The Proof

What Confuses Me
I follow the proof up until the point highlighted by the red square. I realize we must have $p_j|a$ (all composite numbers have a prime divisor) but why do we have the subsequent parts of the statement?
The Proof

What Confuses Me
I follow the proof up until the point highlighted by the red square. I realize we must have $p_j|a$ (all composite numbers have a prime divisor) but why do we have the subsequent parts of the statement?
On
For any integers $x$, $y$, and $z$, if we have $x\mid y$ and $x\mid z$, then $x\mid (y-z)$.
(For example, when $x=2$, this says that the difference of any two even numbers is again even.)
In your situation, $x=p_j$, $y=a$, and $z=p_1p_2\cdots p_k$.
On
I think you didn't understand that line the intended way. Since we have both $p_j \mid a$ and $p_j \mid p_1 p_2 \cdots p_k$, we can conclude that $p_j$ divides the difference $a - p_1 p_2 \cdots p_k$, and the difference is in fact $1$.
On
For anyone wondering the same thing as I did, the proof works like this:
Suppose there are finitely many primes. The set of these finite primes is {$ p_1,p_2,p_3..p_k$}
Let $a = p_1*p_2*p_3*\cdots *p_k + 1$ that is a is the product of all the prime numbers plus 1
We know that $a$ is greater than any of the prime numbers on the list (remember that $a$ is all the prime numbers times themselves plus 1)
We know that a is a composite number(because it is bigger than all our prime numbers and therefore not a prime number and therefore a composite) so it must have a prime divisor
We will call this prime divisor $p_j$ so we can say $p_j|a$ since $p_j$ is also a prime it must be a divisor of the product of all prime numbers so we can say $p_j|p_1*p_2*p_3*\cdots*p_j*\cdots*p_k$
By the property of $x|y \wedge x|z \implies x|(y-z)$ we can say that $(p_j|a \wedge p_j|p_1*p_2*p_3*\cdots*p_k)\implies p_j|(a-p_1*p_2*p_3*\cdots*p_k)$ remember that $a = p_1*p_2*p_3*\cdots *p_k + 1$ so $(a-p_1*p_2*p_3*\cdots*p_k) =(p_1*p_2*p_3*\cdots *p_k + 1) - (p_1*p_2*p_3*\cdots *p_k) = 1$ so the idea that there are finitely many primes actually implies that $p_j|1$ which is impossible because that is saying $\frac{1}{p_j}$ is an integer which is only possible when $p_j = 1$ which is impossible because $p_j$ is prime and thus cannot be one. Therefore, by contradiction, there are not finitely many primes, which means there are infinitely many primes.
The proof is badly worded. Inside the box it should say $p_j|(a-p_1p_2...p_k)$ therefore $p_j|1$, which is not possible. Proof by contradiction is a method where you assume the converse of the proposition and then show that leads you to something impossible.