Rabbi Kornfeld,
As usual, the Kollel Iyun Hadaf does excellent work. May you continue to spread Torah to Jews all over the world (and I will bli neder do my part to support your efforts).
In the middle of Rosh Hashanah 31a, Rav Chanan bar Rava says in the name of Rav that the on mussaf of Shabbos, the leviim would sing Ha'azinu, referred to by the acronym of the sections HaZiYV LaCh. I looked at the aliyos in a chumash (translation by Aryeh Kaplan) and the breaks that Rashi makes match for rishon through revii (HaZiYV). However, chamishi and shishi do not match. I then saw that we follow the Rambam in terms of where the breaks are for LaCh. My questions are:
1) how did Rashi and the Rambam end up with two different set of breaks and
2) why did each feel their breaks were correct (in comparison to the other's)?
Sincerely,
Mordechai
(a) Thank you and Tizkeh l'Mitzvos.
(b) The Abudraham (Seder ha'Parshiyos veha'Haftaros) writes that Chazal gave breaks here because there were many difficult topics, and people might feel that the Ba'al Korei was choosing to stop for them at a certain bad topic. Being that this would cause argument, Chazal decided where the stops would be. According to this opinion, we can suggest that the main point was not where the stops should be, but to make permanent stops in the laining.
Furthermore, the Dvar Avraham (1:36) writes a novel idea that despite the many arguments regarding the exact breaks of "HaZiYV LaCh," there really is no definite opinion where the breaks must be, as long as they make up the letters of "HaZiYV LaCh." The idea behind "HaZiYV LaCh" is spoken about by many Rishonim. For example, the Darchei Moshe (O.C. 428) quotes Rabeinu Bachya who says that this signifies the light and splendor of Torah belongs to Bnei Yisrael (see Shibolei ha'Leket #306 and Machzor Vitri #350 for other concepts alluded to by HaZiYV LaCh).
That being said, it is possible that Rashi thought to make the breaks as early as possible to fulfill the Roshei Taivos (32:27,36). The Rambam and Rif might have thought it was better to make breaks so they are clearly at the end of a thought (32:29,40). However, taking the above material into account, it is possible that their argument is not set in stone.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose