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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 30, 2021 | 讻状讜 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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Taanit 18

A number of aspects regarding the days mentioned in Megillat Taanit in the month of Nissan need clarification. Why is there an overlap of days? Regarding the debate in the Mishna about whether the days before or after are also days on which one cannot fast, who do we hold like? Different opinions are brought. Rabbi Yochanan is quoted as ruling on this issue like Rabbi Yosi. However, this seems to contradict an unattributed Mishna and it is known that Rabbi Yochanan always holds by unattributed Mishnayot. How is that resolved? In the context of all these discussions, several other days listed in Megillat Taanit come up and the Gemara explains why these days were days for celebration. The third chapter begins with a description of other calamities that would be reason to declare a fast. However, there is no waiting period for those, as there is by the rains.

讗诇讗 诇讗住讜专 讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讗住讜专 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讗住讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚讛讜讬 讬讜诪讗 讚诪拽诪讬 讬讜诪讗 讚诪讬转讜拽诐 转诪讬讚讗 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讚讘转专 注砖专讬谉 讜转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛

only to prohibit eulogizing on the day before. Here too, it is necessary to mention Passover only to prohibit eulogizing on the following day. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that eulogizing is prohibited both on the day before the date recorded in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit and on the following day. The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the twenty-ninth of Adar too, why state specifically that eulogizing is prohibited then because it is the day before the day on which the daily offering was established? Let him derive this prohibition from the fact that it is the day after the twenty-eighth of Adar.

讚转谞讬讗 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讗转转 讘砖讜专转讗 讟讘转讗 诇讬讛讜讚讗讬 讚诇讗 讬注讬讚讜谉 诪谉 讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖驻注诐 讗讞转 讙讝专讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛专砖注讛 砖诪讚 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 讬注住拽讜 讘转讜专讛 讜砖诇讗 讬诪讜诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讛诐 讜砖讬讞诇诇讜 砖讘转讜转 诪讛 注砖讛 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讜讞讘专讬讜 讛诇讻讜 讜谞讟诇讜 注爪讛 诪诪讟专讜谞讬转讗 讗讞转 砖讻诇 讙讚讜诇讬 专讜诪讬 诪爪讜讬讬谉 讗爪诇讛

As it is taught in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit: On the twenty-eighth of Adar good tidings came to the Jews, that they would not be restricted from Torah study, and they declared this date a commemorative day. The baraita proceeds to describe the events of this day. As on one occasion the wicked empire, Rome, issued a decree of apostasy against the Jews, that they may not occupy themselves with Torah study, and that they may not circumcise their sons, and that they must desecrate Shabbat. What did Yehuda ben Shammua and his colleagues do? They went and sought the advice of a certain Roman matron [matronita] whose company was kept by all the prominent people of Rome.

讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 注诪讚讜 讜讛驻讙讬谞讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讛诇讻讜 讜讛驻讙讬谞讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诪专讜 讗讬 砖诪讬诐 诇讗 讗讞讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 诇讗 讘谞讬 讗讘 讗讞讚 讗谞讞谞讜 诇讗 讘谞讬 讗诐 讗讞转 讗谞讞谞讜 诪讛 谞砖转谞讬谞讜 诪讻诇 讗讜诪讛 讜诇砖讜谉 砖讗转诐 讙讜讝专讬谉 注诇讬谞讜 讙讝讬专讜转 专注讜转 讜讘讟诇讜诐 讜讗讜转讜 讬讜诐 注砖讗讜讛讜 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

She said to them: Arise and cry out [hafginu] at night. They went and cried out at night, saying: O Heaven! Are we not brothers? Are we not children of one father? Are we not the children of one mother? How are we different from any other nation and tongue that you single us out and issue against us evil decrees? Their cries were effective, and the authorities annulled the decrees, and they made that day a commemorative holiday.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讞讚砖 诪注讜讘专

搂 Since the twenty-eighth of Adar is also a commemorative day, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it is also prohibited to fast on the following day. The question therefore remains: Why was it necessary to list the New Moon of Nisan, when the day before was already prohibited? Abaye said: It is necessary to include the New Moon of Nisan only for the case of a full, thirty-day month. If the month of Adar is thirty days long, fasting on the thirtieth day would be prohibited only because it is the day preceding the New Moon, not because it follows the twenty-eighth of Adar.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇讞讜讚砖 讞住专 讻诇 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讘转注谞讬转 讗住讜专 讘讛住驻讚 诪讜转专 讜讝讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜讟诇 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注爪诪讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛住驻讚 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that we are dealing with a deficient month, with twenty-nine days, the inclusion of the New Moon of Nisan can still be explained. The reason is that with regard to all days that follow the dates listed in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, fasting is prohibited but eulogizing is permitted. But in this case, since the twenty-ninth of Adar is positioned between two commemorative holidays, the twenty-eighth of Adar and the New Moon of Nisan, the Sages made it like a commemorative holiday in its own right, and it is therefore prohibited even to eulogize on this date.

讗诪专 诪专 诪转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讜注讚 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 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 诪转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 诇讬诪讗 诪转砖注讛 讘讬讛 讜转诪谞讬讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讗住讜专 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讚讗讬转讜拽诐 讘讬讛 转诪讬讚讗

The Master said above, in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit: 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 during this period. The Gemara asks: Why do I need it to say: From the eighth of Nisan? Let the tanna say: From the ninth of Nisan, and the eighth itself will still be prohibited because, as stated earlier, it is the day on which the daily offering was established.

讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪拽诇注 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜讘讟诇讬谞讬讛 诇砖讘注讛 转诪谞讬讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讗住讜专 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 拽诪讗 讚讗讬转讜转讘 讘讬讛 讞讙讗 讚砖讘讜注讬讗

The Gemara answers: Since if a calamitous event happened and they canceled the seven days commemorating the establishment of the daily offering, the eighth day itself will remain prohibited, as it is the first day on which the festival of Shavuot was restored. Since this date is not merely the last of the series for the daily offering, but it also commemorates the restoration of Shavuot, it is not affected by the cancellation of the previous seven days.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讬拽诇注 诪讬诇转讗 讜讘讟诇讬谞讬讛 诇注砖专讬诐 讜转诪谞讬讗 注砖专讬谉 讜转砖注讛 讙讜驻讬讛 讗住讜专 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讚诪拽诪讬 讬讜诪讗 讚讗讬转讜拽诐 转诪讬讚讗

The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, the same logic can be applied to the twenty-ninth of Adar as well: Since if a calamitous event happened and they canceled the commemoration of the twenty-eighth of Adar, nevertheless, the twenty-ninth day itself will remain prohibited, as it is the first day on which the daily offering was established.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

It was stated that there is a dispute between amora鈥檌m: Rav 岣yya bar Asi said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that with regard to all the days mentioned in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit on which eulogizing is prohibited, it is likewise prohibited to eulogize on the day before and the day after. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the tanna of the unattributed mishna, who said that although it is prohibited to eulogize on the day before, it is permitted on the day after.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛讜谉 讘讛讜谉 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讛谉 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 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: And what is the meaning when Megillat Ta鈥檃nit states: On them, on them, twice, in the phrases: Not to eulogize on them, and: Not to fast on them. This phrase is repeated to say to you that fasting and eulogizing on these days themselves is prohibited, but on the days before and on the following days it is permitted. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. How, then, can it be said that Shmuel ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir?

诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 转谞讗 讚诪讬拽诇 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注讬讛 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讚诪讬拽诇 讟驻讬 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara answers: Initially, Shmuel maintained that since there is no other tanna as lenient as Rabbi Meir, he said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. When he heard that the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was more lenient, he said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Shmuel consistently ruled in the most lenient manner possible on this issue.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 讘讗诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讘讗诇讬 讗住讘专讗 诇讱 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚诇讗 诇讛转注谞讗讛

And similarly, the Sage Bali said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara relates that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Bali: I will explain this ruling to you. When Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, he was not referring to all matters. Rather, he spoke specifically with regard to the day before those dates concerning which Megillat Ta鈥檃nit said: Fasting is prohibited. However, with regard to those days on which it is prohibited to eulogize, he did not rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that eulogizing on the following day is permitted.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讗讞专讬谉

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say as a principle that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna. And we learned in a mishna: Although the Sages said, with regard to reading of the Scroll of Esther, that one may read it earlier but one may not read it later,

诪讜转专讬谉 讘讛住驻讚 讜转注谞讬转 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘谞讬 讞诪讬住专 讜拽讗 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讘讗专讘讬住专 讜诪讬 砖专讬

as the Sages decreed that in certain places one may read the Scroll of Esther on the eleventh, twelfth, or thirteenth of Adar, nevertheless, it is permitted to eulogize and fast on these days. The Gemara clarifies: When does this ruling apply? If we say that it applies to those in walled cities, who normally read the scroll on the fifteenth of Adar and yet this year they read it on the fourteenth, a day on which they normally are permitted to fast and eulogize, but this cannot be the case, as are they permitted to fast and eulogize at all on these days?

讜讛讻转讬讘 讘诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 讬讜诐 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讘讜 讜讬讜诐 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讜 讬讜诪讬 驻讜专讬讗 讗讬谞讜谉 讚诇讗 诇诪讬住驻讚 讘讛讜谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗住讜专 讗转 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗转 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛

But isn鈥檛 it written in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit: The day of the fourteenth of Adar and the day of the fifteenth of Adar are the days of Purim, on which eulogizing is prohibited. And Rava said: Since these days are already mentioned in the Bible (Esther 9:18鈥19), it is necessary to state this halakha in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit only to prohibit those living in these walled cities from fasting and eulogizing on this date, the fourteenth, and those living in these non-walled cities from fasting and eulogizing on this date, the fifteenth.

讜讗诇讗 讘谞讬 讗专讘讬住专 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讘转诇讬住专 讬讜诐 谞讬拽谞讜专 讛讜讗 讜讗诇讗 讘谞讬 讗专讘讬住专 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讘转专讬住专 讬讜诐 讟讜专讬讬谞讜住 讛讜讗

The Gemara continues its explanation of the difficulty. But rather, the mishna must be referring to those who normally read on the fourteenth of Adar, but who read the Scroll of Esther early, on the thirteenth. However, it is already prohibited to fast on the thirteenth, as it is Nicanor鈥檚 Day, which is a commemorative day in its own right. But rather, you will say that the mishna is referring to those residents of cities who normally read on the fourteenth, but who read it early that year, on the twelfth; however, the twelfth of Adar is also a commemorative day, as it is Trajan鈥檚 Day.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚拽讗 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讘讞讚讬住专 讜拽转谞讬 诪讜转专 讘讛住驻讚 讜讘转注谞讬转

Rather, isn鈥檛 the mishna referring to a case where they read the Scroll of Esther on the eleventh of Adar, and nevertheless that mishna teaches that it is permitted to eulogize and fast on this day, despite the fact that it is the day before Trajan鈥檚 Day? The opinion in this unattributed mishna is not in accordance with that of Rabbi Yosei, which means that there is a contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

诇讗 讘谞讬 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讜拽讗 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讘转专讬住专 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讬讜诐 讟专讬讬谞讜住 讛讜讗 讬讜诐 讟专讬讬谞讜住 讙讜驻讬讛 讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟诇讜讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讛专讙讜 讘讜 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗讞讬讛 讗讞讬讜 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙讝专 转注谞讬转讗 讘转专讬住专 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讬讜诐 讟讜专讬讬谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讬讜诐 讟讜专讬讬谞讜住 讙讜驻讬讛 讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟诇讜讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讛专讙讜 讘讜 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗讞讬讛 讗讞讬讜

The Gemara answers: No; the mishna is actually referring to those who normally read on the fourteenth, but who read it that year on the twelfth of Adar. And with regard to that which you said, that it is Trajan鈥檚 Day, Trajan鈥檚 Day itself was annulled and is no longer celebrated, since Shemaya and his brother A岣ya were killed on that day. We learn this as in the incident when Rav Na岣an decreed a fast on the twelfth of Adar and the Sages said to him: It is Trajan鈥檚 Day. He said to them: Trajan鈥檚 Day itself was annulled, since Shemaya and his brother A岣ya were killed on that day.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬 谞讬拽谞讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛砖转讗 讗讬讛讜 讙讜驻讬讛 讘讟诇讜讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讬讜诐 谞讬拽谞讜专 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝专

The Gemara asks: And let him derive that fasting on the twelfth is prohibited in any case, as it is the day before Nicanor鈥檚 Day. Rav Ashi said: Now that with regard to Trajan鈥檚 Day itself, they annulled it, will we then arise and issue a decree not to fast on this date due to the following day, Nicanor鈥檚 Day?

诪讗讬 谞讬拽谞讜专 讜诪讗讬 讟讜专讬讬谞讜住 讚转谞讬讗 谞讬拽谞讜专 讗讞讚 诪讗驻专讻讬 讬讜讜谞讬诐 讛讬讛 讜讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 讛讬讛 诪谞讬祝 讬讚讜 注诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬诪转讬 转驻讜诇 讘讬讚讬 讜讗专诪住谞讛 讜讻砖讙讘专讛 诪诇讻讜转 讘讬转 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讜谞爪讞讜诐 拽爪爪讜 讘讛讜谞讜转 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讜转诇讗讜诐 讘砖注专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 驻讛 砖讛讬讛 诪讚讘专 讘讙讗讜讛 讜讬讚讬讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪谞讬驻讜转 注诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转注砖讛 讘讛诐 谞拽诪讛

In relation to the above, the Gemara inquires: What is the origin of Nicanor鈥檚 Day and what is the origin of Trajan鈥檚 Day? As it is taught in a baraita: Nicanor was one of the generals [iparkhei] in the Greek army, and each and every day he would wave his hand over Judea and Jerusalem and say: When will this city fall into my hands, and I shall trample it? And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame the Greeks and emerged victorious over them, they killed Nicanor in battle, cut off his thumbs and big toes, and hung them on the gates of Jerusalem, saying: The mouth that spoke with pride, and the hands that waved over Jerusalem, may vengeance be taken against them. This occurred on the thirteenth of Adar.

诪讗讬 讟讜专讬讬谞讜住 讗诪专讜 讻砖讘拽砖 讟讜专讬讬谞讜住 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 诇讜诇讬谞讜住 讜驻驻讜住 讗讞讬讜 讘诇讜讚拽讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗诐 诪注诪讜 砖诇 讞谞谞讬讛 诪讬砖讗诇 讜注讝专讬讛 讗转诐 讬讘讗 讗诇讛讬讻诐 讜讬爪讬诇 讗转讻诐 诪讬讚讬 讻讚专讱 砖讛爪讬诇 讗转 讞谞谞讬讛 诪讬砖讗诇 讜注讝专讬讛 诪讬讚 谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讞谞谞讬讛 诪讬砖讗诇 讜注讝专讬讛 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讙诪讜专讬谉 讛讬讜 讜专讗讜讬讬谉 讛讬讜 诇讬注砖讜转 诇讛诐 谞住 讜谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 诪诇讱 讛讙讜谉 讛讬讛 讜专讗讜讬 诇注砖讜转 谞住 注诇 讬讚讜

What is the origin of Trajan鈥檚 Day? They said in explanation: When Trajan sought to kill the important leaders Luleyanus and his brother Pappas in Laodicea, he said to them: If you are from the nation of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my hand, just as He saved Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Luleyanus and Pappas said to him: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were full-fledged righteous people, and they were worthy that a miracle should be performed for them, and Nebuchadnezzar was a legitimate king who rose to power through his merit, and it is fitting that a miracle be performed through him.

讜讗讜转讜 专砖注 讛讚讬讜讟 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇注砖讜转 谞住 注诇 讬讚讜 讜讗谞讜 谞转讞讬讬讘谞讜 讻诇讬讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讗转讛 讛讜专讙谞讜 讛专讘讛 讛讜专讙讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 诇诪拽讜诐 讜讛专讘讛 讚讜讘讬谉 讜讗专讬讜转 讬砖 诇讜 诇诪拽讜诐 讘注讜诇诪讜 砖驻讜讙注讬谉 讘谞讜 讜讛讜专讙讬谉 讗讜转谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 诪住专谞讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讬讚讱 讗诇讗 砖注转讬讚 诇讬驻专注 讚诪讬谞讜 诪讬讚讱

But this wicked man, Trajan, is a commoner, not a real king, and it is not fitting that a miracle be performed through him. Luleyanus and Pappas continued: And we are not wholly righteous, and have been condemned to destruction by the Omnipresent for our sins. And if you do not kill us, the Omnipresent has many other executioners. And if men do not kill us, the Omnipresent has many bears and lions in His world that can hurt us and kill us. Instead, the Holy One, Blessed be He, placed us into your hands only so that He will avenge our blood in the future.

讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讛专讙谉 诪讬讚 讗诪专讜 诇讗 讝讝讜 诪砖诐 注讚 砖讘讗讜 讚讬讜驻诇讬 诪专讜诪讬 讜驻爪注讜 讗转 诪讜讞讜 讘讙讬讝专讬谉

Even so, Trajan remained unmoved by their response and killed them immediately. It is said that they had not moved from the place of execution when two officials [diyoflei] arrived from Rome with permission to remove Trajan from power, and they split his skull with clubs. This was viewed as an act of divine retribution and was established as a commemorative day.

讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 转注谞讬转 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 讘转讞诇讛 讘讞诪讬砖讬 讻讜壮 讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 转注谞讬转 讘专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讻讜壮 讜讻诪讛 讛讜讬讗 讛转讞诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讗诪专 砖诇砖 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗讞转

搂 The mishna taught: One may not decree a fast on the community starting on a Thursday, so as not to cause prices to rise. Furthermore, one may not decree a fast on New Moons, on Hanukkah, or on Purim. However, if one began a set of fasts, one does not interrupt the sequence for these days. The Gemara asks: And how many fasts are considered a beginning? Rav A岣 said: If one fasted three fasts before the festive day. Rabbi Asi said: Even if one fasted one fast before it.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转注谞讛 讜诪砖诇讬诐 讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 诪转注谞讛 讜诪砖诇讬诐

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This halakha of the mishna that a fast that occurs on a festival is not observed, is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said it in the name of Rabban Gamliel. However, the Rabbis say: If a communal fast occurs on one of these days, one must fast and complete the fast until nightfall. Mar Zutra taught in the name of Rav Huna: The practical halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one fasts and completes his fast until nightfall.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 住讚专 转注谞讬讜转 讻讬爪讚

 

诪转谞讬壮 住讚专 转注谞讬讜转 讗诇讜 讛讗诪讜专 讘专讘讬注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讘诇 爪诪讞讬诐 砖砖谞讜 诪转专讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬讚 讜讻谉 砖驻住拽讜 讙砖诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讙砖诐 诇讙砖诐 讗专讘注讬诐 讬讜诐 诪转专讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪讻转 讘爪讜专转

MISHNA: The order of these fasts of increasing severity, as explained in Chapter One, is stated only in a case when the first rainfall has not materialized. However, if there is vegetation that grew and its appearance changed due to disease, the court does not wait at all; they cry out about it immediately. And likewise, if rain ceased for a period of forty days between one rainfall and another, they cry out about it because it is a plague of drought.

讬专讚讜 诇爪诪讞讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬专讚讜 诇讗讬诇谉 诇讗讬诇谉 讜诇讗 诇爪诪讞讬谉 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讘讜专讜转 诇砖讬讞讬谉 讜诇诪注专讜转 诪转专讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬讚 讜讻谉 注讬专 砖诇讗 讬专讚讜 注诇讬讛 讙砖诪讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛诪讟专转讬 注诇 注讬专 讗讞转 讜注诇 注讬专 讗讞转 诇讗 讗诪讟讬专 讞诇拽讛 讗讞转 转诪讟专 讜讙讜壮

If sufficient rain fell for the vegetation but not enough fell for the trees; or if it was enough for the trees but not for the vegetation; or if sufficient rain fell for both this and that, i.e., vegetation and trees, but not enough to fill the cisterns, ditches, and caves with water to last the summer, they cry out about it immediately. And likewise, if there is a particular city upon which it did not rain, while the surrounding area did receive rain, this is considered a divine curse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I caused it to rain upon one city, but caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon, and the portion upon which it did not rain withered鈥 (Amos 4:7).

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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Taanit: 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 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Taanit 18

讗诇讗 诇讗住讜专 讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讗住讜专 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讗住讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚讛讜讬 讬讜诪讗 讚诪拽诪讬 讬讜诪讗 讚诪讬转讜拽诐 转诪讬讚讗 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讚讘转专 注砖专讬谉 讜转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛

only to prohibit eulogizing on the day before. Here too, it is necessary to mention Passover only to prohibit eulogizing on the following day. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that eulogizing is prohibited both on the day before the date recorded in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit and on the following day. The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the twenty-ninth of Adar too, why state specifically that eulogizing is prohibited then because it is the day before the day on which the daily offering was established? Let him derive this prohibition from the fact that it is the day after the twenty-eighth of Adar.

讚转谞讬讗 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讗转转 讘砖讜专转讗 讟讘转讗 诇讬讛讜讚讗讬 讚诇讗 讬注讬讚讜谉 诪谉 讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖驻注诐 讗讞转 讙讝专讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛专砖注讛 砖诪讚 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 讬注住拽讜 讘转讜专讛 讜砖诇讗 讬诪讜诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讛诐 讜砖讬讞诇诇讜 砖讘转讜转 诪讛 注砖讛 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讜讞讘专讬讜 讛诇讻讜 讜谞讟诇讜 注爪讛 诪诪讟专讜谞讬转讗 讗讞转 砖讻诇 讙讚讜诇讬 专讜诪讬 诪爪讜讬讬谉 讗爪诇讛

As it is taught in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit: On the twenty-eighth of Adar good tidings came to the Jews, that they would not be restricted from Torah study, and they declared this date a commemorative day. The baraita proceeds to describe the events of this day. As on one occasion the wicked empire, Rome, issued a decree of apostasy against the Jews, that they may not occupy themselves with Torah study, and that they may not circumcise their sons, and that they must desecrate Shabbat. What did Yehuda ben Shammua and his colleagues do? They went and sought the advice of a certain Roman matron [matronita] whose company was kept by all the prominent people of Rome.

讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 注诪讚讜 讜讛驻讙讬谞讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讛诇讻讜 讜讛驻讙讬谞讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诪专讜 讗讬 砖诪讬诐 诇讗 讗讞讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 诇讗 讘谞讬 讗讘 讗讞讚 讗谞讞谞讜 诇讗 讘谞讬 讗诐 讗讞转 讗谞讞谞讜 诪讛 谞砖转谞讬谞讜 诪讻诇 讗讜诪讛 讜诇砖讜谉 砖讗转诐 讙讜讝专讬谉 注诇讬谞讜 讙讝讬专讜转 专注讜转 讜讘讟诇讜诐 讜讗讜转讜 讬讜诐 注砖讗讜讛讜 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

She said to them: Arise and cry out [hafginu] at night. They went and cried out at night, saying: O Heaven! Are we not brothers? Are we not children of one father? Are we not the children of one mother? How are we different from any other nation and tongue that you single us out and issue against us evil decrees? Their cries were effective, and the authorities annulled the decrees, and they made that day a commemorative holiday.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讞讚砖 诪注讜讘专

搂 Since the twenty-eighth of Adar is also a commemorative day, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it is also prohibited to fast on the following day. The question therefore remains: Why was it necessary to list the New Moon of Nisan, when the day before was already prohibited? Abaye said: It is necessary to include the New Moon of Nisan only for the case of a full, thirty-day month. If the month of Adar is thirty days long, fasting on the thirtieth day would be prohibited only because it is the day preceding the New Moon, not because it follows the twenty-eighth of Adar.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇讞讜讚砖 讞住专 讻诇 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讘转注谞讬转 讗住讜专 讘讛住驻讚 诪讜转专 讜讝讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜讟诇 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 注砖讗讜讛讜 讻讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注爪诪讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛住驻讚 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that we are dealing with a deficient month, with twenty-nine days, the inclusion of the New Moon of Nisan can still be explained. The reason is that with regard to all days that follow the dates listed in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, fasting is prohibited but eulogizing is permitted. But in this case, since the twenty-ninth of Adar is positioned between two commemorative holidays, the twenty-eighth of Adar and the New Moon of Nisan, the Sages made it like a commemorative holiday in its own right, and it is therefore prohibited even to eulogize on this date.

讗诪专 诪专 诪转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讜注讚 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 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 诪转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 诇讬诪讗 诪转砖注讛 讘讬讛 讜转诪谞讬讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讗住讜专 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讚讗讬转讜拽诐 讘讬讛 转诪讬讚讗

The Master said above, in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit: 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 during this period. The Gemara asks: Why do I need it to say: From the eighth of Nisan? Let the tanna say: From the ninth of Nisan, and the eighth itself will still be prohibited because, as stated earlier, it is the day on which the daily offering was established.

讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪拽诇注 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜讘讟诇讬谞讬讛 诇砖讘注讛 转诪谞讬讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讗住讜专 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 拽诪讗 讚讗讬转讜转讘 讘讬讛 讞讙讗 讚砖讘讜注讬讗

The Gemara answers: Since if a calamitous event happened and they canceled the seven days commemorating the establishment of the daily offering, the eighth day itself will remain prohibited, as it is the first day on which the festival of Shavuot was restored. Since this date is not merely the last of the series for the daily offering, but it also commemorates the restoration of Shavuot, it is not affected by the cancellation of the previous seven days.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讬拽诇注 诪讬诇转讗 讜讘讟诇讬谞讬讛 诇注砖专讬诐 讜转诪谞讬讗 注砖专讬谉 讜转砖注讛 讙讜驻讬讛 讗住讜专 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讚诪拽诪讬 讬讜诪讗 讚讗讬转讜拽诐 转诪讬讚讗

The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, the same logic can be applied to the twenty-ninth of Adar as well: Since if a calamitous event happened and they canceled the commemoration of the twenty-eighth of Adar, nevertheless, the twenty-ninth day itself will remain prohibited, as it is the first day on which the daily offering was established.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

It was stated that there is a dispute between amora鈥檌m: Rav 岣yya bar Asi said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that with regard to all the days mentioned in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit on which eulogizing is prohibited, it is likewise prohibited to eulogize on the day before and the day after. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the tanna of the unattributed mishna, who said that although it is prohibited to eulogize on the day before, it is permitted on the day after.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛讜谉 讘讛讜谉 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讛谉 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 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: And what is the meaning when Megillat Ta鈥檃nit states: On them, on them, twice, in the phrases: Not to eulogize on them, and: Not to fast on them. This phrase is repeated to say to you that fasting and eulogizing on these days themselves is prohibited, but on the days before and on the following days it is permitted. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. How, then, can it be said that Shmuel ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir?

诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 转谞讗 讚诪讬拽诇 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注讬讛 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讚诪讬拽诇 讟驻讬 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara answers: Initially, Shmuel maintained that since there is no other tanna as lenient as Rabbi Meir, he said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. When he heard that the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was more lenient, he said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Shmuel consistently ruled in the most lenient manner possible on this issue.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 讘讗诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讘讗诇讬 讗住讘专讗 诇讱 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚诇讗 诇讛转注谞讗讛

And similarly, the Sage Bali said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara relates that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Bali: I will explain this ruling to you. When Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, he was not referring to all matters. Rather, he spoke specifically with regard to the day before those dates concerning which Megillat Ta鈥檃nit said: Fasting is prohibited. However, with regard to those days on which it is prohibited to eulogize, he did not rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that eulogizing on the following day is permitted.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讗讞专讬谉

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say as a principle that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna. And we learned in a mishna: Although the Sages said, with regard to reading of the Scroll of Esther, that one may read it earlier but one may not read it later,

诪讜转专讬谉 讘讛住驻讚 讜转注谞讬转 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘谞讬 讞诪讬住专 讜拽讗 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讘讗专讘讬住专 讜诪讬 砖专讬

as the Sages decreed that in certain places one may read the Scroll of Esther on the eleventh, twelfth, or thirteenth of Adar, nevertheless, it is permitted to eulogize and fast on these days. The Gemara clarifies: When does this ruling apply? If we say that it applies to those in walled cities, who normally read the scroll on the fifteenth of Adar and yet this year they read it on the fourteenth, a day on which they normally are permitted to fast and eulogize, but this cannot be the case, as are they permitted to fast and eulogize at all on these days?

讜讛讻转讬讘 讘诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 讬讜诐 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讘讜 讜讬讜诐 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讜 讬讜诪讬 驻讜专讬讗 讗讬谞讜谉 讚诇讗 诇诪讬住驻讚 讘讛讜谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗住讜专 讗转 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗转 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛

But isn鈥檛 it written in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit: The day of the fourteenth of Adar and the day of the fifteenth of Adar are the days of Purim, on which eulogizing is prohibited. And Rava said: Since these days are already mentioned in the Bible (Esther 9:18鈥19), it is necessary to state this halakha in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit only to prohibit those living in these walled cities from fasting and eulogizing on this date, the fourteenth, and those living in these non-walled cities from fasting and eulogizing on this date, the fifteenth.

讜讗诇讗 讘谞讬 讗专讘讬住专 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讘转诇讬住专 讬讜诐 谞讬拽谞讜专 讛讜讗 讜讗诇讗 讘谞讬 讗专讘讬住专 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讘转专讬住专 讬讜诐 讟讜专讬讬谞讜住 讛讜讗

The Gemara continues its explanation of the difficulty. But rather, the mishna must be referring to those who normally read on the fourteenth of Adar, but who read the Scroll of Esther early, on the thirteenth. However, it is already prohibited to fast on the thirteenth, as it is Nicanor鈥檚 Day, which is a commemorative day in its own right. But rather, you will say that the mishna is referring to those residents of cities who normally read on the fourteenth, but who read it early that year, on the twelfth; however, the twelfth of Adar is also a commemorative day, as it is Trajan鈥檚 Day.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚拽讗 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讘讞讚讬住专 讜拽转谞讬 诪讜转专 讘讛住驻讚 讜讘转注谞讬转

Rather, isn鈥檛 the mishna referring to a case where they read the Scroll of Esther on the eleventh of Adar, and nevertheless that mishna teaches that it is permitted to eulogize and fast on this day, despite the fact that it is the day before Trajan鈥檚 Day? The opinion in this unattributed mishna is not in accordance with that of Rabbi Yosei, which means that there is a contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

诇讗 讘谞讬 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讜拽讗 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讘转专讬住专 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讬讜诐 讟专讬讬谞讜住 讛讜讗 讬讜诐 讟专讬讬谞讜住 讙讜驻讬讛 讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟诇讜讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讛专讙讜 讘讜 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗讞讬讛 讗讞讬讜 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙讝专 转注谞讬转讗 讘转专讬住专 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讬讜诐 讟讜专讬讬谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讬讜诐 讟讜专讬讬谞讜住 讙讜驻讬讛 讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟诇讜讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讛专讙讜 讘讜 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗讞讬讛 讗讞讬讜

The Gemara answers: No; the mishna is actually referring to those who normally read on the fourteenth, but who read it that year on the twelfth of Adar. And with regard to that which you said, that it is Trajan鈥檚 Day, Trajan鈥檚 Day itself was annulled and is no longer celebrated, since Shemaya and his brother A岣ya were killed on that day. We learn this as in the incident when Rav Na岣an decreed a fast on the twelfth of Adar and the Sages said to him: It is Trajan鈥檚 Day. He said to them: Trajan鈥檚 Day itself was annulled, since Shemaya and his brother A岣ya were killed on that day.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬 谞讬拽谞讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛砖转讗 讗讬讛讜 讙讜驻讬讛 讘讟诇讜讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讬讜诐 谞讬拽谞讜专 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝专

The Gemara asks: And let him derive that fasting on the twelfth is prohibited in any case, as it is the day before Nicanor鈥檚 Day. Rav Ashi said: Now that with regard to Trajan鈥檚 Day itself, they annulled it, will we then arise and issue a decree not to fast on this date due to the following day, Nicanor鈥檚 Day?

诪讗讬 谞讬拽谞讜专 讜诪讗讬 讟讜专讬讬谞讜住 讚转谞讬讗 谞讬拽谞讜专 讗讞讚 诪讗驻专讻讬 讬讜讜谞讬诐 讛讬讛 讜讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 讛讬讛 诪谞讬祝 讬讚讜 注诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬诪转讬 转驻讜诇 讘讬讚讬 讜讗专诪住谞讛 讜讻砖讙讘专讛 诪诇讻讜转 讘讬转 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讜谞爪讞讜诐 拽爪爪讜 讘讛讜谞讜转 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讜转诇讗讜诐 讘砖注专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 驻讛 砖讛讬讛 诪讚讘专 讘讙讗讜讛 讜讬讚讬讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪谞讬驻讜转 注诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转注砖讛 讘讛诐 谞拽诪讛

In relation to the above, the Gemara inquires: What is the origin of Nicanor鈥檚 Day and what is the origin of Trajan鈥檚 Day? As it is taught in a baraita: Nicanor was one of the generals [iparkhei] in the Greek army, and each and every day he would wave his hand over Judea and Jerusalem and say: When will this city fall into my hands, and I shall trample it? And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame the Greeks and emerged victorious over them, they killed Nicanor in battle, cut off his thumbs and big toes, and hung them on the gates of Jerusalem, saying: The mouth that spoke with pride, and the hands that waved over Jerusalem, may vengeance be taken against them. This occurred on the thirteenth of Adar.

诪讗讬 讟讜专讬讬谞讜住 讗诪专讜 讻砖讘拽砖 讟讜专讬讬谞讜住 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 诇讜诇讬谞讜住 讜驻驻讜住 讗讞讬讜 讘诇讜讚拽讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗诐 诪注诪讜 砖诇 讞谞谞讬讛 诪讬砖讗诇 讜注讝专讬讛 讗转诐 讬讘讗 讗诇讛讬讻诐 讜讬爪讬诇 讗转讻诐 诪讬讚讬 讻讚专讱 砖讛爪讬诇 讗转 讞谞谞讬讛 诪讬砖讗诇 讜注讝专讬讛 诪讬讚 谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讞谞谞讬讛 诪讬砖讗诇 讜注讝专讬讛 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讙诪讜专讬谉 讛讬讜 讜专讗讜讬讬谉 讛讬讜 诇讬注砖讜转 诇讛诐 谞住 讜谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 诪诇讱 讛讙讜谉 讛讬讛 讜专讗讜讬 诇注砖讜转 谞住 注诇 讬讚讜

What is the origin of Trajan鈥檚 Day? They said in explanation: When Trajan sought to kill the important leaders Luleyanus and his brother Pappas in Laodicea, he said to them: If you are from the nation of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my hand, just as He saved Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Luleyanus and Pappas said to him: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were full-fledged righteous people, and they were worthy that a miracle should be performed for them, and Nebuchadnezzar was a legitimate king who rose to power through his merit, and it is fitting that a miracle be performed through him.

讜讗讜转讜 专砖注 讛讚讬讜讟 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇注砖讜转 谞住 注诇 讬讚讜 讜讗谞讜 谞转讞讬讬讘谞讜 讻诇讬讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讗转讛 讛讜专讙谞讜 讛专讘讛 讛讜专讙讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 诇诪拽讜诐 讜讛专讘讛 讚讜讘讬谉 讜讗专讬讜转 讬砖 诇讜 诇诪拽讜诐 讘注讜诇诪讜 砖驻讜讙注讬谉 讘谞讜 讜讛讜专讙讬谉 讗讜转谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 诪住专谞讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讬讚讱 讗诇讗 砖注转讬讚 诇讬驻专注 讚诪讬谞讜 诪讬讚讱

But this wicked man, Trajan, is a commoner, not a real king, and it is not fitting that a miracle be performed through him. Luleyanus and Pappas continued: And we are not wholly righteous, and have been condemned to destruction by the Omnipresent for our sins. And if you do not kill us, the Omnipresent has many other executioners. And if men do not kill us, the Omnipresent has many bears and lions in His world that can hurt us and kill us. Instead, the Holy One, Blessed be He, placed us into your hands only so that He will avenge our blood in the future.

讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讛专讙谉 诪讬讚 讗诪专讜 诇讗 讝讝讜 诪砖诐 注讚 砖讘讗讜 讚讬讜驻诇讬 诪专讜诪讬 讜驻爪注讜 讗转 诪讜讞讜 讘讙讬讝专讬谉

Even so, Trajan remained unmoved by their response and killed them immediately. It is said that they had not moved from the place of execution when two officials [diyoflei] arrived from Rome with permission to remove Trajan from power, and they split his skull with clubs. This was viewed as an act of divine retribution and was established as a commemorative day.

讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 转注谞讬转 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 讘转讞诇讛 讘讞诪讬砖讬 讻讜壮 讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 转注谞讬转 讘专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讻讜壮 讜讻诪讛 讛讜讬讗 讛转讞诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讗诪专 砖诇砖 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗讞转

搂 The mishna taught: One may not decree a fast on the community starting on a Thursday, so as not to cause prices to rise. Furthermore, one may not decree a fast on New Moons, on Hanukkah, or on Purim. However, if one began a set of fasts, one does not interrupt the sequence for these days. The Gemara asks: And how many fasts are considered a beginning? Rav A岣 said: If one fasted three fasts before the festive day. Rabbi Asi said: Even if one fasted one fast before it.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转注谞讛 讜诪砖诇讬诐 讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 诪转注谞讛 讜诪砖诇讬诐

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This halakha of the mishna that a fast that occurs on a festival is not observed, is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said it in the name of Rabban Gamliel. However, the Rabbis say: If a communal fast occurs on one of these days, one must fast and complete the fast until nightfall. Mar Zutra taught in the name of Rav Huna: The practical halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one fasts and completes his fast until nightfall.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 住讚专 转注谞讬讜转 讻讬爪讚

 

诪转谞讬壮 住讚专 转注谞讬讜转 讗诇讜 讛讗诪讜专 讘专讘讬注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讘诇 爪诪讞讬诐 砖砖谞讜 诪转专讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬讚 讜讻谉 砖驻住拽讜 讙砖诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讙砖诐 诇讙砖诐 讗专讘注讬诐 讬讜诐 诪转专讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪讻转 讘爪讜专转

MISHNA: The order of these fasts of increasing severity, as explained in Chapter One, is stated only in a case when the first rainfall has not materialized. However, if there is vegetation that grew and its appearance changed due to disease, the court does not wait at all; they cry out about it immediately. And likewise, if rain ceased for a period of forty days between one rainfall and another, they cry out about it because it is a plague of drought.

讬专讚讜 诇爪诪讞讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬专讚讜 诇讗讬诇谉 诇讗讬诇谉 讜诇讗 诇爪诪讞讬谉 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讘讜专讜转 诇砖讬讞讬谉 讜诇诪注专讜转 诪转专讬注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬讚 讜讻谉 注讬专 砖诇讗 讬专讚讜 注诇讬讛 讙砖诪讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛诪讟专转讬 注诇 注讬专 讗讞转 讜注诇 注讬专 讗讞转 诇讗 讗诪讟讬专 讞诇拽讛 讗讞转 转诪讟专 讜讙讜壮

If sufficient rain fell for the vegetation but not enough fell for the trees; or if it was enough for the trees but not for the vegetation; or if sufficient rain fell for both this and that, i.e., vegetation and trees, but not enough to fill the cisterns, ditches, and caves with water to last the summer, they cry out about it immediately. And likewise, if there is a particular city upon which it did not rain, while the surrounding area did receive rain, this is considered a divine curse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I caused it to rain upon one city, but caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon, and the portion upon which it did not rain withered鈥 (Amos 4:7).

Scroll To Top