Taanit 14

והא שייר תיבה אי משום תיבה לאו שיורא הוא מילי דצינעא קתני מילי דבפרהסיא לא קתני

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].

אמר רב אשי מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני מה אלו יתירות על הראשונות אלא שבאלו מתריעין ונועלין את החנויות אבל בכל דבריהן זה וזה שוין וכי תימא הכא נמי תנא ושייר והא מה אלו קתני

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.

ותסברא מה אלו דווקא הוא והא שייר לה תיבה אי משום תיבה לאו שיורא הוא משום דקא חשיב לה באידך פרקא השתא דאתית להכי עשרים וארבעה נמי לאו שיורא הוא דקתני לה באידך פירקא

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.

מאי הוי עלה אמר רבי שמואל בר ססרטאי וכן אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב בין גואל לרופא ורב אשי אמר משמיה דרבי ינאי בריה דרבי ישמעאל בשומע תפילה והלכתא בשומע תפילה:

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.

תני חדא עוברות ומיניקות מתענות בראשונות ואין מתענות באחרונות ותניא אידך מתענות באחרונות ואין מתענות בראשונות ותניא אידך אין מתענות לא בראשונות ולא באחרונות

§ 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.

אמר רב אשי נקוט אמצעייתא בידך דמיתרצון כולהו:

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.

מה אלו יתירות על הראשונות אלא שבאלו מתריעין ונועלין את החנויות: במאי מתריעין רב יהודה אמר בשופרות ורב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב אמר בעננו

§ 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.

קא סלקא דעתן מאן דאמר בעננו לא אמר בשופרות ומאן דאמר בשופרות לא אמר בעננו והתניא אין פוחתין משבע תעניות על הצבור שבהן שמונה עשרה התרעות וסימן לדבר יריחו ויריחו שופרות הוה ותיובתא למאן דאמר בעננו

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.

אלא בשופרות דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דקרי לה התרעה כי פליגי בעננו מר סבר קרי לה התרעה ומר סבר לא קרי לה התרעה

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.

למאן דאמר בעננו כל שכן בשופרות ולמאן דאמר בשופרות אבל בעננו לא

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.

והתניא ושאר כל מיני פורענויות המתרגשות כגון חיכוך חגב זבוב וצירעה ויתושין ושילוח נחשים ועקרבים לא היו מתריעין אלא צועקין מדצעקה בפה התרעה בשופרות

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.

תנאי היא דתנן על אלו מתריעין בשבת על עיר שהקיפוה גייס או נהר ועל ספינה המטורפת בים רבי יוסי אמר לעזרה אבל לא לצעקה

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.

במאי אילימא בשופרות שופרות בשבת מי שרי אלא לאו בעננו וקרי לה התרעה שמע מינה:

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.

בשני דרבי יהודה נשיאה הוה צערא

§ The Gemara relates: During the years of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia there was a trouble that afflicted the community.

גזר תלת עשרה תעניות ולא איעני סבר למיגזר טפי אמר ליה רבי אמי הרי אמרו אין מטריחין את הצבור יותר מדאי

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.

אמר רבי אבא בריה דרבי חייא בר אבא רבי אמי דעבד לגרמיה הוא דעבד אלא הכי אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא לגשמים אבל לשאר מיני פורענויות מתענין והולכין עד שיענו מן השמים תניא נמי הכי כשאמרו שלש וכשאמרו שבע לא אמרו אלא לגשמים אבל לשאר מיני פורענויות מתענין והולכין עד שיענו

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.

לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דרבי אמי אמר לך רבי אמי תנאי היא דתניא אין גוזרין יותר משלש עשרה תעניות על הצבור לפי שאין מטריחין את הצבור יותר מדאי דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא מפני שיצא זמנה של רביעה

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.

שלחו ליה בני נינוה לרבי כגון אנן דאפילו בתקופת תמוז בעינן מטרא היכי נעביד כיחידים דמינן או כרבים דמינן כיחידים דמינן ובשומע תפלה או כרבים דמינן ובברכת השנים שלח להו כיחידים דמיתו ובשומע תפלה

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.

מיתיבי אמר רבי יהודה אימתי בזמן שהשנים כתיקנן וישראל שרוין על אדמתן אבל בזמן הזה הכל לפי השנים הכל לפי המקומות הכל לפי הזמן אמר ליה מתניתא רמית עליה דרבי רבי תנא הוא ופליג

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.

מאי הוי עלה רב נחמן אמר בברכת השנים רב ששת אמר בשומע תפלה והלכתא בשומע תפלה:

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.

בשני מטין עם חשיכה ובחמישי כל היום מפני כבוד השבת: איבעיא להו היכי קתני בשני מטין עם חשיכה ובחמישי כל היום מפני כבוד השבת או דילמא בשני מטין ובחמישי פותחין כל היום כולו

§ 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?

תא שמע דתניא בשני מטין עד הערב ובחמישי פותחין כל היום כולו מפני כבוד השבת היו לו שני פתחים פותח אחד ונועל אחד היה לו אצטבא כנגד פתחו פותח כדרכו ואינו חושש:

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.

עברו אלו ולא נענו ממעטין במשא ומתן בבנין ובנטיעה: תנא בבנין בנין של שמחה נטיעה נטיעה של שמחה אי זהו בנין של שמחה זה הבונה בית חתנות לבנו אי זו היא נטיעה של שמחה זה הנוטע אבוורנקי של מלכים:

§ 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.

ובשאילת שלום: תנו רבנן חברים אין שאילת שלום ביניהן עמי הארץ ששואלין מחזירין להם בשפה רפה ובכובד ראש והן מתעטפין ויושבין כאבלים וכמנודין כבני אדם הנזופין למקום עד שירחמו עליהם מן השמים

§ 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.

אמר רבי אלעזר אין אדם חשוב רשאי ליפול על פניו אלא אם כן נענה כיהושע בן נון שנאמר ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע קם לך למה זה אתה נפל על פניך

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.

ואמר רבי אלעזר אין אדם חשוב רשאי לחגור שק אלא אם כן נענה כיהורם בן אחאב שנאמר ויהי כשמע המלך את דברי האשה ויקרע את בגדיו והוא עבר על החמה וירא העם והנה השק על בשרו וגו׳

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.

ואמר רבי אלעזר לא הכל בקריעה ולא הכל בנפילה משה ואהרון בנפילה יהושע וכלב בקריעה משה ואהרן בנפילה דכתיב ויפול משה ואהרן על פניהם יהושע וכלב בקריעה דכתיב ויהושע בן נון וכלב בן יפנה קרעו בגדיהם

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).

מתקיף לה רבי זירא ואיתימא רבי שמואל בר נחמני אי הוה כתיב יהושע כדקאמרת השתא דכתיב ויהושע הא והא עביד

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.

ואמר רבי אלעזר לא הכל בקימה ולא הכל בהשתחויה מלכים בקימה ושרים בהשתחויה מלכים בקימה דכתיב כה אמר ה׳ גאל ישראל קדושו

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,