(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Ta'anis 14



(a) We try to infer that the second fast is the same as the third with regard to the twenty-four Berachos from our Mishnah, which differentiates between the second and the third fasts (using a Lashon of 'Mah Eilu') regarding blowing the Shofar and closing the shops *only*. Even assuming that 'Mah Eilu' is not specific, we cannot use the fact that they only took out the Aron into the street on the third set of fasts, but not on the second, to add to the twenty-four Berachos that were said on the third set but not on the second - because it is already mentioned in the following Perek (see Tosfos DH 'La'av').

(b) Likewise, we conclude, we must now dispense with the proof that the twenty-four Berachos must have *applied* to the second set of fasts too, seeing as the Tana omitted mentioning that they did *not* - since they too, are mentioned explicitly in the next Perek.

(c) We conclude that whether a Yachid inserts 'Aneinu' between 'Go'eil' and 'Rofei' or whether he says it in 'She'ma Koleinu' is a Machlokes Amora'im. The Halachah is - that he says it in 'Shema Koleinu'.

2) There are three seemingly contradictory Beraisos. When the Beraisa says that pregnant and feeding mothers ...
1. ... fast on the *first* set of fasts, but not on the *last* - it means that they fast on the three fasts of the *second* set (which is the *first* [i.e. former] vis-a-vis the *last* set), because the situation is sufficiently serious to warrant their participation, but not on the *third*, because it is too much to ask them to fast *seven* fasts.
2. ... fast on the *last* set, but not on the *first* - it means that they fast on the *second* set (for the reason that we just explained - which is the *last* [i.e. latter] vis-a-vis the *first* set, but not on the *first* set, since the situation is not yet that serious.
3. ... fast neither on the *first* set of fasts nor on the *last* - it means that they fast neither on the first set nor on the third.
(a) According to Rav Yehudah, when the Mishnah says that 'Masri'in' on the third set of fasts, but not on the second, it means that one blows the Shofar. Rav quoted as saying - that what the Tana means is that they recite 'Aneinu'.

(b) Rav declines to learn that 'Masri'in' means blowing the Shofar - because then, the Tana should have said 'Mari'in'.

(c) We initially presume that the one who explains 'Masri'in' to mean blowing the Shofar, holds that they did not say 'Aneinu', and vice-versa. The Beraisa however explains, that the last set of fasts consisted of seven fast-days, on which there were eighteen Hasra'os, giving Yericho as a sign by which to remember this. Now, by Yericho, they blew the Shofar - so how can Rav possibly hold that they said 'Aneinu' but did not blow the Shofar?

(d) So we finally explain - that even Rav agrees that they blew the Shofar. But, whereas he holds that 'Masri'in' also *incorporates* 'Aneinu' (otherwise the Tana would have said 'Mari'in', as we explained earlier), Rav Yehudah holds that it does *not*.

(a) The Beraisa states that, when there are other troubles, 'Lo Hayu Masri'in Ela Tzo'akin'. Besides a plague of locusts, flies, wasps, gnats, snakes and scorpions - the Tana also refers to a plague of itching.

(b) Gnats fly into one's eyes and nose.

(c) We deduce from the Lashon of 'Lo Hayu Masri'in Ela Tzo'akin' - that since 'Tze'akah' is confined to crying out verbally, 'Hasra'ah' must be confined to blowing the Shofar - leaving us with a Kashya on our current explanation of Rav.

(d) We basically answer that - even if this Tana bears out the opinion of Rav Yehudah, we have another Tana who concurs with the opinion of Rav.

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa (which conforms with our previous interpretation of Rav), one cries out ('Masri'in') on Shabbos, if a city is besieged by the enemy, a river is overflowing its banks or a ship is sinking at sea. According to Rebbi Yossi - one cries out for *human* assistance (for people to come and help), but not for that of *Hashem* (Tefilah).

(b) We prove from this Beraisa that 'Masri'in' can also mean to cry out (and not just to blow the Shofar). The Tana cannot mean that one blows Shofar, because Chazal would certainly not waive the Isur of playing instruments for this (seeing as they are able to Daven).

(c) According to Rashi's second explanation, when Rebbi Yossi says 'le'Ezra Aval Lo li'Tze'akah' - he means that people may cry out for Divine assistance at home, but not be'Tzibur; whereas the Tana Kama permits even Tefilah be'Tzibur.




(a) In the days of Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a, after having fasted thirteen fasts (as prescribed by our Mishnah), their particular problem remained unresolved, Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a wanted to initiate more fast-days. Rebbi Ami objected however - on the grounds that one does not come down too heavily on the community (indeed, the Beraisa gives a limit of thirteen fasts).

(b) Rebbi Aba the son of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba objected in turn, to Rebbi Ami's ruling - on the basis of a statement by Rebbi Yochanan (Rebbi Ami's Rebbe), who said that the Beraisa, which gives a limit of thirteen fasts, is confined specifically to rain. But when it comes to other troubles, one continues to fast as long as necessary, until the trouble has passed.

(c) In a Beraisa, Rebbi says that one never decrees more than thirteen fasts on the community, in order not to place too heavy a burden on them (like Rebbi Ami - since, if that is the reason for not initiating additional fasts, then there is really no reason to differentiate between rain and other troubles). Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that is not the reason at all, but because the time of the first rain (which is in Mar-Cheshvan) has passed. In that case, when it comes to other troubles, which have no time limits, there is no reason to limit the fasts to thirteen (like Rebbi Aba the son of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba).

(a) One should Daven for a sick person - in 'Shomei'a Tefilah' (according to Rashi).

(b) The people of Ninveh (who needed rain even in mid-summer) asked Rebbi - whether they should ask for rain in 'Shomei'a Tefilah' (like Yechidim) or in 'Birchas ha'Shanim' (like the Tzibur).

(c) The people of Ninveh were not comparable to any individual, who asks for rain in the Berachah of Birchas ha'Shanim (and not in 'Shomei'a Tefilah') - because there, it speaks in the season when the Tzibur too, *need* and ask for rain; whereas the men of Ninveh were referring to a season when the rest of the world do *not* require rain.

(d) Rebbi answered them that they were like Yechidim - and that they must therefore Daven for rain in 'Shomei'a Tefilah'.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah (in a Beraisa) says that the set fast-days for rain only apply when the years are regular, and when Yisrael are living on their land, but nowadays, everything goes according to the years, and according to the place. When he says ...
1. ... 'when the years are regular - he means when the harvest takes place in Nisan and the seeding in Mar-Cheshvan.
2. ... 'but nowadays, everything goes ... according to the years' - he means, for example, that it is an exceptionally hot year, when more rain is needed.
3. ... 'according to the place' - like Ninveh, where they need rain even in mid-summer. In all of these cases, says Rebbi Yehudah, one asks for rain whenever it is needed.
(b) We make no effort to reconcile Rebbi with Rebbi Yehudah's statement - Rebbi is a Tana, and is perfectly entitled to disagree with Rebbi Yehudah.

(c) Rav Nachman and Rav Sheishes argue over this Halachah - the Gemara's final ruling is that the people of Ninveh and others in similar situations who need rain outside the regular rain season must Daven for rain in the Berachah of 'Shomei'a Tefilah', like the Din of Yechidim.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'be'Sheini Matin im Chasheichah, u'va'Chamishi Kol ha'Yom'. 'be'Sheini Matin im Chasheichah' means - that although the shops were closed for most of the day, towards evening they would partially open (a concession that was restricted to *food* shops).

(b) 'u'va'Chamishi Kol ha'Yom' could mean - either that they would leave the shops partially open the whole of Thursday in honor of Shabbos, or that they would open them completely all day.

(c) The correct interpretation is that they would leave them completely open the whole of Thursday - because it says so explicitly in a Beraisa.

(d) On the Monday, if ...

1. ... someone had two entrances to his shop - he would open the one and close the other.
2. ... there were seats blocking the view of the doorway of his shop from the street - he would be permitted to leave his shop completely open.
(a) After the third set of fasts, the Tana of our Mishnah forbids building and planting. When he forbids ...
1. ... building - he is referring to building a house for his son who is about to get married.
2. ... planting - he is referring to planting a tree in honor of the son that was just born to the King (from which they would build a throne on the day that he was anointed); or to a large tree with many low-hanging branches, under which the King would relax.
(b) If unlearned people who were unaware of the prohibition, greeted them - the Talmidei-Chachamim would answer them in a soft undertone (for the sake of peace).

(c) During that period - the Talmidei-Chachamim would dress and sit like mourners, like people who had been scolded by Hashem.

(a) When Yehoshua fell on his face after the defeat of Ai, Hashem, in response, told him to get up and proceed to conquer the land - on which Rebbi Elazar comments that, anyone who is uncertain that he will be answered (like Yehoshua was), should not do what Yehoshua did, in order to avoid ending up in disgrace (because people will mock him; or because it will cause a Chilul Hashem - Rosh).

(b) When Yisrael suffered a bitter famine - the wicked Yehoram ben Ach'av rent his clothes, and Hashem responded by ending the famine.

(c) Rebbi Elazar commented on that - that an important person is not permitted to wear sackcloth unless he knows that he will be answered like Yehoram ben Ach'av.

(a) By the episode of the spies, Moshe and Aharon fell on their faces and Yehoshua and Kaleiv tore their clothes. Initially, Rebbi Elazar initially commented on that - that Moshe and Aharon fell on their faces but did not tear their clothes, and Yehoshua and Kaleiv tore their clothes but did not fall on their faces.

(b) The problem with that is the extra 'Vav' in the Pasuk "*vi*'Yehoshua bin Nun .... Kar'u Bigdeihem" - implying that they tore their clothes as well as having fallen on their faces.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,