Version #1: According to the texts that say "Shlomo", we must say that Asaf is one of Korach's three sons. He is Avi'asaf.

Version #2: According to the texts that do not say "Shlomo", Asaf is not Avi'asaf. Rather, he was among the Leviyim who sing.

Question: According to the texts that do not say [Shlomo], why isn't he counted? (Tehilim 72) says "li'Shlomo Elokim Mishpatecha..."!

Answer: David said it, and he prayed for Shlomo.

Proof: The end of this Mizmor says "Kalu Tefilos David."

Question: According to the texts that say "Shlomo", why does it say "Kalu Tefilos David"?

Answer: It is because [Shlomo began this Mizmor, but] David finished it.

Implied question: [According to the texts that do not say Shlomo], why does it say "Shir ha'Ma'alos li'Shlomo"?

Answer: David said also this. David said all 15 Mizmorim that begin "Shir ha'Ma'alos."

Alternative text: Some texts count Avraham and Eisan ha'Ezrachi, and say below "he counts Avraham, and he counts Eisan. Rav taught that Eisan ha'Ezrachi is Avraham!

It answers that Eisan ha'Ezrachi who is counted here is Yakov.

Question: This text is difficult. What is the source that Avraham wrote [part of] Tehilim, since Eisan ha'Ezrachi is not Avraham?!

Implied question: Why didn't Yeshayah, who was before Yirmeyahu, write Sefer Melachim?

Answer: It is because [Yeshayah] was killed, and he was not at the end of Melachim from Menasheh and onwards. He did not even write his own Sefer!

Explanation: Because Chizkiyah caused them to engage in Torah, the matter is attributed to him, but he did not write it, for he died before Yeshayah, for his son Menasheh (after he became king, after Chizkiyah died) killed Yeshayah.

Explanation (R. Chananel): [Ezra wrote] until the verse "v'Lo Achim Bnei Yehoshafat." This supports Rav, who says that he recorded his own lineage, and ascended, for his own lineage is written before this verse.

Question: His Perush is difficult. It should have said 'until "v'Lo"', with a Vav!

Question: Also Yirmeyahu was in Chutz la'Aretz, for he went to Mitzrayim and had several prophecies there, and we never find that he returned to Eretz Yisrael!

Explanation #1: Based on this, R. Meshulam used to mandate that only one person read the eight verses. The Shali'ach Tzibur may not read with him.

Rebuttal (R. Tam): Also the entire Torah, an individual reads, like the Mishnah in Megilah (21b) says that if two read [the Megilah], they were Yotzei, and the Gemara says that this is not so regarding Torah.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): An individual reads [the eight verses] without interrupting. Two people may not read four verses each.

Implied question: Why is the custom nowadays that two read the entire Torah (the Shali'ach Tzibur and the Oleh together? The Gemara in Megilah forbids this!)

Answer (R. Tam): This is to avoid embarrassing one who does not know how to read by himself.

Support: This is like we find in Bikurim (3:7). The Mishnah says that one who knows how to read (Viduy Bikurim), reads by himself. One who did not know how to read, they were Makri for him (recited the words for him to repeat. Such people) refrained from bringing Bikurim;

They enacted to be Makri for one who knows how to read, and for one who does not know how to read.

Implied question: It says in the Yerushalmi in Megilah that R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak entered a Beis ha'Keneses and saw a Chazan (Shali'ach Tzibur) standing and reading, without anyone by him;

Citation (Yerushalmi - R. Shmuel): This is forbidden. Just like Torah was given through an intermediary, we must conduct with (read) it through an intermediary!

Answer: Even though it connotes that the Chazan stands next to the one reading, he does not read with him. Rather, he stands and calls [by name] those who should read, in order that Torah will be given through an intermediary.

Answer #2 (Ri): It can be that [the Chazan] helps a little, quietly. It connotes in Megilah that two may not read, i.e. equally aloud.

Observation: This is unlike Reish Lakish said in Bereishis Rabah that Iyov was not, i.e. afflictions did not come on him;

The verses say that afflictions came on him to publicize his strength, that had they come on him, he could have endured them.

Proof: If this Amora held that Iyov was in the world, what was the question "why does it mention his name and city"? There is great need to inform who was this Tzadik who could endure those afflictions!

Source: This is like it says in Megilah (15a) that any Navi called by his name and his father's name, it is known that also his father was a Navi.

Question: What is the Chidush [that he lived 210 years]? The verse says "va'Yosef Hash-m Es Kol Asher l'Iyov l'Mishneh" (Hash-m gave to him double what he had before), and after the episode (the afflictions) he lived another 140 years. If so, he was 70 beforehand!

Answer: One might have thought that he received double only regarding wealth and beauty of his daughters, but not years.

Inference: It is obvious that Elihu ben Barka'el was a Yisrael.

Consequence: In Avodah Zarah (3a), when it says "let Bildad ha'Shuchi, Tzofar ha'Na'amasi testify that Yisrael fulfilled the entire Torah", the text does not say "Elihu ben Barka'el."

Assertion: The Sugya there holds like the opinion that Iyov was in the days of Yakov, for it says below that from Moshe and onwards, Shechinah did not rest on Nochrim.

Question (Ri): It says in Temurah (15b) that all the "Eshkolos" (ISH sheha'KOL Bo, i.e. one who has Torah, Yir'as Chet and Chesed) from Moshe until the death of Yosi ben Yo'ezer, there was no fault in them! (Rashash - all the Eshkolos were flawless, but there were unworthy Shoftim.)

Version #1: R. Chananel's text says "all the Tana'im and Amora'im agree that Iyov was a Yisrael."

Version #2 (Ri): The text does not say "and Amora'im", for you are forced to say that Rava holds above that he was not a Yisrael;

He said above that Moshe told the spies "is that man (Iyov), whose years are [great] like a tree... [still alive, to protect on his generation (the Nochrim in Eretz Yisrael)]?"

Observation: This opinion is not R. Nasan, for he argues with it.