Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 24, 2014 | 讻状讜 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讚

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Taanit 13

Study Guide Taanit 13


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诇讬 讬讗住驻讜 讻诇 讞专讚 讘讚讘专讬 讗诇讛讬 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 诪注诇 讛讙讜诇讛 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜讘诪谞讞转 讛注专讘 拽诪转讬 诪转注谞讬转讬 讜讗驻专砖讛 讻驻讬 讗诇 讛壮

The Gemara asks: I can reverse the order of events, so that the first half of the day is spent in prayer while the second half is focused on the concerns of the community. The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say that, as it is written elsewhere: 鈥淭hen were assembled to me everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel due to the faithlessness of them of the captivity and I sat appalled until the evening offering鈥 (Ezra 9:4). And it is written in the next verse: 鈥淎nd at the meal-offering I arose from my fast, even with my garment and my mantle rent; and I fell on my knees and I spread out my hands to the Lord鈥 (Ezra 9:5). These verses indicate that first one must deal with the issues of the community, and only afterward engage in prayer.

讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘诇 讻讙讜谉 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讜讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 转注谞讜讙 讻讙讜谉 转注谞讬转 爪讘讜专 讘讞诪讬谉 讗住讜专 讘爪讜谞谉 诪讜转专

Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav 岣sda said: Anything that is prohibited due to mourning, for example, bathing on the Ninth of Av, or prohibited for a private mourner, is prohibited both in hot water and in cold water. Anything that is prohibited due to pleasure, for example, bathing on a communal fast, is prohibited in hot water, but is permitted in cold water, provided one washes for the sake of cleanliness.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜谞讜注诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪专讞爪讗讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬 讘爪讜谞谉 讗住讜专 住讜讻专讬谉 讗转 讛谞讛专讜转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讬

Rav Idi bar Avin said: We, too, learn this in the mishna: And they lock the bathhouses. This phrase indicates that only bathing in hot water is prohibited. Abaye said to Rav Idi bar Avin: And if it were also prohibited to wash in cold water, should the mishna have taught: They dam the rivers? Since it is impossible to dam the rivers to stop people from bathing altogether, the statement of the mishna is insufficient proof that only bathing in hot water is prohibited. Perhaps bathing in cold water is also prohibited but there is no way to prevent it.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗讘讗 讛讻讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讻讚讬 转谞谉 讗住讜专 讘专讞讬爪讛 谞讜注诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪专讞爪讗讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讞诪讬谉 讗住讜专 讘爪讜谞谉 诪讜转专

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said, in explanation of his father鈥檚 opinion: With regard to my father, the following poses a difficulty to his ruling: Since we already learned in the mishna that one is prohibited to engage in bathing, why do I need the tanna to state: They lock the bathhouses? Practically speaking, what does this clause add? Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from this that bathing is prohibited in hot water but permitted in cold water?

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讟讘讬诇讜转 讟讜讘诇讬谉 讻讚专讻谉 讘讬谉 讘转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞诪讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讞诪讬谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 砖讗讜讘讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara proposes: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling that it is prohibited for a mourner to bathe himself even in cold water: All who are obligated in immersions immerse themselves in their usual manner, both on the Ninth of Av and on Yom Kippur. The Gemara clarifies this baraita: In what do they immerse themselves? If we say that they immerse themselves in hot water, is there such a concept as ritual immersion in hot water? Hot water is necessarily drawn water, as the water has been placed in vessels for heating, and drawn water is invalid for a ritual bath.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘爪讜谞谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬 讟讘讬诇讜转 讗讬谉 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 拽讟讬谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗

Rather, isn鈥檛 the baraita referring to cold water, and it teaches that those obligated in immersions, yes, they are permitted to use cold water, but another person, who is not obligated to immerse, no, he may not wash even in cold water. Rav 岣na bar Ketina said: This is no proof, as the ruling of the baraita was necessary only for the hot springs of Tiberias, which are warm without having been drawn, and in which it is possible to immerse.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 讘讬转 讗诇讛讬谞讜 诇讗讘讚 注诇讬讜 讟讘讬诇讛 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘爪讜谞谉 诪讜转专 讬专讞抓 讘爪讜谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 爪讜谞谉

The Gemara objects: If so, say the latter clause of that same mishna: Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, said: The mourning for the House of our God, the Holy Temple, is worthy of the loss of a ritual immersion once a year. And if you say that it is permitted to immerse in cold water, why does Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest say that he loses his immersion? Let him bathe in cold water, without having to neglect his immersion or transgress the prohibitions of a fast day. Rav Pappa said: It could be argued that the baraita is referring to a place where cold water is not available, but only hot springs. In this case there is no choice but to wait until the following day to immerse.

转讗 砖诪注 讻砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 讘诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讗讘诇 讘诇讬诇讛 诪讜转专 讜讻砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 讘谞注讬诇转 讛住谞讚诇 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘注讬专 讗讘诇 讘讚专讱 诪讜转专 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讬讜爪讗 诇讚专讱 谞讜注诇 谞讻谞住 诇注讬专 讞讜诇抓 讜讻砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 讘专讞讬爪讛 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪讜转专 讜讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘诪谞讜讚讛 讜讘讗讘诇

The Gemara proposes: Come and hear: When they said that one is prohibited in working on fast days, they said so only about working during the day, but at night it is permitted to work. And when they said that one is prohibited to engage in wearing shoes, they said so only in a city, but on the road it is permitted. How so? When one goes out on the road he wears shoes, but at the end of his journey, when he enters the town, he removes them. And when they said that one is prohibited to engage in bathing, they said this only with regard to bathing his entire body, but washing his face, his hands, and his feet is permitted. And similarly, you find that this ruling applies in the case of one who is ostracized, i.e., placed under a formal ban, and in the case of a mourner, who is also prohibited to engage in bathing, smearing, and wearing shoes.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讻讜诇讛讜 讜讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞诪讬谉 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪讬 砖专讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讛讜砖讬讟 讗爪讘注讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘爪讜谞谉

The Gemara explains the proof from this baraita: What, is it not the case that all these halakhot refer to all of them, including one who is ostracized and one who is in mourning? And with what form of bathing are we dealing here? If we say that the baraita is referring to bathing in hot water, are bathing his face, his hands, and his feet permitted? But didn鈥檛 Rav Sheshet say: It is prohibited for a mourner to insert even his finger into hot water for the purpose of washing. Rather, is it not correct to say that the baraita is dealing with cold water? If so, it is prohibited on a communal fast to wash one鈥檚 entire body even in cold water, which contradicts the opinion of Rafram bar Pappa, citing Rav 岣sda, who permits washing in cold water on those days for the sake of cleanliness.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讜讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘诪谞讜讚讛 讜讘讗讘诇 讗砖讗专讗 拽讗讬

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, actually the baraita is referring to bathing in hot water. And with regard to what posed a difficulty for you, the phrase: And similarly, that you find in the case of one who is ostracized and in the case of a mourner, does not refer to bathing; rather, it is referring to the rest of the prohibitions, e.g., working and wearing shoes. Consequently, it can be claimed that the baraita refers specifically to hot water, as this clause does not refer to a mourner but only to a communal fast, and bathing in cold water is permitted on communal fasts.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讻讛谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讛谉 诪注砖讛 讜诪转讜 讘谞讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜专讞抓 讘爪讜谞谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讛转诐 讻砖转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜 讛讜讛 讚转谞讬讗 转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专 讜诪讻讘住 讻住讜转讜 讘诪讬诐

The Gemara proposes yet another proof. Come and hear a statement of a baraita, as Rabbi Abba the priest said in the name of Rabbi Yosei the priest: An incident occurred in which the sons of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, died, and he bathed in cold water all seven days of mourning. This indicates that a mourner is in fact permitted to bathe. The Gemara rejects this argument: There it was a case where his mourning periods came one after the other, as his sons died in quick succession, and this leniency is as it is taught in a baraita: If one鈥檚 mourning periods immediately succeeded each other and his hair grew heavy, then even though it is generally prohibited for a mourner to cut his hair, he may lighten it with a razor, and he may likewise wash his garment in water.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转注专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪住驻专讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞转专 讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇

With regard to this baraita, Rav 岣sda said: One who is obligated to observe periods of mourning in quick succession may trim his hair with a razor, but not in the normal manner, with scissors. Likewise, he may wash his garment in water, but not with natron, a type of soap, nor with sand.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讘诇 诪讜转专 诇专讞讜抓 讘爪讜谞谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘砖专讗 讜讞诪专讗 诪讬转讬讘讬

Rava said: A mourner is permitted to bathe in cold water all seven days of mourning, despite the fact that he derives a certain degree of enjoyment from the cold bath, just as it is permitted for him to eat meat and wine. The Gemara raises an objection:

讗讬谉 讛讘讜讙专转 专砖讗讛 诇谞讜讜诇 讗转 注爪诪讛 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇 讗讘讬讛 讛讗 谞注专讛 专砖讗讛

A grown woman, i.e., a girl over twelve and a half, who is old enough to be married, is not permitted to render herself unattractive during the days of mourning for her father, as this would adversely affect her chances of marriage. The Gemara infers that this halakha applies only to a grown woman, whereas a young woman, a girl between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half, who is not yet old enough to be married, is permitted to render herself unattractive.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专讞讬爪讛 讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞诪讬谉 讗讬谉 讛讘讜讙专转 专砖讗讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讛讜砖讬讟 讗爪讘注讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘爪讜谞谉 诇讗 讗讻讬讞讜诇 讜驻讬专讻讜住

The Gemara analyzes this halakha: What, is it not referring to the prohibition against bathing? And in what kind of water may a grown woman bathe? If we say that the baraita is referring to hot water, is a grown woman not permitted to render herself unattractive by refraining from washing in hot water? But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say: It is prohibited for a mourner to insert even his finger into hot water for the purpose of washing. Rather, is it not the case that it is permitted for a grown woman to bathe in cold water, from which it may be inferred that it is not permitted for a young woman to bathe even in cold water. The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is not speaking of bathing at all. Rather it is referring to painting the eyes and dyeing [pirkus] one鈥檚 hair, which it is permitted for a grown woman to do during mourning.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讻讛谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讛谉 诪注砖讛 讜诪转讜 讘谞讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讜专讞抓 讘爪讜谞谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛

The Gemara proposes: Let say that the aforementioned baraita supports Rava鈥檚 ruling. As Rabbi Abba the priest said in the name of Rabbi Yosei the priest: An incident occurred in which the sons of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, died, and he bathed in cold water all seven days of mourning. This ruling apparently indicates that a mourner is permitted to bathe in cold water.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讘砖转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜 讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讚转谞讬讗 转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专 讜诪讻讘住 讻住讜转讜 讘诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转注专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪住驻专讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞转专 讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇 讜诇讗 讘讗讛诇

The Gemara responds: This is not a proof, as they say: There it is referring to a case where his mourning periods came immediately one after the other, as it is taught in a baraita: If one鈥檚 mourning periods came immediately one after the other and his hair grew heavy, he may lighten it with a razor, and he may wash his garment in water. And Rav 岣sda said: He may trim his hair with a razor, but not with scissors. Likewise, he may wash his garment in water, but not with natron, nor with sand, and nor with iceplant.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘爪讜谞谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讘砖专 讜讬讬谉 讛转诐 诇驻讻讜讞讬 驻讞讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚

The foregoing is one version of Rava鈥檚 opinion and the ensuing discussion. Some say a different version of this debate. Rava said: It is prohibited for a mourner to bathe in cold water all seven days of mourning. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from eating meat and drinking wine, which a mourner is permitted to do? The Gemara responds: There, he acts to relieve his anxieties. Since a mourner is typically distressed over the death of a close relative, the Sages permitted him to fortify himself with strong food and drink.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讘讜讙专转 专砖讗讛 诇谞讜讜诇 注爪诪讛 讛讗 谞注专讛 专砖讗讛 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞诪讬谉 讗讬谉 讛讘讜讙专转 专砖讗讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讛讜砖讬讟 讗爪讘注讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘爪讜谞谉 诇讗 讗讻讬讞讜诇 讜驻讬专讻讜住

The Gemara proposes: Let say that the following baraita supports Rava鈥檚 ruling. A grown woman is not permitted to render herself unattractive during the days of mourning for her father. As above, the Gemara infers that this halakha applies only to a grown woman, but a young woman is permitted to render herself unattractive. In what kind of water may a grown woman bathe? If we say that this is referring to hot water, is a grown woman not permitted to refrain from washing in hot water? But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say: It is prohibited for a mourner to insert his finger into hot water for the purpose of washing. Rather, is it not the case that the baraita is referring to bathing in cold water? The Gemara answers: No; the baraita is speaking of painting the eyes and dyeing the hair.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘转讻讘讜住转 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇专讞讜抓 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讘讬谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗讘诇 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讗住讜专 讘爪讜谞谉 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 诇住讜讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 诇注讘专 讗转 讛讝讜讛诪讗 诪讜转专

Rav 岣sda said: That is to say, i.e., as the baraita states that it is permitted for a grown woman who observes successive periods of mourning to paint and dye her hair, the same halakha evidently applies to laundry, from which it may be inferred that in an unexceptional case it is prohibited for a mourner to wash laundry all seven days of mourning. The Gemara concludes: And the practical halakha is: It is prohibited for a mourner to bathe his entire body both in hot water and in cold water all seven days of mourning. However, with regard to his face, his hands, and his feet, although it is prohibited to bathe them in hot water, in cold water it is permitted. However, with regard to smearing with oil, even any minimal amount of smearing is prohibited. But if one does so to remove the dirt, it is permitted.

爪诇讜转讗 讚转注谞讬转讗 讛讬讻讬 诪讚讻专讬谞谉 讗讚讘专讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讜讚专砖 讬讞讬讚 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 转注谞讬转 诪转驻诇诇 砖诇 转注谞讬转 讜讛讬讻谉 讗讜诪专讛 讘讬谉 讙讜讗诇 诇专讜驻讗

搂 The Gemara returns to the discussion of the Aneinu prayer, recited on fast days. The prayer of a fast, how does one mention it? Rav Yehuda granted his son Rav Yitz岣k general permission to expound publicly, while instructing him in the substance of what he should say, and Rav Yitz岣k taught: An individual who took a fast upon himself prays the prayer of a fast. And where in the Amida does he recite this additional prayer? Between the seventh blessing of the Amida: Who redeems, and the eighth blessing: Who heals.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讜讻讬 讬讞讬讚 拽讜讘注 讘专讻讛 诇注爪诪讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘砖讜诪注 转驻诇讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘砖讜诪注 转驻诇讛

Rav Yitz岣k strongly objects to this: But may an individual establish a blessing for himself, in addition to the fixed blessings of the Amida? Rather, Rav Yitz岣k said: One mentions his fast in the blessing: Who listens to prayer, in accordance with the general principle that an individual may insert private requests into this general plea for the acceptance of prayers, including matters outside the scope of the established blessings. And similarly, Rav Sheshet said: One recites the prayer for a fast day in the blessing: Who listens to prayer.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 诇爪讘讜专 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讜讝讛 诪转驻诇诇 转砖注 注砖专讛 诪讗讬 讬讞讬讚 讜诪讗讬 爪讘讜专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讬讞讬讚 诪诪砖 讜爪讘讜专 砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 讛谞讬 转砖注 注砖专讛 注砖专讬谉 讜讗专讘注 讛讜讜

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: The only halakhic difference between an individual and a community is that this one, an individual, prays eighteen blessings in his Amida, and that one, a community, prays nineteen blessings. The Gemara analyzes this statement: What is an individual and what is a community in this context? If we say that an individual means an actual individual, and community is referring to the communal prayer leader, are there really only nineteen blessings in the communal Amida of a fast? There are twenty-four blessings. As will be explained, six additional blessings are added on communal fast days.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讚拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 转注谞讬转 讬讞讬讚 诇讬讞讬讚 砖拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 转注谞讬转 爪讘讜专 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讜讝讛 诪转驻诇诇 转砖注 注砖专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬讞讬讚 拽讜讘注 讘专讻讛 诇注爪诪讜

Rather, is it not the case that this is what the baraita is saying: The only halakhic difference between an individual who took an individual fast upon himself and an individual who took a communal fast upon himself, is only that this one prays eighteen blessings, as he mentions his fast in the blessing: Who listens to prayer, and that one prays nineteen blessings. Learn from this statement that an individual may establish an individual blessing for himself.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 注砖专讬谉 讜讗专讘注 诪爪诇讬 讘砖诇砖 转注谞讬讜转 专讗砖讜谞讜转 讚诇讬讻讗 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, actually I could say to you that this mention of a community is referring to the prayer leader. And with regard to what poses a difficultly for you, that the prayer leader prays twenty-four blessings, the baraita is referring to the first three fasts, in which there are not twenty-four blessings, but only the usual eighteen blessings, plus one additional blessing for fast days.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇砖 专讗砖讜谞讜转 诇砖诇砖 讗诪爪注讬讜转 讗诇讗 砖讘讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讘讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讗 诇注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

The Gemara questions this resolution: And are the six additional blessings not recited on the first series of communal fasts? But with regard to this issue, a baraita taught the instructive phrase: The only difference between them, as follows: The difference between the first three fasts and the middle three fasts is only that on these first fasts it is permitted to perform work, and on these middle fasts it is prohibited to perform work. This indicates that with regard to reciting all twenty-four blessings, both this and that are identical.

转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专 讜转讜 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 转谞讗 讘讗讬住讜专讬 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讘转驻诇讜转 诇讗 诪讬讬专讬 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗诪爪注讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪诇讬 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注

The Gemara rejects this argument: The tanna taught some of the differences between the fasts, and omitted some of them. The Gemara asks: What else did the tanna omit that you can justifiably claim that he omitted this case? In other words, it is possible for the tanna to have omitted a few examples, but he would not have omitted a single case. And furthermore, the baraita does not merely offer a list of differences, as it teaches: The difference between them is only. This phrase indicates that this is the only difference. Rather, the tanna is speaking of the various prohibitions of fast days, but he is not speaking of other differences, such as those that involve the details of prayers. And if you wish, say instead that on the middle three fasts too, the prayer leader does not pray twenty-four blessings, as the six additional blessings are recited only during the last series of fasts.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇砖 砖谞讬讜转 诇砖讘注 讗讞专讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 砖讘讗诇讜 诪转专讬注讬谉 讜谞讜注诇讬谉 讗转 讛讞谞讜讬讜转 讛讗 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 拽转谞讬

The Gemara expresses surprise at this: And does the prayer leader not recite all twenty-four blessings during the middle three fasts? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The difference between the second set of three fasts and the last seven fasts is only that in these they sound the alarm and lock the stores. This indicates that with regard to all their other matters, both this and that are identical. And if you say that here, too, he taught and omitted, but it teaches: The difference between them is only indicating that there is no other difference.

讜转住讘专讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讚讜拽讗

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand it that way? Does the phrase: The difference between them is only, specifically mean that there is only a single difference between the cases?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Taanit: 7-13 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

https://youtu.be/fUeUS9wJZYw This week we will learn all about the greatness and miraculous nature of rain. We will see how rainfall...

Taanit 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Taanit 13

讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诇讬 讬讗住驻讜 讻诇 讞专讚 讘讚讘专讬 讗诇讛讬 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 诪注诇 讛讙讜诇讛 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜讘诪谞讞转 讛注专讘 拽诪转讬 诪转注谞讬转讬 讜讗驻专砖讛 讻驻讬 讗诇 讛壮

The Gemara asks: I can reverse the order of events, so that the first half of the day is spent in prayer while the second half is focused on the concerns of the community. The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say that, as it is written elsewhere: 鈥淭hen were assembled to me everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel due to the faithlessness of them of the captivity and I sat appalled until the evening offering鈥 (Ezra 9:4). And it is written in the next verse: 鈥淎nd at the meal-offering I arose from my fast, even with my garment and my mantle rent; and I fell on my knees and I spread out my hands to the Lord鈥 (Ezra 9:5). These verses indicate that first one must deal with the issues of the community, and only afterward engage in prayer.

讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘诇 讻讙讜谉 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讜讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 转注谞讜讙 讻讙讜谉 转注谞讬转 爪讘讜专 讘讞诪讬谉 讗住讜专 讘爪讜谞谉 诪讜转专

Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav 岣sda said: Anything that is prohibited due to mourning, for example, bathing on the Ninth of Av, or prohibited for a private mourner, is prohibited both in hot water and in cold water. Anything that is prohibited due to pleasure, for example, bathing on a communal fast, is prohibited in hot water, but is permitted in cold water, provided one washes for the sake of cleanliness.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜谞讜注诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪专讞爪讗讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬 讘爪讜谞谉 讗住讜专 住讜讻专讬谉 讗转 讛谞讛专讜转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讬

Rav Idi bar Avin said: We, too, learn this in the mishna: And they lock the bathhouses. This phrase indicates that only bathing in hot water is prohibited. Abaye said to Rav Idi bar Avin: And if it were also prohibited to wash in cold water, should the mishna have taught: They dam the rivers? Since it is impossible to dam the rivers to stop people from bathing altogether, the statement of the mishna is insufficient proof that only bathing in hot water is prohibited. Perhaps bathing in cold water is also prohibited but there is no way to prevent it.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗讘讗 讛讻讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讻讚讬 转谞谉 讗住讜专 讘专讞讬爪讛 谞讜注诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪专讞爪讗讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讞诪讬谉 讗住讜专 讘爪讜谞谉 诪讜转专

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said, in explanation of his father鈥檚 opinion: With regard to my father, the following poses a difficulty to his ruling: Since we already learned in the mishna that one is prohibited to engage in bathing, why do I need the tanna to state: They lock the bathhouses? Practically speaking, what does this clause add? Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from this that bathing is prohibited in hot water but permitted in cold water?

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讟讘讬诇讜转 讟讜讘诇讬谉 讻讚专讻谉 讘讬谉 讘转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞诪讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讞诪讬谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 砖讗讜讘讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara proposes: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling that it is prohibited for a mourner to bathe himself even in cold water: All who are obligated in immersions immerse themselves in their usual manner, both on the Ninth of Av and on Yom Kippur. The Gemara clarifies this baraita: In what do they immerse themselves? If we say that they immerse themselves in hot water, is there such a concept as ritual immersion in hot water? Hot water is necessarily drawn water, as the water has been placed in vessels for heating, and drawn water is invalid for a ritual bath.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘爪讜谞谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬 讟讘讬诇讜转 讗讬谉 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 拽讟讬谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗

Rather, isn鈥檛 the baraita referring to cold water, and it teaches that those obligated in immersions, yes, they are permitted to use cold water, but another person, who is not obligated to immerse, no, he may not wash even in cold water. Rav 岣na bar Ketina said: This is no proof, as the ruling of the baraita was necessary only for the hot springs of Tiberias, which are warm without having been drawn, and in which it is possible to immerse.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 讘讬转 讗诇讛讬谞讜 诇讗讘讚 注诇讬讜 讟讘讬诇讛 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘爪讜谞谉 诪讜转专 讬专讞抓 讘爪讜谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 爪讜谞谉

The Gemara objects: If so, say the latter clause of that same mishna: Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, said: The mourning for the House of our God, the Holy Temple, is worthy of the loss of a ritual immersion once a year. And if you say that it is permitted to immerse in cold water, why does Rabbi 岣nina the deputy High Priest say that he loses his immersion? Let him bathe in cold water, without having to neglect his immersion or transgress the prohibitions of a fast day. Rav Pappa said: It could be argued that the baraita is referring to a place where cold water is not available, but only hot springs. In this case there is no choice but to wait until the following day to immerse.

转讗 砖诪注 讻砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 讘诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讗讘诇 讘诇讬诇讛 诪讜转专 讜讻砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 讘谞注讬诇转 讛住谞讚诇 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘注讬专 讗讘诇 讘讚专讱 诪讜转专 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讬讜爪讗 诇讚专讱 谞讜注诇 谞讻谞住 诇注讬专 讞讜诇抓 讜讻砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 讘专讞讬爪讛 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪讜转专 讜讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘诪谞讜讚讛 讜讘讗讘诇

The Gemara proposes: Come and hear: When they said that one is prohibited in working on fast days, they said so only about working during the day, but at night it is permitted to work. And when they said that one is prohibited to engage in wearing shoes, they said so only in a city, but on the road it is permitted. How so? When one goes out on the road he wears shoes, but at the end of his journey, when he enters the town, he removes them. And when they said that one is prohibited to engage in bathing, they said this only with regard to bathing his entire body, but washing his face, his hands, and his feet is permitted. And similarly, you find that this ruling applies in the case of one who is ostracized, i.e., placed under a formal ban, and in the case of a mourner, who is also prohibited to engage in bathing, smearing, and wearing shoes.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讻讜诇讛讜 讜讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞诪讬谉 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪讬 砖专讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讛讜砖讬讟 讗爪讘注讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘爪讜谞谉

The Gemara explains the proof from this baraita: What, is it not the case that all these halakhot refer to all of them, including one who is ostracized and one who is in mourning? And with what form of bathing are we dealing here? If we say that the baraita is referring to bathing in hot water, are bathing his face, his hands, and his feet permitted? But didn鈥檛 Rav Sheshet say: It is prohibited for a mourner to insert even his finger into hot water for the purpose of washing. Rather, is it not correct to say that the baraita is dealing with cold water? If so, it is prohibited on a communal fast to wash one鈥檚 entire body even in cold water, which contradicts the opinion of Rafram bar Pappa, citing Rav 岣sda, who permits washing in cold water on those days for the sake of cleanliness.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讜讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘诪谞讜讚讛 讜讘讗讘诇 讗砖讗专讗 拽讗讬

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, actually the baraita is referring to bathing in hot water. And with regard to what posed a difficulty for you, the phrase: And similarly, that you find in the case of one who is ostracized and in the case of a mourner, does not refer to bathing; rather, it is referring to the rest of the prohibitions, e.g., working and wearing shoes. Consequently, it can be claimed that the baraita refers specifically to hot water, as this clause does not refer to a mourner but only to a communal fast, and bathing in cold water is permitted on communal fasts.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讻讛谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讛谉 诪注砖讛 讜诪转讜 讘谞讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜专讞抓 讘爪讜谞谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讛转诐 讻砖转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜 讛讜讛 讚转谞讬讗 转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专 讜诪讻讘住 讻住讜转讜 讘诪讬诐

The Gemara proposes yet another proof. Come and hear a statement of a baraita, as Rabbi Abba the priest said in the name of Rabbi Yosei the priest: An incident occurred in which the sons of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, died, and he bathed in cold water all seven days of mourning. This indicates that a mourner is in fact permitted to bathe. The Gemara rejects this argument: There it was a case where his mourning periods came one after the other, as his sons died in quick succession, and this leniency is as it is taught in a baraita: If one鈥檚 mourning periods immediately succeeded each other and his hair grew heavy, then even though it is generally prohibited for a mourner to cut his hair, he may lighten it with a razor, and he may likewise wash his garment in water.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转注专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪住驻专讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞转专 讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇

With regard to this baraita, Rav 岣sda said: One who is obligated to observe periods of mourning in quick succession may trim his hair with a razor, but not in the normal manner, with scissors. Likewise, he may wash his garment in water, but not with natron, a type of soap, nor with sand.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讘诇 诪讜转专 诇专讞讜抓 讘爪讜谞谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘砖专讗 讜讞诪专讗 诪讬转讬讘讬

Rava said: A mourner is permitted to bathe in cold water all seven days of mourning, despite the fact that he derives a certain degree of enjoyment from the cold bath, just as it is permitted for him to eat meat and wine. The Gemara raises an objection:

讗讬谉 讛讘讜讙专转 专砖讗讛 诇谞讜讜诇 讗转 注爪诪讛 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇 讗讘讬讛 讛讗 谞注专讛 专砖讗讛

A grown woman, i.e., a girl over twelve and a half, who is old enough to be married, is not permitted to render herself unattractive during the days of mourning for her father, as this would adversely affect her chances of marriage. The Gemara infers that this halakha applies only to a grown woman, whereas a young woman, a girl between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half, who is not yet old enough to be married, is permitted to render herself unattractive.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专讞讬爪讛 讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞诪讬谉 讗讬谉 讛讘讜讙专转 专砖讗讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讛讜砖讬讟 讗爪讘注讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘爪讜谞谉 诇讗 讗讻讬讞讜诇 讜驻讬专讻讜住

The Gemara analyzes this halakha: What, is it not referring to the prohibition against bathing? And in what kind of water may a grown woman bathe? If we say that the baraita is referring to hot water, is a grown woman not permitted to render herself unattractive by refraining from washing in hot water? But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say: It is prohibited for a mourner to insert even his finger into hot water for the purpose of washing. Rather, is it not the case that it is permitted for a grown woman to bathe in cold water, from which it may be inferred that it is not permitted for a young woman to bathe even in cold water. The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is not speaking of bathing at all. Rather it is referring to painting the eyes and dyeing [pirkus] one鈥檚 hair, which it is permitted for a grown woman to do during mourning.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讻讛谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讛谉 诪注砖讛 讜诪转讜 讘谞讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讜专讞抓 讘爪讜谞谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛

The Gemara proposes: Let say that the aforementioned baraita supports Rava鈥檚 ruling. As Rabbi Abba the priest said in the name of Rabbi Yosei the priest: An incident occurred in which the sons of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, died, and he bathed in cold water all seven days of mourning. This ruling apparently indicates that a mourner is permitted to bathe in cold water.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讘砖转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜 讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讚转谞讬讗 转讻驻讜讛讜 讗讘诇讬讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专 讜诪讻讘住 讻住讜转讜 讘诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转注专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪住驻专讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘谞转专 讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇 讜诇讗 讘讗讛诇

The Gemara responds: This is not a proof, as they say: There it is referring to a case where his mourning periods came immediately one after the other, as it is taught in a baraita: If one鈥檚 mourning periods came immediately one after the other and his hair grew heavy, he may lighten it with a razor, and he may wash his garment in water. And Rav 岣sda said: He may trim his hair with a razor, but not with scissors. Likewise, he may wash his garment in water, but not with natron, nor with sand, and nor with iceplant.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘爪讜谞谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讘砖专 讜讬讬谉 讛转诐 诇驻讻讜讞讬 驻讞讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚

The foregoing is one version of Rava鈥檚 opinion and the ensuing discussion. Some say a different version of this debate. Rava said: It is prohibited for a mourner to bathe in cold water all seven days of mourning. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from eating meat and drinking wine, which a mourner is permitted to do? The Gemara responds: There, he acts to relieve his anxieties. Since a mourner is typically distressed over the death of a close relative, the Sages permitted him to fortify himself with strong food and drink.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讘讜讙专转 专砖讗讛 诇谞讜讜诇 注爪诪讛 讛讗 谞注专讛 专砖讗讛 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞诪讬谉 讗讬谉 讛讘讜讙专转 专砖讗讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讛讜砖讬讟 讗爪讘注讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘爪讜谞谉 诇讗 讗讻讬讞讜诇 讜驻讬专讻讜住

The Gemara proposes: Let say that the following baraita supports Rava鈥檚 ruling. A grown woman is not permitted to render herself unattractive during the days of mourning for her father. As above, the Gemara infers that this halakha applies only to a grown woman, but a young woman is permitted to render herself unattractive. In what kind of water may a grown woman bathe? If we say that this is referring to hot water, is a grown woman not permitted to refrain from washing in hot water? But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say: It is prohibited for a mourner to insert his finger into hot water for the purpose of washing. Rather, is it not the case that the baraita is referring to bathing in cold water? The Gemara answers: No; the baraita is speaking of painting the eyes and dyeing the hair.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘转讻讘讜住转 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇专讞讜抓 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讘讬谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗讘诇 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讗住讜专 讘爪讜谞谉 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 诇住讜讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 诇注讘专 讗转 讛讝讜讛诪讗 诪讜转专

Rav 岣sda said: That is to say, i.e., as the baraita states that it is permitted for a grown woman who observes successive periods of mourning to paint and dye her hair, the same halakha evidently applies to laundry, from which it may be inferred that in an unexceptional case it is prohibited for a mourner to wash laundry all seven days of mourning. The Gemara concludes: And the practical halakha is: It is prohibited for a mourner to bathe his entire body both in hot water and in cold water all seven days of mourning. However, with regard to his face, his hands, and his feet, although it is prohibited to bathe them in hot water, in cold water it is permitted. However, with regard to smearing with oil, even any minimal amount of smearing is prohibited. But if one does so to remove the dirt, it is permitted.

爪诇讜转讗 讚转注谞讬转讗 讛讬讻讬 诪讚讻专讬谞谉 讗讚讘专讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讜讚专砖 讬讞讬讚 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 转注谞讬转 诪转驻诇诇 砖诇 转注谞讬转 讜讛讬讻谉 讗讜诪专讛 讘讬谉 讙讜讗诇 诇专讜驻讗

搂 The Gemara returns to the discussion of the Aneinu prayer, recited on fast days. The prayer of a fast, how does one mention it? Rav Yehuda granted his son Rav Yitz岣k general permission to expound publicly, while instructing him in the substance of what he should say, and Rav Yitz岣k taught: An individual who took a fast upon himself prays the prayer of a fast. And where in the Amida does he recite this additional prayer? Between the seventh blessing of the Amida: Who redeems, and the eighth blessing: Who heals.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讜讻讬 讬讞讬讚 拽讜讘注 讘专讻讛 诇注爪诪讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘砖讜诪注 转驻诇讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘砖讜诪注 转驻诇讛

Rav Yitz岣k strongly objects to this: But may an individual establish a blessing for himself, in addition to the fixed blessings of the Amida? Rather, Rav Yitz岣k said: One mentions his fast in the blessing: Who listens to prayer, in accordance with the general principle that an individual may insert private requests into this general plea for the acceptance of prayers, including matters outside the scope of the established blessings. And similarly, Rav Sheshet said: One recites the prayer for a fast day in the blessing: Who listens to prayer.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 诇爪讘讜专 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讜讝讛 诪转驻诇诇 转砖注 注砖专讛 诪讗讬 讬讞讬讚 讜诪讗讬 爪讘讜专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讬讞讬讚 诪诪砖 讜爪讘讜专 砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 讛谞讬 转砖注 注砖专讛 注砖专讬谉 讜讗专讘注 讛讜讜

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: The only halakhic difference between an individual and a community is that this one, an individual, prays eighteen blessings in his Amida, and that one, a community, prays nineteen blessings. The Gemara analyzes this statement: What is an individual and what is a community in this context? If we say that an individual means an actual individual, and community is referring to the communal prayer leader, are there really only nineteen blessings in the communal Amida of a fast? There are twenty-four blessings. As will be explained, six additional blessings are added on communal fast days.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讚拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 转注谞讬转 讬讞讬讚 诇讬讞讬讚 砖拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 转注谞讬转 爪讘讜专 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讜讝讛 诪转驻诇诇 转砖注 注砖专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬讞讬讚 拽讜讘注 讘专讻讛 诇注爪诪讜

Rather, is it not the case that this is what the baraita is saying: The only halakhic difference between an individual who took an individual fast upon himself and an individual who took a communal fast upon himself, is only that this one prays eighteen blessings, as he mentions his fast in the blessing: Who listens to prayer, and that one prays nineteen blessings. Learn from this statement that an individual may establish an individual blessing for himself.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 注砖专讬谉 讜讗专讘注 诪爪诇讬 讘砖诇砖 转注谞讬讜转 专讗砖讜谞讜转 讚诇讬讻讗 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, actually I could say to you that this mention of a community is referring to the prayer leader. And with regard to what poses a difficultly for you, that the prayer leader prays twenty-four blessings, the baraita is referring to the first three fasts, in which there are not twenty-four blessings, but only the usual eighteen blessings, plus one additional blessing for fast days.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇砖 专讗砖讜谞讜转 诇砖诇砖 讗诪爪注讬讜转 讗诇讗 砖讘讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讘讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讘注砖讬讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讗 诇注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

The Gemara questions this resolution: And are the six additional blessings not recited on the first series of communal fasts? But with regard to this issue, a baraita taught the instructive phrase: The only difference between them, as follows: The difference between the first three fasts and the middle three fasts is only that on these first fasts it is permitted to perform work, and on these middle fasts it is prohibited to perform work. This indicates that with regard to reciting all twenty-four blessings, both this and that are identical.

转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专 讜转讜 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 转谞讗 讘讗讬住讜专讬 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讘转驻诇讜转 诇讗 诪讬讬专讬 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗诪爪注讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪诇讬 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注

The Gemara rejects this argument: The tanna taught some of the differences between the fasts, and omitted some of them. The Gemara asks: What else did the tanna omit that you can justifiably claim that he omitted this case? In other words, it is possible for the tanna to have omitted a few examples, but he would not have omitted a single case. And furthermore, the baraita does not merely offer a list of differences, as it teaches: The difference between them is only. This phrase indicates that this is the only difference. Rather, the tanna is speaking of the various prohibitions of fast days, but he is not speaking of other differences, such as those that involve the details of prayers. And if you wish, say instead that on the middle three fasts too, the prayer leader does not pray twenty-four blessings, as the six additional blessings are recited only during the last series of fasts.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇砖 砖谞讬讜转 诇砖讘注 讗讞专讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 砖讘讗诇讜 诪转专讬注讬谉 讜谞讜注诇讬谉 讗转 讛讞谞讜讬讜转 讛讗 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 拽转谞讬

The Gemara expresses surprise at this: And does the prayer leader not recite all twenty-four blessings during the middle three fasts? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The difference between the second set of three fasts and the last seven fasts is only that in these they sound the alarm and lock the stores. This indicates that with regard to all their other matters, both this and that are identical. And if you say that here, too, he taught and omitted, but it teaches: The difference between them is only indicating that there is no other difference.

讜转住讘专讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讚讜拽讗

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand it that way? Does the phrase: The difference between them is only, specifically mean that there is only a single difference between the cases?

Scroll To Top