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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 29, 2021 | 讻状讛 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讘

This month's shiurim are dedicated by the Hadran Women of Minneapolis in memory of Monica Howell z"l.

  • 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 17

This week鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Rivka and Martin Himmel for the week of Chanuka.聽

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Arthur Gould in loving memory of Carol鈥檚 father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe, z鈥漧. 鈥淭oday 鈥 the first day of Hanukah 鈥 we mark his 22nd yahrtzeit. Lou was devoted to his family and his synagogue. We love him and miss him very much.鈥

The language of some of the blessing is a subject of debate. What are the issues? What are the differences regarding laws such as not drinking wine for Kohanim whose rotation in the Temple is that week or who are part of the family that works on that particular day? The same laws apply even if the Kohanim do not come to the Temple or seemingly, even nowadays that there is no Temple. Why? What are the laws for someone who no longer knows what is the week he is supposed to be there – is he ever permitted to drink wine? How often does a king of a High Priest get a haircut? What are the issues regarding cutting hair for regular kohanim? Details are derived from the laws of the nazir. Are these laws still applicable today? From where are the laws of cutting hair and not drinking wine derived? Is there a reason to distinguish between them nowadays? Megillat Taanit specifies days one cannot eulogize. Rabbi Yosi holds that the day before and after are also forbidden. Two cases of a range of days mentioned in Megillat Taanit are quoted 1-8 of Nissan and 8-end of Pesach. Several questions are raised against these cases.

讗诇讗 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讘讬讜讘诇讜转 讜讘砖注转 诪诇讞诪讛

only on Rosh HaShana, and on Yom Kippur of Jubilee Years, and in a time of war.

注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讬 砖注谞讛 讗转 讗讘专讛诐 讻讜壮 转谞讗 讬砖 诪讞诇讬驻讬谉 爪注拽讛 诇讗诇讬讛讜 讜转驻诇讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 转驻诇讛 讜讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 爪注拽讛

搂 The mishna teaches: For the first blessing he recites: He Who answered Abraham. It was taught in a baraita: Some reverse the order of the conclusion of two blessings, by reciting: Who hears cries, in the fifth blessing, which deals with Elijah, and the conclusion: Who hears prayer, in the blessing of Samuel. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to Samuel both options are appropriate, as it is written concerning him: Prayer, and it is likewise written concerning him: Crying. One verse states: 鈥淎nd Samuel said: Gather all of Israel to Mizpah, and I will pray for you to the Lord鈥 (I Samuel 7:5), while another verse states: 鈥淎nd Samuel cried to the Lord for Israel鈥 (I Samuel 7:9).

讗诇讗 讙讘讬 讗诇讬讛讜 转驻诇讛 讻转讬讘 爪注拽讛 诇讗 讻转讬讘 注谞谞讬 讛壮 注谞谞讬 诇砖讜谉 爪注拽讛 讛讬讗

However, with regard to Elijah, although prayer is written, as it says: 鈥淓lijah the prophet came near and said: Lord, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel鈥 (I Kings 18:36), which is referring to a prayer, crying is not written. How, then, can one conclude a blessing that deals with Elijah by mentioning crying? The Gemara answers that Elijah鈥檚 statement: 鈥淎nswer me, Lord, answer me鈥 (I Kings 18:37), is an expression of crying, even if the term crying does not itself actually appear.

注诇 讛砖砖讬转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讬 砖注谞讛 讗转 讬讜谞讛 讻讜壮 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讬 砖注谞讛 讗转 讚讜讚 讻讜壮 诪讻讚讬 讬讜谞讛 讘转专 讚讜讚 讜砖诇诪讛 讛讜讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪拽讚讬诐 诇讬讛 讘专讬砖讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讞转诐 诪专讞诐 注诇 讛讗专抓 转谞讗 诪砖讜诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专讜 讘专讜讱 诪砖驻讬诇 讛专诪讬诐

搂 The mishna further teaches: For the sixth he recites: He Who answered Jonah; for the seventh he recites: He Who answered David. The Gemara asks: Since Jonah was after David and Solomon, what is the reason that the tanna mentions Jonah first? The Gemara answers: The reason is due to the fact that he wants to conclude the series with: Blessed are You, Lord, Who has mercy on the Land. Therefore, the last blessing mentions David and Solomon, who were kings of Eretz Yisrael and prayed on its behalf. It was taught in the name of Sumakhos that they said he concludes the final blessing with: Blessed are You, Lord, Who humbles the exalted.

砖诇砖 转注谞讬讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 诪转注谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讘诇讬诇讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讬诪讬诐 砖诪讗 转讻讘讚 讛注讘讜讚讛 注诇 讗谞砖讬 讘讬转 讗讘 讜讬讘讜讗讜 讜讬住讬讬注讜 诇讛诐

搂 The mishna teaches that on the first three fasts, the members of the priestly watch fast but do not complete their fasts until nightfall. The mishna then proceeds to cite other halakhot that deal with the members of the priestly watch and the patrilineal family. The Sages taught: For what reason did they say that the members of the priestly watch are permitted to drink wine at nights but not during the days? They said this lest on a certain day the Temple service becomes burdensome for the members of the patrilineal family, and the members of the priestly watch are called to come and assist them. Therefore, it is prohibited for them to drink wine during the day, when their help might be needed, so that they do not enter the Temple after drinking wine.

诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讗谞砖讬 讘讬转 讗讘 诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 注住讜拽讬谉 转诪讬讚 讘注讘讜讚讛

The baraita continues to explain the reason for the mishna鈥檚 ruling. For what reason did they say that the members of the patrilineal family may not drink wine, neither by day nor by night? Because they are constantly engaged in the Temple service.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖诪讻讬专 诪砖诪专转讜 讜诪砖诪专转 讘讬转 讗讘 砖诇讜 讜讬讜讚注 砖讘转讬 讗讘讜转讬讜 拽讘讜注讬谉 砖诐 讗住讜专 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讻诇 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讘诪讻讬专 诪砖诪专转讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讻讬专 诪砖诪专转 讘讬转 讗讘 砖诇讜 讜讬讜讚注 砖讘转讬 讗讘讜转讬讜 拽讘讜注讬谉 砖诐 讗住讜专 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讻诇 讗讜转讛 砖讘转

From here the Sages stated: Even nowadays, after the destruction of the Temple, with regard to any priest who knows his priestly watch, in which his family served, and the watch of his patrilineal family, and he knows that the family of his forefathers was established as fit for the Temple service there, it is prohibited for him to drink wine that entire day, in the event that the Temple is rebuilt on that day and he will be called to return to the service. In the case of a priest who knows his priestly watch, i.e., the week of the year in which his family served, and does not know the watch of his patrilineal family, the day of the week that his family served, but he knows that the family of his forefathers was established there, it is prohibited for him to drink wine that entire week.

讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 诪砖诪专转讜 讜诪砖诪专转 讘讬转 讗讘 砖诇讜 讜讬讜讚注 砖讘转讬 讗讘讜转讬讜 拽讘讜注讬谉 砖诐 讗住讜专 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讻诇 讛砖谞讛

Finally, if he does not know his priestly watch or the watch of his patrilineal family, but he knows that the family of his forefathers was established there, he is prohibited to drink wine that entire year. When the Temple will be rebuilt, his priestly watch might be called upon to serve, and he is unaware of the appointed time for his Temple service.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讗住讜专 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖转拽谞转讜 拽诇拽诇转讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诪讗谉 砖转讜 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讻讛谞讬 讞诪专讗 讻专讘讬

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that in accordance with this reasoning it is prohibited for any priest to drink wine at any time, even if he knows his priestly watch, as the order of the watches might change when the Temple is rebuilt, or perhaps all the watches will participate in the rededication of Temple. However, what can I do, as his misfortune is his advantage? The unfortunate fact that so many years have passed since the destruction of the Temple means that this decree prohibiting the priests from drinking cannot be sustained. Abaye said: In accordance with whose opinion do priests drink wine nowadays? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 讜讗谞砖讬 诪注诪讚 讗住讜专讬诐 诇住驻专 讜诇讻讘住 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讛砖讘转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讻谞住讜 诇诪砖诪专转诐 讻砖讛谉 诪谞讜讜诇讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: It is prohibited for both the members of the priestly watch and the members of the non-priestly watch to cut their hair or launder their garments throughout the week, but on Thursday they are permitted to cut their hair and launder their clothes in deference to Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for these prohibitions? Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: These prohibitions were enacted in order to ensure that the priests will cut their hair and launder their clothes during the week before their service, so that they will not enter their priestly watch when they are unkempt.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诇讱 诪住转驻专 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇注专讘 砖讘转 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪诇讱 诪住转驻专 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诇讱 讘讬驻讬讜 转讞讝讬谞讛 注讬谞讬讱 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇注专讘 砖讘转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪砖诪专讜转 诪转讞讚砖讜转

The Sages taught: A king cuts his hair every day, a High Priest cuts his hair every Friday, and a common priest once every thirty days. The Gemara clarifies: A king cuts his hair every day. What is the reason for this? Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that the verse states: 鈥淵our eyes shall see the king in his beauty鈥 (Isaiah 33:17), which indicates that a king must always look his best. A High Priest cuts his hair every Friday. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: Since the watches are renewed and changed every Friday, it is fitting for every watch to see the High Priest with his hair perfectly groomed.

讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪谞诇谉 讗转讬讗 驻专注 驻专注 诪谞讝讬专 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜专讗砖诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讜驻专注 诇讗 讬砖诇讞讜 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讛 讙讚诇 驻专注 砖注专 专讗砖讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇砖讬诐

A common priest cuts his hair once every thirty days. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this number? It is derived by a verbal analogy from the word pera with regard to priests and pera in connection with a nazirite. It is written here, concerning priests: 鈥淣either shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks [pera] to grow long鈥 (Ezekiel 44:20), and it is written there, with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall be sacred, he shall let the locks [pera] of the hair of his head grow long鈥 (Numbers 6:5). Just as there, a nazirite who does not specify any other time period cuts his hair after thirty days, so too here, a priest cuts his hair every thirty days.

讜谞讝讬专 讙讜驻讬讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 住转诐 谞讝讬专讜转 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 转诇转讬谉 讛讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 诇讬专讘讜 讻诇诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讛 讻转讘 诇讗 讬砖诇讞讜 驻专注 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜驻专注 诇讗 讬砖诇讞讜 驻专注 诇讬讛讜讬 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬砖诇讞讜

The Gemara asks: And a nazirite himself, from where do we derive that he may not cut his hair for thirty days? Rav Mattana said: It is a principle that an unspecified naziriteship lasts thirty days. The Gemara inquires: From where do we derive this principle? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淗e shall be [yihye] sacred鈥 (Numbers 6:5), and the numerical value [gimatriya] of yihye is thirty. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying in the Torah: They should not grow their hair at all, as they must cut it every day. Abaye said to him: If it were written: They shall not grow long their locks, I might have explained as you originally said. Now that it is written: 鈥淣or suffer their locks to grow long,鈥 this indicates that they may have locks, but they may not let them grow long.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讗讬讚谞讗 谞诪讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 诪讛 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讘讬讗讛 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬讗讛 砖专讬 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: If it is so that cutting one鈥檚 hair is a necessary preparation for the Temple service by Torah law, then even nowadays priests should cut their hair every thirty days as well, in case the Temple is rebuilt and they must resume their service. The Gemara answers: This issue is similar to the prohibition concerning those who have drunk wine. Just as with regard to those who have drunk wine, it is when one enters the Temple that it is prohibited, whereas when one does not enter the Temple it is permitted to drink wine, here the same also applies.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讗住讜专讬诐 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖转拽谞转讜 拽诇拽诇转讜 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诪讗谉 砖转讜 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讻讛谞讬 讞诪专讗

The Gemara questions this conclusion: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the aforementioned baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that it is prohibited for all priests to drink wine at any time. However, what can I do, as his misfortune is his advantage? And Abaye said: In accordance with whose opinion do priests drink wine nowadays?

讻专讘讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘谞谉 讗住专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讛专讛 讬讘谞讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讘注讬谞谉 讻讛谉 讛专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜诇讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪住驻专 讜注讬讬诇

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits priests to drink wine, it may be inferred that the Rabbis prohibit it even nowadays. Why, then, isn鈥檛 it prohibited for priests to grow their hair as well? The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the prohibition? It is due to the hope: May the Temple be speedily rebuilt, and we will require a priest who is fit for the Temple service, and there will be none available, as they have all imbibed wine. The time that it will take for the effects of the wine to wear off will delay the Temple service considerably. Here, however, with regard to hair, it is possible for a priest to cut his hair and be ready to enter and perform the Temple service with minimal delay.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖转讜讬 讬讬谉 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讚讙谞讬 驻讜专转讗 讜注讬讬诇 讻讚专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讚专讱 诪讬诇 讜砖讬谞讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪驻讬讙讬谉 讗转 讛讬讬谉 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖砖转讛 砖讬注讜专 专讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 砖转讛 讬讜转专 诪专讘讬注讬转 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讚专讱 诪讟专讬讚转讜 讜砖讬谞讛 诪砖讻专转讜

The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to those who have drunk wine too, it is possible for him to sleep a little and then enter, in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar Abba, as Rami bar Abba said: Walking a distance of a mil, and similarly, sleeping even a minimal amount, will dispel the effect of wine that one has drunk. The Gemara rejects this proof: Wasn鈥檛 it stated about this halakha that Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They taught this only with regard to one who has drunk the measure of a quarter-log of wine, but with regard to one who has drunk more than a quarter-log, walking this distance will preoccupy and exhaust him all the more, and a small amount of sleep will further intoxicate him. For this reason, it is prohibited for priests to drink wine, lest no suitable priest will be ready for the Temple service.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讚诪讞诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 驻专讜注讬 专讗砖 讚诇讗 诪讞诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

Rav Ashi said that there is a different way to distinguish between these two halakhot. In the case of those who have drunk wine, who desecrate the Temple service, the Sages issued a decree concerning them, that priests should not drink wine even nowadays. However, with regard to those who have long hair, who do not desecrate the Temple service, the Sages did not issue a decree concerning them.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讗诇讜 砖讛谉 讘诪讬转讛 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讜驻专讜注讬 专讗砖 讘砖诇诪讗 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讗诇 转砖转 讗诇讗 驻专讜注讬 专讗砖 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: And these are the transgressors who are punished by death at the hand of Heaven: Priests who enter the Temple to serve who have drunk wine, and those priests who have long hair while they serve. The Gemara asks: Granted, those who have drunk wine are punished by death, as it is explicitly written: 鈥淒rink no wine nor strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you should not die鈥 (Leviticus 10:9). However, with regard to those priests who have long hair, from where do we derive that they are punishable by death?

讚讻转讬讘 讜专讗砖诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讜驻专注 诇讗 讬砖诇讞讜 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讜讬讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转讜 讻诇 讻讛谉 讘讘讜讗诐 讗诇 讛讞爪专 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讜讗讬转拽讜砖 驻专讜注讬 专讗砖 诇砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 诪讛 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗祝 驻专讜注讬 专讗砖 讘诪讬转讛

The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: 鈥淣either shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks [pera] to grow long鈥 (Ezekiel 44:20), and it is written immediately afterward: 鈥淣either shall any priest drink wine when they enter the inner courtyard鈥 (Ezekiel 44:21). And in this manner the prohibition concerning those who have long hair is juxtaposed with the prohibition concerning those who have drunk wine, to teach the following: Just as those who have drunk wine and perform the Temple service are subject to death, so too, those who have long hair are punishable by death.

讜诪讬谞讛 讗讬 诪讛 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讚诪讞诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讗祝 驻专讜注讬 专讗砖 讚诪讞诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 讻讬 讗讬转拽讜砖 诇诪讬转讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转拽讜砖 讗讘诇 诇讗讞讜诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 讗转拽讜砖

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And from this comparison one can also argue as follows: If so, just as those who have drunk wine desecrate the Temple service, so too, those who have long hair desecrate the service. The Gemara rejects this contention: No, when the two cases were juxtaposed, it was with regard to death that they were juxtaposed. However, as for desecrating the Temple service, in this regard they were not juxtaposed. Consequently, Rav Ashi鈥檚 distinction concerning the practical application of these two halakhot still applies.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪讗谉 讗诪专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 诪转讜专转 诪砖讛 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 讜诪讚讘专讬 拽讘诇讛 诇诪讚谞讜 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 注专诇 诇讘 讜注专诇 讘砖专 诇讗 讬讘讜讗 讗诇 诪拽讚砖讬 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪讗谉 讗诪专讛

On this issue, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Before Ezekiel came and stated this halakha, who said it? From where was it derived before Ezekiel that priests may not serve with long hair? This prohibition, which is not mentioned in the Torah, could not have been innovated by Ezekiel, as prophets may not enact new halakhot. Rav Ashi said to him: And according to your reasoning, there is a similar difficulty with that which Rabbi 岣sda said: This matter, that an uncircumcised priest may not serve in the Temple, we did not learn it from the Torah of Moses, but we learned it from the text of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings: 鈥淣o stranger, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter my Temple鈥 (Ezekiel 44:9). Before Ezekiel came, who said that it is prohibited for an uncircumcised priest to serve?

讗诇讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专 诇讛 讜讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜讗住诪讻讛 讗拽专讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专 诇讛 讜讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜讗住诪讻讛 讗拽专讗 讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 讛诇讻讛 诇诪讬转讛 诇讗讞讜诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬

Rather, you must say that it is learned as a definite tradition, like the rest of the Oral Torah, and Ezekiel came and supported it by means of a verse in his book. He did not, however, teach this halakha anew. Here too, with regard to a priest with long hair, it is learned as a tradition, and Ezekiel came and supported it by a verse. And when they learned this halakha, they learned only that one is punishable by death; however, with regard to desecrating the Temple service, they did not learn this halakha.

讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 讚诇讗 诇诪讬住驻讚 诇驻谞讬讜 讗住讜专 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪讜转专 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讬谉 讬讜诪讬讗 讚诇讗 诇讛转注谞讗讛 讘讛讜谉 讜诪拽爪转讛讜谉 讚诇讗 诇诪讬住驻讚 讘讛讜谉 诪专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讚谞讬住谉 讜注讚 转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讗讬转讜拽诐 转诪讬讚讗 讚诇讗 诇诪讬住驻讚 讘讛讜谉 诪转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 注讚 住讜祝 诪讜注讚讗 讗讬转讜转讘 讞讙讗 讚砖讘讜注讬讗 讚诇讗 诇诪讬住驻讚 讘讛讜谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Any day concerning which it is written in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit not to eulogize on that day, it is also prohibited to fast on the day before, but it is permitted to do so on the following day. The Sages taught in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit: These are the days on which fasting is prohibited, and on some of them eulogizing is prohibited as well: From the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth of the month, the proper sacrifice of the daily offering was established, and therefore it was decreed not to eulogize on these dates. From the eighth of Nisan until the end of the festival of Passover, the festival of Shavuot was restored and it was likewise decreed not to eulogize during this period.

讗诪专 诪专 诪专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讚谞讬住谉 注讚 转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讗讬转讜拽诐 转诪讬讚讗 讚诇讗 诇诪讬住驻讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪专讬砖 讬专讞讗 诇讬诪讗 诪转专讬 讘谞讬住谉 讜专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 讙讜驻讬讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讗住讜专 讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬讜

The Gemara seeks to clarify these statements by comparing them to the ruling of the mishna. The Master said above: From the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth of the month, the daily offering was established, and therefore it was decreed not to eulogize on these dates. The Gemara asks: Why do I need Megillat Ta鈥檃nit to say: From the New Moon? Let it say: From the second of Nisan, as the New Moon is itself a holiday, and it is already prohibited to eulogize on that day. Rav said: It is necessary to mention the New Moon of Nisan only to prohibit eulogizing on the day before, in accordance with the statement in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit that fasting on the day before any of the specified commemorative days is also prohibited.

讜砖诇驻谞讬讜 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬 专讗砖 讞讚砖 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讜讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讞讬讝讜拽

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the day before the New Moon of Nisan as well, one can derive the prohibition against eulogizing on this day from the fact that it is the day before the New Moon. Since it is prohibited to fast on the New Moon, it is likewise prohibited on the day before. The Gemara answers that as the New Moon is by Torah law and a Torah law requires no reinforcement, it is permitted to fast on the previous day.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讬诪讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讛讻转讜讘讬谉 讘诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛谉 讜诇讗讞专讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讜诪讛 讛驻专砖 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讛诇诇讜 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讞讬讝讜拽 讛诇诇讜 讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讞讬讝讜拽

As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to these days that are written in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, it is prohibited to fast before them and after them. However, concerning Shabbatot and Festivals, fasting on those days is prohibited, but before them and after them fasting is permitted. And what is the difference between this and that? These, Shabbat and Festivals, are statements of Torah, and statements of Torah do not require reinforcement, whereas these days mentioned in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit are statements of rabbinic law, and statements of rabbinic law require reinforcement.

讗诪专 诪专 诪转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 注讚 住讜祝 讛诪讜注讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 注讚 住讜祝 讛诪讜注讚 诇讬诪讗 注讚 讛诪讜注讚 讜诪讜注讚 讙讜驻讬讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗

The Master said above: From the eighth of Nisan until the end of the festival of Passover, the festival of Shavuot was restored and it was decreed not to eulogize. The Gemara asks: Why do I need Megillat Ta鈥檃nit to say: Until the end of the Festival? Let it say: Until the Festival, as it is anyway prohibited to eulogize on the festival of Passover. Rav Pappa said that this, too, should be explained as Rav said: It is necessary to mention the first of Nisan

This month's shiurim are dedicated by聽the Hadran Women of Minneapolis in memory of Monica Howell z"l.

  • 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: 14-18 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue learning about the 3 sets of fast days they would institute when it didn鈥檛 rain...

Taanit 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Taanit 17

讗诇讗 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讘讬讜讘诇讜转 讜讘砖注转 诪诇讞诪讛

only on Rosh HaShana, and on Yom Kippur of Jubilee Years, and in a time of war.

注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讬 砖注谞讛 讗转 讗讘专讛诐 讻讜壮 转谞讗 讬砖 诪讞诇讬驻讬谉 爪注拽讛 诇讗诇讬讛讜 讜转驻诇讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 转驻诇讛 讜讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 爪注拽讛

搂 The mishna teaches: For the first blessing he recites: He Who answered Abraham. It was taught in a baraita: Some reverse the order of the conclusion of two blessings, by reciting: Who hears cries, in the fifth blessing, which deals with Elijah, and the conclusion: Who hears prayer, in the blessing of Samuel. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to Samuel both options are appropriate, as it is written concerning him: Prayer, and it is likewise written concerning him: Crying. One verse states: 鈥淎nd Samuel said: Gather all of Israel to Mizpah, and I will pray for you to the Lord鈥 (I Samuel 7:5), while another verse states: 鈥淎nd Samuel cried to the Lord for Israel鈥 (I Samuel 7:9).

讗诇讗 讙讘讬 讗诇讬讛讜 转驻诇讛 讻转讬讘 爪注拽讛 诇讗 讻转讬讘 注谞谞讬 讛壮 注谞谞讬 诇砖讜谉 爪注拽讛 讛讬讗

However, with regard to Elijah, although prayer is written, as it says: 鈥淓lijah the prophet came near and said: Lord, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel鈥 (I Kings 18:36), which is referring to a prayer, crying is not written. How, then, can one conclude a blessing that deals with Elijah by mentioning crying? The Gemara answers that Elijah鈥檚 statement: 鈥淎nswer me, Lord, answer me鈥 (I Kings 18:37), is an expression of crying, even if the term crying does not itself actually appear.

注诇 讛砖砖讬转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讬 砖注谞讛 讗转 讬讜谞讛 讻讜壮 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讬 砖注谞讛 讗转 讚讜讚 讻讜壮 诪讻讚讬 讬讜谞讛 讘转专 讚讜讚 讜砖诇诪讛 讛讜讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪拽讚讬诐 诇讬讛 讘专讬砖讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讞转诐 诪专讞诐 注诇 讛讗专抓 转谞讗 诪砖讜诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专讜 讘专讜讱 诪砖驻讬诇 讛专诪讬诐

搂 The mishna further teaches: For the sixth he recites: He Who answered Jonah; for the seventh he recites: He Who answered David. The Gemara asks: Since Jonah was after David and Solomon, what is the reason that the tanna mentions Jonah first? The Gemara answers: The reason is due to the fact that he wants to conclude the series with: Blessed are You, Lord, Who has mercy on the Land. Therefore, the last blessing mentions David and Solomon, who were kings of Eretz Yisrael and prayed on its behalf. It was taught in the name of Sumakhos that they said he concludes the final blessing with: Blessed are You, Lord, Who humbles the exalted.

砖诇砖 转注谞讬讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 诪转注谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讘诇讬诇讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讬诪讬诐 砖诪讗 转讻讘讚 讛注讘讜讚讛 注诇 讗谞砖讬 讘讬转 讗讘 讜讬讘讜讗讜 讜讬住讬讬注讜 诇讛诐

搂 The mishna teaches that on the first three fasts, the members of the priestly watch fast but do not complete their fasts until nightfall. The mishna then proceeds to cite other halakhot that deal with the members of the priestly watch and the patrilineal family. The Sages taught: For what reason did they say that the members of the priestly watch are permitted to drink wine at nights but not during the days? They said this lest on a certain day the Temple service becomes burdensome for the members of the patrilineal family, and the members of the priestly watch are called to come and assist them. Therefore, it is prohibited for them to drink wine during the day, when their help might be needed, so that they do not enter the Temple after drinking wine.

诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讗谞砖讬 讘讬转 讗讘 诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 注住讜拽讬谉 转诪讬讚 讘注讘讜讚讛

The baraita continues to explain the reason for the mishna鈥檚 ruling. For what reason did they say that the members of the patrilineal family may not drink wine, neither by day nor by night? Because they are constantly engaged in the Temple service.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖诪讻讬专 诪砖诪专转讜 讜诪砖诪专转 讘讬转 讗讘 砖诇讜 讜讬讜讚注 砖讘转讬 讗讘讜转讬讜 拽讘讜注讬谉 砖诐 讗住讜专 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讻诇 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讘诪讻讬专 诪砖诪专转讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讻讬专 诪砖诪专转 讘讬转 讗讘 砖诇讜 讜讬讜讚注 砖讘转讬 讗讘讜转讬讜 拽讘讜注讬谉 砖诐 讗住讜专 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讻诇 讗讜转讛 砖讘转

From here the Sages stated: Even nowadays, after the destruction of the Temple, with regard to any priest who knows his priestly watch, in which his family served, and the watch of his patrilineal family, and he knows that the family of his forefathers was established as fit for the Temple service there, it is prohibited for him to drink wine that entire day, in the event that the Temple is rebuilt on that day and he will be called to return to the service. In the case of a priest who knows his priestly watch, i.e., the week of the year in which his family served, and does not know the watch of his patrilineal family, the day of the week that his family served, but he knows that the family of his forefathers was established there, it is prohibited for him to drink wine that entire week.

讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 诪砖诪专转讜 讜诪砖诪专转 讘讬转 讗讘 砖诇讜 讜讬讜讚注 砖讘转讬 讗讘讜转讬讜 拽讘讜注讬谉 砖诐 讗住讜专 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讻诇 讛砖谞讛

Finally, if he does not know his priestly watch or the watch of his patrilineal family, but he knows that the family of his forefathers was established there, he is prohibited to drink wine that entire year. When the Temple will be rebuilt, his priestly watch might be called upon to serve, and he is unaware of the appointed time for his Temple service.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讗住讜专 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖转拽谞转讜 拽诇拽诇转讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诪讗谉 砖转讜 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讻讛谞讬 讞诪专讗 讻专讘讬

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that in accordance with this reasoning it is prohibited for any priest to drink wine at any time, even if he knows his priestly watch, as the order of the watches might change when the Temple is rebuilt, or perhaps all the watches will participate in the rededication of Temple. However, what can I do, as his misfortune is his advantage? The unfortunate fact that so many years have passed since the destruction of the Temple means that this decree prohibiting the priests from drinking cannot be sustained. Abaye said: In accordance with whose opinion do priests drink wine nowadays? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 讜讗谞砖讬 诪注诪讚 讗住讜专讬诐 诇住驻专 讜诇讻讘住 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讛砖讘转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讻谞住讜 诇诪砖诪专转诐 讻砖讛谉 诪谞讜讜诇讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: It is prohibited for both the members of the priestly watch and the members of the non-priestly watch to cut their hair or launder their garments throughout the week, but on Thursday they are permitted to cut their hair and launder their clothes in deference to Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for these prohibitions? Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: These prohibitions were enacted in order to ensure that the priests will cut their hair and launder their clothes during the week before their service, so that they will not enter their priestly watch when they are unkempt.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诇讱 诪住转驻专 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇注专讘 砖讘转 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪诇讱 诪住转驻专 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诇讱 讘讬驻讬讜 转讞讝讬谞讛 注讬谞讬讱 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇注专讘 砖讘转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪砖诪专讜转 诪转讞讚砖讜转

The Sages taught: A king cuts his hair every day, a High Priest cuts his hair every Friday, and a common priest once every thirty days. The Gemara clarifies: A king cuts his hair every day. What is the reason for this? Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that the verse states: 鈥淵our eyes shall see the king in his beauty鈥 (Isaiah 33:17), which indicates that a king must always look his best. A High Priest cuts his hair every Friday. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: Since the watches are renewed and changed every Friday, it is fitting for every watch to see the High Priest with his hair perfectly groomed.

讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讗讞转 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪谞诇谉 讗转讬讗 驻专注 驻专注 诪谞讝讬专 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜专讗砖诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讜驻专注 诇讗 讬砖诇讞讜 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讛 讙讚诇 驻专注 砖注专 专讗砖讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇砖讬诐

A common priest cuts his hair once every thirty days. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this number? It is derived by a verbal analogy from the word pera with regard to priests and pera in connection with a nazirite. It is written here, concerning priests: 鈥淣either shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks [pera] to grow long鈥 (Ezekiel 44:20), and it is written there, with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall be sacred, he shall let the locks [pera] of the hair of his head grow long鈥 (Numbers 6:5). Just as there, a nazirite who does not specify any other time period cuts his hair after thirty days, so too here, a priest cuts his hair every thirty days.

讜谞讝讬专 讙讜驻讬讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 住转诐 谞讝讬专讜转 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 转诇转讬谉 讛讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 诇讬专讘讜 讻诇诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讛 讻转讘 诇讗 讬砖诇讞讜 驻专注 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜驻专注 诇讗 讬砖诇讞讜 驻专注 诇讬讛讜讬 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬砖诇讞讜

The Gemara asks: And a nazirite himself, from where do we derive that he may not cut his hair for thirty days? Rav Mattana said: It is a principle that an unspecified naziriteship lasts thirty days. The Gemara inquires: From where do we derive this principle? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淗e shall be [yihye] sacred鈥 (Numbers 6:5), and the numerical value [gimatriya] of yihye is thirty. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying in the Torah: They should not grow their hair at all, as they must cut it every day. Abaye said to him: If it were written: They shall not grow long their locks, I might have explained as you originally said. Now that it is written: 鈥淣or suffer their locks to grow long,鈥 this indicates that they may have locks, but they may not let them grow long.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讗讬讚谞讗 谞诪讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 诪讛 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讘讬讗讛 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬讗讛 砖专讬 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: If it is so that cutting one鈥檚 hair is a necessary preparation for the Temple service by Torah law, then even nowadays priests should cut their hair every thirty days as well, in case the Temple is rebuilt and they must resume their service. The Gemara answers: This issue is similar to the prohibition concerning those who have drunk wine. Just as with regard to those who have drunk wine, it is when one enters the Temple that it is prohibited, whereas when one does not enter the Temple it is permitted to drink wine, here the same also applies.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讗住讜专讬诐 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖转拽谞转讜 拽诇拽诇转讜 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诪讗谉 砖转讜 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讻讛谞讬 讞诪专讗

The Gemara questions this conclusion: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the aforementioned baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that it is prohibited for all priests to drink wine at any time. However, what can I do, as his misfortune is his advantage? And Abaye said: In accordance with whose opinion do priests drink wine nowadays?

讻专讘讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘谞谉 讗住专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讛专讛 讬讘谞讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讘注讬谞谉 讻讛谉 讛专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜诇讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪住驻专 讜注讬讬诇

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits priests to drink wine, it may be inferred that the Rabbis prohibit it even nowadays. Why, then, isn鈥檛 it prohibited for priests to grow their hair as well? The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the prohibition? It is due to the hope: May the Temple be speedily rebuilt, and we will require a priest who is fit for the Temple service, and there will be none available, as they have all imbibed wine. The time that it will take for the effects of the wine to wear off will delay the Temple service considerably. Here, however, with regard to hair, it is possible for a priest to cut his hair and be ready to enter and perform the Temple service with minimal delay.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖转讜讬 讬讬谉 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讚讙谞讬 驻讜专转讗 讜注讬讬诇 讻讚专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讚专讱 诪讬诇 讜砖讬谞讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪驻讬讙讬谉 讗转 讛讬讬谉 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖砖转讛 砖讬注讜专 专讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 砖转讛 讬讜转专 诪专讘讬注讬转 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讚专讱 诪讟专讬讚转讜 讜砖讬谞讛 诪砖讻专转讜

The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to those who have drunk wine too, it is possible for him to sleep a little and then enter, in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar Abba, as Rami bar Abba said: Walking a distance of a mil, and similarly, sleeping even a minimal amount, will dispel the effect of wine that one has drunk. The Gemara rejects this proof: Wasn鈥檛 it stated about this halakha that Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They taught this only with regard to one who has drunk the measure of a quarter-log of wine, but with regard to one who has drunk more than a quarter-log, walking this distance will preoccupy and exhaust him all the more, and a small amount of sleep will further intoxicate him. For this reason, it is prohibited for priests to drink wine, lest no suitable priest will be ready for the Temple service.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讚诪讞诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 驻专讜注讬 专讗砖 讚诇讗 诪讞诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

Rav Ashi said that there is a different way to distinguish between these two halakhot. In the case of those who have drunk wine, who desecrate the Temple service, the Sages issued a decree concerning them, that priests should not drink wine even nowadays. However, with regard to those who have long hair, who do not desecrate the Temple service, the Sages did not issue a decree concerning them.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讗诇讜 砖讛谉 讘诪讬转讛 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讜驻专讜注讬 专讗砖 讘砖诇诪讗 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讗诇 转砖转 讗诇讗 驻专讜注讬 专讗砖 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: And these are the transgressors who are punished by death at the hand of Heaven: Priests who enter the Temple to serve who have drunk wine, and those priests who have long hair while they serve. The Gemara asks: Granted, those who have drunk wine are punished by death, as it is explicitly written: 鈥淒rink no wine nor strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you should not die鈥 (Leviticus 10:9). However, with regard to those priests who have long hair, from where do we derive that they are punishable by death?

讚讻转讬讘 讜专讗砖诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 讜驻专注 诇讗 讬砖诇讞讜 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讜讬讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转讜 讻诇 讻讛谉 讘讘讜讗诐 讗诇 讛讞爪专 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讜讗讬转拽讜砖 驻专讜注讬 专讗砖 诇砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 诪讛 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗祝 驻专讜注讬 专讗砖 讘诪讬转讛

The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: 鈥淣either shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks [pera] to grow long鈥 (Ezekiel 44:20), and it is written immediately afterward: 鈥淣either shall any priest drink wine when they enter the inner courtyard鈥 (Ezekiel 44:21). And in this manner the prohibition concerning those who have long hair is juxtaposed with the prohibition concerning those who have drunk wine, to teach the following: Just as those who have drunk wine and perform the Temple service are subject to death, so too, those who have long hair are punishable by death.

讜诪讬谞讛 讗讬 诪讛 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讚诪讞诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讗祝 驻专讜注讬 专讗砖 讚诪讞诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 讻讬 讗讬转拽讜砖 诇诪讬转讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转拽讜砖 讗讘诇 诇讗讞讜诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 讗转拽讜砖

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And from this comparison one can also argue as follows: If so, just as those who have drunk wine desecrate the Temple service, so too, those who have long hair desecrate the service. The Gemara rejects this contention: No, when the two cases were juxtaposed, it was with regard to death that they were juxtaposed. However, as for desecrating the Temple service, in this regard they were not juxtaposed. Consequently, Rav Ashi鈥檚 distinction concerning the practical application of these two halakhot still applies.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪讗谉 讗诪专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 诪转讜专转 诪砖讛 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 讜诪讚讘专讬 拽讘诇讛 诇诪讚谞讜 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 注专诇 诇讘 讜注专诇 讘砖专 诇讗 讬讘讜讗 讗诇 诪拽讚砖讬 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪讗谉 讗诪专讛

On this issue, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Before Ezekiel came and stated this halakha, who said it? From where was it derived before Ezekiel that priests may not serve with long hair? This prohibition, which is not mentioned in the Torah, could not have been innovated by Ezekiel, as prophets may not enact new halakhot. Rav Ashi said to him: And according to your reasoning, there is a similar difficulty with that which Rabbi 岣sda said: This matter, that an uncircumcised priest may not serve in the Temple, we did not learn it from the Torah of Moses, but we learned it from the text of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings: 鈥淣o stranger, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter my Temple鈥 (Ezekiel 44:9). Before Ezekiel came, who said that it is prohibited for an uncircumcised priest to serve?

讗诇讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专 诇讛 讜讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜讗住诪讻讛 讗拽专讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专 诇讛 讜讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜讗住诪讻讛 讗拽专讗 讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 讛诇讻讛 诇诪讬转讛 诇讗讞讜诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬

Rather, you must say that it is learned as a definite tradition, like the rest of the Oral Torah, and Ezekiel came and supported it by means of a verse in his book. He did not, however, teach this halakha anew. Here too, with regard to a priest with long hair, it is learned as a tradition, and Ezekiel came and supported it by a verse. And when they learned this halakha, they learned only that one is punishable by death; however, with regard to desecrating the Temple service, they did not learn this halakha.

讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 讚诇讗 诇诪讬住驻讚 诇驻谞讬讜 讗住讜专 诇讗讞专讬讜 诪讜转专 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讬谉 讬讜诪讬讗 讚诇讗 诇讛转注谞讗讛 讘讛讜谉 讜诪拽爪转讛讜谉 讚诇讗 诇诪讬住驻讚 讘讛讜谉 诪专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讚谞讬住谉 讜注讚 转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讗讬转讜拽诐 转诪讬讚讗 讚诇讗 诇诪讬住驻讚 讘讛讜谉 诪转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 注讚 住讜祝 诪讜注讚讗 讗讬转讜转讘 讞讙讗 讚砖讘讜注讬讗 讚诇讗 诇诪讬住驻讚 讘讛讜谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Any day concerning which it is written in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit not to eulogize on that day, it is also prohibited to fast on the day before, but it is permitted to do so on the following day. The Sages taught in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit: These are the days on which fasting is prohibited, and on some of them eulogizing is prohibited as well: From the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth of the month, the proper sacrifice of the daily offering was established, and therefore it was decreed not to eulogize on these dates. From the eighth of Nisan until the end of the festival of Passover, the festival of Shavuot was restored and it was likewise decreed not to eulogize during this period.

讗诪专 诪专 诪专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讚谞讬住谉 注讚 转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讗讬转讜拽诐 转诪讬讚讗 讚诇讗 诇诪讬住驻讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪专讬砖 讬专讞讗 诇讬诪讗 诪转专讬 讘谞讬住谉 讜专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 讙讜驻讬讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讗住讜专 讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬讜

The Gemara seeks to clarify these statements by comparing them to the ruling of the mishna. The Master said above: From the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth of the month, the daily offering was established, and therefore it was decreed not to eulogize on these dates. The Gemara asks: Why do I need Megillat Ta鈥檃nit to say: From the New Moon? Let it say: From the second of Nisan, as the New Moon is itself a holiday, and it is already prohibited to eulogize on that day. Rav said: It is necessary to mention the New Moon of Nisan only to prohibit eulogizing on the day before, in accordance with the statement in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit that fasting on the day before any of the specified commemorative days is also prohibited.

讜砖诇驻谞讬讜 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬 专讗砖 讞讚砖 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讜讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讞讬讝讜拽

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the day before the New Moon of Nisan as well, one can derive the prohibition against eulogizing on this day from the fact that it is the day before the New Moon. Since it is prohibited to fast on the New Moon, it is likewise prohibited on the day before. The Gemara answers that as the New Moon is by Torah law and a Torah law requires no reinforcement, it is permitted to fast on the previous day.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讬诪讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讛讻转讜讘讬谉 讘诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛谉 讜诇讗讞专讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讜诪讛 讛驻专砖 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讛诇诇讜 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讞讬讝讜拽 讛诇诇讜 讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讞讬讝讜拽

As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to these days that are written in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, it is prohibited to fast before them and after them. However, concerning Shabbatot and Festivals, fasting on those days is prohibited, but before them and after them fasting is permitted. And what is the difference between this and that? These, Shabbat and Festivals, are statements of Torah, and statements of Torah do not require reinforcement, whereas these days mentioned in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit are statements of rabbinic law, and statements of rabbinic law require reinforcement.

讗诪专 诪专 诪转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 注讚 住讜祝 讛诪讜注讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 注讚 住讜祝 讛诪讜注讚 诇讬诪讗 注讚 讛诪讜注讚 讜诪讜注讚 讙讜驻讬讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗

The Master said above: From the eighth of Nisan until the end of the festival of Passover, the festival of Shavuot was restored and it was decreed not to eulogize. The Gemara asks: Why do I need Megillat Ta鈥檃nit to say: Until the end of the Festival? Let it say: Until the Festival, as it is anyway prohibited to eulogize on the festival of Passover. Rav Pappa said that this, too, should be explained as Rav said: It is necessary to mention the first of Nisan

Scroll To Top