ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafTa'anis 13
(a) In the course of the morning, the people were coming to tell Nechemyah
about the terrible things that the many of the returned exiles were
perpetrating (i.e. that they had intermarried with many of the forbidden
nations, among others, and that they had begun to emulate their behavior),
leaving him in a daze.
(b) He reacted by renting his clothes, and later going on to pray to Hashem
on their behalf.
(c) "u've'Minchas ha'Erev Kamti mi'Ta'aneisi" - does not mean that he
stopped fasting - but that he arose in the middle of his fast, and tore his
clothes before Davening to Hashem.
(a) Rafram bar Papa Amar Rav Chisda forbids washing with water both on
Tish'ah be'Av and when one is an Aveil, even in cold water - because
whenever washing is forbidden as a sign of mourning, it is forbidden even in
cold water; whereas on a Ta'anis Tzibur, when the prohibition of washing is
in order to suffer, but not as a sign of mourning, washing in cold water is
(b) Rav Idi bar Avin proved that one may wash in cold water on a Ta'anis
Tzibur from our Mishnah, which says 've'No'alin es ha'Merchetza'os'. Abaye
rejected that proof - on the grounds that 'What should the Mishnah have said
(assuming that washing in cold water is also forbidden) that they drain the
(c) Rav Idi's son Rav Shisha explained that his father's proof was from
that, having said that bathing is forbidden, why did the Tana need to add
've'No'alin es ha'Merchetza'os'? Unless it is to deduce from there that it
is only bathing in *hot* water that is forbidden, but not in *cold*.
(a) We try to prove Rav Chisda right from the Beraisa, which permits someone
who is Chayav Tevilah to Tovel on Tish'ah be'Av and on Yom Kipur (because it
is a Mitzvah to Tovel immediately). The Tana cannot be referring to Toveling
in *warm* water - because Toveling in hot water in those days entailed
Toveling in drawn water, which is not a Kasher Tevilah.
(b) We set out to prove Rav Chisda right from there - by inferring that it
is only someone who is Toveling a Tevilas Mitzvah who is permitted to enter
cold water, but not anyone else.
(c) We reject this proof by suggesting that the Tana is referring to the
hot-springs of Teverya. Nevertheless (despite the fact that Toveling in cold
water is permitted), Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim forbids Tevilah on the
grounds that 'the House of our G-d deserves that we lose one Tevilah on its
account' - because it is speaking in a place where cold water is simply not
(a) The Beraisa permits *work* on the night of a Ta'anis Tzibur. Rashi
comments on this - that the prohibition of working on Tish'ah be'Av begins
only in the morning, but that one should not publicise this.
(b) The Tana of the Beraisa permits ...
(c) The Beraisa adds that the same applies to an Aveil and a Menudeh
(someone in Cheirem). If this concession extends also to washing of one's
face, hands and feet - this will leave us with a Kashya on Rav Chisda (who
forbids an Aveil to wash even in cold water). Neither can the Tana be
talking about washing in *hot* water, in light of Rav Sheishes, who
specifically forbade placing even one's finger into warm water on a Ta'anis
- ... the *wearing of shoes* on a Ta'anis Tzibur - whilst traveling between towns.
- ... *washing oneself* - face, hands and feet.
(d) We answer by establishing the Beraisa by *hot* water, and when the Tana
says that the same applies to an Aveil and a Menudeh, he refers to the other
cases (regarding Melachah and wearing shoes).
(a) In spite of Rafram Amar Rav Chisda, when Rebbi Yossi - because b'Rebbi
Chanina's sons died, he bathed in cold water all seven days - because it
speaks when one son died after the other, and certainly leniencies apply
after the second consecutive Aveilus.
(b) The Beraisa also permits cutting one's hair and washing one's clothes
under such circumstances.
1. Cutting one's hair however, is permitted only using a razor and not
scissors (which is the normal way of cutting it).
2. And washing one's clothes is permitted only as long as one uses only
water, but not any detergents.
Rava (in the first Lashon) permits an Aveil to bathe in cold water all seven
days - on the grounds that it is no different than eating meat and drinking
wine, which an Aveil is permitted to do.
(a) A 'Na'arah' is a girl who has reached the age of twelve, and who has
grown at least two pubic hairs - she becomes a Bogeres six months later.
(b) A Bogeres is forbidden to walk around looking ugly when she is in
mourning for her father - in order that she should be attractive for men to
marry; for a Na'arah, who has not yet reached the final age to marry, this
is not so necessary.
(c) Assuming that the Beraisa is referring to the prohibition of bathing,
the Tana can only be referring to washing in cold water (as we learned above
from Rafram Amar Rav Chisda), and nevertheless, A Na'arah is forbidden to
wash whilst she is an Aveil - a Kashya on Rav Chisda.
(d) We conclude that the Tana is speaking, not about washing (which is
permitted in cold water), but about wearing make-up.
(a) There is no proof for Rava from Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who bathed
for the seven nights following the death of his sons - because it speaks
when they died consecutively, as we explained earlier.
(b) In the second Lashon, Rava forbids an Aveil to bathe even in cold water,
all seven days. This is not the same as eating meat and drinking wine, which
are permitted - because that one does in order to drown one's sorrow (and
not for pleasure, as is the case by washing, even in cold water).
(c) There is no proof for Rava from the Beraisa, which permits a Na'arah to
walk around looking ugly - because perhaps the Tana is referring to wearing
make-up, and not to washing.
(d) Rav Chisda derives from there that - an Aveil is forbidden to wash
clothes all seven days, because, if wearing make-up is forbidden, then it
stands to reason that so is washing clothes (see Gilyon ha'Shas).
(a) We conclude that an Aveil is forbidden to bathe, even in cold water -
though he is permitted to wash his face, hands and feet in cold water.
(b) Anointing even a small part of one's body is forbidden - though if it is
to remove the perspiration, it is permitted.
(a) Rav Yehudah told his son Rav Yitzchak, that a Yachid who fasts inserts
the Berachah of 'Aneinu' between 'Go'eil and 'Rofei', a problem because -
since when is a Yachid that important, to warrant an extra Berachah
especially for him?
(b) Rav Yitzchak (or Rav Yosef) therefore concluded - that he inserts the
Berachah of 'Aneinu' in 'Tome's Tefilah'.
(a) The Beraisa differentiates between a Yachid who is fasting (who says
eighteen Berachos) and a Tzibur (who says nineteen) - because the former
inserts it in 'Shema Koleinu' (of which it becomes part), whereas the latter
says it after 'Go'el Yisrael' as a Berachah on its own.
(b) We initially establish the Reisha of the Beraisa by a Yachid who
undertakes to fast a Ta'anis Yachid, and the Seifa by a Yachid who
undertakes to fast a Ta'anis Tzibur. The Seifa cannot refer to a Tzibur on a
regular Ta'anis Tzibur (for rain) - because then they would recite not
nineteen Berachos, but twenty-four?
(c) In any event, we see that sometimes, even a Yachid is sufficient
important to warrant a special Berachah - not like Rav Yitzchak and Rav
Yehudah B'rei de'Rav Yitzchak.
(d) We answer the Kashya by nevertheless establishing the Beraisa by a
regular Ta'anis Tzibur for rain - but during the first set of fasts (and the
six extra Berachos were added only by the second set.
(a) We query the previous answer on the basis of the Lashon of the Beraisa
which (using the Lashon 'Ein Bein') writes that the only difference between
the first set of fasts and the second set is regarding the prohibition of
work (but not regarding the twenty-four Berachos of the Amidah). Besides the
argument that 'Ein Bein' is not necessarily exclusive - we reject this
argument on the grounds that a Tana will never omit one thing from a list,
unless there is something else that it has omitted as well. And what else
besides the twenty-four Berachos did he leave out that would authorize him
to this out too?
(b) We nevertheless refute that argument on the grounds that the Tana is
concerned with the prohibitions of the fast-days, not with the Tefilos.
The Gemara's second refutation - is that during the second set of fasts,
they did not insert twenty-four Berachos either.
(c) The only two differences between the second set of three fasts and the
third set of seven given by the Tana of the Beraisa (again using the Lashon
'Ein Bein') - are that during the third, they blew the Shofar and closed the
shops, but not during the second.
(d) Assuming that 'Ein Bein' is not exclusive (a point of which the Sugya
is uncertain), we not say that the Tana can safely omit the difference
between eighteen Berachos and twenty-four, seeing as it anyway omits the
difference that on the *third* set of fasts they took the Aron out into the
street, but not on the *second* - because taking the Aron out into the
street is not considered an omission (that belongs to the subjects currently
dealt with by the Tana), because he is talking about things that are done
discreetly, not things that are done in public.