The question against Rav Yitzchak’s opinion regarding an individual who says the ‘aneinu‘ prayer adds it in the blessing of ‘shomea tefilla‘ is resolved. Do we hold like Rav Yitzchak? Do pregnant and nursing women fast on public fasts? When it says in the Mishna that on the third set of fasts, ‘matri’in‘ – does that mean to blow the shofar or to pray ‘aneinu‘? In the time of Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a there was no rain and even after the third set of fasts there was still no rain. He instituted more fasts. Rabbi Ami disagreed with this. Would one distinguish in this regard between rains and other calamities? If so, how and why? People who need rain in times that are opposite the ones where rain is needed in Israel, how should they add the prayer for rain – in the regular place or in the middle of the blessing of ‘shomea tefilla’. What did the Mishna mean exactly regarding how and when stores are opened on Thursdays? If all the fasts pass and there is still no rain, the Mishna described a number of things that people do not do such as build, plant, etc. What type of building/planting is prohibited? One should not greet another. What if someone greets you who doesn’t know this law, can you respond and if so, in what manner? Not everyone can fall on their faces in prayer and not everyone can tear their clothes. Who can and who cannot and what are the issues with these actions?
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
This week’s learning is sponsored by the Miller Rotenberg family in loving memory of their daughter Tanielle Miller on her 21st yahrzeit. “We honor and celebrate her memory by continuing the paths she forged, keeping her love of community, chesed, Israel, and learning, alive and vibrant.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
This week’s learning is sponsored by the Miller Rotenberg family in loving memory of their daughter Tanielle Miller on her 21st yahrzeit. “We honor and celebrate her memory by continuing the paths she forged, keeping her love of community, chesed, Israel, and learning, alive and vibrant.”
Taanit 14
וְהָא שַׁיַּיר תֵּיבָה! אִי מִשּׁוּם תֵּיבָה — לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא. מִילֵּי דְצִינְעָא — קָתָנֵי, מִילֵּי דִבְפַרְהֶסְיָא — לָא קָתָנֵי.
But he omitted any mention of the ark and the halakha that during the last seven fast days the ark was brought into the streets of the city. The Gemara rejects this argument: If the omission is due to the ark, that is not a real omission. The reason is that the tanna teaches only matters that are performed in private, whereas he does not teach matters that are performed in public [parhesya].
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: מָה אֵלּוּ יְתֵירוֹת עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּאֵלּוּ מַתְרִיעִין וְנוֹעֲלִין אֶת הַחֲנוּיוֹת. אֲבָל בְּכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין. וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכָא נָמֵי תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר, וְהָא ״מָה אֵלּוּ״ קָתָנֵי.
Rav Ashi said: The wording of the mishna is also precise, according to this explanation, as it teaches: How are these seven fast days more stringent than the first ones? Rather, the difference is that on these days, in addition to all the earlier stringencies, they sound the alarm and they lock the stores. However, in 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: How are these more stringent, an expression that indicates that the mishna states the only difference.
וְתִסְבְּרָא ״מָה אֵלּוּ״ דַּוְוקָא הוּא? וְהָא שַׁיַּיר לַהּ תֵּיבָה! אִי מִשּׁוּם תֵּיבָה — לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא חָשֵׁיב לַהּ בְּאִידַּךְ פִּרְקָא. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה נָמֵי לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא, דְּקָתָנֵי לַהּ בְּאִידַּךְ פִּירְקָא.
The Gemara asks: And how can you understand the phrase: How are these, specifically, as indicating that there is only one difference between the cases? But he omitted the ark. The Gemara responds: If the omission is due to the ark, that is not a real omission, because the tanna includes it in another chapter (15a). The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this solution, a similar answer can be applied to the earlier difficulties. The matter of the twenty-four blessings is also not an omission, as he teaches this halakha in another chapter, also on 15a, where the mishna provides further details of the blessings. Here, however, the tanna lists only those matters that are not discussed later.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר סִסְרָטַאי, וְכֵן אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: בֵּין ״גּוֹאֵל״ לְ״רוֹפֵא״. וְרַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: בְּ״שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִילָּה״. וְהִלְכְתָא, בְּ״שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִילָּה״.
Since no decisive proof was offered in support of any of the opinions as to where an individual inserts the Aneinu prayer, the Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rabbi Shmuel bar Sasretai said, and similarly Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One inserts it between the seventh blessing of the Amida: Who redeems, and the eighth blessing: Who heals. And Rav Ashi said in the name of Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael: One inserts it in the blessing: Who listens to prayer. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that one includes it in the blessing: Who listens to prayer.
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: עוּבָּרוֹת וּמֵינִיקוֹת מִתְעַנּוֹת בָּרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, וְאֵין מִתְעַנּוֹת בָּאַחֲרוֹנוֹת. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: מִתְעַנּוֹת בָּאַחֲרוֹנוֹת, וְאֵין מִתְעַנּוֹת בָּרִאשׁוֹנוֹת. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵין מִתְעַנּוֹת, לֹא בָּרִאשׁוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בָּאַחֲרוֹנוֹת.
§ It is taught in one baraita: Pregnant and nursing women fast with the community on the first fasts, but they do not fast on the last fasts. And it was taught in another baraita: Pregnant and nursing women fast on the last set of fasts but they do not fast on the first set of fasts. And it was taught in yet another baraita: They do not fast either on the first fast days or on the last fast days.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: נְקוֹט אֶמְצָעֲיָיתָא בִּידָךְ, דְּמִיתָּרְצָן כּוּלְּהוּ.
Rav Ashi said: Take the mention of the middle fasts in your hand as the decisive matter, as this resolves all three baraitot. The halakha is that pregnant and nursing women fast only on the middle fasts, as they are stricter than the first fasts but less taxing than the last seven fasts. Consequently, when the first baraita is referring to the first fasts, it in fact means the middle set, which is the first of the last two sets. Similarly, when the second baraita mentions the last fasts, it means the middle set, which is the last of the two sets. In the third baraita, the first and last fasts are literally the first three and last seven fasts, respectively. In this manner all three baraitot follow the same halakha.
מָה אֵלּוּ יְתֵירוֹת עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּאֵלּוּ מַתְרִיעִין וְנוֹעֲלִין אֶת הַחֲנוּיוֹת. בְּמַאי מַתְרִיעִין? רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת, וְרַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר: בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״.
§ The mishna teaches: How are these seven fast days more stringent than the first ones? Rather, the difference is that on these days, in addition to all the earlier stringencies, they sound the alarm and they lock the stores. The Gemara asks: With what do they sound the alarm? Rav Yehuda said: With shofarot. And Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: With the Aneinu prayer.
קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּן, מַאן דְּאָמַר בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״ — לָא אָמַר בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת — לָא אָמַר בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״. וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין מִשֶּׁבַע תַּעֲנִיּוֹת עַל הַצִּבּוּר, שֶׁבָּהֶן שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה הַתְרָעוֹת. וְסִימָן לַדָּבָר: יְרִיחוֹ. וִירִיחוֹ שׁוֹפָרוֹת הֲוָה, וּתְיוּבְתָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״!
The Gemara analyzes the dispute: It might enter our mind to say that the one who said that the community sounds the alarm by reciting Aneinu, i.e., Rav, did not say that they cry out with shofarot, and likewise the one who said that they do cry out with shofarot, Rav Yehuda, did not say that they sound the alarm by reciting Aneinu. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The court does not decree fewer than seven fasts on the community, which include eighteen acts of sounding the alarm. And a mnemonic for this matter is Jericho. And as there were many episodes of sounding the shofarot in Jericho, this is a conclusive refutation of the one who said that according to the opinion of Rav they sound the alarm only by reciting Aneinu.
אֶלָּא: בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּקָרֵי לַהּ הַתְרָעָה. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״. מָר סָבַר: קָרֵי לַהּ הַתְרָעָה, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא קָרֵי לַהּ הַתְרָעָה.
Rather, the Gemara explains that the dispute must be understood differently: With regard to shofarot, everyone, i.e., Rav and Rav Yehuda, agrees that the mishna calls this: Sounding the alarm. When they disagree, it is with regard to the Aneinu prayer. One Sage, Rav, holds that this too is called sounding the alarm, and one Sage, Rav Yehuda, holds that reciting Aneinu is not called sounding the alarm.
לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״ — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת — אֲבָל בַּעֲנֵנוּ לָא!
The Gemara comments: If so, then it follows that according to the one who said that they sound the alarm by reciting Aneinu, all the more so they can do so with shofarot, but according to the one who said that they sound the alarm with shofarot, this is the way they sound the alarm; however, they may not do so with Aneinu, i.e., the community does not sound the alarm by reciting this prayer. This indicates that the Aneinu prayer is recited only in extreme cases, as it is a greater form of petitioning to God than blowing the shofar.
וְהָתַנְיָא: וּשְׁאָר כׇּל מִינֵי פּוּרְעָנוּיוֹת הַמִּתְרַגְּשׁוֹת, כְּגוֹן: חִיכּוּךְ, חָגָב, זְבוּב וְצִירְעָה וְיַתּוּשִׁין, וְשִׁילּוּחַ נְחָשִׁים וְעַקְרַבִּים — לֹא הָיוּ מַתְרִיעִין אֶלָּא צוֹעֲקִין. מִדִּצְעָקָה בַּפֶּה, הַתְרָעָה בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת!
The Gemara raises a difficulty against this conclusion. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: And with regard to all other types of calamities than drought that break out, for example scabs, plagues of locusts, flies, or hornets, or mosquitoes, or infestations of snakes or scorpions, they would not sound the alarm, but they would cry out. From the fact that crying out is, according to all opinions, a prayer recited with one’s mouth, it follows that sounding an alarm must be with shofarot. This baraita indicates that sounding the alarm with shofarot is the response to a serious situation, whereas the Aneinu prayer is recited on less worrisome occasions.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: עַל אֵלּוּ מַתְרִיעִין בְּשַׁבָּת, עַל עִיר שֶׁהִקִּיפוּהָ גַּיִיס אוֹ נָהָר, וְעַל סְפִינָה הַמְטוֹרֶפֶת בַּיָּם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אֹמֵר: לְעֶזְרָה, אֲבָל לֹא לִצְעָקָה.
The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna: For the following calamities they sound the alarm even on Shabbat: For a city that is surrounded by an enemy army or in danger of being flooded by a river, or for a ship tossed about at sea. Rabbi Yosei said: An alarm may be sounded on Shabbat to summon help, but it may not be sounded for crying out to God.
בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת — שׁוֹפָרוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת מִי שְׁרֵי? אֶלָּא לָאו, בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״, וְקָרֵי לַהּ הַתְרָעָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara clarifies this case. With what do they sound the alarm? If we say with shofarot, is the sounding of shofarot permitted on Shabbat? Even when Rosh HaShana occurs on Shabbat, one must refrain from sounding the shofar on that day. Rather, is it not the case that this is referring to the recitation of the Aneinu prayer, and yet the mishna calls this recitation: Sounding the alarm. Conclude from this that there is a tanna who maintains that sounding of the alarm is in fact performed by prayer, as claimed by Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat.
בִּשְׁנֵי דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה הֲוָה צַעֲרָא,
§ The Gemara relates: During the years of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia there was a trouble that afflicted the community.
גְּזַר תְּלָת עַשְׂרֵה תַּעֲנִיּוֹת וְלָא אִיעֲנִי. סְבַר לְמִיגְזַר טְפֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ אֵין מַטְרִיחִין אֶת הַצִּבּוּר יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי.
Rabbi Yehuda Nesia decreed thirteen fasts, but he was not answered. He considered decreeing more fasts until they would be answered. Rabbi Ami said to him that they said: One does not trouble the community excessively, and therefore you should not impose more than thirteen fasts.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: רַבִּי אַמֵּי דַּעֲבַד — לְגַרְמֵיהּ הוּא דַּעֲבַד. אֶלָּא הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לִגְשָׁמִים, אֲבָל לִשְׁאָר מִינֵי פוּרְעָנוּיוֹת — מִתְעַנִּין וְהוֹלְכִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָנוּ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ וּכְשֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁבַע — לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא לִגְשָׁמִים, אֲבָל לִשְׁאָר מִינֵי פוּרְעָנוּיוֹת — מִתְעַנִּין וְהוֹלְכִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָנוּ.
Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said: When Rabbi Ami acted and issued this ruling, he did so on his own authority, as it went against the majority opinion. Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: They taught only that the community observes a maximum of thirteen fasts when they are praying for rain. However, with regard to other types of calamities, they continue to fast until they are answered from Heaven. The Gemara comments: This halakha is also taught in a baraita: When the Sages said three and when they said seven, they spoke only concerning fasts for rain. However, with regard to other types of calamities, they continue to fast until they are answered.
לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי! אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין גּוֹזְרִין יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה תַּעֲנִיּוֹת עַל הַצִּבּוּר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַטְרִיחִין אֶת הַצִּבּוּר יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּצָא זְמַנָּהּ שֶׁל רְבִיעָה.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Ami. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ami could have said to you that this is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: One does not decree more than thirteen fasts on the community, as one does not trouble the community excessively. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: This halakha is not for that reason. Rather, it is due to the fact that after thirteen fasts the time of the rainfall has already passed, and there is no reason to fast for rain after the rainy season has ended.
שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ בְּנֵי נִינְוֵה לְרַבִּי: כְּגוֹן אֲנַן, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בִּתְקוּפַת תַּמּוּז בָּעֵינַן מִטְרָא, הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? כִּיחִידִים דָּמֵינַן אוֹ כְּרַבִּים דָּמֵינַן? כִּיחִידִים דָּמֵינַן וּבְ״שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִלָּה״, אוֹ כְּרַבִּים דָּמֵינַן וּבְבִרְכַּת הַשָּׁנִים? שְׁלַח לְהוּ: כִּיחִידִים דָּמֵיתוּ וּבְ״שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִלָּה״.
The Gemara relates a story on a similar topic: The inhabitants of Nineveh sent a question to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: People such as us, who require rain even during the season of Tammuz, and who live in areas where rain falls all year round, what should we do when there is a drought during the summer? Are we likened to individuals or are we likened to a community? The Gemara explains the practical difference between these two options: Are we likened to individuals and therefore we pray for rain in the blessing: Who listens to prayer? Or are we likened to a community and we pray for rain in the ninth blessing, the blessing of the years? He sent his answer to them: You are likened to individuals and therefore you pray for rain in the blessing: Who listens to prayer.
מֵיתִיבִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי — בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַשָּׁנִים כְּתִיקְנָן וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁרוּיִן עַל אַדְמָתָן. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה — הַכֹּל לְפִי הַשָּׁנִים, הַכֹּל לְפִי הַמְּקוֹמוֹת, הַכֹּל לְפִי הַזְּמַן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַתְנִיתָא רָמֵית עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי?! רַבִּי תַּנָּא הוּא וּפָלֵיג.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: When do the halakhot concerning the times during which the prayer for rain is recited apply? When the years, i.e., the climate, are as they ought to be and the Jewish people are living in their land. However, nowadays, when the Jewish people are dispersed around the world, and the climate is not always as it ought to be, all is in accordance with the year, i.e., the local climate, all is in accordance with the place in question, and all is in accordance with the particular time, and therefore one prays for rain in the blessing of the years, as necessary for the local climate. He said to him: You raise a contradiction from a baraita against Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi himself is a tanna, and consequently has the authority to dispute the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: בְּבִרְכַּת הַשָּׁנִים. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: בְּ״שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִלָּה״. וְהִלְכְתָא: בְּ״שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִלָּה״.
The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Naḥman said: One prays for rain in the blessing of the years, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Sheshet said: One prays in the blessing: Who listens to prayer, as stated by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that if rain is required when it is not the rainy season in Eretz Yisrael, one prays for rain in the blessing: Who listens to prayer.
בַּשֵּׁנִי מַטִּין עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה וּבַחֲמִישִׁי כׇּל הַיּוֹם מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ, הֵיכִי קָתָנֵי: בַּשֵּׁנִי מַטִּין עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה, וּבַחֲמִישִׁי כׇּל הַיּוֹם — מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת, אוֹ דִילְמָא: בַּשֵּׁנִי מַטִּין, וּבַחֲמִישִׁי פּוֹתְחִין כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ?
§ The mishna taught: On Monday they open the stores a little at nightfall, and on Thursday they are permitted to open the stores all day, in deference to Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: How is this taught, i.e., what is the meaning of this ruling? Does it mean that on Monday the storeowners open their doors a little at nightfall, and on Thursday they likewise open their doors just a little, but do so all day, in deference to Shabbat? Or perhaps, the mishna means that on Monday they open their doors a little, but all day, and on Thursday they open their doors wide the entire day?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: בַּשֵּׁנִי מַטִּין עַד הָעֶרֶב, וּבַחֲמִישִׁי פּוֹתְחִין כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת. הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי פְתָחִים — פּוֹתֵחַ אֶחָד וְנוֹעֵל אֶחָד. הָיָה לוֹ אִצְטְבָא כְּנֶגֶד פִּתְחוֹ — פּוֹתֵחַ כְּדַרְכּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma, as it is taught in a baraita: On Monday they open their doors a little until the evening, and on Thursday they open them the entire day, in deference to Shabbat. If one’s shop had two entrances, he opens one and locks one, thereby demonstrating that his store is not open in the normal manner. If he had a platform opposite his entrance which conceals the door to his store, he may open in his usual manner without concern, as it is prohibited to open one’s store not due to work, but only so that it not appear as though people are eating and drinking on this day.
עָבְרוּ אֵלּוּ וְלֹא נַעֲנוּ — מְמַעֲטִין בְּמַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן, בְּבִנְיָן וּבִנְטִיעָה. תָּנָא: בְּבִנְיָן — בִּנְיָן שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה. נְטִיעָה — נְטִיעָה שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה. אֵי זֶהוּ בִּנְיָן שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה — זֶה הַבּוֹנֶה בֵּית חַתְנוּת לִבְנוֹ. אִי זוֹ הִיא נְטִיעָה שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה — זֶה הַנּוֹטֵעַ אַבְּווֹרַנְקֵי שֶׁל מְלָכִים.
§ The mishna taught: If these fasts have passed and they have not been answered, they decrease their engagement in business negotiations and in building and planting. It was taught in the Tosefta (Megilla 5:2): Building means joyful building, not building in general. Likewise, planting means joyful planting, not all planting. The Tosefta elaborates: What is joyful building? This is referring to one who builds a wedding chamber for his son. It was customary upon the marriage of a son to build him a small house where the marriage feast was held and where the newlywed couple would live for a certain period of time. What is joyful planting? This is referring to one who plants a splendid, royal garden that does not serve practical purposes, but is only for ornamentation.
וּבִשְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲבֵרִים, אֵין שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּינֵיהֶן. עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ שֶׁשּׁוֹאֲלִין — מַחְזִירִין לָהֶם בְּשָׂפָה רָפָה, וּבְכוֹבֶד רֹאשׁ. וְהֵן מִתְעַטְּפִין וְיוֹשְׁבִין כַּאֲבֵלִים וְכִמְנוּדִּין, כִּבְנֵי אָדָם הַנְּזוּפִין לַמָּקוֹם, עַד שֶׁיְּרַחֲמוּ עֲלֵיהֶם מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם.
§ And the mishna further taught that they decrease greetings between one another. The Sages taught: Ḥaverim, members of a group dedicated to the precise observance of mitzvot, do not extend greetings between each other at all. Amei ha’aretz, common, uneducated people, who extend greetings to ḥaverim, do so while unaware that this is inappropriate. The ḥaverim answer them in an undertone and in a solemn manner. And ḥaverim wrap themselves and sit as mourners and as ostracized ones, like people who have been rebuked by God, until they are shown mercy from Heaven.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין אָדָם חָשׁוּב רַשַּׁאי לִיפּוֹל עַל פָּנָיו, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נַעֲנֶה כִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קֻם לָךְ לָמָּה זֶּה אַתָּה נֹפֵל עַל פָּנֶיךָ״.
Rabbi Elazar said: An important person is permitted to fall on his face and humiliate himself in front of the community only if he is certain that he will be answered like Joshua, son of Nun, as it is stated: “And the Lord said to Joshua, Get you up, why are you fallen upon your face?” (Joshua 7:10). One who is not absolutely certain that he will be answered may not fall on his face in public, as if he is unanswered he will become an object of derision.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין אָדָם חָשׁוּב רַשַּׁאי לַחֲגוֹר שַׂק אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נַעֲנֶה כִּיהוֹרָם בֶּן אַחְאָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָאִשָּׁה וַיִּקְרַע אֶת בְּגָדָיו וְהוּא עֹבֵר עַל הַחֹמָה וַיַּרְא הָעָם וְהִנֵּה הַשַּׂק עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְגוֹ׳״.
And Rabbi Elazar said: An important person is permitted to gird himself in sackcloth as a sign of mourning and to pray for mercy only if he is certain that he will be answered like Jehoram, son of Ahab, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes, now he was passing by upon the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh” (II Kings 6:30). Although he was wicked, Jehoram was later answered and the suffering of the Jews was alleviated.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא הַכֹּל בִּקְרִיעָה וְלֹא הַכֹּל בִּנְפִילָה. מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרוֹן — בִּנְפִילָה, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב — בִּקְרִיעָה. מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן בִּנְפִילָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּפּוֹל מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן עַל פְּנֵיהֶם״. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב בִּקְרִיעָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן וְכָלֵב בֶּן יְפֻנֶּה קָרְעוּ בִּגְדֵיהֶם״.
And Rabbi Elazar further said: Not all are worthy to petition God by rending their garments, and not all are worthy of falling on their faces in times of trouble. Moses and Aaron were worthy of petitioning God by falling on their faces, whereas their students Joshua and Caleb prayed by only rending their garments. The Gemara elaborates: Moses and Aaron petitioned God by falling on their faces, as it is written: “Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces” (Numbers 14:5). Joshua and Caleb prayed by rending their garments, as it is written in the next verse: “And Joshua, son of Nun, and Caleb, son of Jephunneh, who were of those who spied out the land, rent their garments” (Numbers 14:6).
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי: אִי הֲוָה כְּתִיב ״יְהוֹשֻׁעַ״ — כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב: ״וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ״, הָא וְהָא עָבֵיד.
Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this interpretation, and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani who objected: Had the verse written only: Joshua and Caleb, the meaning would be as you said, that Moses and Aaron fell upon their faces whereas Joshua and Caleb only rent their garments. However, now that it is written: “And Joshua,” it is possible that the connecting word “and” indicates that Moses and Aaron merely fell upon their faces, while Joshua and Caleb did both this and that, i.e., they rent their clothing in addition to falling upon their faces.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא הַכֹּל בְּקִימָה וְלֹא הַכֹּל בְּהִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. מְלָכִים — בְּקִימָה, וְשָׂרִים — בְּהִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. מְלָכִים בְּקִימָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ גֹּאֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל קְדוֹשׁוֹ
And Rabbi Elazar further said: Not all dignitaries will worship God in the messianic age by rising, and not all will do so by bowing. Rather, kings will serve God by rising, and ministers by bowing. The Gemara elaborates: Kings by rising, as it is written: “Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Oceanside NY, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
Taanit 14
וְהָא שַׁיַּיר תֵּיבָה! אִי מִשּׁוּם תֵּיבָה — לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא. מִילֵּי דְצִינְעָא — קָתָנֵי, מִילֵּי דִבְפַרְהֶסְיָא — לָא קָתָנֵי.
But he omitted any mention of the ark and the halakha that during the last seven fast days the ark was brought into the streets of the city. The Gemara rejects this argument: If the omission is due to the ark, that is not a real omission. The reason is that the tanna teaches only matters that are performed in private, whereas he does not teach matters that are performed in public [parhesya].
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: מָה אֵלּוּ יְתֵירוֹת עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּאֵלּוּ מַתְרִיעִין וְנוֹעֲלִין אֶת הַחֲנוּיוֹת. אֲבָל בְּכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין. וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכָא נָמֵי תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר, וְהָא ״מָה אֵלּוּ״ קָתָנֵי.
Rav Ashi said: The wording of the mishna is also precise, according to this explanation, as it teaches: How are these seven fast days more stringent than the first ones? Rather, the difference is that on these days, in addition to all the earlier stringencies, they sound the alarm and they lock the stores. However, in 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: How are these more stringent, an expression that indicates that the mishna states the only difference.
וְתִסְבְּרָא ״מָה אֵלּוּ״ דַּוְוקָא הוּא? וְהָא שַׁיַּיר לַהּ תֵּיבָה! אִי מִשּׁוּם תֵּיבָה — לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא חָשֵׁיב לַהּ בְּאִידַּךְ פִּרְקָא. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה נָמֵי לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא, דְּקָתָנֵי לַהּ בְּאִידַּךְ פִּירְקָא.
The Gemara asks: And how can you understand the phrase: How are these, specifically, as indicating that there is only one difference between the cases? But he omitted the ark. The Gemara responds: If the omission is due to the ark, that is not a real omission, because the tanna includes it in another chapter (15a). The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this solution, a similar answer can be applied to the earlier difficulties. The matter of the twenty-four blessings is also not an omission, as he teaches this halakha in another chapter, also on 15a, where the mishna provides further details of the blessings. Here, however, the tanna lists only those matters that are not discussed later.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר סִסְרָטַאי, וְכֵן אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: בֵּין ״גּוֹאֵל״ לְ״רוֹפֵא״. וְרַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: בְּ״שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִילָּה״. וְהִלְכְתָא, בְּ״שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִילָּה״.
Since no decisive proof was offered in support of any of the opinions as to where an individual inserts the Aneinu prayer, the Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rabbi Shmuel bar Sasretai said, and similarly Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One inserts it between the seventh blessing of the Amida: Who redeems, and the eighth blessing: Who heals. And Rav Ashi said in the name of Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael: One inserts it in the blessing: Who listens to prayer. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that one includes it in the blessing: Who listens to prayer.
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: עוּבָּרוֹת וּמֵינִיקוֹת מִתְעַנּוֹת בָּרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, וְאֵין מִתְעַנּוֹת בָּאַחֲרוֹנוֹת. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: מִתְעַנּוֹת בָּאַחֲרוֹנוֹת, וְאֵין מִתְעַנּוֹת בָּרִאשׁוֹנוֹת. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵין מִתְעַנּוֹת, לֹא בָּרִאשׁוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בָּאַחֲרוֹנוֹת.
§ It is taught in one baraita: Pregnant and nursing women fast with the community on the first fasts, but they do not fast on the last fasts. And it was taught in another baraita: Pregnant and nursing women fast on the last set of fasts but they do not fast on the first set of fasts. And it was taught in yet another baraita: They do not fast either on the first fast days or on the last fast days.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: נְקוֹט אֶמְצָעֲיָיתָא בִּידָךְ, דְּמִיתָּרְצָן כּוּלְּהוּ.
Rav Ashi said: Take the mention of the middle fasts in your hand as the decisive matter, as this resolves all three baraitot. The halakha is that pregnant and nursing women fast only on the middle fasts, as they are stricter than the first fasts but less taxing than the last seven fasts. Consequently, when the first baraita is referring to the first fasts, it in fact means the middle set, which is the first of the last two sets. Similarly, when the second baraita mentions the last fasts, it means the middle set, which is the last of the two sets. In the third baraita, the first and last fasts are literally the first three and last seven fasts, respectively. In this manner all three baraitot follow the same halakha.
מָה אֵלּוּ יְתֵירוֹת עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּאֵלּוּ מַתְרִיעִין וְנוֹעֲלִין אֶת הַחֲנוּיוֹת. בְּמַאי מַתְרִיעִין? רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת, וְרַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר: בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״.
§ The mishna teaches: How are these seven fast days more stringent than the first ones? Rather, the difference is that on these days, in addition to all the earlier stringencies, they sound the alarm and they lock the stores. The Gemara asks: With what do they sound the alarm? Rav Yehuda said: With shofarot. And Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: With the Aneinu prayer.
קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּן, מַאן דְּאָמַר בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״ — לָא אָמַר בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת — לָא אָמַר בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״. וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין מִשֶּׁבַע תַּעֲנִיּוֹת עַל הַצִּבּוּר, שֶׁבָּהֶן שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה הַתְרָעוֹת. וְסִימָן לַדָּבָר: יְרִיחוֹ. וִירִיחוֹ שׁוֹפָרוֹת הֲוָה, וּתְיוּבְתָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״!
The Gemara analyzes the dispute: It might enter our mind to say that the one who said that the community sounds the alarm by reciting Aneinu, i.e., Rav, did not say that they cry out with shofarot, and likewise the one who said that they do cry out with shofarot, Rav Yehuda, did not say that they sound the alarm by reciting Aneinu. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The court does not decree fewer than seven fasts on the community, which include eighteen acts of sounding the alarm. And a mnemonic for this matter is Jericho. And as there were many episodes of sounding the shofarot in Jericho, this is a conclusive refutation of the one who said that according to the opinion of Rav they sound the alarm only by reciting Aneinu.
אֶלָּא: בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּקָרֵי לַהּ הַתְרָעָה. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״. מָר סָבַר: קָרֵי לַהּ הַתְרָעָה, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא קָרֵי לַהּ הַתְרָעָה.
Rather, the Gemara explains that the dispute must be understood differently: With regard to shofarot, everyone, i.e., Rav and Rav Yehuda, agrees that the mishna calls this: Sounding the alarm. When they disagree, it is with regard to the Aneinu prayer. One Sage, Rav, holds that this too is called sounding the alarm, and one Sage, Rav Yehuda, holds that reciting Aneinu is not called sounding the alarm.
לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״ — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת — אֲבָל בַּעֲנֵנוּ לָא!
The Gemara comments: If so, then it follows that according to the one who said that they sound the alarm by reciting Aneinu, all the more so they can do so with shofarot, but according to the one who said that they sound the alarm with shofarot, this is the way they sound the alarm; however, they may not do so with Aneinu, i.e., the community does not sound the alarm by reciting this prayer. This indicates that the Aneinu prayer is recited only in extreme cases, as it is a greater form of petitioning to God than blowing the shofar.
וְהָתַנְיָא: וּשְׁאָר כׇּל מִינֵי פּוּרְעָנוּיוֹת הַמִּתְרַגְּשׁוֹת, כְּגוֹן: חִיכּוּךְ, חָגָב, זְבוּב וְצִירְעָה וְיַתּוּשִׁין, וְשִׁילּוּחַ נְחָשִׁים וְעַקְרַבִּים — לֹא הָיוּ מַתְרִיעִין אֶלָּא צוֹעֲקִין. מִדִּצְעָקָה בַּפֶּה, הַתְרָעָה בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת!
The Gemara raises a difficulty against this conclusion. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: And with regard to all other types of calamities than drought that break out, for example scabs, plagues of locusts, flies, or hornets, or mosquitoes, or infestations of snakes or scorpions, they would not sound the alarm, but they would cry out. From the fact that crying out is, according to all opinions, a prayer recited with one’s mouth, it follows that sounding an alarm must be with shofarot. This baraita indicates that sounding the alarm with shofarot is the response to a serious situation, whereas the Aneinu prayer is recited on less worrisome occasions.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: עַל אֵלּוּ מַתְרִיעִין בְּשַׁבָּת, עַל עִיר שֶׁהִקִּיפוּהָ גַּיִיס אוֹ נָהָר, וְעַל סְפִינָה הַמְטוֹרֶפֶת בַּיָּם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אֹמֵר: לְעֶזְרָה, אֲבָל לֹא לִצְעָקָה.
The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna: For the following calamities they sound the alarm even on Shabbat: For a city that is surrounded by an enemy army or in danger of being flooded by a river, or for a ship tossed about at sea. Rabbi Yosei said: An alarm may be sounded on Shabbat to summon help, but it may not be sounded for crying out to God.
בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּשׁוֹפָרוֹת — שׁוֹפָרוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת מִי שְׁרֵי? אֶלָּא לָאו, בַּ״עֲנֵנוּ״, וְקָרֵי לַהּ הַתְרָעָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara clarifies this case. With what do they sound the alarm? If we say with shofarot, is the sounding of shofarot permitted on Shabbat? Even when Rosh HaShana occurs on Shabbat, one must refrain from sounding the shofar on that day. Rather, is it not the case that this is referring to the recitation of the Aneinu prayer, and yet the mishna calls this recitation: Sounding the alarm. Conclude from this that there is a tanna who maintains that sounding of the alarm is in fact performed by prayer, as claimed by Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat.
בִּשְׁנֵי דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה הֲוָה צַעֲרָא,
§ The Gemara relates: During the years of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia there was a trouble that afflicted the community.
גְּזַר תְּלָת עַשְׂרֵה תַּעֲנִיּוֹת וְלָא אִיעֲנִי. סְבַר לְמִיגְזַר טְפֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ אֵין מַטְרִיחִין אֶת הַצִּבּוּר יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי.
Rabbi Yehuda Nesia decreed thirteen fasts, but he was not answered. He considered decreeing more fasts until they would be answered. Rabbi Ami said to him that they said: One does not trouble the community excessively, and therefore you should not impose more than thirteen fasts.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: רַבִּי אַמֵּי דַּעֲבַד — לְגַרְמֵיהּ הוּא דַּעֲבַד. אֶלָּא הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לִגְשָׁמִים, אֲבָל לִשְׁאָר מִינֵי פוּרְעָנוּיוֹת — מִתְעַנִּין וְהוֹלְכִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָנוּ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ וּכְשֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁבַע — לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא לִגְשָׁמִים, אֲבָל לִשְׁאָר מִינֵי פוּרְעָנוּיוֹת — מִתְעַנִּין וְהוֹלְכִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָנוּ.
Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said: When Rabbi Ami acted and issued this ruling, he did so on his own authority, as it went against the majority opinion. Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: They taught only that the community observes a maximum of thirteen fasts when they are praying for rain. However, with regard to other types of calamities, they continue to fast until they are answered from Heaven. The Gemara comments: This halakha is also taught in a baraita: When the Sages said three and when they said seven, they spoke only concerning fasts for rain. However, with regard to other types of calamities, they continue to fast until they are answered.
לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי! אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין גּוֹזְרִין יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה תַּעֲנִיּוֹת עַל הַצִּבּוּר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַטְרִיחִין אֶת הַצִּבּוּר יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּצָא זְמַנָּהּ שֶׁל רְבִיעָה.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Ami. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ami could have said to you that this is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: One does not decree more than thirteen fasts on the community, as one does not trouble the community excessively. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: This halakha is not for that reason. Rather, it is due to the fact that after thirteen fasts the time of the rainfall has already passed, and there is no reason to fast for rain after the rainy season has ended.
שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ בְּנֵי נִינְוֵה לְרַבִּי: כְּגוֹן אֲנַן, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בִּתְקוּפַת תַּמּוּז בָּעֵינַן מִטְרָא, הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? כִּיחִידִים דָּמֵינַן אוֹ כְּרַבִּים דָּמֵינַן? כִּיחִידִים דָּמֵינַן וּבְ״שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִלָּה״, אוֹ כְּרַבִּים דָּמֵינַן וּבְבִרְכַּת הַשָּׁנִים? שְׁלַח לְהוּ: כִּיחִידִים דָּמֵיתוּ וּבְ״שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִלָּה״.
The Gemara relates a story on a similar topic: The inhabitants of Nineveh sent a question to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: People such as us, who require rain even during the season of Tammuz, and who live in areas where rain falls all year round, what should we do when there is a drought during the summer? Are we likened to individuals or are we likened to a community? The Gemara explains the practical difference between these two options: Are we likened to individuals and therefore we pray for rain in the blessing: Who listens to prayer? Or are we likened to a community and we pray for rain in the ninth blessing, the blessing of the years? He sent his answer to them: You are likened to individuals and therefore you pray for rain in the blessing: Who listens to prayer.
מֵיתִיבִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי — בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַשָּׁנִים כְּתִיקְנָן וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁרוּיִן עַל אַדְמָתָן. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה — הַכֹּל לְפִי הַשָּׁנִים, הַכֹּל לְפִי הַמְּקוֹמוֹת, הַכֹּל לְפִי הַזְּמַן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַתְנִיתָא רָמֵית עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי?! רַבִּי תַּנָּא הוּא וּפָלֵיג.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: When do the halakhot concerning the times during which the prayer for rain is recited apply? When the years, i.e., the climate, are as they ought to be and the Jewish people are living in their land. However, nowadays, when the Jewish people are dispersed around the world, and the climate is not always as it ought to be, all is in accordance with the year, i.e., the local climate, all is in accordance with the place in question, and all is in accordance with the particular time, and therefore one prays for rain in the blessing of the years, as necessary for the local climate. He said to him: You raise a contradiction from a baraita against Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi himself is a tanna, and consequently has the authority to dispute the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: בְּבִרְכַּת הַשָּׁנִים. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: בְּ״שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִלָּה״. וְהִלְכְתָא: בְּ״שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִלָּה״.
The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Naḥman said: One prays for rain in the blessing of the years, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Sheshet said: One prays in the blessing: Who listens to prayer, as stated by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that if rain is required when it is not the rainy season in Eretz Yisrael, one prays for rain in the blessing: Who listens to prayer.
בַּשֵּׁנִי מַטִּין עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה וּבַחֲמִישִׁי כׇּל הַיּוֹם מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ, הֵיכִי קָתָנֵי: בַּשֵּׁנִי מַטִּין עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה, וּבַחֲמִישִׁי כׇּל הַיּוֹם — מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת, אוֹ דִילְמָא: בַּשֵּׁנִי מַטִּין, וּבַחֲמִישִׁי פּוֹתְחִין כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ?
§ The mishna taught: On Monday they open the stores a little at nightfall, and on Thursday they are permitted to open the stores all day, in deference to Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: How is this taught, i.e., what is the meaning of this ruling? Does it mean that on Monday the storeowners open their doors a little at nightfall, and on Thursday they likewise open their doors just a little, but do so all day, in deference to Shabbat? Or perhaps, the mishna means that on Monday they open their doors a little, but all day, and on Thursday they open their doors wide the entire day?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: בַּשֵּׁנִי מַטִּין עַד הָעֶרֶב, וּבַחֲמִישִׁי פּוֹתְחִין כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת. הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי פְתָחִים — פּוֹתֵחַ אֶחָד וְנוֹעֵל אֶחָד. הָיָה לוֹ אִצְטְבָא כְּנֶגֶד פִּתְחוֹ — פּוֹתֵחַ כְּדַרְכּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma, as it is taught in a baraita: On Monday they open their doors a little until the evening, and on Thursday they open them the entire day, in deference to Shabbat. If one’s shop had two entrances, he opens one and locks one, thereby demonstrating that his store is not open in the normal manner. If he had a platform opposite his entrance which conceals the door to his store, he may open in his usual manner without concern, as it is prohibited to open one’s store not due to work, but only so that it not appear as though people are eating and drinking on this day.
עָבְרוּ אֵלּוּ וְלֹא נַעֲנוּ — מְמַעֲטִין בְּמַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן, בְּבִנְיָן וּבִנְטִיעָה. תָּנָא: בְּבִנְיָן — בִּנְיָן שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה. נְטִיעָה — נְטִיעָה שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה. אֵי זֶהוּ בִּנְיָן שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה — זֶה הַבּוֹנֶה בֵּית חַתְנוּת לִבְנוֹ. אִי זוֹ הִיא נְטִיעָה שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה — זֶה הַנּוֹטֵעַ אַבְּווֹרַנְקֵי שֶׁל מְלָכִים.
§ The mishna taught: If these fasts have passed and they have not been answered, they decrease their engagement in business negotiations and in building and planting. It was taught in the Tosefta (Megilla 5:2): Building means joyful building, not building in general. Likewise, planting means joyful planting, not all planting. The Tosefta elaborates: What is joyful building? This is referring to one who builds a wedding chamber for his son. It was customary upon the marriage of a son to build him a small house where the marriage feast was held and where the newlywed couple would live for a certain period of time. What is joyful planting? This is referring to one who plants a splendid, royal garden that does not serve practical purposes, but is only for ornamentation.
וּבִשְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲבֵרִים, אֵין שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּינֵיהֶן. עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ שֶׁשּׁוֹאֲלִין — מַחְזִירִין לָהֶם בְּשָׂפָה רָפָה, וּבְכוֹבֶד רֹאשׁ. וְהֵן מִתְעַטְּפִין וְיוֹשְׁבִין כַּאֲבֵלִים וְכִמְנוּדִּין, כִּבְנֵי אָדָם הַנְּזוּפִין לַמָּקוֹם, עַד שֶׁיְּרַחֲמוּ עֲלֵיהֶם מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם.
§ And the mishna further taught that they decrease greetings between one another. The Sages taught: Ḥaverim, members of a group dedicated to the precise observance of mitzvot, do not extend greetings between each other at all. Amei ha’aretz, common, uneducated people, who extend greetings to ḥaverim, do so while unaware that this is inappropriate. The ḥaverim answer them in an undertone and in a solemn manner. And ḥaverim wrap themselves and sit as mourners and as ostracized ones, like people who have been rebuked by God, until they are shown mercy from Heaven.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין אָדָם חָשׁוּב רַשַּׁאי לִיפּוֹל עַל פָּנָיו, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נַעֲנֶה כִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קֻם לָךְ לָמָּה זֶּה אַתָּה נֹפֵל עַל פָּנֶיךָ״.
Rabbi Elazar said: An important person is permitted to fall on his face and humiliate himself in front of the community only if he is certain that he will be answered like Joshua, son of Nun, as it is stated: “And the Lord said to Joshua, Get you up, why are you fallen upon your face?” (Joshua 7:10). One who is not absolutely certain that he will be answered may not fall on his face in public, as if he is unanswered he will become an object of derision.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין אָדָם חָשׁוּב רַשַּׁאי לַחֲגוֹר שַׂק אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נַעֲנֶה כִּיהוֹרָם בֶּן אַחְאָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָאִשָּׁה וַיִּקְרַע אֶת בְּגָדָיו וְהוּא עֹבֵר עַל הַחֹמָה וַיַּרְא הָעָם וְהִנֵּה הַשַּׂק עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְגוֹ׳״.
And Rabbi Elazar said: An important person is permitted to gird himself in sackcloth as a sign of mourning and to pray for mercy only if he is certain that he will be answered like Jehoram, son of Ahab, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes, now he was passing by upon the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh” (II Kings 6:30). Although he was wicked, Jehoram was later answered and the suffering of the Jews was alleviated.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא הַכֹּל בִּקְרִיעָה וְלֹא הַכֹּל בִּנְפִילָה. מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרוֹן — בִּנְפִילָה, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב — בִּקְרִיעָה. מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן בִּנְפִילָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּפּוֹל מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן עַל פְּנֵיהֶם״. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב בִּקְרִיעָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן וְכָלֵב בֶּן יְפֻנֶּה קָרְעוּ בִּגְדֵיהֶם״.
And Rabbi Elazar further said: Not all are worthy to petition God by rending their garments, and not all are worthy of falling on their faces in times of trouble. Moses and Aaron were worthy of petitioning God by falling on their faces, whereas their students Joshua and Caleb prayed by only rending their garments. The Gemara elaborates: Moses and Aaron petitioned God by falling on their faces, as it is written: “Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces” (Numbers 14:5). Joshua and Caleb prayed by rending their garments, as it is written in the next verse: “And Joshua, son of Nun, and Caleb, son of Jephunneh, who were of those who spied out the land, rent their garments” (Numbers 14:6).
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי: אִי הֲוָה כְּתִיב ״יְהוֹשֻׁעַ״ — כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב: ״וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ״, הָא וְהָא עָבֵיד.
Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this interpretation, and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani who objected: Had the verse written only: Joshua and Caleb, the meaning would be as you said, that Moses and Aaron fell upon their faces whereas Joshua and Caleb only rent their garments. However, now that it is written: “And Joshua,” it is possible that the connecting word “and” indicates that Moses and Aaron merely fell upon their faces, while Joshua and Caleb did both this and that, i.e., they rent their clothing in addition to falling upon their faces.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא הַכֹּל בְּקִימָה וְלֹא הַכֹּל בְּהִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. מְלָכִים — בְּקִימָה, וְשָׂרִים — בְּהִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. מְלָכִים בְּקִימָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ גֹּאֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל קְדוֹשׁוֹ
And Rabbi Elazar further said: Not all dignitaries will worship God in the messianic age by rising, and not all will do so by bowing. Rather, kings will serve God by rising, and ministers by bowing. The Gemara elaborates: Kings by rising, as it is written: “Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One,
