rather, this shows that in the days of the Tana'im, the Maftir used to read what the first ones did not read.

Support: According to the opinion that Maftir does not count towards seven Olim, they enacted three verses of the Navi corresponding to what he read in the Torah, like we say below;

This shows that he reads what the first ones did not read.

Question: Why is our custom to do unlike this?

Answer: In the days of Chachamim, they did not say Kaddish in between those who read before the Maftir and the Maftir. Therefore, the Maftir concluded;

However, after the Gemara was arranged, and they enacted to say Kaddish between those who read first and the Maftir, just like they enacted to say Baruch Hash-m l'Olam Amen v'Amen and v'Yir'u Eineinu (18 verses with a closing Berachah) after Hashkiveinu (between Birkos Keri'as Shema and Shemoneh Esre of Ma'ariv. Nowadays, many places in Chutz la'Aretz say them.)

They did not say these in the days of the Tana'im. They enacted them in order to make known that Tefilas Ma'ariv is Reshus (optional);

Similarly, they enacted to say Kaddish between the seven Olim and Maftir, to inform that Maftir is not counted among the seven.

Enactment: R. Eliyahu established in his city that even when they take two or three Sifrei Torah [from the Aron], the custom is that the first [ones, i.e. everyone before the Maftir] read everything, and the Maftir repeats [the end of] what the first ones read.

Also R. Meshulam established so, and this is the custom nowadays in all of France. They changed from the custom of Rashi and his Rebbeyim and R. Tam.

Question: Why don't we take out two Sifrei Torah every Shabbos, to read in the latter uv'Yom ha'Shabbos (the Korban Musaf for Shabbos), like we do (read Musaf of Yom Tov) on Yom Tov?

Answer #1: It is because the Musaf of Shabbos is only two verses, and we do not read less than three verses;

We should not before from the previous Parshah, or end in the Parshah below, for they are not relevant to the day.

Answer #2: Also, every week we must read a Haftorah related to the day's reading;

If we would read [Maftir] of [Korban] Shabbos, we would have to read a Haftorah related to the last matter read, i.e. Shabbos. If so, all the Haftoros will be about the same matter!

Answer #3: Also, we always read in a second Sefer Torah only Korbanos that come for Kaparah, like it explains below (31b) that we read them on Yom Tov, and it helps for Yisrael as if they offered them;

However, the Korbanos of Shabbos do not come for Kaparah. Therefore, we do not read them.

Explanation: We rely on this, and we do not translate the Haftorah the entire year, and also [we do not translate] the Parshiyos.

Pesak: The Yerushalmi explains that if they began with 10 and some of them left, even so they may finish;

It says about those who left "v'Ozvei Hash-m Yichlu" (those who abandon Hash-m will perish). This is the Halachah.

Opinion #1 (Rashi): This means that if people came to the Beis ha'Keneses after the Tzibur prayed, and they want to say Kaddish and Borchu, they need 10.

Opinion #2 (R. Tam): It suffices to have seven who did not hear [Kaddish and Borchu] with three others [even if they already heard].

Support - Citation (Maseches Sofrim): Our Rebbeyim in the west (Eretz Yisrael) say seven. They learn from "bi'Fro'a Pera'os b'Yisrael b'Hisnadev Am Borchu Hash-m", which has seven words.

Opinion #3: Some say that even six suffices, because Borchu is the sixth word.

Opinion #4 (Sefer ha'Yashar of R. Tam): It suffices to have five, for there are only five words in the verse before Borchu.

Opinion #5: I say that even three who did not hear suffice;

The verse means that when there are breaches in Yisrael, and they did not do what is incumbent on them to do, then the nation volunteers to bless Hash-m;

There are only three words until "volunteers."

Opinion #6 (Talmidim of Rashi, in his name): Even for one who did not hear, they can be Pores Al Shema;

Even one who already heard may be Motzi those who did not hear.

Source: We find that a Shali'ach Tzibur, even though he already prayed Shemoneh Esre quietly, he prays again aloud, and even though nowadays everyone is expert (knows how to pray).

Rebuttal: This is not such a solid proof. Shemoneh Esre is different, for if [the Shali'ach Tzibur] prayed initially aloud, perhaps they would not coordinate their hearts to reach Kedushah and Modim together with him. (Therefore, they enacted that first he prays quietly, and after he was Yotzei, exempts them. This does not apply to Pores Al Shema. One who did not hear should be Motzi people.)

R. Tam's practice: R. Tam did not want to do so (be Pores Al Shma) even for himself.

Ri's opinion: We do not discuss Birkas ha'Mazon, for it was not in the city square, like I explained in Kesuvos (8b);

Rather, we discuss Berachos that they used to say in the city square in Ma'amados (pauses amidst taking the body to burial) that they did to console mourners.

However, in Birkas ha'Mazon, three suffice, and he himself joins, like it explains the reason there.

Question: Why don't we require 11? We do not make a Beis Din with an even number of judges for anything that depends on assessment! (Ritva - here, since the Torah taught 10, we do not add. The reason is because in matters of evaluation, usually the majority will agree. Machaneh Chayim (YD 2:16, cited in Daf Al Daf) - we do not have an even Beis Din when there are two sides (liable or exempt). Here, 11 judges can give different evaluations (three will say 10, three will say 20, three will say 30, and two say 40) just like 10.)

Rashi's opinion: In Sanhedrin (15a), Rashi explained that he may not be sold in the market like a slave. Therefore, he is not Kadosh.

Question: Why don't we say that we discuss an Eved Kena'ani, whom one can be Makdish (since one may sell him in the market)?

Slaves are called "Adam", like we say in Gitin (38b) "Kol Cherem Asher Yacharim... me'Adam" includes male and female Kena'ani slaves.

Answer: If we discussed an Eved Kena'ani, three would suffice. We would not use 10, like it says in the Yerushalmi. This is a decree lest they hear [that they are being redeemed] and flee.

Question: Perhaps the Yerushalmi discusses the law mid'Rabanan, but the Torah requires 10. If so, the question returns;

When the Gemara asked "does a man become Kadosh", we should have answered that we discuss an Eved Kena'ani!

Answer #1: It is clear to him that our Mishnah teaches laws that must be fulfilled. If it discussed a slave, [it should teach the decree, that] it is with three.

Answer #2: The Makshan holds that if we discuss a slave, it should have explicitly explained so, "land and slaves are with nine and a Kohen", like it says everywhere "land and slaves..." (See also Tosfos Sanhedrin 15a DH Adam.)

Inference: An Eved Ivri is equated to land.

Support: Kidushin 7a says that a woman is considered to be property with Acharayus (if they were sold, a creditor can collect from the buyer) because slaves are equated to land.

Question: Only an Eved Kena'ani [is equated to land], like the verse "v'Hisnachaltem" discusses. We do not find at all that an Eved Ivri is equated to land!

Partial answer: I could reject the proof from Kidushin [that an Eved Ivri is equated to land], like I explained there. (The Gemara merely meant that one cannot say that a woman is acquired Agav, even if we would consider her to be property with Acharayus.) However, here is difficult!