Daf Yomi - Taanis 16 - Highlights

ASHES ON THE HEAD

The Mishna had stated that they would place ashes on the head of the Nasi and upon the head of the Rosh Beis Din (Head of the Court). Each person would place the ashes on his own head. The Gemora questions why the Nasi and Rosh Beis Din do not place the ashes on their head by themselves. Rabbi Abba answers that being embarrassed by one’s own hand pales in comparison to being embarrassed by the hands of others and this will help make their prayers more successful.

The Gemora states that they would place the ashes on the place where the tefillin are worn on one’s head. (15b – 16a)

ASHES ON THE ARK

The Mishna had stated that they would take the Ark into the streets of the town and pray there. The Gemora offers two reasons as to why they went into the center of town. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba says that they previously prayed in private to no avail, so now let them try praying in public where there is more shame and can bring about true repentance. Rish Lakish says that perhaps the exile from their synagogues will atone for them. A difference between the two of them would be if they went from one synagogue to another. It would be considered exile but there is no public humiliation.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains the purpose of taking the Ark outside. It is to convey the idea that the Ark, which is private, has been degraded as a consequence of our sins. This will help lead to a true repentance.

The Gemora explains that the significance of wearing sackcloth is to convey the idea that we are regarded as animals (sackcloth is generally made from goats’ hair).

The Gemora presents two reasons as to why they would place ashes on the Ark. Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi says that it is as if Hashem is saying “I am with him in distress.” Rish Lakish states that it is as if to say: In their every distress, He is in distress. Rabbi Zeira commented that when he initially observed them placing the ashes on the Ark, his entire body trembled.

The Gemora offers two opinions as to why each person placed ashes on his head. One opinion cited is because Klal Yisroel is regarding themselves unworthy like ashes. The other opinion is that they were beseeching Hashem to remember the ashes of Yitzchak. (16a)

GOING TO THE CEMETERY

 The Gemora states that it was the custom to visit a cemetery on a fast day. One reason given is that the Jewish people were saying that they consider themselves like corpses and this will stimulate them to repent. Another reason is that this will enable the deceased who are buried in the cemetery to pray for them. According to the second reason, they would not visit a cemetery that contained the graves of gentiles. (16a)

CHAZAN

 The Mishna had stated that the eldest among them addressed them and said words that would inspire them to mend their ways. Abaye elaborates that if there is an elderly person who is also a scholar, he would address the people. If not, then a young scholar would address them. If there were no scholars present, a man of stature (Rashi – tall man Rosh – a learned man Meiri – a pious individual) would address them.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said that a person who stole and repented but did not return the stolen object is compared to a person who is holding a dead sheretz in his hand; even if he immerses himself in all the waters of the world, the immersion is not valid. Once he releases the sheretz and immerses himself in a mikvah which contains forty se’ah, he is tahor.

The Mishna had stated that they would send a chazzan to lead the prayer who was an elder and fluent in the prayers. He should have children and his house should be empty (lacking the necessary funds to support his family) in order that his heart will be completely devoted in the prayer.

The Gemora cites a braisa which rules that even if there is an elderly person who is a scholar, it is still preferable to send someone to be the chazzan who is fluent in the prayers.

Rabbi Yehuda elaborates on the attributes which are necessary for the chazzan to have. He should have small children and no means to support them. He should be someone who works on a farm and needs rain but his house is empty (from sin). He should be a person that does not have a bad reputation even from his younger years. He should be humble, acceptable to the congregation and have a sweet voice. He should be an expert in Scripture, halacha and aggadah. The Rabbis heard this braisa and looked at Rabbi Yitzchak bar Ami who possessed all these attributes.

The Mishna had stated that the chazzan will recite the eighteen brochos of Shemoneh Esrei plus an additional six brochos. The Gemora asks that the Mishna actually lists seven conclusions. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers that the first conclusion mentioned in the Mishna is the conclusion of the brocha of Geulah. (16a - 16b)

ELABORATION OF MISHNA

 The Gemora cites a braisa that explains the soundings of the shofar which the Mishna mentioned. After each one of the extra blessings, they sounded the shofar. They alternated between sounding a tekiah after one of the brochos with sounding a teruah afterwards. Rashi explains that when it was announced “tekiah,” they blew a tekiah, teruah, tekiah and when it was announced “teruah,” they blew teruah, tekiah, teruah.

The Gemora cites a Scriptural verse proving that they didn’t answer Amen in the Beis Hamikdosh; rather they answered Boruch shem kevod malchuso l’olam vo’ed.

The Gemora asks from a braisa which states that regarding matters of misfortune, we would always begin with the least important person.

The Gemora answers that placing the ashes on the head of the Nasi and the Rosh Beis Din is an honor for them since the people are telling them that they are prominent enough to beg for compassion for the entire congregation. (16b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 15 - PURCHASING FOOD FOR SHABBOS - THURSDAY OR FRIDAY?

The Magen Avraham (250:1) quotes the Arizal as saying that it is more preferable to purchase items for Shabbos on Friday, rather than on Thursday. Some explain that the reason for this is based on the verse “v’hayah bayom hashishi, v’heichinu eis asher yaviu” – “And it will be on the sixth day, you should prepare for Shabbos.”

The Magen Avraham concludes by instructing us to analyze the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (O”C 572:1) where it is implicit that purchases for Shabbos were done on Thursday and not on Friday.

The Mishna in Taanis states that they would not decree an initial fast on Thursday because that would cause an unwarranted price increase. Rashi explains that when the storekeepers will observe people purchasing food in large quantities, they will assume that a famine is coming and thereby raise all the prices. The sellers would not realize that people are buying food for two large meals, one to break the fast this evening and the other for Shabbos. It is evident from this Gemora that people purchase food for Shabbos on Thursday.

A proof to the Arizal’s viewpoint can be found in the Gemora Taanis (8b). 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.

Rabbi Tzvi Yaakov Abramowitz in the sefer Ta’am Hatzvi answers the Magen Avraham’s question from our Mishna. Generally, people purchase food for Shabbos on Friday, but when they are going to the stores on Thursday anyway to buy food for the meal after the fast, they will simultaneously purchase food for Shabbos. While it is true that the meticulous people will wait for Friday to prepare for Shabbos, most of the community will not wait and that is why we try to avoid beginning the first series of fasts on a Thursday.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 15 - Highlights

PROCEDURE OF THE FAST

The Mishna proceeds to describe the process of the prayers that were recited on a communal fast due to lack of rain. They would take the Ark into the streets of the town and we would place ashes on the Ark and on the head of the Nasi and upon the head of the Rosh Beis Din (Head of the Court). Each person would place the ashes on his head. The eldest among them addressed them and said words that would inspire them to mend their ways: "Our brothers, it is not said regarding the men of Nineveh, "And Hashem saw their sackcloth and their fast," but rather, "And Hashem saw their actions that they repented from their evil way" (Yonah 3:10); and in the Kabbalah it states, "And rend your hearts, and not your garments" (Yoel 2:13).

They would send a chazzan to lead the prayer who was an elder and fluent in the prayers. He should have children and his house should be empty (lacking the necessary funds to support his family) in order that his heart will be completely devoted in the prayer. He recites before them the twenty-four blessings; eighteen as on every day and there are an additional six due to the fast.

The six additional brochos are: Zichronos and Shofaros, "To Hashem, in my distress I called Him and he answered me," "I will lift up my eyes to the mountains…," "From the depths, I have called you, Hashem," "A prayer of the afflicted, when he faints." Rabbi Yehuda says that he did not have to say Zichronos and Shofaros, but instead he said, "If there be a famine in the land, if there will be a plague…," and "The word of the Hashem that came to Yeremiya concerning the droughts."

The Mishna continues that each of these blessings had a conclusion as well. For the first brocha (this was actually for the brocha of Geulah as the Gemora will explain) he would conclude, "He Who answered Avraham on Mount Moriah, He will answer you and He will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Redeemer of Israel." For the second brocha, which is Zichronos (the first of the additional blessings), he says, "He Who answered our forefathers at the Red Sea, He will answer you and He will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who remembers forgotten things." For the third brocha, which is Shofaros (the second of the additional blessings), he says, "He Who answered Yehoshua in Gilgal, He will answer you and he will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who hears the blowing of the shofar." For the fourth brocha, he says, "He Who answered Shmuel at Mitzpah, He will answer you and he will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who hears crying." For the fifth he says, "He Who answered Eliyahu on Mount Carmel, He will answer you and He will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who hears prayer." For the sixth he says, "He Who answered Yonah from the fish’s belly, He will answer you and he will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who answers in time of distress." For the seventh he says, "He Who answered Dovid and his son, Shlomo in Yerushalayim, He will answer you and he will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who has mercy on the land."

The Mishna relates an incident which occurred during the time of Rabbi Chalafta and Rabbi Chananyah ben Tradyon. The leader passed before the Ark and concluded the entire blessing, and they did not respond after him "Amen." They responded by saying Boruch shem kevod malchuso l’olam vo’ed, which is the response usually reserved for the Beis Hamikdosh.

The attendant announced: "Blow the tekiah, kohanim, blow the tekiah!" He then said: "He Who answered our father Avraham on Mount Moriah, He will answer you and listen to the sound of your crying on this day." "Sound the teruah, sons of Aaron, sound the teruah!" "He Who answered our forefathers at the Red Sea, He will answer you and listen to the sound of your crying on this day." And when the issue came before the Sages, they said, this was not our custom, (responding with Boruch shem instead of answering Amen) except at the Eastern Gate and on the Temple Mount.

The kohanim were divided into twenty-four groups, referred to as mishmoros. Each mishmar contained seven families, batei avos. Each mishmar had a turn to serve in the Beis Hamikdosh for one week on a rotating basis. Each beis av had a designated day of the week to perform the service.

The first three fasts, members of the mishmar (who were not working on that particular day) would be required to fast but they would not complete the fast; and members of the beis av (the group that was performing the service on that day) did not fast at all. Regarding the second series of fasts; members of the mishmar would fast and complete it; and members of the beis av would fast but not complete it. On the last seven fasts; the members of the mishmar and the beis av would fast and complete. These are the words of Rabbi Yehoshua. The Chachamim disagreed and maintain that on the first three fasts, the members of the mishmar and the beis av would not fast at all. Regarding the second series of fasts; members of the mishmar would fast but not complete it, and members of the beis av would not fast at all. On the last seven fasts; members of the mishmar would fast and complete it, and members of the beis av would fast but they would not complete it.

The Mishna digresses to discuss other distinctions between the members of the mishmar and the members of the beis av.

Members of the mishmar are permitted to drink wine at night but not during the day because they might be called upon to help perform the service and a drunkard is prohibited from serving in the Beis Hamikdosh. Members of the beis av are not allowed to drink wine during the day and even at night. The members of the mishmar and members of the ma'amad (Klal Yisroel was divided into twenty-four groups in order to fulfill the requirement of standing by the korban tamid – some went to the Beis Hamikdosh and others remained in their cities) are prohibited from cutting their hair and from laundering clothes, however on Thursday, they are permitted to cut their hair and perform laundering in honor of Shabbos.

Any minor festival that is written in Megillas Taanis with the restraint of "not to eulogize" on it, the day beforehand is also prohibited but the day afterwards would be permitted. Rabbi Yosi maintains that the day before and after is prohibited. Any minor festival that is written in Megillas Taanis with the restraint of "not to fast” on it, the day beforehand and afterwards is permitted. Rabbi Yosi holds that the day before is prohibited but afterwards is permitted.

The Mishna resumes discussing the fasts that were decreed because of the lack of rain. The Chachamim would not decree a communal fast which would begin on a Thursday, in order to prevent a raise in the market prices. The first three fasts would be declared for Monday, Thursday and Monday and the second series of fasts would be on Thursday, Monday and Thursday. Rabbi Yosi maintains that just like the first series cannot commence on a Thursday, so, too, the second series and the last seven do not begin on a Thursday.

Rabban Gamliel said that the Chachamim would never decree that the first day of the series of fasts should be on Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, or Purim. If the fasts began already and one of the days of the fasts fell out on Rosh Chodesh, we would not interrupt the fasts. Rabbi Meir maintains that even though Rabban Gamliel said that they do not interrupt, he would admit that the fast should not be completed. This halacha is identical to a case where Tisha B’av fell on Erev Shabbos. (15a – 15b)

ASHES

 The Mishna had stated that they would place ashes on the head of the Nasi and upon the head of the Rosh Beis Din (Head of the Court). Each person would place the ashes on his head.

The Gemora asks from a braisa which states that regarding matters of misfortune, we would always begin with the least important person.

The Gemora answers that placing the ashes on the head of the Nasi and the Rosh Beis Din is an honor for them since the people are telling them that they are prominent enough to beg for compassion for the entire congregation. (15b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 14 - SHOFAR OR TRUMPETS ON A FAST DAY

The Mishna had stated that they would cry out during the last seven fasts. The Gemora presents a dispute as to the meaning of “cry out.” Rav Yehuda maintains that they would cry out by sounding the shofar and it was said in the name of Rav that they would cry out by reciting aneinu. It is evident from this Gemora that shofaros were used on a fast day.

The Rishonim ask that from the Gemora in Rosh Hashanah (27a), it would seem that they blew chatzotzros (trumpets) on a fast day. The braisa there states that outside of the Beis Hamikdosh, whenever there is an obligation for shofar (Rosh Hashanah), there are no trumpets and whenever there is an obligation for trumpets, a shofar is not blown. Rashi learns that the day we are referring to is a fast day.

The Ramban (in Milchamos R”H) disagrees with Rashi in Rosh Hashanah and explains that the Gemora in Rosh Hashanah is not referring to a fast day; rather it is referring to a time of war as the passuk there explicitly states. The obligation of sounding the trumpets is only by matters that are relevant to the entire Klal Yisroel. In the Beis Hamikdosh, where a large representation of Klal Yisroel was present, there also was a mitzva to sound the chatzotzros. Even though, other sufferings are derived from that passuk, nevertheless the obligation for trumpets is exclusive to a war. Therefore, only the shofar is blown on a fast day, and not the chatzotzros.

The Raavad answers that there are actually two distinct times that we blow on a fast day. The Gemora in Rosh Hashanah is referring to the blowing during the Shemoneh Esrei and the obligation was to sound the trumpets then. There were additional blowings after the Shemoneh Esrei when they recited additional supplications and prayers; this is what our Gemora is referring to when it states that they sounded the shofaros.

The Ritva answers that when our Gemora uses the term “shofar,” it actually means the chatzotzros. This is based on the Gemora Shabbos which states that what was once called a chatzotzarta is now referred to as a shofar, and what was called shofar is now referred to as chatztortzta.

The Meiri writes that that perhaps our Gemora is referring to the times after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh and nowadays only a shofar is blown and not chatzotzros.

The Mitzapeh Eisan answers that our Gemora is referring to a fast on account of a drought and since we daven and recite the blessing of shofaros, a shofar is used. The Gemora in Rosh Hashanah is referring to fast days for other sufferings and there the chatzotzros are sounded.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 14 - REASON FOR NOT BLOWING TRUMPETS NOWADAYS

The Rambam in Hilchos Taanis (1:40 writes that there is a Rabbinical obligation to fast when Klal Yisroel is in distress and on the fast day, we call out in prayer and sound the trumpets. .

The Magen Avraham (576) wonders why the trumpets are not blown today.

The Nesiv Chaim answers that since the mitzva is derived from the passuk which states “And when the battle will enter your land,” it emerges that the obligation is only in Eretz Yisroel and not in any other lands.

The Mishna Berura cites this answer and adds from the Pri Megadim that the mitzva in Eretz Yisroel is limited to the times that the Beis Hamikdosh is in existence and Eretz Yisroel is in Klal Yisroel’s control but now, it is not called “our land.” The Ramban in one answer seems to say that the mitzva of sounding the trumpets is only in Eretz Yisroel.

The Minchas Chinuch (331:3) questions this explanation because generally a mitzva which rests on the head of a person (and not the ground) does not get excluded from the fact that the passuk states “your land.”

The Netziv cites a proof against the Nesiv Chaim from the incident where Pinchas was waging war against Midyan and he sounded the chatzotzros even though he wasn’t in Eretz Yisroel.

The Netziv answers that the mitzva is limited to the times that the Aron (Holy Ark) is with us and traveling along with Klal Yisroel during the war.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 14 - Highlights

TWENTY-FOUR BROCHOS

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

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

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

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

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

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

PREGNANT AND NURSING WOMEN

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

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

CRYING OUT

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

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

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

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

MORE THAN THIRTEEN

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

NINVEH

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

The Mishna ruled that if it still did not rain after the seven fasts, they should conduct less business. They should not become involved with building, planting, marrying or greeting their friends. They should conduct their lives as if they were condemned by Hashem.

The Gemora explains that building is referring to construction for pleasure, such as building a wedding house for his son. The planting that is forbidden is also only if the planting is for a joyous occasion, such as planting a tree in honor of the king’s new son.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE SHALL RETURN TO YOU, ME’EIMASAI

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 13 - 18 or 19?

Our Gemora mentioned that on a regular day, there are eighteen brochos in Shemoneh Esrei. We know that we now have nineteen brochos because of the brocha of v’lamalshinim. Rashi asks as to the reason that our Gemora neglected to mention that brocha. Rashi answers that when the Gemora states eighteen, it is referring to the original amount of brochos and not the one that was added later. Kollel Iyun Hadaf here elaborates on this discussion.

INSIGHTS INTO THE DAILY DAF

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
daf@dafyomi.co.il http://www.dafyomi.co.il


1) THE SHEMONEH ESREH: 18 OR 19 BLESSINGS?
OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which says that the only difference between the Shemoneh Esreh recited on a Ta'anis by an individual and the Shemoneh Esreh recited by the Shali'ach Tzibur is that the individual's Shemoneh Esreh contains 18 blessings and the Shali'ach Tzibur's Shemoneh Esreh contains 19 (because of the additional blessing of "Aneinu").
RASHI asks why the Gemara refers to the ordinary Shemoneh Esreh of an individual as having only 18 blessings when it actually has 19 blessings (even without the blessing of "Aneinu").

(a) RASHI answers that the title of the prayer, "Shemoneh Esreh," refers to the 18 blessings which it contained when it was originally composed. The blessing of "v'la'Malshinim" was instituted later by the sages in Yavneh (Berachos 28b).

(b) The TOSFOS RID disagrees with Rashi. He explains that the reason why the Beraisa says that the ordinary Shemoneh Esreh contains 18 blessings is because the Beraisa maintains that there indeed are only 18 blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh. He cites a Tosefta in Berachos (end of chapter 3) which states that the 18 blessings include the blessing of "v'la'Malshinim" (which mentions the downfall of the Minim and the Posh'im). The blessing of "Boneh Yerushalayim" (which mentions the rebuilding of Yerushalayim) and the blessing of "Es Tzemach David" (which mentions the restoration of the dynasty of David ha'Melech) are merged into a single blessing. The Tosefta concludes that if one recites two separate blessings, one in which he mentions David ha'Melech and the other in which he mentions the rebuilding of Yerushalayim, he fulfills his obligation to recite Shemoneh Esreh. This implies that the Tosefta maintains that l'Chatchilah one should include "Boneh Yerushalayim" and "Es Tzemach David" in a single blessing, and thus, according to the Tosefta, the Shemoneh Esreh indeed contains only 18 blessings even after the addition of the blessing of "v'la'Malshinim."

The view of the Tosefta is reflected in the Piyutim, the additional prayers composed for the Shali'ach Tzibur to recite during each blessing of Shemoneh Esreh on festivals and fasts, and which reflect the theme of each blessing. There are consistently only 18 of these additional prayers; the Piyut which mentions the rebuilding of Yerushalayim is always the same as the one which mentions the restoration of the dynasty of David ha'Melech.

The Tosfos Rid points out that this opinion was also the practice of the Yerushalmi (Berachos 4:5, Rosh Hashanah 4:6). The Yerushalmi mentions that the Chasimah (closing blessing) of one of the blessings of Shemoneh Esreh is "Baruch Atah Hash-m Elokei David u'Voneh Yerushalayim" -- it includes David ha'Melech and Binyan Yerushalayim in one blessing. This is what the Beraisa means when it says that the ordinary Shemoneh Esreh contains only 18 blessings.

The Bavli, however, clearly counts "Boneh Yerushalayim" and "Es Tzemach David" as two separate blessings (Megilah 17b). In addition, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (107a) relates that David ha'Melech asked Hash-m that a mention of "Elokei David" be included in the Shemoneh Esreh, like "Elokei Avraham." The Gemara says that Hash-m did not acquiesce to David's request. Accordingly, the Bavli is consistent with its view that the blessing of Boneh Yerushalayim does not include the words "Elokei David," and instead a separate blessing of "Es Tzemach David" is recited. (The Tosefta itself says that if one recites separate blessings for David ha'Melech and Yerushalayim he does not need to repeat the Shemoneh Esreh, and this apparently was the practice adopted l'Chatchilah in Bavel.)

The practice today follows the view of the Bavli. Rebbi Elazar ha'Kalir and the other authors of the Piyutim lived in Eretz Yisrael and followed the practice of the Yerushalmi, and thus they wrote Piyutim for only 18 blessings and merged the prayer for Yerushalayim and the prayer for David ha'Melech into a single blessing.

Although no Jewish community today follows the practice to combine the prayer for Binyan Yerushalayim with the prayer for David ha'Melech. Even in contemporary Sidurim remnants of the early practice can be found. In the end of the blessing of Boneh Yerushalayim, the words "v'Chisei David..." are said. This phrase is probably a remnant of the original practice to conclude the blessing with the words, "Elokei David u'Voneh Yerushalayim," since the end of the blessing (before the Chasimah) must reflect the words recited in the Chasimah. RAV YEHUDAH LANDY adds that this also explains why the blessing of Boneh Yerushalayim begins with a Vav - "*v*'li'Yerushalayim Ircha..." -- the Vav ("and") indicates that this blessing was added to the Shemoneh Esreh when the single blessing for Yerushalayim and Malchus Beis David were separated into two. (Perhaps "v'la'Malshinim" begins with a Vav for a similar reason. The Vav indicates that it was added later and was not part of the original Shemoneh Esreh.)

The Tosfos Rid implies that the original practice, before the addition of the blessing of "v'la'Malshinim," was to recite only 17 blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh. When the additional blessing of "v'la'Malshinim" was instituted in Yavneh it brought the total to 18, and not 19, blessings. Indeed, the Midrash states this explicitly (Bamidbar Rabah 18:21, and Tanchuma, end of Parshas Korach; see also Midrash Tehilim 17:4). The Midrash says that the number of blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh is equal to the Gematriya of the word "Tov" (17). Even though our Shemoneh Esreh contains 19 blessings, the original Shemoneh Esreh contained only 17 blessings because "v'la'Malshinim" and "Es Tzemach David" (or "v'li'Yerushalayim") were later additions. According to the Midrash, the blessing of "Es Tzemach" was added even later than "v'la'Malshinim."

(The Midrash seems to disagree with the Gemara in Berachos (28b) which states that the blessing added in Yavneh was the nineteenth blessing. It seems that the original enactment of Shemoneh Esreh included only 17 obligatory blessings as well as an option to split "Boneh Yerushalayim" and "Es Tzemach" into two blessings (as the Tosefta clearly permits). Consequently, both the Midrash and the Gemara are correct: In Yavneh the eighteenth blessing was added, but that blessing could be viewed as the nineteenth because a person was entitled to divide "Boneh Yerushalayim" and "Es Tzemach" into two blessings. It is interesting to note that according to a common Girsa in the Yerushalmi's version of how "v'la'Malshinim" was added in Yavneh (Berachos 4:3 and Ta'anis 2:2), the Yerushalmi cites the story to explain why there are 18 -- and not just 17 -- blessings.)

The Bavli, which says that the words "Elokei David" are not recited in the Shemoneh Esreh, implies that it was never the practice to mention "Elokei David." Apparently, before the blessings of "Boneh Yerushalayim" and "Es Tzemach" were split, the Chasimah was "*Magen* David vi'Yerushalayim," and not "Elokei David u'Voneh Yerushalayim." When the people of Bavel divided the blessing into two, the people of Eretz Yisrael correspondingly gave the single blessing a double ending, thereby granting David ha'Melech special status by mentioning him separately in the Chasimah. The people of Bavel did not accept this practice for two reasons. First, the Gemara says that "Elokei David" should not be said in the Shemoneh Esreh. Second, the Gemara (Berachos 49a) says that two subjects should not be included in the Chasimah of a single blessing.

RAV DAVID COHEN shlit'a (in a special section at the end of OHEL DAVID, vol. 2) uses this approach to explain the words of TOSFOS in Megilah (17b, DH v'David). Tosfos implies that Rashi had a tradition to count chapters 9 and 10 of Tehilim as one chapter. (Indeed, there is a strong contextual connection between the two chapters, which implies that they should be connected: In chapter 9, every other verse starts with a consecutive letter of the Hebrew alphabet, but reaches only until the letter Kaf. The first verse in chapter 10 starts with the letter Lamed, and the final alternating verses of the chapter begin with the letters Kuf, Reish, Shin, and Taf.) Why, then, in contemporary books of Tehilim are they divided into two separate chapters?

Rav David Cohen explains that they originally were one chapter and later the Chachamim divided them into two chapters. The Gemara in Berachos (9b) says that, originally, chapters 1 and 2 were one chapter. The MAHARSHA there explains that the first 18 blessings of Shemoneh Esreh were instituted to correspond to the first 18 chapters of Tehilim. The Shemoneh Esreh concludes with the verse from Tehilim, "Yiheyu l'Ratzon Imrei Fi...." When the Chachamim added a new blessing in the Shemoneh Esreh (bringing the total to 19 blessings), they decided to add a new chapter number in Tehilim so that the verse of "Yehiyu l'Ratzon" would appear after 19 chapters, and therefore they divided the first chapter into two.

Similarly, chapters 9 and 10 were originally one chapter. However, after the Chachamim added the blessing of "Es Tzemach David" to the Shemoneh Esreh, they wanted to add a new chapter so that "Yiheyu l'Ratzon" would still appear in Tehilim after the corresponding number of blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh, and therefore they split another chapter of Tehilim into two. (He points out that the contents of Psalms 2 and 10 correspond to the contents of these two blessings. The content of Psalm 2 corresponds to "Es Tzemach," while the content of Psalm 10 corresponds to "v'la'Malshinim.")

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 13 - Washing on Tisha B'av

We asked Rabbi Doniel Neustadt as to the practical halachos regarding washing on Tisha B’av. Here is his response.

Washing any part of the body on Tishah B’av is forbidden. Washing is permitted in the case of…
*Dirty or soiled hands or other parts of the body. Any substance or discharge (e.g., a glutinous gel in the eye) may be rinsed off . [If soap is needed, it may be used. ]
*Awakening in the morning. One may wash netilas yadayim three times on each hand , but the water should reach only until the knuckles . After the hands are wiped but remain slightly damp, they may be passed over the face or the eyes .
*After using the bathroom and/or after touching a part of the body that is normally covered, but the water should reach only until the knuckles .
*Rinsing the mouth, but only in case of great discomfort . Care must be taken not to swallow the water. Mouthwash should not be used .
*Preparing food . If warm water is necessary, it may be used .
*Medical needs . Hot water may be used when needed .
*Preparation for davening . Some say that only the tips of the fingers [until the first joint ] should be washed .
*Washing dishes [after midday], if leaving them unwashed will attract insects , etc. It is proper not to use warm water.
*Eating bread, for those who are allowed to eat on Tishah b'Av. The hands should be washed to the wrists in the usual manner . Several poskim mention that one may also wash with mayim acharonim if he is always particular to do so .
*A baby who is bathed daily .
*A bride, who is allowed to wash her face up to 30 days after her wedding .

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 13 - Highlights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more!

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!