Daf Yomi - Taanis 13 - Highlights

MORE DECREED FASTS
The Mishna continues to discuss the process of conducting public fasts in the situation when there is a drought. If after the first series of public fasts, it did not begin to rain; Beis Din declares another three public fasts. The fasts begin at sunset and they are forbidden to perform work. They are not allowed to wash and anoint themselves. They are prohibited from wearing leather shoes and engaging in marital relations. The bathhouses would be closed as well.

If these fasts passed and it still did not rain, Beis din would declare a series of seven fasts, which would be a total of thirteen decreed fasts. On these seven fasts, there was a stringency that they would cry out and they would close the stores. On Monday, the stores would open towards evening in order for the people to purchase food to eat after the fast. On Thursday, the stores would be opened the entire day in order for people to prepare for Shabbos.

If they wouldn’t be answered with rain after these fasts, the Mishna rules that they should conduct less business. They should not become involved with building, planting, marrying or greeting their friends. They should conduct their lives as if they were condemned by Hashem. The pious people would fast until the end of Nissan. The Mishna concludes that it would be regarded as a curse if rain would descend after Nissan. (12b)

SCHEDULE OF THE FAST
The Gemora explains that the reason the Rabbis established that they are not permitted to work on these fasts is based on a Scriptural verse comparing public fasts to festivals.

Rav Huna explains that since on a public fast, they gather in the morning to pray, the prohibition against working commences then.

Abaye provides the particulars of the schedule of a public fast day. In the morning, they would analyze the business practices of the people in the city. During the first portion of the afternoon, they would read from the Torah and the Haftorah (a portion from Isaiah). The remainder of the day, they would pray to Hashem for mercy. The Gemora cites a scriptural verse proving that the praying and reading from the Torah should be in the latter part of the day and not in the morning. (12b – 13a)

WASHING WITH COLD WATER ON A FAST DAY OR A MOURNER
 The Gemora discusses the prohibition against washing on a communal fast day. It was said in the name of Rav Chisda that whenever one is forbidden to wash himself due to mourning (Tisha B’av or a mourner) he cannot use hot or cold water; however regarding a public fast, where the prohibition against washing was because of pleasure, one would be permitted to use cold water to wash himself.

The Gemora cites a braisa to support Rav Chisda’s ruling that one may not wash himself with cold water on Tisha B’av. The braisa states that one is permitted to immerse in a Mikvah on Yom Kippur and Tisha B’av, days when bathing is normally forbidden. This must be referring to cold water since hot water would invalidate a mikvah on account that the water has been drawn in a vessel to heat it. We can infer that only people who have compulsory immersions are permitted to use cold water but others would not. Rav Chana bar Katina rejects this proof and states that the braisa can be referring to the hot springs of Teveria and therefore it cannot be implied that others cannot wash with cold water.

Reb Abba Hakohen said in the name of Rabbi Yosi Hakohen that there was once an incident where the sons of Rabbi Yosi ben Rabbi Chanina died and Rabbi Yosi washed his entire body with cold water during the seven days of mourning. This is inconsistent with Rav Chisda’s ruling that a mourner cannot use cold water either. The Gemora answers that there was a special leniency in this case since there were two successive periods of mourning. A braisa is cited which rules that when one period of mourning immediately follows another, one can cut his hair with a razor if it becomes too heavy and he is permitted to wash his clothes. Rav Chisda concludes that the leniency of cutting one’s hair is limited to a razor and not with a scissors and the washing of one’s clothes is limited to water and not with soil or sand.

Rava rules that a mourner is permitted to wash his entire body with cold water during the seven days of mourning. He equates washing to eating meat and drinking wine. Even though they provide enjoyment, they are still permitted, so too washing is permitted.

The Gemora challenges Rava from a braisa which states that an adult girl should not let herself appear ugly while she is mourning on the loss of her father. This is because she is at an eligible marriage age and we do not want to chase her suitors away. It can be inferred from here that a girl who is younger than that (but over twelve years old) is subject to all the laws of mourning. The Gemora explains that this cannot be referring to hot water as even an adult girl cannot wash with hot water since the ruling is according to Rav Chisda that a mourner is not even allowed to dip their finger in hot water. It must be referring to cold water and it emerges that the braisa is ruling that a regular person cannot use cold water during the times of mourning. This is inconsistent with Rava’s ruling. The Gemora answers that the braisa when it makes the distinction between the two types of girls is not referring to the halachos of washing; rather it is referring to the halachos of wearing makeup and there would be no proof regarding the halachos of cold water.

The Gemora attempts to bring a proof to Rava that a mourner can use cold water from Reb Abba Hakohen who said in the name of Rabbi Yosi Hakohen that there was once an incident where the sons of Rabbi Yosi ben Rabbi Chanina died and Rabbi Yosi washed his entire body with cold water during the seven days of mourning. The Gemora dismisses this proof and explains that there was a special leniency in this case since there were two successive periods of mourning and therefore he was allowed to use cold water.

The Gemora cites an alternative version of Rava’s opinion. Rava maintains that a mourner is prohibited to use cold water to wash himself. Bathing is different that eating meat or drinking wine since eating and drinking are permitted in order to decrease his worries and help him forget his sorrows.

The Gemora attempts to bring a proof to this version of Rava from a braisa which states that an adult girl should not let herself appear ugly while she is mourning on the loss of her father. This is because she is at an eligible marriage age and we do not want to chase her suitors away. It can be inferred from here that a girl who is younger than that (but over twelve years old) is subject to all the laws of mourning. The Gemora explains that this cannot be referring to hot water as even an adult girl cannot wash with hot water since the ruling is according to Rav Chisda that a mourner is not even allowed to dip their finger in hot water. It must be referring to cold water and it emerges that the braisa is ruling that a regular person cannot use cold water during the times of mourning. This is consistent with Rava’s ruling. The Gemora rejects the proof and states that the braisa when it makes the distinction between the two types of girls is not referring to the halachos of washing; rather it is referring to the halachos of wearing makeup and there would be no proof regarding the halachos of cold water.

Rav Chisda states that if wearing makeup is prohibited for a mourner, then washing clothes is also forbidden.

The Gemora concludes that the halacha is that a mourner is not allowed to wash his entire body with hot and cold water. He is permitted to wash his face, hands and feet with cold water but not with hot water. He is not allowed to anoint himself at all except if it is for the purpose of removing sweat. (13a – 13b)

TEFILLAH OF ANEINU
 The Gemora discusses where in Shemoneh Esrei an individual who is fasting will recite the tefillah of aneinu. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it should be recited between the blessing of Geulah and Refuah. Rav Yitzchak disagreed and holds that an individual fast does not warrant its own brocha by itself; rather aneinu is recited in the blessing of Shomeah Tefillah.

The Gemora asks on the latter opinion from a braisa which states that the difference between an individual fast and a communal fast is that an individual recites eighteen brochos in Shemoneh Esrei whereas the public has nineteen. It is evident that the individual recites aneinu in Shomeah Tefillah and it is not recited as an independent brocha.

The Gemora answers that obviously the intent of this braisa is not to differentiate between an individual fast and a communal fast since a communal fast warrants twenty-four brochos, not nineteen. The braisa is making a distinction between an individual who accepts upon himself a fast of an individual and an individual who accepts upon himself a communal fast.

The Gemora asks that according to this explanation, it would emerge as a proof that an individual who accepts upon himself a communal fast recites aneinu as an independent brocha and it is not included in the brocha of Shomeah Tefillah.

The Gemora reverts back to its original thinking that it is referring to a communal fast. The Gemora had asked that there should be twenty-four brochos and not nineteen; the Gemora explains that the braisa is referring to the first series of fasts where the extra six brochos are not recited. (13b)