Daf Yomi - Taanis 12 - BRIS MILAH ON TISHA B’AV THAT WAS POSTPONED

Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Tzadok said: I was of the sons of Sna'av from the tribe of Binyamin. One time Tisha B'av occurred on Shabbos and it was pushed off to Sunday. We fasted but did not complete the fast because it was our Yom Tov. Rashi explains that the lottery for bringing the wood offering for that family was on the Tenth of Av during the days of Ezra, and it was a Yom Tov for them forever. It is evident that it is considered a valid fast even though it was not completed. The Gemora answers that this was not meant to be a genuine fast; it was only undertaken to afflict them somewhat.

The Tur (O”C 559) writes that one year Tisha B'av fell on Shabbos and it was pushed of to Sunday. Rabbeinu Ya'avetz was a Ba'al Bris and he davened Mincha early in the afternoon. He washed and did not complete his fast because it was a Yom Tov for him - and his source was the case of Rav Elazar bar Tzadok.

The Chasam Sofer (O”C 157) writes that the Yom Tov for the bringing of the wood was established before Tisha B’av and therefore takes precedence over Tisha B’av; however a bris milah where the obligation came about after the establishment of Tisha B’av does not take precedence and therefore they would be required to complete the fast.

The Chasam Sofer concludes that the proof is actually from Rabbi Elozar ben Rabbi Tzadok who was a kohen. He was a son-in-law of Sna’av as Tosfos in Eruvin (41) explains. It emerges that Tisha B’av should have taken precedence over his Yom Tov and nevertheless he did not conclude his fast. This was the proof of Rabbeinu Ya’avetz.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 12 - SHABBOS IN THE DAF

The Gemara states that a fast is good for a dream, and the fast should occur on the day of the dream, even if that day occurs on Shabbos. If one does fast on Shabbos for a dream, he should fast again on a different day because he afflicted himself on Shabbos. Rashi explains that the reason one can fast for a dream on Shabbos is because it relieves his pain. The Rishonim write that nonetheless, one should fast as atonement for having fasted on Shabbos, because although he had pleasure in fasting on Shabbos to relieve his pain, it is preferable to delight properly in the Shabbos than to fast on Shabbos. This being the case, one should contemplate the beautiful gift of Shabbos that HaShem bestowed upon His Chosen Nation, and one should certainly not intentionally cause himself or others distress on Shabbos. It is specifically for this reason that we recite in Bircas HaMzaon on Shabbos the prayer velo sehei tzarah veyagon vanacha beyom menuchaseinu, may it be Hashem’s will that there be no distress, grief, or lament on this Day of our contentment.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 12 - Highlights

FAST FOR HOURS

Mar Ukvah arrived in the city of Ginzak. He was asked if someone fasts for a few hours, is that regarded as a fast. They also asked him regarding earthenware jugs of gentiles that were used to store wine, if the jugs are permitted to be used or forbidden. A third question was asked to him : What garments did Moshe wear when he was performing the sevice during the seven days of the Mishkan’s consecration. He didn’t know the correct answer to all three inquiries. Mar Ukvah went to the Beis Medrash and they told him that one may fast for hours and daven aneinu. The jugs of gentiles are permitted after twelve months and Moshe served while wearing a white linen garment.

Rav Chisda explains what a fast for hours means. A person fasted for the first few hours of the day unintentionally and he changed his mind in middle of the day and accepted to fast the remainder of the day. This is considered a fast for hours and he should recite aneinu when he davens later. (11b – 12a)

FASTING UNTIL NIGHTFALL

Rav Chisda rules that one, who eats on a fast day before nightfall is not regarded as fasting.

The Gemora cites a Mishna (15b) which rules that the people of the Mishmar (group of kohanim and levi’im who served in the Beis Hamikdosh for one week at a time) would fast but would not complete the fast. It would seem from the Mishna that this is considered fasting even though it was not completed. The Gemora explains that this was not a genuine fast, they fasted for part of the day only to afflict themselves.

The Gemora questions Rav Chisda’s ruling from a statement that Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Tzadok said: I was of the sons of Sna'av from the tribe of Binyamin. One time Tisha B'av occurred on Shabbos and it was pushed off to Sunday. We fasted but did not complete the fast because it was our Yom Tov. Rashi explains that the lottery for bringing the wood offering for that family was on the Tenth of Av during the days of Ezra, and it was a Yom Tov for them forever. It is evident that it is considered a valid fast even though it was not completed. The Gemora answers that this was not meant to be a genuine fast; it was only undertaken to afflict them somewhat.

The Gemora relates that Rabbi Yochanan would occasionally declare that he is accepting to fast until he reaches his house. The Gemora explains that this was not a genuine fast; he did this in order to avoid eating at the house of the Nasi. (12a)

NIGHT PRECEDING THE FAST

Shmuel rules that one must accept to fast prior to commencing the fast in order for it to be regarded as a valid fast. There is a dispute in the Gemora if one accepts the fast by mincha time on the previous day or during tefillas Mincha.

Rebbe maintains that after one accepts to fast on the following day, he is permitted to eat until daybreak. Rabbi Eliezer bar Shimon holds that he may eat until the rooster crows.

Abaye qualifies the previous ruling and maintains that one is permitted to eat throughout the night only if he didn’t complete his meal from the night before; however if the table was removed after the meal, he is forbidden to eat during the night.

An alternative version is cited that Rava qualifies the ruling and states that one is forbidden to eat during the night if he went to sleep even if he wakes up before daybreak; however if he remained awake or was merely dozing, he is permitted to eat during the night. (12a – 12b)

LEATHER SHOES ON A PUBLIC FAST DAY IN BAVEL

Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav that one who accepts a fast upon himself is prohibited from wearing leather shoes since we are concerned that he accepted upon himself the stringencies of a public fast.

The Mishna ruled that on a public fast day of the second or third series, one is forbidden from wearing leather shoes. Shmuel said that only Tisha B’Av in Bavel is the equivalent of a public fast day with all of the stringencies similar to a public fast for rain in Eretz Yisroel. Other public fasts in Bavel did not have these stringencies and one would be permitted to wear leather shoes. Abaye and Rava would wear leather shoes without soles on a public fast day. Mereimar and Mar Zutra would switch the right shoe to the left and the left shoe to the right. These Amoraim agreed with Shmuel that there is no prohibition against wearing leather shoes in Bavel on a public fast day but they accepted upon themselves token stringencies to resemble the public fasts in Eretz Yisroel and that is why they wore their shoes in an unusual manner. (12b)

BORROW ONE’S FAST

Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav that one is permitted to eat on the day that he accepted to fast and repay his obligation by fasting on a different day.

Shmuel disagrees and holds that since it was only voluntary, if he is unable to fast on the designated day, there is no reason to fast on another day.

The Gemora presents an alternative version regarding Shmuel’s opinion on this issue. Shmuel agreed with Rav and stated that this is obviously the correct halacha. The person made a vow to fast and if he could not fulfill it on the designated day, he must fulfill it on a different day. (12b)

FASTING FOR A DREAM

There is one personal fast that must take place on a specific day - a ta'anit halom. A fast that is the result of a disturbing dream must be done immediately after the dream takes place. This rule is so severe that Rav Yosef teaches that someone who is disturbed by their dream must fast even on Shabbos, concluding that he will have to fast a second time as repentance for having "desecrated" the holiness of Shabbos by fasting. (Courtesy of the Aleph Society)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 11 - Sharing in the Suffering and this Week's Parsha

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that one, who starves himself during a famine year when other Jews are in distress, will be saved from an unusual death.

Rish Lakish rules that one who has children should not engage in marital relations during a famine year.

The Gemora cites a braisa regarding one who distances himself from the community while they are suffering; two Heavenly angels will place their hands on him and declare that he should not see the comfort of the community when they are released from their affliction.

A similar braisa is cited which states that at the time when the community is suffering, one (who is not afflicted) should not say that he will go to his house, eat and drink and not be concerned about anyone else. It is said regarding one who neglects the anguish of the community that Hashem will not forgive him for this sin.

The braisa proves from Moshe that one should suffer together with the community. It is written that Moshe’s hands were heavy and he sat on a stone. The Gemora wonders why Moshe didn’t use a pillow or a mattress in order to sit comfortably. The answer given is that Moshe said if Klal Yisroel were suffering (due to the war with Amalek), he will suffer along with them.

The Maharsha writes that we learn from this Gemora that a person is obligated to share in his friend's suffering even if he is not in distress at all. The famine did not affect Yosef and the war didn't affect Moshe and yet they felt it necessary to join in the suffering.

The Ohev Yisroel comments similarly that Amalek attacked Klal Yisroel because they became lax in Torah. Moshe did not have this fault at all and nevertheless he felt obligated to share in their distress.

Rav Aharon Kotler writes that it seems from this Gemora that not sharing in the suffering of others is tantamount to desecrating Hashem's name since our Gemora cites a Scriptural verse that one will not have atonement for this sin until hid death. This is the precise verse that the Gemora in Yome mentions regarding desecrating Hashem's name. This can be explained by the following: one of Hashem's attributes is that He suffers along with Klal Yisroel. The Iyun Yaakov comments that one has to join in the distress of others because there is an obligation to attach yourself to Hashem. He is compassionate so we should be as well. someone who shirks this responsibility is desecrating Hashem's name.

I noticed a vort on this week's parsha on this topic in the sefer Ner Shabbos and my friend Reb Oizer wrote this up as well.

After listing the sons of Jacob’s two oldest sons, Reuven and Shimon, the Torah records, “And these are the names of the sons of Levi in order of their birth: Gershon, Kehas, and Merari.” Why does the Torah emphasize that it is stating the names of Levi’s sons, a point which isn’t mentioned with regards to the sons of Reuven and Shimon?

The Shelah HaKadosh answers based on Rashi’s comment (5:4) that the tribe of Levi wasn’t included in Pharaoh’s enslavement of the Jews and therefore lived relatively easy and comfortable lives. It would have been easy for them to isolate themselves in Goshen, learning Torah all day and turning a blind eye to the plight of their brethren.

In order to combat such natural feelings, Levi specifically gave his children names which would eternally remind them of the suffering of the rest of the Jews. The name Gershon alludes to the fact that the Jews were considered foreigners and temporary dwellers in Egypt, not fitting in and belonging there no matter how easy life may have been in Goshen. K’has hints to the fact that the backbreaking labor set their teeth on edge, and Merari refers to the bitterness of the Egyptian enslavement.

So many times we hear of pain and suffering – with illness, jobs, finding a spouse, raising children, or in Israel – and our first reaction is to dismiss it as not germane to our comfortable lives, but Levi teaches that the suffering of every single Jew is indeed relevant and we must feel their plight!

The Chofetz Chaim’s wife once panicked when she awoke in the middle of the night to find his bed empty. Upon finding him sleeping on the floor, he explained to his puzzled Rebbitzin that with World War I raging all around them and Jews being chased from their houses all across Europe, how could he possibly allow himself the comfort of sleeping in a comfortable bed?

Similarly, when a great fire once ravaged most of the Jewish section of the town of Brisk, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik (the Rav of the town, whose house was spared) insisted on sleeping in the synagogue together with the rest of his homeless congregants in order to share in their suffering. Not at all surprising, considering that the Chofetz Chaim was a Kohen and Rav Chaim a Levi, and they clearly learned well the lessons of their great-great grandfather!

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 11 - MARITAL RELATIONS DURING A FAMINE

Rish Lakish rules that one who has children should not engage in marital relations during a famine year.

His source is from the fact that the Torah states that Yosef’s two sons were born prior to the famine. This would indicate that once the famine has begun, it would be prohibited from engaging in marital relations.

Tosfos asks that Yocheved, who was born as they were entering Mitzrayim, was born to Levi two years after the famine had already started.

Tosfos concludes that this is not a general prohibition that everyone must follow; rather it is only for people who wish to conduct themselves in a pious manner. Yosef decided to on such a course but Levi did not.

The Sfas Emes explains that it was not regarded as a universal prohibition prior to the receiving of the Torah; however after the torah was given, there is a prohibition that everyone is obligated to follow.

The Maharsha explains Tosfos that there was a prohibition even before the Torah was given but not for people that did not yet fulfill the obligation of fathering children. Those people had a choice and Yosef chose to conduct himself in a pious manner and Levi did not.

There are many other answers on Tosfos’ question. The Ritva answers that there is only a prohibition when the famine strikes a Jewish community. Yosef was under the impression that his family did not have food and that is why he refrained from having marital relations. Levi, on the other hand, knew that they had sufficient food and therefore it was permitted for him to engage in marital relations and that is when Yocheved was born.

The Beis Yosef (574) writes that the prohibition did not apply at all prior to the giving of the Torah.

The Maharsha cites a Yerushalmi that rules that on the night that a woman immersed herself in the mikvah; it will be permitted for the man to cohabit with his wife. Perhaps Levi had relations with his wife on the night that she went to the mikvah.

The Beis Yosef rules in accordance with this Yerushalmi. The Magen Avraham disagrees and maintains that the Yerushalmi means that someone who didn’t father children yet is permitted to cohabit with his wife on the night that she went to the mikvah but this does not apply to someone who already has children.

The Netziv answers that the famine was not so severe in Eretz Canaan where the shevatim were and therefore they were not subject to this prohibition. He states that the famine affected the rich people there since they were lacking their usual delicacies but for the common person, there was ample food. The Chida cites the Rosh that the famine did not strike the city where Yaakov and his sons were living at all.

It is brought in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid that Yosef knew when the famine will end and therefore he did not have relations with his wife. Levi, who did not know at all when the famine will end was permitted to cohabit with his wife for otherwise how long should he wait. The Chida questions this answer since if it would be correct, the prohibition will almost never apply. During a famine, it is not known how long it will last and therefore it should be permitted to engage in marital relations.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 11 - REPENTANCE ON THE LOCATION AND THE DAY

The Chachamim said that when it is time for a person to depart this world, all of his deeds leave him and they ask him if he committed a sin on such and such a day in such and such a place. He responds that he did and he signs affirming the record of his deeds. The person then declares that he was judged correctly.

Why is it necessary to declare the name of the place that he committed the transgression? What difference does it make?

The Ben Ish Chai writes that it is well known that when a person commits a sin, there is a spirit of tumah that remains in that location. This will be harmful to anyone that happens on this place in the future because the power of that tumah will cause them to stumble in sin.

This is why a person must mention the place where he committed the transgression when he is repenting since he will be punished not only for the sin but also for anyone that sins because of the tumah hovering in that location.

What is the importance of mentioning the day that the sin was committed? The Ben Ish Chai continues that there is a general Judgment every day where all the mitzvos that were performed are placed on one side of the scale and all the transgressions committed are placed on the opposite side. It is possible that because of his sin on that day, the scale tipped towards the transgressions and not towards the mitzvos. He must repent for this, as well.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 11 - Highlights

TRAVELLING

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Chiya that one who is traveling should not eat more than he would eat in a famine year. The Gemora offers two reasons for this. In Bavel they explained that eating in abundance while traveling can lead to a sickness of the intestines. In Eretz Yisroel they said that one should eat sparingly in order to ensure that he will have enough for the entire duration of his trip. The Gemora presents two practical differences between the reasons. If one is traveling on a ship, he doesn’t need to be concerned on account of his intestines. Alternatively, if one is traveling where food is readily available, he doesn’t need to be worried about a food shortage.

The Gemora relates that Rav Pappa would eat a loaf of bread every parsha. It emerges that he held that the reason to minimize the amount that one eats on a journey is because it can be harmful to the intestines. Rav Pappa, who was a heavy man, did not need to be concerned for this. (10b – 11a)

CONDUCT DURING A FAMINE

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that one, who starves himself during a famine year when other Jews are in distress, will be saved from an unusual death.

Rish Lakish rules that one who has children should not engage in marital relations during a famine year.

The Gemora cites a braisa regarding one who distances himself from the community while they are suffering; two Heavenly angels will place their hands on him and declare that he should not see the comfort of the community when they are released from their affliction.

A similar braisa is cited which states that at the time when the community is suffering, one (who is not afflicted) should not say that he will go to his house, eat and drink and not be concerned about anyone else. It is said regarding one who neglects the anguish of the community that Hashem will not forgive him for this sin.

The braisa proves from Moshe that one should suffer together with the community. It is written that Moshe’s hands were heavy and he sat on a stone. The Gemora wonders why Moshe didn’t use a pillow or a mattress in order to sit comfortably. The answer given is that Moshe said if Klal Yisroel were suffering (due to the war with Amalek), he will suffer along with them.

The braisa continues that perhaps a person might ask that who will testify against him that he is not sharing in the suffering of the community. The answer given is that the stones and beams of his house will testify against him. Another opinion cited is that the Heavenly angels that accompany him will testify against him. Alternatively, Rabbi Chidka says that a person’s own soul will testify against him. Others say that his limbs will testify against him. (11a)

REWARD AND PUNISHMENT

 The braisa quotes a Scriptural verse and explains that just like an evil person is punished in the world to come even on a minor sin that he committed, so too a righteous person will be punished in this world even on a minor sin that he committed.

The braisa continues and explains that just like a righteous person will be rewarded in the world to come even for a minor mitzva that he performed, so too an evil person will be rewarded in this world even for a minor mitzva that he performed.

The Chachamim said that when it is time for a person to depart this world, all of his deeds leave him and they ask him if he committed a sin on such and such a day in such and such a place. He responds that he did and he signs affirming the record of his deeds. The person then declares that he was judged correctly. (11a)



VOLUNTARY FASTING

 Shmuel states that one who fasts is referred to as a sinner. Shmuel’s opinion is consistent with Rabbi Elozar Hakapar who explains that a nazir is referred to as a sinner since he pained himself by abstaining from wine. If one can be called a sinner for abstaining from wine, he will certainly be called a sinner for abstaining from all foods.

Rabbi Elozar disagrees and maintains that a nazir is referred to as a holy individual. If one who only abstained from wine is considered holy, certainly one who fasts is regarded as being holy.

The Gemora asks a contradiction regarding the opinion of Rabbi Elozar for he states elsewhere that a person’s intestines are considered holy and he must provide them with appropriate sustenance. The Gemora answers that fasting is considered praiseworthy for one who is able to fast and tolerate the suffering. One who does not have this ability is regarded as a sinner if he accepts to fast.

Rish Lakish states that one who voluntarily accepts to fast is regarded as a pious man.

Rav Sheishes says that one who is studying in Yeshiva should not fast. If he does accept to fast, a dog should eat his food.

Rabbi Yirmiya bar Abba said in the name of Rish Lakish that a Torah scholar is forbidden to fast since it will weaken him and detract from his learning. (11b)





FAST FOR A FEW HOURS

 Reb Zeira said in the name of Rav Huna that one who accepts to fast and eats and drinks on the night before the fast, he may recite the tefillah of the fast; he can say tefillas aneinu. If he continued sleeping through the next night without eating, he does not say aneinu on the next day.

Rav Yosef inquires as to the explanation of Rav Huna. Why does he not recite aneinu the next morning? Is it because he maintains that a fast for a few hours is not a binding fast or is a fast for a few hours considered a fast but one who fasts an abbreviated fast does not recite aneinu? Abaye answers that Rav Huna maintains that one can fast for a few hours and aneinu would be recited. Rav Huna’s case is ruled differently because there were hours at night that he did not accept as a fast from beforehand and therefore the fast is not deemed to be significant enough to recite aneinu. (11b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 10 - PROPHECY COMPARED TO TORAH

The Gemora cites a Scriptural verse where Yosef instructed his brothers not to discuss Torah on their way back from Egypt since they might become distracted and lose their way. The Gemora questions this from a statement of Rabbi Ilai who rules that if there are two Torah scholars traveling on the road and they are not discussing Torah, they deserve to be burned. The Gemora answers that one should review his learning on the road since it will not require much attention; however he should not delve into Torah study since that will distract him.

The Gemora cites the verses in Melachim regarding Eliyahu and Elisha. They were walking together and a fiery chariot and horses appeared and separated between the two of them. The reason they were not burned was because there were words of Torah discourse between them.

Tosfos cites a Medrash that the reason the fire appeared and they deserved to be burned was because they were discussing worthless words at the time.

The Brisker Rav asks that the Metzudos explains the conversation that Elisha was having with Eliyahu at that time. Elisha asked Eliyahu that the spirit of prophecy should rest on him with a higher level than that of Eliyahu. Eliyahu answered him that under certain conditions, that will occur. It emerges that at the time that the fire appeared they were discussing matters that should be regarded as holy and not futile words. They were discussing how the Heavenly presence will rest on Elisha. For this, they deserved to be burned?

The Brisker Rav answers that that this discussion pales in comparison to a discussion regarding Torah. When traveling on the road, one must make sure that there is Torah discourse being discussed and not other matters even if those matters are dealing with the Shechina and Prophecy.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 10 - Conditional Oath

We learned in a braisa that if one was fasting on account of troubling situations and it passed or he was fasting because of a sick person and he recovered before he completed the fast, he should nevertheless complete the fast.

Rashi and the Rosh learn that this halacha is even if the sick person dies, nevertheless one is obligated to finish the fast.

The Ohr Sameach in Hilchos Taanis (1) asks from Dovid Hamelech where he was fasting when his son from Bas-Sheva was sick. The Novi explicitly says that when they informed him that his son died, he got up from the ground, washed and anointed himself and began to eat. We see that he did not complete the fast.

In the sefer Peiros Te’eina he says that perhaps Dovid never made an oath to fast; rather because he was in such pain, he refused to eat and he slept on the ground. This is why he ate immediately after being informed that his son passed away since the halachos of a Taanis did not apply to him.

It would seem that this is the correct interpretation from the pesukim there which state that Dovid’s family tried convincing him to get up from the ground and to eat. If Dovid would have made an oath to fast, they would not have tried to persuade him to eat.

The Darkei Moshe rules that one should complete his fast only when he accepted to fast regularly. If he specifically stipulated during the acceptance of the fast, that he is fasting on condition that his son will get better; if the son dies, he will not be obligated to conclude the fast. The halacha by an oath is we consider the intent of the person and here his intention was clear that he was fasting on that condition.

This case would not be inconsistent with the Gemora which rules that a person should not test Hashem except by charity since that applies only if he stated that he is fasting in order for his son to recover from his illness. That is forbidden because it appears like he is testing Hashem; however to make such a stipulation would be permitted like we find by Yaakov where he made a vow and said “If Hashem will be with me.”

The sefer Tuv Taam V’daas asks on the Darkei Moshe from Rashi here. Rashi states that he must complete his fast in order that it does not appear that he made his commitment to fast conditional on the trouble not passing. It is evident from Rashi that pledging with a condition is not a correct thing to do.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 10 - Highlights

ERETZ YISROEL
The Gemora cites a braisa which states that Eretz Yisroel was the land that was created fist and all other lands were created afterwards.

The braisa continues that Hashem personally waters Eretz Yisroel and the rest of the world is watered through an emissary of Hashem. This causes that the rain water that falls in Eretz Yisroel is especially blessed and the water that descends on the other lands are not as blessed since they come down through an agent of Hashem.

The braisa concludes that Eretz Yisroel is the first land to drink and afterwards the rest of the world drinks. This is similar to someone making cheese, where he takes the edible parts and dispose of the refuse. (10a)

GAN EDEN
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the entire world can receive rain only after Gan Eden has been watered first. The Gemora cites a braisa that supports the viewpoint of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The braisa states that from the leftover of a container that waters a beis kor (thirty se’ah), referring to Gan Eden, one can water a tarkav (a half se’ah), referring to the rest of the world - which is one-sixtieth of a beis kor.

The Gemora cites a braisa which states that Egypt is four-hundred parsohs (four mil – which is approximately 2.5 miles) by four-hundred parsohs. It is one sixtieth the size of Kush. Kush is one sixtieth the size of the world. The world is one sixtieth the size of Gan Eden. Gan Eden is one sixtieth the size of Eden. Eden is one sixtieth the size of Gehinom. It emerges that the entire world is merely a pot cover for Gehinom. There are those that say Gehinom has no measure and there are others who say that Eden has no measure. (10a)
V’SEN TAL U’MATAR
 The Mishna presents a dispute regarding the asking for rain, v’sen tal u’matar. One Tanna holds that we begin on the third day of Cheshvan and Rabban Gamliel maintains that we begin on the seventh day of Cheshvan. Rabban Gamliel explains that the seventh of Cheshvan is the fifteenth day since Sukkos and this way the last traveler can reach the Euphrates River before the rain begins.

The Gemora cites a braisa where Chananya rules that the people residing in Bavel do not request rain until sixty days into the fall season.

The Gemora questions this ruling from Shmuel’s opinion who maintains that v’sen tal u’matar is not recited until the time that they bring the firewood into the house of Tavos, the bird hunter.

The Gemora answers that perhaps sixty days into the fall season and the bringing in of the firewood for the rainy season are precisely the same time. (10a)
FASTING FOR RAIN
 The Mishna rules that if the seventeenth of Cheshvan arrived and it still did not rain, the pious people should begin to fast three fasts. The fasts begin in the day and they are permitted to perform work. They are allowed to wash and anoint themselves. They are permitted to wear leather shoes and engage in marital relations.

If rain did not fall by Rosh Chodesh Kislev, beis din declares three communal fasts. The fasts begin in the day and they are permitted to perform work. They are allowed to wash and anoint themselves. They are permitted to wear leather shoes and engage in marital relations.

Rav Huna explains that the three fasts for the righteous individuals must take place on Monday, Thursday and Monday. There is a Mishna which rules that Beis Din never declares the first fast to be on Thursday since that would cause the prices to rise (people would be compelled to purchase food for two large meals in a row). We might have thought that this halacha would only apply when Beis Din declares the fasts and not when the pious individuals accepted the fasts upon themselves. This is the novelty of Rav Huna’s halacha.

A braisa is cited supporting Rav Huna’s ruling. The braisa concludes that if these fasts fall out on Rosh Chodesh or on one of the Yomim Tovim that are written in Megillas Taanis not to fast, the fasts are interrupted. (10a – 10b)

ACTING LIKE A TZADIK
 The Gemora cites a braisa which teaches that a student who is studying Torah is regarded as a pious individual and therefore should fast during the first series of fasts. The Gemora elaborates that an individual is someone who has the ability to be appointed a leader and a student is one who can respond to halachic questions related to what he is currently learning.

The Gemora presents a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi regarding one who wishes to conduct himself like a student or righteous person. Rabbi Meir does not allow him to since it will appear arrogant. Rabbi Yosi permits him to act like a righteous individual and he would be considered praiseworthy since he is accepting to fast which is difficult and painful. (10b)

We learned in a braisa that if one was fasting on account of troubling situations and it passed or he was fasting because of a sick person and he recovered before he completed the fast, he should nevertheless complete the fast.

The braisa rules regarding a person who went from a place that they were not fasting to a place where they are fasting, he should fast with them. If he went from a place where they were fasting to a place where they are not fasting, he should conclude his fast.

The braisa continues that if one ate by mistake in the city that is fasting, he should not appear as if he ate and he should not indulge in more eating since this will promote jealousy from the residents of the city. The Gemora cites a Scriptural verse where Yaakov instructed his sons to go down to Egypt to purchase grain even though they had food because he did not want the neighbors to be jealous.

The Gemora cites a Scriptural verse where Yosef instructed his brothers not to discuss Torah on their way back from Egypt since they might become distracted and lose their way. The Gemora questions this from a statement of Rabbi Ilai who rules that if there are two Torah scholars traveling on the road and they are not discussing Torah, they deserve to be burned. The Gemora answers that one should review his learning on the road since it will not require much attention; however he should not delve into Torah study since that will distract him.

The Gemora cites a braisa which understands Yosef’s instructions differently. Yosef told the brothers not to take long strides which can take away one five-hundredth of a person’s vision. Yosef also told them to arrive at their destination before the sun sets because it is much safer. (10b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 9 - You Give Maaser, Why Aren't You Rich?

Rabbi Yochanan teaches that fulfilling the mitzvah of ma'aser - tithes - guarantees wealth. He derives this from the passage (Devarim 14:22) asser ta-asser - surely you shall tithe - which he understands to mean asser bishvil she-titasher - separate tithes so that you should become wealthy.

A person once approached Reb Pinchos Koritzer and complained to him that he has given maaser his entire life and he never merited to become wealthy. Why not?

Reb Pinchos responded with a story that occurred in his neighborhood. There lived a wagon driver who possessed many strong horses that would pull his wagon. He provided these horses with all their needs and the horses performed their job admirably.

One day, after he fed and gave his animals to drink, he tied the horses to the wagon and ordered the horses to begin the journey. The horses rebelled against him and refused to budge. The wagon driver began whipping the animals but to no avail. He became furious with the horses until he was beating them senselessly.

A passerby observed the scene and called out to the wagon driver that he is being ruthless and cruel. “Don’t you see what you are doing? Don’t you realize why the wagon is not moving? You have chained the wheels of the wagon to a tree and that is why your faithful horses are not listening to you.”

Reb Pinchos Koritzer explained that the mitzvah of ma'aser - tithes – which guarantees wealth is akin to the strong horses. If one chains the wagon to a tree, the most powerful horses in the world would not move an inch. So too, if one prevents the wheels of the ‘maaser’ from turning by committing other sins and acting immorally, the segula of the maaser cannot take effect and he will never become wealthy.

This explanation is not consistent with the opinion of the Chinuch (424) who explicitly states that the blessing of riches is guaranteed and no sins committed will prevent the blessing from taking affect. The Meiri does state that one can lose out on this guarantee by committing sins.

There are other answers to this question. The Meor Einayim cites the Gemora in Shabbos (25b) that states “Who is a rich person? One who is pleased with his riches.” The Mishna in Avos states that a wealthy person is someone who is happy with his lot. One who fulfills the mitzva of maaser will merit that he will be satisfies with what he has and be happy with it. Chazal say that a person dies without satisfying even half of his desires. Through the mitzva of maaser, one will learn to be satisfies and content with whatever he has. This is the test that Hashem allows the Jewish people to test Him with regard to the mitzvah of ma'aser.

This is the explanation in the statement of the Maharil, cited by the Rama (Y”D 265:11) that the sandek by a bris is akin to the kohen who burned the incense. There is a special segula that he will become wealthy and that is why it has become the custom to have a different sandek for every bris. Wealthy does not mean that he will become rich, rather he will become content and satisfied with whatever he has.

Read more!

Daf Yomi -Taanis 9 - Highlights

RABBI YOCHANAN
Rabbi Yochanan states that a day of rain is as significant as the day of the ingathering of all the exiles.

Rabbi Yochanan states that a day of rain is great because even soldiers from an army halt due to the rain.

Rabbi Yochanan states that rain is withheld because people pledge to give charity in public and fail to do so.

Rabbi Yochanan teaches that fulfilling the mitzvah of ma'aser - tithes - guarantees wealth. He derives this from the passage (Devarim 14:22) asser ta-asser - surely you shall tithe - which he understands to mean asser bishvil she-titasher - separate tithes so that you should become wealthy. At first glance this appears to be a simple play-on-words, switching the Hebrew letter sin for a shin, thus changing the pronunciation of the word from asser (tithe) to osher (wealth). Others explain that this is a more straightforward interpretation of the pasuk (=verse) - separate tithes, and by doing so you will be given the opportunity to separate yet more tithes (i.e. you will see success in your endeavors).

The Gemora now records a fascinating exchange between Rabbi Yochanan and Rish Lakish's son. Rabbi Yochanan asks the child to share a passage that he had learned in school (a common practice in Talmudic times). The child quotes this pasuk - asser ta-asser - and asks Rabbi Yochanan to explain it. Following Rabbi Yochanan's explanation the child asks how he knows that someone who separates tithes becomes wealthy. Rabbi Yochanan responds that it could be tested - be careful in separating tithes, and see the results! The child responds that testing God is forbidden, quoting the passage in Devarim (6:16) that clearly forbids testing God. To this Rabbi Yochanan responds by quoting Rabbi Hoshaya as teaching that tithes are unique because of the pasuk in Malachi (3:10) in which God clearly allows the Jewish people to test Him with regard to the mitzvah of ma'aser, promising to open the storehouses of the skies and to pour out blessings without any limits to those who keep the mitzvah properly. (Courtesy of the Aleph Society)

What is meant by the verse “and to pour out blessings without any limits”? Rami bar Chama explains that people’s lips will wear out from saying, “Enough!”

The child said to Rabbi Yochanan that if he would have learned the passuk in Malachi himself, he would not have needed Rabbi Yochanan or Rabbi Hoshaya to understand the passuk in the same manner that they taught it. (8b – 9a)

PROSPERITY ON THE ACCOUNT OF AN INDIVIDUAL
Rabbi Yochanan states that rain will fall even for an individual but sustenance will only be provided if it’s for many people.

The Gemora asks on Rabbi Yochanan from a braisa. The braisa states that there were three excellent leaders for Klal Yisroel in the wilderness and there were three wonderful gifts bestowed upon the Jewish people. The first was the miraculous well which came on account of Miriam, the second was the pillar of cloud which came because of Aharon, and the third was the Manna which came in the merit of Moshe. The Gemora goes on to say that when Miriam passed away, the well went away but was returned on the merit of Aharon and Moshe. When Aharon passed away the Clouds of Glory went away, only to come back on Moshe’s merit. When Moshe passed away, all three of these precious gifts were gone forever.

It emerges from this braisa which states that the manna fell on the account of Moshe that sustenance can be granted even for the sake of a single person. The Gemora answers that Moshe is different since he would daven for many, he is regarded as many people.

Rish Lakish also held that rain will be provided for an individual, even if he is the only one requires the rain. The Gemora relates that Rav Daniel bar Katina had a garden that he would inspect every day. He would say that this row needs rain and this row does not. Rain would fall only on the places that needed the water. (9a – 9b)
MORE RAIN
The Gemora states that if small drops of rain descend before regular rain, this is an indication that the rains will persist a long time. If the small drops of rain follow after the regular rain, this means that the rains are about to stop.

Ula came to Bavel and he saw flying clouds. He instructed the people that were with him to clear away his belongings as rain is about to come. At the end, it didn’t rain. Ula said that just as the Babylonians lie, so too their rains lie.

Ula went to Bavel and he saw that they were selling a basketful of dates for only a zuz. Ula wondered why the people residing in Bavel would occupy their time with making money when food was so inexpensive. They should dedicate all their time to the study of Torah. Ula ate some of those dates and at night, he developed a severe case of diarrhea. Ula retracted from his earlier statement and instead marveled at the Babylonians who ate these dates and suffered but nevertheless were able to study Torah. (9b)
RAIN AND DROUGHTS
Rabbi Eliezer said that the world drinks from the ocean (water which evaporated from the ocean and comes back to the earth as precipitation) and he cites a Scriptural verse proving this point. Rabbi Yehoshua questioned him that isn’t seawater salty but rain is not? The Gemora answers that it is sweetened in
the clouds.

Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that the world drinks from the Upper Waters (the rain falls from heaven) and he cites a Scriptural verse proving this point.

The Gemora cites a verse and states that it teaches us that the day of rainfall is as great as the day that the Heavens and Earth were created.
(9b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 8 - PRAYING TO ELIMINATE TWO CALAMITIES

In the days of R' Shmuel bar Nachmeini, a plague as well as a famine raged through the land.

"How should we act?" the rabbis asked, "to pray that Hashem nullify them both is impossible. We cannot pray [effectively] for two things at once. Let us then pray that the plague should come to an end, and we will suffer through the famine."

"Not so," R' Shmuel bar Nachmani may told them, "rather, we should pray for the end of the famine, and Hashem will remove the plague as well. For, Hashem does not send His abundance to those who will die, only to those who will live. This the Torah teaches when it says, "You open your hand, and satisfy the living with their desires."

The Shulchan Aruch (O”C 576:15) rules based on our Gemora that if the community has two difficulties at once, they should only pray for one of them.

The Kosos L’maor asks that how can we daven Shemoneh Esrei every day when we are praying for so many different things. He answers that the halacha is only when the calamities are here already upon us but we can pray that they shouldn’t come upon us even if we are praying for multiple things.

The Ben Yehoyada writes that we do not daven for two calamities outside Eretz Yisroel where our tefillos do not ascend to Hashem directly and there is a concern that the agents carrying our tefillos to Hashem will prosecute against us; however we are permitted to daven in Eretz Yisroel for multiple calamities since our prayers ascend directly to Hashem with no emissaries in the middle.

The Peri Megadim comments that if there are two sicknesses, we are permitted to daven for both of them since it is considered one tefillah – we are beseeching Hashem that sicknesses should not come upon us.

The Kaf Hachaim infers from the language of the Shulchan Aruch that this halacha only applies by a communal tefillah; however an individual can daven for more than one calamity.

The Iyun Yaakov writes that Moshe requested of Hashem two things and therefore he wasn’t answered. He asked to be able to cross over into Eretz Yisroel and he requested to be able to see Eretz Yisroel. (I would have thought that this would be regarded as one request.) This seemingly is not consistent with the Kaf Hachaim since Moshe was an individual and nevertheless he could not daven for two things.

The Chasam Sofer answers that all of our requests are actually only one. Dovid Hamelech requested only to be able to dwell in Hashem's midst his entire life. That is the underlying theme of all our tefillos. Klal Yisroel just wants to be able to bask in the presence of the Shechina.

The Satmar Rebbe in Divrei Yoel states that if the requests are for the honor of Hashem, there is no limit to how many one can ask for. This is why we recite by hoshanos “l’maancho,” we are asking for all types of salvation for the sake of Hashem. If that is our intent, we can ask for multiple things.

The Ben Yehoyada brings a proof from Eliyahu that it would be permitted to ask for two different things by tefillas Mincha. That is when Eliyahu prayed “Aneini Hashem aneini.”

There are those that say that this halacha is limited to a prayer on an ominous occasion, when an impending disaster is looming; however by Shemoneh Esrei which has its set time and has a set arrangement, there is no concern for this.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 8 - Reincarnations

Rabbi Ami said: Come and see how great are the people who trust in Hashem. Rabbi Ami points to the story of those who believe in the huldah u-bor - the rodent and the pit - arguing that if you believe in the huldah u-bor, certainly you can believe in Hashem.

It is interesting that the Gemora feels no need to explain what the story of the huldah u-bor entails, taking for granted that it was a story so well known that there was no need to put it in writing. Rashi and Tosfos both tell a short version of the story, but a lengthier version, whose source is in the traditions of the Ge'onim, appears in the Arukh.

As R. Natan ben Yehiel tells it in his Arukh, the story begins with a girl from a noble family who loses her way and, having fallen into a well while drinking, cannot manage to extract herself. A passerby hears her cries and shouts. After a lengthy conversation during which time he ascertains that she is, in fact, a woman and not a demon of some sort, he agrees to save her, on the condition that she will marry him. Upon lifting her from the well he wants to consummate the marriage immediately, but she objects, arguing that a Jewish man surely wants to marry according to the halacha and would not be interested in simply fulfilling animalistic urges. They agree to marry and appoint the well and a passing weasel as witnesses to their pact.

Upon returning home, she scrupulously kept her agreement, refusing the entreaties of all suitors. He, on the other hand, soon forgot the agreement and married another woman, who bore children - the first of whom was bitten by a weasel, the second of whom drowned in a well. Seeing that her children died under unnatural circumstances, she demanded an explanation from her husband, who admitted that he had promised another that he would marry her. They divorced and he searched for the woman who he had saved and promised to marry. When she refused him - as she did all others - he told her of the honest witnesses, the huldah u-bor, that brought him back to her. In the end they married and had many children, proving the passage in Tehillim (101:6) that God's eyes are upon the faithful who merit a close relationship with Him. (Courtesy of the Aleph Society)

The Rama Mipano writes that this man was a reincarnation of Yehoram who had taken two sons from the wife of Ovadia the Prophet and now he was being punished for this. He had taken those two sons by a well and every Motzoei Shabbos, the well of Miriam the Prophetess passes by all the wells in the world. The weasel in the incident had the spirit of Chuldah the Prophetess and they are the ones who punish Yehoram.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 8 - CLASSIFIED AS A TZADIK

The Gemara (Kidushin 49b) states that if a man betroths a woman "on condition that I am a tzadik", even if he is totally wicked, we must assume that the betrothal might be valid, since thoughts of Teshuva could have entered his mind.

Thus, a Rasha could become a Tzadik based solely on thoughts of Teshuva, without requiring the discomfort of fasting or suffering. Yet, the Posuk says: after being taken to Golus, they atone for their sins, and Rashi comments that their atonement will be achieved through their suffering.

The Shemen Rokeach (2:10) cites the Gemara (Taanis 8b) which says that in the days of R' Zeira, the government issued decrees against Jewish religious observance and among the decrees, was a prohibition against Jews fasting (e.g. to end a drought). According to Rashi, this decree was to prevent benefit from coming to the world through the efforts of the Jews. R' Zeira said that nevertheless, they should all accept a fast upon themselves, and when the decree will be rescinded, they will then fulfill their promise and observe the fast. When asked how he knew it was possible to do this, he replied that the Posuk says: (Daniel 10:12) that Daniel accepted upon himself twenty one years of fasting, and that his Tefilos were accepted immediately, as soon as he had made the vow.

As such, here too we may conclude that when the Rasha tried to betroth the woman on condition that he was a Tzadik, he had in mind, not only to do Teshuva, forsaking his wicked ways, but Kaparah as well, by accepting upon himself to fast and be uncomfortable at a later date. In so doing, he may be classified immediately as a Tzadik. (Courtesy of Kehilas Prozdor)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 8 - Highlights

UNSUCCESSFUL STUDENT
Rish Lakish states that if you see a student who is having difficulty in his Torah studies, it is because his knowledge of the Mishna is not arranged in an organized manner. The remedy for him is to spend more time studying in Yeshiva where all the students are learning the Mishna. Rish Lakish would review the Mishna forty times corresponding to the forty days that Moshe studied the Torah at Sinai and only then would he come before Rabbi Yochanan to learn Gemora. Rav Adda bar Ahava would review the Mishna twenty-four times corresponding to the twenty-four books of Scripture and only then would he come before Rava to learn Gemora.

Rava states that if you see a student who is having difficulty in his Torah studies, it is because his teacher is not treating him well. The solution would be to send friends to the teacher to intervene on his behalf. (7b – 8a)

INSINCERE TEFILLAH
Rabbi Ami said that a person’s tefillah will only be accepted if he is truly sincere. The Gemora asks from a statement from Shmuel who states that tefillah is accepted even if it is insincere. The Gemora answers that an individual’s tefillah will only be accepted if he is sincere; however a tefillah of the congregation will be accepted even if some of their tefillos are insincere. (8a)
INTEGRITY, FAITH & JUSTICE
Rabbi Ami states that rain will fall in the merit of people who possess integrity in their business dealings.

Rabbi Ami said: Come and see how great are the people who trust in Hashem. Rabbi Ami points to the story of those who believe in the huldah u-bor - the rodent and the pit - arguing that if you believe in the huldah u-bor, certainly you can believe in Hashem.

It is interesting that the Gemora feels no need to explain what the story of the huldah u-bor entails, taking for granted that it was a story so well known that there was no need to put it in writing. Rashi and Tosfos both tell a short version of the story, but a lengthier version, whose source is in the traditions of the Ge'onim, appears in the Arukh.

As R. Natan ben Yehiel tells it in his Arukh, the story begins with a girl from a noble family who loses her way and, having fallen into a well while drinking, cannot manage to extract herself. A passerby hears her cries and shouts. After a lengthy conversation during which time he ascertains that she is, in fact, a woman and not a demon of some sort, he agrees to save her, on the condition that she will marry him. Upon lifting her from the well he wants to consummate the marriage immediately, but she objects, arguing that a Jewish man surely wants to marry according to the halacha and would not be interested in simply fulfilling animalistic urges. They agree to marry and appoint the well and a passing weasel as witnesses to their pact.

Upon returning home, she scrupulously kept her agreement, refusing the entreaties of all suitors. He, on the other hand, soon forgot the agreement and married another woman, who bore children - the first of whom was bitten by a weasel, the second of whom drowned in a well. Seeing that her children died under unnatural circumstances, she demanded an explanation from her husband, who admitted that he had promised another that he would marry her. They divorced and he searched for the woman who he had saved and promised to marry. When she refused him - as she did all others - he told her of the honest witnesses, the huldah u-bor, that brought him back to her. In the end they married and had many children, proving the passage in Tehillim (101:6) that God's eyes are upon the faithful who merit a close relationship with Him. (Courtesy of the Aleph Society)

Rabbi Yochanan states that one who conducts himself righteously in this world will be judged more strictly Above. There will be a strict judging of his deeds in order to cleanse him and thereby he can receive his total reward in the world to come.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that one who rejoices in his suffering brings salvation to the world. (8a)
RAIN AND DROUGHTS
Rish Lakish cites a Scriptural verse proving that when the sky is filled with rain clouds but they do not produce rain is comparable to a woman who has labor pains but does not give birth. This is dangerous to the world as it is a consequence brought about from sin.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini said that if Hashem had decreed that harsh rains shall fall as a punishment and then Klal Yisroel repented, the fierce rains will be diverted to the unpopulated mountains and hills where they will fall harmlessly and not be detrimental. If good rain is decreed then it will fall on the fields, cisterns and caves.

In the days of R' Shmuel bar Nachmeini, a plague as well as a famine raged through the land.

"How should we act?" the rabbis asked, "to pray that Hashem nullify them both is impossible. We cannot pray [effectively] for two things at once. Let us then pray that the plague should come to an end, and we will suffer through the famine."

"Not so," R' Shmuel bar Nachmani may told them, "rather, we should pray for the end of the famine, and Hashem will remove the plague as well. For, Hashem does not send His abundance to those who will die, only to those who will live. This the Torah teaches when it says, "You open your hand, and satisfy the living with their desires."

In the days of R' Zeira, the government issued decrees against Jewish religious observance and among the decrees, was a prohibition against Jews fasting (e.g. to end a drought). According to Rashi, this decree was to prevent benefit from coming to the world through the efforts of the Jews. R' Zeira said that nevertheless, they should all accept a fast upon themselves, and when the decree will be rescinded, they will then fulfill their promise and observe the fast. When asked how he knew it was possible to do this, he replied that the Posuk says: (Daniel 10:12) that Daniel accepted upon himself twenty one years of fasting, and that his Tefilos were accepted immediately, as soon as he had made the vow.

Rabbi Yitzchak said that even during an extreme drought, rain that falls on a Friday is nothing but a curse since it will inconvenience those that are shopping for Shabbos. Ameimar had said that if it wouldn’t be that rain is so necessary, we would pray to have it abolished since it prevents people from going back and forth.

Rabbi Yitzchak states that rain is so great that even businesses that do not require rain are blessed on a day of rain. (8b)
BLESSING ONLY ON HIDDEN ITEMS
Rabbi Yitzchak states further that one can only find blessing in something that is hidden from the eye. This is similar to a braisa cited in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that blessing will not be found except by something that the eye cannot gaze at.

The Rabbis taught that one who enters his silo to measure the grain should pray that Hashem should send blessing in the work of our hands. Once he has started to measure it, he blesses Hashem for bestowing blessing upon the pile of grain. If he measured it and then recited the blessing, it is in vain, as blessing cannot happen to items weighed, measured or on something that has been counted. Blessing can only be found on those things concealed from the eye. (8b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 7 - GLASS CUPS BY THE SEDER

"Woe, that such beautiful wisdom must sit in such an ugly container," Caesar's daughter said to R' Yehoshua ben Chananya, intimating that he might be wise, but definitely not handsome.

"Tell me," he answered her, "doesn't your father keep wine in the earthenware vessels?"

"What other vessels should he use?" she asked him. "Surely, everyone keeps wine in earthenware vessels?"

"Important people like you," he declared, "should use nothing less than gold and silver."

She told this to her father, and he transferred his wine to gold and silver vessels. The wine soured.

"Who advised you to do this?" the king asked her.

"Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananya," she answered. He summoned R' Yehoshua.

"Why did you tell my daughter this?" he asked.

"I only spoke to her," said R' Yehoshua, "as she spoke to me. She should have realized that just as wine keeps best in plain earthenware vessels, so wisdom only keeps in plain people."

"But surely, there are also good-looking people that are wise?" the king asked.

"If people did not admire them for their good looks," R' Yehoshua answered, "They would be much more learned. To remember wisdom, a person needs great humility, and for people that others admire, this is very difficult.”

It was the custom of the Sanz-Kloizenberg Rebbe that he would only use glass cups for the wine of the four cups on the night of the Seder. The rest of Pesach, he would use his silver cup.

It was said over that the reason for this custom is based on our Gemora which states that wine keeps best in plain earthenware vessels. Since the wine for the four cups will be inside the glass for an extended period of time, it is better to use a glass cup that one made out of gold or silver.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 7 - REBBE AKIN TO A MIKVAH

Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa explains two verses discussing teachers and students. If the student has good character, the teacher should travel to the student but if the student lacks good character, the student must go to the teacher.

The Imrei Emes said over in the name of the Kotzker Rebbe that a Chassideshe Rebbe is akin to a mikvah. Just like a mikvah purifies the unclean, so too a Rebbe has the ability to purify the unclean. When a chasid travels to the Rebbe, the Rebbe is like a mikvah and can purify the unclean even without preparation; however when the Rebbe makes a trip to the Chassidim, he is like a wave that has separated from the ocean. The halacha is in order for the wave to purify the unclean, the person must be waiting for the wave to come down.

This is the meaning of our Gemora. If the student has good character and is anxiously awaiting to learn, he will be successful even if the Rebbe comes to him; however if the student lacks good character, he must go to the Rebbe in order to learn since he lacks the proper preparation.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 7 - Highlights

GREATNESS OF A DAY OF RAIN
Rav Avahu stated that a day of rain is greater than the Resurrection of the Dead since rain is beneficial for the righteous and for the evil people; however the Resurrection will only benefit the righteous. This is different than the opinion of Rav Yosef who said that the mentioning of rain was placed in the second brocha of Shemoneh Esrei dealing with the Resurrection because a day of rain is equal to the Resurrection of the Dead.

Rav Yehuda said that a day of rain is as great as the day on which the Torah was given. Rava proved that a day of rain is even greater than the day on which the Torah was given. (7a)

WORTHY TORAH SCHOLAR
Rava cites a Scriptural verse which indicates that Torah is compared to rain and to dew. He explains that the Torah’s effect on a worthy Torah scholar will be like dew which is always beneficial; however if he is not worthy, then the Torah will be like rain which can be detrimental.

This same idea is mentioned in a braisa. One who learns Torah in order to fulfill Hashem’s commandment will merit that the Torah will become a medicine of life to him. However, regarding one who studies Torah for ulterior motives; the Torah will become like poison to him.

Rabbi Yochanan teaches a similar thought. There are two types of trees. A tree that has fruit growing from it cannot be chopped down. A tree that does not bear fruit may be chopped down. One shall learn Torah from a worthy torah scholar but a Torah scholar who does not possess proper character should be cut down like a non-fruit-bearing tree. (7a)

TORAH ANALOGY
The Gemora states that Torah learning is analogous to iron. Just as one iron blade sharpens another, so too one Torah scholar can sharpen the mind of another Torah scholar when they are learning together.

Rabbah bar bar Chanah explains why Torah can be compared to fire. A fire cannot start from one piece of wood, so too, Torah will not be preserved by someone who learns by himself. He needs another to learn with in order to ensure that he doesn’t make a mistake which can eventually lead a person to sin.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak states that Torah is analogous to branches of a tree. Just as small twigs are used to ignite large pieces of wood, so too, young Torah scholars sharpen the minds of the older Torah scholars. This is the explanation of Rabbi Chanina’s words. Rabbi Chanina said “I have learned a lot from my teachers and from my friend more than my teachers but I have learned the most from my students. Questions posed by young scholars and students sharpen the minds of the teachers.

Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa explains two verses discussing teachers and students. If the student has good character, the teacher should travel to the student but if the student lacks good character, the student must go to the teacher.

Rabbi Chanina bar Idi states that Torah learning is compared to water. Just like water leaves the higher ground and flows to the lower ground, so too, Torah words can only be maintained by someone who is unassuming and who possesses a humble spirit.

Reb Oshaya said that Torah is compared to three liquids, water, wine and milk. This teaches us that just like these three liquids are preserved only in mediocre vessels, so too, Torah can only be maintained by someone who is unassuming and who possesses a humble spirit. (7a)

EARTHENWARE VESSELS
"Woe, that such beautiful wisdom must sit in such an ugly container," Caesar's daughter said to R' Yehoshua ben Chananya, intimating that he might be wise, but definitely not handsome.
"Tell me," he answered her, "doesn't your father keep wine in the earthenware vessels?"
"What other vessels should he use?" she asked him. "Surely, everyone keeps wine in earthenware vessels?"
"Important people like you," he declared, "should use nothing less than gold and silver."
She told this to her father, and he transferred his wine to gold and silver vessels. The wine soured.
"Who advised you to do this?" the king asked her.
"Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananya," she answered. He summoned R' Yehoshua.
"Why did you tell my daughter this?" he asked.
"I only spoke to her," said R' Yehoshua, "as she spoke to me. She should have realized that just as wine keeps best in plain earthenware vessels, so wisdom only keeps in plain people."
"But surely, there are also good-looking people that are wise?" the king asked.
"If people did not admire them for their good looks," R' Yehoshua answered, "They would be much more learned. To remember wisdom, a person needs great humility, and for people that others admire, this is very difficult.” (7a - 7b)

CONNECTION BETWEEN OUR DEEDS AND RAIN
Rabbi Tanchum bar Chanilai states that rain will not fall unless Klal Yisroel’s sins have been forgiven.
Rabbi Tanchum the son of Rabbi Chiya states that rain will not be withheld unless the enemies of Klal Yisroel (a euphemism which is referring to Klal Yisroel) are condemned for annihilation.
Rav Chisda states that rain can be withheld because of the transgression of neglecting to separate Terumos and maasros.
Rabbi Shimon said that rain can be withheld because of the sin of speaking loshon hara. Rav Sala states that rain can be withheld because of the shameless people.
Rav Katina states that rain can be withheld due to the sin of neglecting to study Torah.
Rabbi Ami said that rain can be withheld because of the transgression of stealing. (7b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 6 - NO LIMIT FOR REVIEW

The Gemora cites a Mishna in Peah that the wealthy are permitted to collect the leket, shic’chah and peah from the field after the nemushos have left the field. The Gemora offers two opinions as to the meaning of the nemushos. The first explanation is that these are the elderly people who walk with a cane. The second explanation given is that we are referring to those that collect after others have already collected. An example of this would be a father and a son who work together. The son picks up whatever the father leaves behind.

Reb Chaim Ozer said that the Chazon Ish has a unique perception in the words of the Rishonim. He has the ability to reach conclusions in understanding their words completely different than others who studied the same Rishonim.

The Chazon Ish said about himself that he does not possess any special talent but rather it can be explained according to our Gemora. Our Gemora states that a person can find grain left in the field even after a father and a son collected the fallen grain. It is evident from here that if one searches for something, it can be found even if other people have already looked. The Chazon Ish said that he learns the Rishonim over and over again until he is able to realize the true meaning of their words even if his predecessors did not reach the same conclusion.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 6 - Highlights

YOREH AND MALKOSH
One of the promises that we repeat daily in our recitation of the Keriyat Shema is that the reward for appropriate behavior is rain in its proper time - yoreh u'malkosh. Our Gemara discusses these terms and their meaning. The yoreh, according to the baraita, is the first rain of the year, which occurs in the month of MarHeshvan, and the malkosh is the rain that ends the season in Nissan.

With regard to the meaning of each of these words, several suggestions are made by the Gemara.

Yoreh can be understood to be made up of any one of a number of different root words.
• It can be a form of moreh - teacher - implying that the first rain teaches the people that winter is coming so that they will prepare their roofs, bring in their dried fruits, and get ready for the rainy season.
• It can be a form of yarah - to throw or shoot - indicating that the first rains fall gently to the earth.
Malkosh appears to come from the root lekesh, an unusual root that means "late." Rashi says that it is the name of a type of locust - the Schistocerca gregaria - whose appearance coincides with the end-of-season rains. (The Aleph Society)

The Gemora states that just as malkosh is beneficial, so too the yoreh rainfall is beneficial.

The Gemora explains the root meaning of the word malkosh. One explanation given is that since the Jewish Nation needs it desperately, it removes their stubbornness and drives them to repent. Another interpretation offered is that it fills the stalks with grain. A braisa is cited explaining malkosh to mean something that falls on the ears and stalks. (6a)
THREE YOREH RAINFALLS
 The Gemora cites a braisa which presents an alternative view on when the yoreh rainfall is. Rabbi Meir maintains that yoreh is in Mar-Cheshvan. The Chachamim hold that yoreh is in the month of Kislev. Rav Chisda states that the opinion of the Chachamim is consistent with the viewpoint of Rabbi Yosi cited in a different braisa. There are three times that the yoreh rain descends. The braisa cites three opinions in regards to these times. Rabbi Yosi maintains that the first rain falls on the seventeenth of Mar-Cheshvan. The second rain descends on the twenty-third and the last one falls on Rosh Chodesh Kislev.

The Gemora explains the halachic significance for the three yoreh rains. It is important to know the time for the first rain because this is when we will commence requesting for rain. It is pertinent to know the time for the third rainfall since we need to know when to begin fasting if the rain does not descend. The Gemora offers several explanations for the purpose of knowing the time of the second rain. Rabbi Zeira explains that it is relevant for the halachos of vows. One who makes a vow “until the rains” or “from when the rains begin” is referring to the second rainfall. Rav Zevid states that it is relevant for the halacha in connection to olives. The wealthy are permitted to gather the “forgotten olives” in the field after the second rainfall. Rav Pappa understands the significance of the second rainfall in regards to taking shortcuts through other people’s fields. This is only permitted until the second rainfall because afterwards, the new crop will get damaged. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains the pertinence of the second rainfall in regards to the halachos of Shemitah. (6a – 6b)

MORNING CLOUDS
Rav Yehuda bar Yitzchak states that clouds that appear in the early morning do not bring blessing. The Gemora asks on this from a saying that people say “If rain falls when the gates are opened, donkey driver, fold up your sack and go to sleep.” The rain that falls in the morning will be so beneficial that the grain peddlers will not be productive that day and therefore they should go to sleep. The Gemora answers that the rain which falls in the morning is beneficial if the clouds are thick but thin clouds are not a blessing. (6b)

BLESSING ON RAIN
The Gemora discusses the brocha that one recites when seeing rain. One would recite the brocha when the drops of rain fall into a puddle that is already on the ground and some of the drops move upwards. The Gemora discusses the text of the brocha. There is a dispute regarding the conclusion of the brocha. (6b – 7a)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 5 - TIME TO BECOME ROOTED

The Gemora relates that in the times of Yoel, Klal Yisroel planted on the second, third and fourth day of Nissan from the grain with which they had and the second rainfall came down on the fifth day of Nissan. They miraculously were able to bring the korban omer on the sixteenth of Nissan from the new crop which grew. It emerges that grain which normally grows in six months grew in eleven days.

The Maharsha comments that it was necessary for the grain to take root three days before the second rainfall. This is because the Gemora in Rosh Hashanah (10b) states that in order for grain to be considered from the previous year, it is required to be rooted into the ground and that takes three days.

The Metzapeh Eisan asks that this is only correct according to Rabbi Yehuda; however Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon disagree and maintain that it takes two weeks to become rooted in the ground and the halacha is in accordance with their opinion.

Shulchan Aruch (Y”D 293) rules that grain which took root before the sixteenth of Nissan becomes permitted for consumption with the korban omer offered on the sixteenth. The Shach cites the Terumos Hadeshen (191) who states that it takes three days for the grain to become rooted into the ground.

The Dagul Meirvova asks that this is only correct according to Rabbi Yehuda; however Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon disagree and maintain that it takes two weeks to become rooted in the ground and the halacha is in accordance with their opinion.

The Metzapeh Eisan answers that the Terumos Hadeshen relied on our Gemora that would seem to indicate that three days is sufficient time for the grain to take root into the ground. The Gr”A states that perhaps there is a distinction between trees and grain as to the amount of time it takes for them to become rooted in the ground. He cites a Yerushalmi that makes such a distinction.

The Chasam Sofer (Y”D 284) answers that in truth, there is not a factual dispute as to how many days it takes for a tree to take root since everyone holds that it takes root in three days or less and the facts can attest to this. The argument amongst the Tannaim is regarding a case where for some reason the tree did not take root. After how long can it be stated with a certainty that the tree will not take root any longer. Regarding Shemitah, which is a Biblical transgression, we must rule stringently that grain which is planted two weeks prior to Shemitah receives the sanctity of Shemitah. The prohibition of eating from the new crop outside of Eretz Yisroel is only Rabbinical and therefore we can rule leniently and three days will be sufficient.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 5 - GRAIN FROM THE ANT HOLES

The Gemora provides the details of the miracle that transpired in the times of Yoel. That year, the month of Adar passed and there was still no rainfall. The first rain fell on the first day of Nissan. The prophet Yoel told Klal Yisroel to go and plant their fields. The people protested that since they have a small amount of wheat and barley, they should eat it and not plant it. If they would plant it, they would die from starvation waiting for the new crop to grow. Yoel persisted and told them to plant the grain which they had. A miracle occurred and they found grain in the walls and in the ant holes. They planted on the second, third and fourth day of Nissan from the grain with which they had and the second rainfall came down on the fifth day of Nissan.

Rashi learns that they planted from the grain with which they had and ate the grain from which they found. Rabbeinu Chananel learns exactly the opposite. They ate from the grain from which they had and they planted from the grain with which they found. What compelled Rashi to learn his way? The Rif in the Ein Yaakov asks on Rashi that how was the verse “Those who plant with tears will harvest with bliss” fulfilled? Rashi learns that they were crying since they didn’t have what to eat. Why should they be planting with tears if they had grain which they found in the walls?

The Rif answers that Hashem did not perform the miracle of providing them with the grain in the walls until they showed their faith in Hashem by planting from the grain with which they had.

The Yad Yosef answers that the grain from the ant holes would not be suitable for planting. The saliva from the ants and mice destroys all the moisture in the grain and therefore they ate from that grain and planted the old grain.

Sefer Tehilla L’yonah found an answer that since they would be bringing the grain with which they planted for the korban omer; grain from a miracle is not fitting to be used for a korban.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 5 - Highlights

CEASE REQUESTING RAIN

The Mishna presents a dispute regarding the date that we cease asking for rain. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that v’sen tal u’matar is recited until Pesach is over and Rabbi Meir holds that it is recited until the end of the month of Nissan. Rabbi Meir cites a Scriptural verse proving that it can be recited in the month of Nissan.

The Gemora asks on the verse which Rabbi Meir had cited to prove that we request rain throughout the month of Nissan. Rav Nachman asked that the word ‘yoreh’ which Rabbi Meir explained to be referring to the yoreh rain of Nissan is seemingly incorrect. He cites a braisa which explicitly states that yoreh rain falls in the month of Mar-Cheshvan and malkosh rain falls in the month of Nissan.

Rabbi Yitzchak answered that in the times of Yoel, there was yoreh rain which fell in the month of Nissan and that is what the verse is referring to. (5a)

MIRACLE IN THE
DAYS OF YOEL

The Gemora provides the details of the miracle that transpired in the times of Yoel. That year, the month of Adar passed and there was still no rainfall. The first rain fell on the first day of Nissan. The prophet Yoel told Klal Yisroel to go and plant their fields. The people protested that since they have a small amount of wheat and barley, they should eat it and not plant it. If they would plant it, they would die from starvation waiting for the new crop to grow. Yoel persisted and told them to plant the grain which they had. A miracle occurred and they found grain in the walls and in the ant holes. They planted on the second, third and fourth day of Nissan from the grain with which they had and the second rainfall came down on the fifth day of Nissan. They miraculously were able to bring the korban omer on the sixteenth of Nissan from the new crop which grew. It emerges that grain which normally grows in six months grew in eleven days. Regarding this generation, it is said “Those who plant with tears will harvest with bliss.”
(5a)

SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE

 The Gemora discusses what Klal Yisroel ate during the seven years of famine prior to that miraculous harvest. Rabbi Yitzchak stated in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that in the first year they ate the food that they had stored in their houses. The second year, they ate from the food which was in the fields. The third year, they ate from kosher animals. During the fourth year, they ate from non-kosher animals. The fifth year, they ate from non-kosher creeping creatures. During the sixth year, they ate from the flesh of their children. In the seventh year, they ate from the flesh of their own arms. (5a)

RABBI YOCHANAN’S INTERPRETATIONS

 The Gemora cites questions which Rav Nachman inquired of Rabbi Yitzchak and Rabbi Yitzchak’s responses in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Yochanan explained a verse in Hoshea to mean that Hashem said that He will not enter the Yerushalayim located in heaven until He enters the Yerushalayim on earth.

Rabbi Yochanan explained a verse in Yirmiyahu to mean that that there is one sin that causes the evil people to be burned in Gehinom and that is idolatry. (5a)


SHMUEL

 Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzchak another question. It is written in Shmuel that Shmuel was old. How can this be when we know that Shmuel died when he was fifty-two years old? Rabbi Yitzchak answered in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that Shmuel became old-looking suddenly.

SHMUEL, SHAUL AND DOVID

 Rabbi Yochanan elaborates on what transpired towards the end of Shmuel’s life. Hashem related to Shmuel that it was time for King Shaul to die and for Dovid to replace him as king. Shmuel said that it was improper for Shaul, who was anointed to be king by Shmuel, to die while he, Shmuel, was still alive. Hashem said that he cannot cause Shmuel to die young because people will claim that he died young because of a sin that he committed. He cannot keep Shaul alive since once it is time for Dovid to become king, one reign cannot impinge upon another even by a hairbreadth. Hashem said that he will make Shmuel appear old and this way Shmuel can die without anyone alleging that he sinned and then Shaul can die in order for Dovid to become king. (5b)

A SPECIAL BLESSING

 Rabbi Nachman and Rabbi Yitzchak were eating together. Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzchak to relate some Torah words. Rabbi Yitzchak said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that one should not talk while he is eating since food might enter the windpipe causing him to choke. After they finished eating, Rabbi Yitzchak said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that Yaakov Avinu never died and he cited a Scriptural verse proving this.

When Rabbi Nachman and Rabbi Yitzchak were leaving each other, Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzchak to give him a blessing. Rabbi Yitzchak responded with a parable. A person was walking in a desert and he was hungry, tired and thirsty. He happened upon a tree which had sweet fruits, a pleasing shade and a spring of water flowing beneath it. The man ate from the fruits, drank the water and sat in its shade. When he was leaving the tree, he pondered as to how he can bless the tree. He could not bless the tree that its fruits should be sweet, its shade should be nice or that it should have a stream of water flowing beneath it since it already possessed all these things. The blessing he gave was that it should be the will of Hashem that all the shoots planted from this tree should be just like it. Rabbi Yitzchak explained to Rabbi Nachman that he cannot bless him with Torah, riches or children since he already had all that. Rabbi Yitzchak blessed Rabbi Nachman that all his children should be just like him. (5b – 6a)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 4 - ALL ABOUT ANGER

Rav Ashi states that a Torah scholar who is not as hard as iron is not considered to be a true Torah scholar. Ravina says that nevertheless, he should conduct himself calmly as the Torah teaches us to avoid anger.

The Gevuros Ari asks from a Gemora in Pesachim which states regarding one who becomes angry; if he is a Torah scholar, his Torah will depart him and yet our Gemora states that a Torah scholar who is not harsh like iron is not considered a talmid chocham.

He answers that if he becomes angry for the honor of Hashem and if it would have been impossible to accomplish this without getting angry; it is not only permitted but warranted. An example for this would be to instill fear into one’s students ensuring that they will not stumble into sin.

The Acharonim ask from the Gemora (20) which states that a person should always strive to be soft like a reed and not harsh like a cedar tree. It is brought in the name of Reb Yonason Eibshitz that if a person needs to get angry, he should make sure that the anger is only on the surface but inside he should remain soft. This is what Ravina meant when he said that one should conduct himself calmly as the Torah teaches us to remove anger from one’s heart.

The Mishna in Avos (5:10) states that it should be difficult for a person to get angry and easy to be appeased. Rabbeinu Gershom explains our Gemora to mean that a person should get angry and it should be difficult to appease him. This is seemingly not consistent with the Mishna in Avos.

Harav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe (O”C 54) answers that here the Gemora is referring to a talmid chocham that issues a ruling. He is required to exhibit anger in order to ensure that the listeners will adhere to the halacha. He should not be easily appeased so people will not say that his ruling was actually a mistake but he is too embarrassed to admit it. This is what Rav Ashi meant when he said that a Torah scholar who is not as hard as iron is not considered to be a true Torah scholar. If he is appeased readily, they will not rely on his rulings in the future.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 4 - Highlights

RAIN, SEEDS
AND TORAH SCHOLARS

Rava states that snow is as beneficial to mountains as five rains are for the ground. He states further that heavy rain is favorable for trees and gentle rain is of assistance for produce. Drizzling rain is beneficial for the seeds underneath a lump of earth.

Rava taught that a young Torah scholar can be compared to a seed underneath a lump of earth. Once a seed breaks through the ground, its growth is not impeded, so too the young student grows in status once his name is recognized.

Rava said another statement regarding young students. When a young scholar becomes angry, it is the Torah which boils within him that causes him to become angry.

Rav Ashi states that a Torah scholar who is not as hard as iron is not considered to be a true Torah scholar. Ravina says that nevertheless, he should conduct himself calmly as the Torah teaches us to avoid anger. (3b -4a)

IMPROPER REQUESTS

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini said in the name of Rabbi Yonason that there were three people who asked inappropriately. Two of them were answered generously and one was not.

Eliezer, the servant of Avraham requested that the first girl who offers him and his camels water to drink will be the one who he will bring for Yitzchak as a wife. It could have happened that a lame or blind girl would have responded to his request and if Eliezer would not notice her defect, he would bring her back to Yitzchak. He was answered appropriately since Hashem sent Rivkah to be the one.

Shaul made an improper guarantee when he promised wealth and his daughter to whoever would kill Goliath. The possibility existed that it could have been a slave or mamzer, but Hashem responded to him properly and sent David.

Yiftach made an inappropriate promise before heading out to wage a war against the Ammonites. He pledged that he would bring as a Korban whatever would come out of his house first. It was considered improper since it could have been a non-kosher animal. Hashem responded in an improper manner and sent out his daughter. The prophet complained about Yiftach that he did not go to Pinchas to have his vow annulled.

Rabbi Brachya cites another example where an inappropriate request was answered appropriately. Klal Yisroel asked of Hashem to resemble the rain. Hashem responded to them that rain is sometimes undesirable and instead, He will be to them like dew which is always beneficial. (4a)

MENTIONING AND REQUESTING ARE NOT THE SAME

 The Mishna stated that we ask for rain close to the rainy season. The Gemora inquires as to whose opinion is reflected in this ruling. Rava says that it is the viewpoint of Rabbi Yehoshua who maintains that we begin mentioning rain on Shmini Atzeres. This is considered close to the rainy season. Abaye suggests that the Mishna can be following the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer who holds that we begin mentioning rain on the first day of Sukkos. The Mishna is referring to the request for rain, v’sen tal u’matar. Rabbi Eliezer agrees that we do not begin asking for rain until the rainy season. (4a – 4b)

RABBI YEHUDA’S OPINION

 The Gemora asks a contradiction in the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. In our Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda stated that we stop mentioning rain on the first day of Pesach. A braisa is cited that presents a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir regarding the time during the year that we cease requesting for rain. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that v’sen tal u’matar is recited until Pesach is over and Rabbi Meir holds that it is recited until the end of the month of Nissan.

The Gemora attempts to resolve this contradiction by making a distinction between the mentioning of rain and the request for rain. This is proven to be illogical. If we stop mentioning rain on the first day of Pesach, we would certainly not continue asking for rain until the conclusion of Pesach. The Gemora is compelled to say that there are two Tannaim who have different versions of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.

Rabbah answers that when Rabbi Yehuda stated that we ask for rain until Pesach is over, he meant until the time of the slaughtering of the korban Pesach is over. It emerges that we would stop requesting rain during tefillas mincha on the day before Pesach.

Rabbah explains that just like in the beginning (Shmini Atzeres), we mention rain even though we do not request rain until much later (during the month of Cheshvan), so too at the end, we mention rain (the first Shacharis during Pesach) even though we stopped requesting rain the day before.

Abaye disagrees with Rabbah’s logic and states that there is a clear distinction between the beginning and the end. It is correct to mention rain in the beginning even though we are not yet requesting rain since we are praising Hashem that He provides rain in order that our request later will be listened to; however there is no reason to mention rain at the end when we are not requesting rain any longer. (4b)

MENTIONING AND REQUESTING

 Rabbi Yochanan ruled that the halacha is according to Rabbi Yehuda who maintains that we begin mentioning rain on Shmini Atzeres.

The Gemora questions this statement from a Mishna that presents a dispute regarding the asking for rain. One Tanna holds that we begin on the third day of Cheshvan and Rabban Gamliel maintains that we begin on the seventh day of Cheshvan. Rabbi Elozar said that the halacha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel.

Rav Assi answers that the first halachic ruling was issued by Rabbi Yochanan and therefore you cannot ask a question on this from a halachic ruling issued by Rabbi Elozar.

An alternative answer is given that Rabbi Elozar’s ruling is in regard to requesting rain and Rabbi Yochanan was referring to mentioning rain.

The Gemora rejects this answer because Rabbi Yochanan explicitly rules that the mentioning and requesting for rain must coincide in the beginning and in the end.

The Gemora offers a different answer. Rabbi Elozar’s ruling is relevant only to the people residing in Bavel and Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling applies to the people living in Eretz Yisroel. The harvest is gathered much later in Bavel and therefore the request for rain is postponed until Cheshvan.

The Gemora asks that even in Eretz Yisroel, we should be concerned on behalf of the people traveling back from their pilgrimage to the Beis Hamikdosh and we should postpone the request for rain until they return home.

The Gemora answers that Rabbi Yochanan was referring to the time that the Beis Hamikdosh was not in existence and that is why the request for rain commenced on Shmini Atzeres.

The Gemora concludes that Rabbi Elozar was referring to the time that the Beis Hamikdosh was in existence and that is why the request for rain is postponed until the month of Cheshvan. (4b)

SHMINI ATZERES

 Rav rules that outside of Eretz Yisroel, where they observe two days of Shmini Atzeres, rain should be mentioned during Mussaf of the eighth day and withhold from mentioning rain again until Mussaf of the ninth day.

Shmuel vehemently objected to this ruling. How can we stop mentioning rain by Mincha of the eighth day? If the day was already considered holy, how can it now be regarded as ordinary?

Shmuel maintains that we mention rain by Mussaf and by Mincha of Shmini Atzeres. We withhold from mentioning rain by Maariv and Shacharis of the ninth day and resume during Mussaf of the ninth day.

Rava and Rav Sheishes rule that once we begin mentioning rain during Mussaf of the eighth day, we continue mentioning rain without stopping. The Gemora concludes tat this is indeed the halacha. (4b – 5a)

Read more!