Monday, January 22, 2007

Daf Yomi - Taanis 14 - Highlights


The Gemora had reverted 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.

The Gemora asks on this explanation from a braisa which states that the only difference between the first series of fasts and the second series is regarding the prohibition against working. It can be implied that in regards to the twenty-four brochos, both series of fasts are the same and even the first series of fasts have twenty-four brochos.

The Gemora answers that the braisa is only referring to prohibitions and not to the tefillos.

Alternatively, the Gemora answers that the second series of fasts did not have Shemoneh Esrei with twenty-four brochos either.

The Gemora cites a braisa where it can be inferred that the second series of fasts are identical to the last seven fasts that they have twenty-four brochos.

Rav Ashi states that it is implicit from our Mishna that the only differences between the second series of fasts and the last seven is that by last seven, they would cry out and close the stores but there is no difference in the tefillah. This proves that twenty-four brochos were recited by the second series of fasts. (13b – 14a)


The Gemora presents three opinions regarding the obligation of pregnant and nursing women to fast on communal fast days. The Tanna in the first braisa maintains that they should fast on the first series of fasts but not on the last set. The second Tanna holds that they should fast on the last series but not on the first. The third Tanna holds that they are not obligated to fast on the first series or the last one.

Rav Ashi states that if we would say that they should fast on the second series of fasts, all the braisos can now be reconciled. Each braisa referred to the middle series of fasts as something else but the halacha would be identical according to all three braisos. (14a)


 The Mishna had stated that they would cry out during the last seven fasts. The Gemora presents a dispute as to the meaning of “cry out.” Rav Yehuda maintains that they would cry out by sounding the shofar and it was said in the name of Rav that they would cry out by reciting aneinu.

The Gemora cites a braisa which clearly indicates that they would sound shofaros on the seven fasts.

The Gemora explains that everyone would agree that the shofar would be sounded; the dispute is if aneinu would also be recited.

The Gemora concludes that there is an argument amongst the Tannaim if “crying out” can be referring to tefillah or only to shofar. A braisa states regarding other types of punishments, such as skin disease, locusts, hornets, mosquitoes and snakes and scorpions which are dispatched by Hashem; they would not cry out but they would call out to Hashem and beg for mercy. It is obvious that the term “cry out” is not referring to tefillah, rather to shofaros. However, there is a Mishna that clearly indicates that “cry out” refers to tefillah and not to shofaros. The Mishna rules that there are certain situations where they would cry out on Shabbos. It is forbidden to sound the shofar on Shabbos, so it is evident that “crying out” means to call out to Hashem in tefillah. (14a)


 The Gemora relates that in the years of Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi, he had decreed thirteen fasts for a certain distress (not due to lack of rain) but they still were not answered. He wanted to decree that there should be more fasts but Rabbi Ami told him that the community should not be overburdened. Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Ami ruled in that manner for his own benefit; he wanted to avoid fasting again. It is said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that for sufferings other than rain, we fast until we are answered. The Gemora cites a braisa which explicitly states like Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Ami holds that it is a dispute amongst the Tannaim. He cites a braisa which states that Rebbe maintains that we never decree more than thirteen fasts on the public. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel holds that this limitation is only by a drought where rain that falls now will not be beneficial. Rabbi Ami ruled in accordance with Rebbe that more than thirteen fasts is always an excessive inconvenience. (14a)


 Rebbe ruled that the residents of Ninveh should recite the tefillah of aneinu in the blessing of Shomeah Tefillah just like individuals do. They thought that since they need rain even in the summertime, perhaps aneinu should be recited in the Birchas Hashonim. The Gemora cites a braisa that refutes Rebbe’s ruling. The braisa states that places that require rain in the summertime and they are fasting, the tefillah of aneinu should be recited in Birchas Hashonim. Rebbe is also a Tanna, so he can disagree with the braisa. The Gemora concludes that the halacha is that it should be recited in Shomeah Tefillah. (14b)

The Mishna ruled that if it still did not rain after the seven fasts, 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 Gemora explains that building is referring to construction for pleasure, such as building a wedding house for his son. The planting that is forbidden is also only if the planting is for a joyous occasion, such as planting a tree in honor of the king’s new son.

The Gemora elaborates on the ruling of the Mishna that one should not greet his friend. The Gemora states that Torah scholars should not greet each other at all. If an unlearned man greets a Torah scholar, he should respond in a low tone and in a somber manner.

Rabbi Elozar said that a prominent person is not permitted to prostrate himself while praying in public unless he is certain that he will be answered like Yehoshua bin Nun.

Rabbi Elozar also said that a prominent person should not wear sackcloth unless he is certain that he will be answered like Yehoram ben Achav.

Rabbi Elozar stated further that not everyone will be answered through rendering their clothes and not everyone will be answered through prostrating themselves. Moshe and aharon were answered by prostrating themselves and Yehoshua and Calev were answered by rendering their clothes. Rabbi Zeira maintains that Yehoshua was answered on the account of both (prostrating and rendering his clothes).

Rabbi Elozar said that at the time of the Redemption, not everyone will greet Klal Yisroel in the same manner. Kings will be standing and Princes will prostrate themselves. Rabbi Zeira maintains that the Princes will greet Klal Yisroel by prostrating themselves and by standing.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak states that the righteous will merit light in the World to Come and the decent people will merit joy.



Anonymous said...

Has anybody seen the following question?

The Gemara on bottom of 13b says that Ein Bein the second set of Ta'aneisim and the third set except for "Masre'in" and closing the stores. The gemara asks from Teiva and the Gemara says "B'farhesya lo Katoni" we are not dealing with public things.
The Braisoh mentioned closing the shops. Isnt that B'Farhesya - a public thing?


Avromi said...

i will check

Yossi Schonkopf said...

reb avrumi,
why is a store more public then a shul? public means in the middle of the street (the sevara why its so different i'm not sure)

Avromi said...

Thank you, when i said the daf tonight, i thought like you that a store perhaps is like a shul but then again the closing of the stores are on outside so maybe not. it's hard to say for sure when the sevara is not clear.


Anonymous said...

Someone in my Shiur (R' Dov Klein)suggested that maybe the difference lies in the fact that "closing the stores" is a "shaiv v'al ta'saseh" (lack of action)and therefore is not considered "b'farhesya".
Any opinions?

Anonymous said...

The following is from Kollel Iyun HaDaf. Similar to what I wrote from R Dov


(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld


Re: Ta'anis 014: What is b'Pharhesiya?

avrohom adler asked:

>>The Gemara on bottom of 13b says that Ein Bein the second set of Ta'aneisim and the third set except for "Masre'in" and closing the stores. The gemara asks from Teiva and the Gemara says "B'farhesya lo Katoni" we are not dealing with public things. The Braisoh mentioned closing the shops. Isnt that B'Farhesya - a public thing?

The Kollel replied:

>>This is clear from what RASHI 14a DH MILI writes that "Tzinah" means "Masre'in" in the Beis Knesses and saying the 24 blessings there. There clearly is a Minyan of 10 there but nevertheless this is not Farhesiya.Therefore it seems that Farhesiya in our Sugya means something done out of doors in the main street whilst Tzinah means something done indoors (Beis Knesses and stores).
>>This can be understood more on the basis of Gemara below 16a.The reason they went out to the street was to despise themselves b'Farhesiya. MEIRI there writes that the intention was that this public disgrace might cause them to be more humble and thereby do a complete Teshuvah. Even though they had already prayed in the Beis Knesses (which is considered Tzinah - see RASHI 16a DH BE-TZINAH), nevetheless the extra shame of being out in the main street might be effective in arousing the people to a higher Teshuvah.
>>So Farhesiya here means a very public disgrace to make everyone return to Hashem.


Alex Lebovits comments:

Avrohom hello.

This question bothered me at first when we learnt the Gem. as well. I refrained from asking it in the shiur thinking that although the store closings are public thing in a way, since they are like a 'shev v'al taaseh' *not opening* is not called doing something b'farhesyia just as *closing the bathhouses* which was done in the set of 3 days before isn't considered b'farhesiya; because in the first set of 3 there is no befarhesyia needed, yet the bath houses were still closed. I know that its not as good as seeing the question; but does the answer help explain it?

Let me know,
Alex Lebovits