(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 18

TA'ANIS 17, 18, 19 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael



(a) We just concluded that Chazal included Pesach in the Yom-Tov de'Rabbanan, in order to prohibit fasting even on the day *after* Pesach - in which case the author would have to be Rebbi Yossi.

(b) That presents us with a problem with regard to the Reisha, where we explained that they included Rosh Chodesh Nisan in the Yamim-Tovim de'Rabbanan in order to forbid fasting on the day before (the twenty-ninth of Adar). But (now that we just established the Beraisa like Rebbi Yossi) why is that necessary - seeing as the twenty-ninth of Adar is the day after the twenty-eighth, which was already a Yom-Tov (and according to Rebbi Yossi, the day after a Yom-Tov de'Rabbanan is included in the prohibition anyway)?

(c) The three decrees that were nullified on the twenty-eighth of Nisan were - those of Torah-study, B'ris Milah and Shabbos.

(d) Acting on the advice of a Roman matron, Yehudah ben Shamu'a and his colleagues proceeded to have them nullified - by crying out in the night before Hashem 'Are we not your brothers from both the same father (Yitzchak Avinu) and the same mother (Rivkah Imeinu)? Then why are we worse than the other nations, that you issue such evil decrees against us'?

(a) Abaye explains that it was nevertheless necessary to include Rosh Chodesh Nisan in the Yamim-Tovim de'Rabbanan, because of a leap-year. What he means (according to Rashi's first explanation) is - that seeing as, in a leap-year the second Adar is a full month, the day before Rosh Chodesh Nisan is not the twenty-ninth of Adar, but the thirtieth (on which fasting would not otherwise be prohibited).

(b) Rav Ashi maintains that it was necessary anyway, even not in a leap-year - because, when Rebbi Yossi says 'le'Acharav Asur', he normally means that it is forbidden to *fast*, but not to *eulogize*. Now however, that the twenty-ninth of Adar is squashed between two Yamim-Tovim, it becomes forbidden to eulogize, too.

(a) Chazal found it necessary to include the eighth of Nisan in the second group of days (from the eighth until after Pesach), despite the fact that it was already included in the first group (from the first until the eighth) - to reinforce its special status, just in case something happened to nullify the first group.

(b) We nevertheless needed to specifically include the *eighth* in the second group of Yamim-Tovim to achieve that; we could not simply institute the Yom-Tov from the ninth, and then rely on the fact that the eighth is anyway the day before the ninth, and therefore forbidden to fast - because, as we shall see later, if a day is nullified from its *intrinsic* status as a Yom-Tov, how can it retain its less significant status of a day *before* a Yom-Tov?

(c) We take advantage of this answer to also answer the Kashya that we asked earlier (in 1b.) with regard to Rosh Chodesh Nisan and the twenty ninth of Adar - because by the same token, Chazal instituted Rosh Chodesh as a Yom- Tov, to forbid the twenty-ninth of Adar, just in case, for some reason, the Yom-Tov of the twenty-eighth was nullified (see Rashash on Rashi 'La'av Pircha Hi').

(a) Rav rules like Rebbi Yossi (who forbids fasting both the day before and the day after the Yamim-Tovim mentioned in Megilas Ta'anis) - Shmuel rules like Rebbi Meir (the Tana Kama of our Mishnah) who permits the day after.

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in a Beraisa learns from the fact that Chazal use the expression 'Behon' twice (' ... de'Lo le'His'ana Behon ... u'de'Lo le'Misped Behon') - that Chazal gave the relevant days exclusively, the Din of a Yom-Tov, but not the day before and not the day after..

(c) We reconcile Shmuel, who ruled like Rebbi Meir, but who appears to contradict himself by ruling like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - by pointing out that Shmuel disagrees on principle with Rav, who follows the stringent opinion of Rebbi Yossi (because Shmuel holds that, seeing as these Yamim- Tovim are purely de'Rabbanan, it is logical to follow the most lenient opinion in the side Halachos that pertain to them). Consequently, believing Rebbi Meir to be be the most lenient opinion, Shmuel initially ruled like him. However, when he later discovered the Beraisa, where Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is more lenient still, he changed his ruling to rule like *him*.

(d) Ba'ali quoting Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Yossi (like Rav). Rebbi Chiya bar Aba restricts Rebbi Yochanan's ruling however - by confining it to those days on which *fasting only* is prohibited; but as far as eulogizing (on those days when eulogizing is prohibited too) is concerned, the Halachah is like Rebbi Meir, who prohibits the day before, but not the day after.




(a) The Mishnah in Megilah says that those people who read the Megilah early, are nevertheless permitted to eulogize and to fast on that day. This cannot be referring to ...
1. ... someone from a walled city (who normally reads the Megilah on the fifteenth of Adar), who spends the day in an open town (and who therefore reads it on the fourteenth) - because as we shall see in Megilah, both the fourteenth and the fifteenth are considered Yamim-Tovim for everyone, and fasting and eulogizing are therefore forbidden.
2. ... someone from an open town who is in a village on the thirteenth (and who therefore reads it then) - because the thirteenth is 'Yom Nikanor', and what we wrote in a. will apply there too.
3. ... someone from an open town who is in a village on the twelfth - for the same reason again, because the twelfth of Adar is 'Yom Terainus'.
(b) Assuming therefore, that the Tana must be referring to someone from an open town who spends the day in a village on the eleventh of Adar (and who therefore reads the Megilah then), this presents us with a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan (who, we just saw, rules like Rebbi Yossi), seeing as the eleventh is the day before Yom Terainus, yet the Mishnah specifically permits fasting and eulogizing on it, like Rebbi Meir? And that Mishnah must be Halachah, seeing as Rebbi Yochanan himself has taught that the Halachah is always like a S'tam Mishnah?
(a) So we establish the Mishnah by people from an open town who spent the day in a village on the twelth. There is no problem with the fact that it is ...
1. ... Yom Terainus - because Yom Terainus was nullified.
2. ... the day before Yom Nikanor - because, if the intrinsic status of a day is nullified, then how much more so its status as the day before a Yom- Tov!
(b) Yom Terainus was absolved because Sh'mayah and Achyo were killed on that day. We do not know who Sh'mayah and Achyo were. It was Ido ha'Navi who was eaten by a lion (and not Sh'mayah and Achyo - see Agados Maharsha).

(c) Yom Nikanor was instituted following the downfall of Nikanor - a Greek general who used to wave his hand over Yehudah and Yerushalayim and state his intention of destroying it and trampling it underfoot. But when the Chashmona'im defeated the Greeks, they cut off his thumbs and big toes and hung them on the gates of Yerushalayim, declaring that 'The mouth that spoke with arrogance and the hands that waved over Yerushalayim shall be avenged'.

(a) Terainus told Lulinus and Papus prior to killing them - that if they were from the same people as Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, then let their G-d come and save *them*, in the same way as He saved Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah.

(b) They answered him - that Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah were more worthy of a miracle than they were, and so too, was Nevuchadnetzar (a worthy king) more worthy for a miracle to be performed through him than Terainus (who was not even a king). Furthermore, they concluded, Hashem could have had them killed through any of His many emissaries, but that He chose him, in order to subsequently punishment him for having killed them.

(c) He killed them anyway. Immediately after that - two princes came from Rome and literally bashed his brains in (which resulted in Chazal fixing that day as a Yom-Tov).

(d) Lulinus and Papus are referred elsewhere as 'Harugei Lud' (because Ludki - the town in which this incident took place - is equivalent to Lud). The Gemara writes about them that no-one can stand in their place - because (according to one version of the story), in order to save their fellow-Jews, they admitted at having killed the king's daughter who was found murdered, and for whose death the Jews were blamed and were placed on trial - even though they had not really done it.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that, once they have begun fasting, they continue fasting even on Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah and Purim. According to Rav Acha, by 'begun', the Tana means three times - according to Rebbi Yossi (an Amora), it means even once.

(b) We also learned in our Mishnah that, in the opinion of Rebbi Meir, although Raban Gamliel holds that, once one has begun to fast, he continues fasting even on the three Yamim-Tovim, nevertheless he does not complete the fast - the Chachamim however, hold, that, in the opipnion of Raban Gamliel, he must finish the fast.

(c) The Halachah is like Raban Gamliel according to the Chachamim.

***** Hadran Alach, Seder Ta'aniyos Keitzad *****

***** Perek Seder Ta'aniyos Eilu *****


(a) The Seider of fasts that we learned until now (first the Yechidim, and then the Tzibur, who first fast three fasts, then three and then seven etc.) applies only if no rain fell by the end of the first rainfall (which will be explained later in the Sugya) - but not if the plants failed to grow as they were planted (e.g. if thorns grew instead of wheat), in which case one begins fasting immediately.

(b) The same applies if the rain began falling and then stopped (which is called a drought) for a significant period before the next fall (since it signififies a drought). The length of that significant period - is thirty days.

(c) If rain did fall ...

1. ... but only sufficient for the plants and not for the trees or in a way that the trees were watered but not the plants - one begins fasting immediately, and the same applies ...
2. ... if sufficient rain fell to water the plants and the trees, but not to fill the water-pits.
(d) If sufficient water fell for the needs of one town but not for its neighbor, the inhabitants of the ...
1. ... town for which sufficient rain fell - must fast and blow the Shofar, too, because, seeing as the inhabitants of the other town will all come to them for food, they are in as much danger of starving as their neighbors.
2. ... surrounding districts - must fast but not blow the Shofar (according to the Tana Kama).
Next daf


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