THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
Previous daf
Ta'anis 15
1) THE EFFECT OF AN "AND"
Rebbi Elazar says that in times to come, the kings (Melachim) of the world
will stand up for Bnei Yisrael, and the officers (Sarim) will bow down, as
the verse says, "... Melachim will see and they will rise; Sarim -- and they
will bow down" (Yeshayah 49:7). The Gemara asks that the verse does not
imply as Rebbi Elazar teaches. Had it said, "... *and* Sarim will bow down,"
then Rebbi Elazar's teaching would indeed have been implicit in the verse,
which would have implied that only Sarim will bow down, and not Melachim.
However, since the verse says "... Sarim -- and they will bow down," it
implies that the Sarim will do both -- they will stand up for Bnei Yisrael
and bow down to them!
The Gemara's question is difficult to understand. The previous Gemara (14b)
says that Moshe was answered through supplicating through "Nefilah"
(prostrating himself before Hashem), while Yehoshua and Kalev were only
answered through "Keri'ah" (tearing their clothes in supplication). The
Gemara asks that the verse says, "... *and* Yehoshua and Kalev... tore their
clothes" (Bamidbar 14:6), which shows that they did *both* what was in the
preceding verse (Nefilah), "and" that they *also* tore their clothes! How,
then, can the Gemara here ask that had the verse said, "*and* Sarim will bow
down," it would have implied that they will *only* bow down and not stand up
like the Melachim will do? The addition of the word "and" should link this
part of the verse to the first part, and imply that the Sarim do *both* what
the Melachim do (stand) *and* bow down! (RASHASH)
ANSWER: The RASHASH and SEFAS EMES point out that the text of the Gemara as
cited in the EIN YAKOV omits the word "Sarim" in the Gemara's question on
Rebbi Elazar. Hence, the Gemara is saying that had the verse said "they will
bow down," it would have meant that they will *only* bow down; but now that
it says "*and* they will bow down," it means that they will do both -- stand
up and bow down. Therefore, it is consistent with the Gemara earlier.
2) HALACHAH: FAST DAYS FOR A DROUGHT IN MODERN TIMES
OPINIONS: The Mishnah describes the "Seder Ta'aniyos" -- the order of the
day on the last seven of the 13 public fast days that are declared when no
rain falls in the rainy season. It describes how the Sefer Torah is brought
out into the street where the people will pray, and how ashes are placed on
the foreheads of the Nasi and Av Beis Din, as well as on the heads of all of
the people. It describes the elder's words of rebuke, the six blessings that
are added to the Shemoneh Esreh, and the blowing of the Shofar. In addition,
we find that on a Ta'anis Tzibur a Tefilas Ne'ilah would be recited (26a),
the fasts were 24 hour fasts, work was prohibited on the fast days and all
five Inuyim (afflictions) of Yom Kipur would be practiced on those days
(12b).
It is clear from the Gemara that these fast days were practiced not only
during times of drought, but anytime a life-threatening situation existed
(14b, 19a). The TUR and SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 579) record these Halachos at
length. Is this series of 13 fast days, and all of their practices, observed
outside of Eretz Yisrael when there is a drought or when another life-
threatening situation exists?
(a) Shmuel said earlier that "there is no Ta'anis Tzibur in Bavel" -- the
special severity afforded to these fast days is not practiced in Bavel.
RASHI in Pesachim (54b) explains that since Bavel was a naturally wet land
(Ta'anis 10a), drought was not a life-threatening situation and there was no
need to treat Ta'aniyos for water with such severity (or to decree fasts for
water at all).
The Rishonim point out that if this is what makes Bavel unique, then if
another life-threatening situation arises besides drought, the people of
Bavel should indeed fast with the full severity of the fast days mentioned
above. Why then did Shmuel say that there is *no* Ta'anis Tzibur (with full
severity) in Bavel except for the ninth of Av?
The RITVA (12b) explains that Rashi may hold like the RAMBAM (Hil. Ta'aniyos
3:11, 4:1) who seems to rule that fast days instituted for any reason other
than lack of rain did not carry the same severity as the fasts mentioned
here. Only when fasting for rain were fast days similar to Tisha b'Av
instituted. Since Bavel did not need rain, it had no severe fasts other than
Tisha b'Av. This indeed appears to be Rashi's understanding in Pesachim (50b
DH Ta'anis Tzibur; 54b DH Ein Ta'anis Tzibur). Although it is clear from the
Gemara that in other life-threatening situations they would also decree
fasts and blow the Shofar, as the Ramban (here) and Ritva (ibid.) prove,
Rashi and the Rambam apparently distinguished between blowing the Shofar and
the Tisha b'Av aspects of a Ta'anis (the severity of the five Inuyim and the
prohibition against working etc.).
The Rambam and Rashi are not in complete agreement, though. From Rashi it
would appear that it is only in Bavel that the severity of these Ta'aniyos
is not practiced, while from the Rambam (3:11) it appears that not only
Bavel, but everywhere outside of Eretz Yisrael the fasts days are not
practiced with the severity of Tisha b'Av. It is only when fasting for
*rain* in *Eretz Yisrael* that the Chachamim instituted such fasts.
(b) The other Rishonim reject this approach and assert that the full
severity of these fasts applies no matter what life-threatening situation
existed for which they were decreed. Why, then, was the severity of a
Ta'anis Tzibur not practiced in Bavel? The RAMBAN and RAN (end of the first
Perek) quote the RA'AVAD who explains that the above-mentioned practices
were not decreed in Bavel because it would be too hard for the people there
to observe them.
It was not prohibited to wear shoes on fast days in Bavel, since the ground
was very damp, as mentioned above, and it would be too uncomfortable to have
to walk on it without shoes. The Chachamim did not institute 24 hour fasts,
or insist that they refrain from work on a fast day, since the people of
Bavel were poor, and it would affect them too severely (see Kidushin end of
29b and Rishonim). They were not prohibited from washing and smearing oil,
since they were generally in a weakened state, and it might adversely affect
their health. Since some of the Inuyim did not apply, the entire package of
five Inuyim does not apply in Bavel. (The other laws of a Ta'anis Tzibur,
such as Ne'ilah, Shofar blasts and the extra six Berachos of Shemoneh Esreh,
perhaps *did* apply to the people of Bavel.)
According to the Ra'avad, it is only in Bavel that the severity of Ta'anis
Tzibur was not practiced. (See Ramban, though, who suggests that because of
Bavel-like lands the severity of Ta'anis Tzibur was not instituted anywhere
outside of Eretz Yisrael, according to the Ra'avad.)
(c) The RAMBAN rejects the Ra'avad's explanation as "weak." Instead, he the
RITVA, RAN (here) and ROSH (1:9) champion the explanation of the RA'AVYA who
suggest an entirely different reason why the Ta'aniyos in Bavel are not as
severe as in Eretz Yisrael, based on a YERUSHALMI.
The only time a Ta'anis is practiced in its full severity is if it has the
status of "Ta'anis *Tzibur*" by virtue of being accepted by the entire
congregation as one. This can only be accomplished, though, through a
central judicial authority or through a Nasi, a temporal leader. Since the
justices of Bavel did not have Semichah and there was no Nasi in Bavel, any
Ta'anis they would accept upon themselves would have to be accepted by each
person as an individual. By definition, it would only be a Ta'anis Yachid!
(Even though even an unqualified Ta'anis Yachid has the severity of a
Ta'anis Tzibur, as Rav says on 12b, that is only at a time and place where a
Ta'anis Tzibur *could* have been practiced, they assert.)
If so, fast days instituted *anywhere* outside of Eretz Yisrael, for any
reason at all, do not have the severity of those in Eretz Yisrael. However,
the Ramban cites a tradition from the Ge'onim (which he proves correct from
the Gemara) that this applies only to the severity of fasting 24 hours,
observing the five Inuyim and not working. The extra Tefilos (Ne'ilah and
six Berachos in Shemoneh Esreh), as well as the Shofar blasts should be
observed even outside of Eretz Yisrael.
HALACHAH: What is the common practice both outside and inside Eretz Yisrael
today, with regard to a Ta'anis Tzibur?
1. INUYIM - We saw that many Rishonim agree that where there is no Nasi or
Beis Din with a Semichah, all Ta'aniyos are considered only a Ta'anis Yachid
and do not have the severity of a Ta'anis Tzibur. This is the accepted
ruling (MISHNAH BERURAH 575:25), and therefore we do not practice the five
Inuyim or the prohibition against working or 24 hour fasts nowadays outside
of Eretz Yisrael. (As for Eretz Yisrael, see what we write later on this
page.)
2. TEFILAH - All the interpretations of the Rishonim cited above seem to
agree that at least the Tefilah of Ne'ilah, the six extra Berachos in
Shemoneh Esreh, and the Shofar blasts should be practiced everywhere, even
in Bavel and other lands outside of Eretz Yisrael. However, the Ramban and
Ritva mention that in their region, although the extra six Berachos were
added to Shemoneh Esreh and the Shofar was blown, Ne'ilah was not recited,
since that might be limited to the severe Tisha-b'Av-like fast days, which
are not practiced outside of Eretz Yisrael (as mentioned in opinon (c)
above). As for the extra six Berachos, although the Ritva says that it was
common practice to add them to the Shemoneh Esreh by a public fast day even
outside of Eretz Yisrael, the Rambam only records them with regard to a fast
day for *rain* in *Eretz Yisrael* (3:11, 4:1).
3. SHOFAR - The Ritva (later on 12b) mentions that the tradition in France
(based on a ruling of Tosfos) was not to blow the Shofar on fast days today.
The Shofar blown on a Ta'anis Tzibur is really a Chatzotzra and not a
Shofar, as the Gemara says in Rosh Hashanah 26a and the Rambam rules
(Ta'aniyos 1:1 -- see Shabbos 36a, that the word Shofar really means a
"Chatzotzra"). Since we do not have Chatzotzros today, we do not blow at
all. The MAGEN AVRAHAM (beginning of OC 576) wonders why it is not the
practice to blow the Shofar on publicly decreed fast days today, as the
Torah commands. Although some Acharonim contend that the Mitzvah applies
only in Eretz Yisrael (see RAN, Rosh Hashanah 26b; NESIV CHAIM, OC ibid.)
the BIRKEI YOSEF writes that even there the blowing of the Shofar was not
practiced on a Ta'anis. The answer, possibly, is that we rely on the ruling
of the French community mentioned in the Ritva.
4. In Eretz Yisrael, the PE'AS HA'SHULCHAN writes that the Seder Ta'aniyos
are observed exactly as they are described in the Gemara and recorded by the
Shulchan Aruch, and the BIRKEI YOSEF (OC 575, cited by the Mishnah Berurah
ibid.) who lived at about the same time period, records that he actually met
elderly Jews in Yerushalayim and Chevron who remembered observing such
Ta'aniyos when young. In practice, we have not seen Ta'aniyos with any of
the unique severity, Tefilos or Shofar blasts of a Ta'anis Tzibur observed
even in Eretz Yisrael in recent years. This is consistent with the ruling of
the RAMBAN and Rishonim that when there is no Nasi, the Ta'aniyos do not
have the severity of Ta'anis Tzibur anywhere in the world. Although the
BIRKEI YOSEF mentions the possibility that the Gedolim in present day Eretz
Yisrael are "delegates of the original Semuchim," this is apparently not the
present day practice.
This explains why the Inuyim etc. and Ne'ilah are not observed in Eretz
Yisrael, but it is not clear why we do not say the 24 Berachos of Shemoneh
Esreh when fasting due to a drought in Eretz Yisrael. (Perhaps it is because
nowadays a drought is not nearly so deadly as it once was, since food can be
brought in more easily from other countries. Even Eretz Yisrael today is
like the Bavel of old, in that sense.)
RAV YECHIEL MICHAL TIKUCHINSKY zt'l (Sefer Eretz Yisrael) writes that
although in modern times the Seder Ta'aniyos are not observed, there is one
part of the Ta'aniyos that we continue to observe today. During a time of
drought in Eretz Yisrael today, the prayer of "va'Aneinu [Borei Olam b'Midas
ha'Rachamim...]," is added to the Berachah of Shome'a Tefilah. (This is the
"Hasra'ah b'Peh" mentioned in the Gemara earlier (14a), which is recited in
the Shemoneh Esreh in the blessing of "Shome'a Tefilah. The text of this
prayer in most Sidurim differs slightly from the text recorded by the TUR,
and there are different Minhagim as to which Girsa to follow.) We do not
change any other part of the Shemoneh Esreh or blow Teki'os.
15b
Next daf
|