Massechet Ta’anit, page 15. This study is dedicated by Norman and Joseph Jacob Jamal, in memory of their grandparents, Norman and Sally Jamal, and Joseph and Vicky Bader. May their souls be bound in the bond of eternal life. Amen. Today’s study is also dedicated by Shmuel Shaul ben Bahie and Natan ben Simcha. May their souls be bound in the bond of eternal life. Amen.
We begin on page 15a, a few words before the printed beginning. Rav Chisda says that when we learned yesterday that there is such a thing as a fast for only part of the day, this refers specifically to a person who did not eat anything until the evening. A person who eats during the day cannot be described as observing even a partial fast.
What is the case of a partial fast? It is not a person who says, “I will fast until noon and then have lunch.” That is not considered affliction. What kind of affliction is it if he has lunch at noon? If a person decided from the beginning of the day that he would fast only until midday and then eat, he has not accepted a partial fast at all. Since he intended to eat later in the day, it is not really a fast. He could just as well eat at the beginning of the day.
Rather, the case is that he completed the entire day without eating, even though he had not accepted the fast upon himself beforehand. He woke up, became busy, and did not eat in the morning. When he looked at the clock and saw that it was already noon, he said, “I have not eaten until now; I will continue fasting until the end of the day.” His intention to fast began only at midday. The fact that he had not eaten during the first half of the day was incidental. That is considered a partial fast.
The Gemara then says that if he did not eat anything until the evening, it is obvious that this is a complete fast. Why call it a fast for hours? If he fasted the entire day, it is better than a partial fast; it is a complete fast. That is Rav Chisda’s statement according to the first way of understanding it.
Rashi raises another difficulty. Perhaps the case is that the person accepted the first half of the day as a fast. He made a proper intention the day before to fast until noon. When noon arrived, he said, “I will continue fasting for the rest of the day as well.” That is certainly a valid fast. Although he did not originally accept the second half of the day, it is a continuation of the acceptance he made the day before. According to that reading, this is not a fast for hours but a complete fast. He could even recite the prayer of “Answer us” at the afternoon prayer, because his original acceptance continued into the second half of the day.
Therefore, Rashi understands the Gemara differently. The case is that he had not accepted any fast the day before. He simply became busy and did not eat until midday. At that point he changed his mind and decided to fast until the end of the day. Since he had no intention to fast during the first half of the day, it is not a complete fast, but it is nevertheless called a partial fast.
This raises a practical question. If a person cannot fast the entire day—for example, on the eve of the new month—may he accept upon himself a fast until midday or until the afternoon prayer? From this Gemara, it sounds as though that does not have the status of a partial fast. A partial fast requires that the person actually go through the entire day without eating, while intending to fast only from the middle of the day onward. If he deliberately accepts a fast only until midday and then eats, what exactly has he accomplished?
That is the distinction in the Gemara. If he originally accepted the first half of the day as a fast and then continued fasting, the second half is an extension of his original acceptance. That is a complete fast, and he may even recite “Answer us.” If he did not accept anything and simply failed to eat until midday, then decided to continue, it is a partial fast. But if he accepted from the beginning to fast only until midday and then eat, that is not considered a fast at all.
The Gemara now challenges this principle from the people of the priestly watches. Rav Chisda says that any fast that does not continue until sunset is not considered a proper fast. A fast means that the person continues until sunset; if he breaks the fast at three o’clock in the afternoon, it is not a complete fast.
Yet the people of the priestly watches fasted without completing their fasts. The priests and Levites were divided into twenty-four rotations, with each group serving in the Temple during its appointed week. During that week, they fasted, but they did not complete the fast. Since they were occupied with the Temple service and could not fast until sunset, they broke their fast during the day. Nevertheless, they are described as fasting. This seems to prove that one does not have to continue until sunset for the observance to be called a fast.
The Gemara answers that the people of the priestly watches were not observing an official fast. They were merely causing themselves some discomfort in solidarity with the community. They participated in the communal experience and did not separate themselves from the congregation, but they were not obligated in the laws of a fast. They could eat whenever they wished, they could not recite “Answer us,” and they had not accepted a formal obligation. Their fasting was simply a way of sharing in the community’s distress.
The Gemara brings another proof from a member of the tribe of Benjamin. Certain families had received the privilege of donating wood for the altar in the Temple. The day on which a family donated wood was treated as its festival: the family brought the special wood offering and celebrated the occasion. One year, the ninth of Av fell on Shabbat, and the observance of the ninth of Av was postponed until Sunday. That Sunday was also the family’s appointed day for bringing the wood. Since it was their festival, they could not fast the entire day. Nevertheless, they say, “We fasted, but we did not complete the fast, because it was our festival.” This again seems to show that a fast may be observed without continuing until sunset.
The Gemara gives the same answer. They were not observing a formal fast. They were merely causing themselves some discomfort in order to share in the communal fast. Their observance did not include the prayer of “Answer us,” and they could have stopped whenever they wished.
There is an additional difficulty here. The passage describes this person as observing his family’s festival, even though the rabbi in question lived after the destruction of the Temple. If there was no Temple, how could he have been bringing a wood offering?
Tosafot answers that he held that the days recorded in the Scroll of Fasts remained in force even after the destruction of the Temple. The family was not actually bringing an offering. Rather, he was saying that he belonged to that family and that the date remained a day on which his family did not fast. Tosafot’s discussion assumes that the prohibitions recorded in the Scroll of Fasts continued even after the destruction.
This also explains why the passage refers to the ninth of Av being postponed. During the period of the Second Temple, the days associated with the destruction were days of celebration rather than fasting. After the Temple was destroyed, those dates became fast days. Therefore, the passage must be referring to the later period, and Tosafot explains that the family’s special day still retained its status.
The fixed wood-offering days were not merely opportunities for anyone to donate wood. If someone else wished to donate wood, he could do so, but if there was already enough wood on the altar, his wood would be placed in storage. On the family’s appointed day, however, that family placed the wood on the altar even if there was already sufficient wood. Their day was permanently established as a festival, and their offering had the status of a special sacrifice.
The Gemara then brings a statement of Rabbi Yochanan: “I am fasting until I reach my home.” Rabbi Yochanan would sometimes say that he was fasting until he arrived home, and even if he reached home at one, two, or three o’clock in the afternoon, he would eat immediately.
The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yochanan used this expression when he was invited to eat at the home of the Nasi. He did not want to accept the invitation, so he said that he was fasting until he reached home. He was not actually accepting a formal fast. He knew that the Nasi did not understand the halachic terminology, and the statement was sufficient to excuse him from eating there. In reality, had he wanted to eat at the Nasi’s home, he could have done so.
This leads to a discussion of Rashi. Perhaps Rabbi Yochanan’s words were not intended to describe an actual fast at all. Since he said, “I will fast until I reach my home,” but would have eaten immediately had he wished, the statement created no formal obligation. It was simply a way of saying that he was not eating at that moment. The terminology was not precise enough to create a fast.
According to this understanding, the Gemara continues to uphold its principle: a fast that does not continue until sunset is not a formal fast. Rabbi Yochanan was using the word “fast” loosely, but if he had said, “I will not eat until I reach my home,” that would have had a different meaning. The term “fast” cannot automatically be treated as a formal acceptance of a fast.
Tosafot discusses the statement that any fast that does not continue until sunset is not a fast. Tosafot explains that this means that a person must accept the fast upon himself during the afternoon prayer of the preceding day. The acceptance should be made during the afternoon prayer, or at least during the time of the afternoon prayer, even if he is not actually praying in a synagogue. He can say, “Tomorrow I will fast.”
According to Tosafot, the acceptance should be made at the end of the afternoon prayer, together with the supplementary passages of supplication, before concluding the prayer. The reason the Gemara specifically mentions the afternoon prayer is that it is the prayer closest to the beginning of the fast. The evening prayer is already associated with the following day, while the morning prayer is too far removed from the fast.
There is a distinction between “during the afternoon prayer” and “at the time of the afternoon prayer.” One opinion understands the acceptance as having to be made within the actual Amidah of the afternoon prayer. Another opinion understands it as sufficient to make the acceptance during the period designated for the afternoon prayer, even before praying. This is a significant distinction, especially in the summer, when a person may pray the evening prayer early. If he has already prayed the evening prayer but it is still technically daytime, the question is whether he may still accept the fast.
The Gemara cites a passage from the Scroll of Fasts: Anyone who accepts a fast upon himself before one of the days listed there must observe his personal fast even when that date arrives. The Gemara asks what this means. Suppose a person accepted a series of fasts, such as every Monday and Thursday, and one of those dates later turned out to be a day on which fasting was prohibited according to the Scroll of Fasts. Which takes precedence: his personal acceptance or the special status of that day?
One interpretation understands the passage to mean that he must personally accept the fast again in his afternoon prayer. If he did not accept the fast during the afternoon prayer, the special day takes precedence and he may not fast. This would indicate that a formal acceptance in the afternoon prayer is essential.
The Gemara rejects that interpretation. The phrase does not necessarily mean that he must actively accept the fast again. It may mean that the day will become prohibited to him automatically. The word used in the passage can be understood as meaning that the day is forbidden to him, not that he must repeat the acceptance himself.
The Gemara records a dispute between Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon. One understands the phrase as referring to an active acceptance, while the other understands it as an automatic prohibition. According to the first view, the terminology implies an acceptance made during prayer. According to the second, the days listed in the Scroll of Fasts are prohibited regardless of whether the individual repeated his acceptance in the afternoon prayer.
Rashi’s explanation leaves us with a question. Does a person need to make a new acceptance in the afternoon prayer, or may he rely on the original acceptance that he made earlier? The issue is not merely whether the acceptance occurs during the afternoon prayer, but whether the person must renew an acceptance for each fast or whether one original acceptance applies to the entire series.
We then return to the question of when a person may eat before a fast. The fast begins in the morning, and the Gemara asks until what point a person may continue eating during the preceding night. The first opinion says that he may eat until dawn. Rabbi Eliezer bar Shimon says that he may eat until the rooster crows.
The reference to the rooster means the first crowing of the rooster. Since a rooster crows several times, the question is whether the ruling refers to the first time it crows, which may precede dawn, or to a later time. Thus, there is a dispute whether the fast begins at dawn, a fixed astronomical time, or at the first crowing of the rooster.
This discussion concerns a person who continues eating throughout the night. If he remains engaged in his meal, he must stop at dawn or at the first crowing of the rooster, depending on the opinion one follows. But what if he finished his meal earlier and clearly decided that he was done? Rashi’s wording appears to indicate that everyone agrees that he may not resume eating after the first crowing of the rooster. The dispute applies only to someone who continued eating through the night.
There is a difficulty with that reading. The Gemara says that if he finished his meal and got up, he may continue eating. This seems to allow him to return to the meal even after getting up. The answer is that he had not removed his mind from the meal. He got up with the intention of returning and continuing to eat. Since he regarded the meal as ongoing, he may continue until the relevant beginning of the fast.
However, if he went to sleep, he may not resume eating. Sleep is considered an interruption of the meal. Once he goes to sleep, he may not return to eat, unless the sleep was only a brief doze and not a fixed sleep.
The Gemara therefore distinguishes between being asleep but not fully asleep and being awake but not fully awake. Rav Ashi explains that a person is considered to have merely dozed when he is in an intermediate state: he is not fully asleep, but he is not completely awake either. If someone calls his name, he can respond, but he cannot answer a question that requires thought. If someone reminds him of the answer, however, he recognizes it and can respond appropriately.
Tosafot discusses whether the two expressions—“asleep but not asleep” and “awake but not awake”—refer to two different stages. One possibility is that the first expression refers to the moment when a person is waking up, while the second refers to the beginning of sleep, when he is still drifting off. Another possibility, reflected in the discussion elsewhere, is that both expressions describe the same intermediate state.
The discussion in Pesachim appears to support the second explanation. There, people are sitting at the Passover meal, and one of them begins to doze. The Gemara uses both expressions in describing the beginning of sleep, suggesting that they are not necessarily two distinct stages. Tosafot explains that the two expressions are stated to prevent us from assuming that one level is more significant than the other. Both describe the same degree of partial sleep, in which the person is neither fully asleep nor fully awake.
The Jerusalem Talmud explicitly introduces the possibility of making a condition before going to sleep. The question is until when a person may eat and drink during the night before a fast. If he goes to sleep without making a condition, he may not eat after waking, whether he follows the time of dawn or the first crowing of the rooster. But if he made a condition before going to sleep that he would wake up and continue eating, he may do so.
This condition is accepted by the later halachic authorities. The position attributed to the Arizal is more stringent: once a person goes to sleep, even a prior condition does not permit him to resume eating. The Jerusalem Talmud, however, introduces the condition as a valid solution. The dispute about whether the fast begins at dawn or at the crowing of the rooster is separate from the question of whether a condition can permit a person to resume eating after sleep.
The Gemara next discusses a person who accepts a private fast. Rav Kahana, in the name of Rav, says that someone who accepts a private fast upon himself may not wear shoes. Why would that be so? Perhaps when he said that he was accepting a fast, he intended to accept upon himself all the stringencies of a communal fast, including the prohibition against wearing shoes.
If a person simply accepts “a fast” without specifying whether he means a private fast or a communal fast, we do not know what he intended. Perhaps he accepted the more stringent form, which includes the practices of the final and more severe communal fasts. Therefore, he should specify his intention and say, “Tomorrow I will observe a private fast.” That makes clear that he is not accepting the stringencies of a communal fast.
The rabbis were seen wearing shoes while coming to the communal fast. This appears to show that they held that there is no full communal fast with all its stringencies in Babylonia. Perhaps the only fast that retains the full stringencies is the ninth of Av.
Rav Sheshet objected that perhaps the rabbis had already eaten. Their shoes would then prove nothing. They may have been wearing shoes because they had already broken their fast, while still separating themselves from the community in other ways. Since we do not know that they were still fasting, their conduct cannot establish that shoes are permitted during a communal fast.
Abaye and Rava wore a type of footwear called an afanta. Rashi explains that it was a shoe without a sole, or a covering that protected the upper part of the foot without being a complete shoe. It was similar to a slipper. Other rabbis changed the usual order of their shoes, putting the right shoe on the left foot and the left shoe on the right, in order to experience some discomfort without wearing ordinary shoes.
The rabbis of the house of Rav Ashi went out wearing their ordinary shoes. They held in accordance with the view that there is no full communal fast in Babylonia, except for the ninth of Av. Therefore, the prohibition against wearing shoes did not apply to the other communal fasts.
Rav Yehudah, in the name of Rav, says that a person may borrow against his fast and repay it on another day. In other words, if he accepted a fast but cannot observe it on the appointed day, he may transfer it to another day.
When Rav Yehudah stated this before Shmuel, Shmuel objected. Is this a vow? Once a person accepts a fast, it has the status of a vow. If he cannot observe it on the appointed day, he must make it up on another day, just as one must fulfill a vow.
There are two ways to understand the dispute. According to one version, a person accepts the fast upon himself only as long as he is able to cause himself this discomfort. If he is unable to fast, he is considered exempt, and he does not have to make up the fast. His acceptance included an implicit condition: he would fast if he were able to do so.
According to the other version, even if he is able to fast on the original day, he may nevertheless postpone it. Since his acceptance has the status of a vow, he may fulfill it on another day. The practical difference between the two opinions is whether a person who is capable of fasting may voluntarily delay the fast.
Tosafot explains the matter differently. If a person is unable to fast on the appointed day, he must make it up on another day. There is no option to disregard the fast simply because he was unable to observe it at the original time. If he was capable of fasting, however, he may not casually decide to postpone it. The phrase “he may borrow his fast” applies to a situation in which he cannot observe it, not to a person who merely prefers another day.
If a person began fasting and later became unable to continue, there is a further question whether he must make up the fast. If he did not begin fasting at all, the obligation to make it up is clearer. The discussion also distinguishes a fast that falls on Shabbat, where one cannot simply observe the fast on the following day, and a fast that falls on another day when postponement is possible.
The Gemara then presents a case involving Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. He happened to visit the home of Rav Asi, who prepared for him a tender calf. The rabbis asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to taste the meat and eat with them. He replied that he was fasting.
They suggested that he postpone the fast and observe it on another day. He answered that he was observing a fast accepted for that particular day. This case supports the view that when a person has accepted the fast as a vow, he cannot simply transfer it to another day merely because an attractive opportunity to eat has arisen.
The Gemara explains that a fast accepted for that day has a distinct status. Rav Yosef says that a fast for that day is like fire for straw: it takes effect immediately and consumes the day. It must be observed on that day, rather than postponed.
The Gemara also discusses a fast resulting from a troubling dream. A person may observe a fast because of such a dream, even if the dream occurs on Shabbat. Ordinarily, fasting on Shabbat is prohibited, but in this case the fast is permitted in order to remove the distress caused by the dream.
The question is how this can be reconciled with the requirement to experience the enjoyment of Shabbat. The answer is that for this person, fasting is itself a source of relief. He is distressed by the dream, and fasting alleviates that distress. In his case, removing the anguish is considered his enjoyment of Shabbat.
The Gemara nevertheless says that he must fast again for having fasted on Shabbat. The explanation is that removing distress and experiencing positive enjoyment are not identical. The fast may eliminate the distress caused by the dream, but that does not necessarily fulfill the positive requirement of enjoying Shabbat. Therefore, he must observe another fast to atone for having fasted on Shabbat.
The Ritva explains that a person may fast on Shabbat because of a disturbing dream when the fast is intended to remove personal anguish. The person is not choosing suffering for its own sake; he is attempting to resolve a source of distress. Even though the fast is permitted, he must later make up the enjoyment of Shabbat by fasting on another day, because the Shabbat enjoyment itself was still lacking.
The Mishnah now says that if the initial fasts passed without rain, the court decreed three additional fasts upon the community. We learned that the private individuals fasted three times if rain had not fallen by the beginning of the month of Kislev. If those fasts passed without rain, the court decreed three ordinary communal fasts.
During those three communal fasts, people could eat and drink during the day, although they were not permitted to eat at night after the fast had begun. They were prohibited from working, bathing, anointing themselves, wearing shoes, and engaging in marital relations. The bathhouses were closed.
If those fasts also passed without rain, the court decreed seven additional fasts, bringing the total number of communal fasts to thirteen: three initial communal fasts followed by seven more severe fasts, in addition to the three fasts observed by private individuals.
The final seven fasts were more stringent than the first three. On those days, the people sounded the alarm and closed the stores. On Monday, the stores were opened partially so that people could purchase food. After the fast on Thursday, the stores were opened fully because people had to purchase food for Shabbat.
As the situation continued, people reduced their business activity, construction, and planting. Engagements and weddings were not held, and people did not greet one another in the ordinary manner. The community behaved like people who had been rebuked by God.
The private individuals continued to fast until after the month of Nisan. Once Nisan had passed, if rain still had not fallen, the fasts ended, because the harvest season had arrived. Rain at that point could damage the crops. The verse says that the harvest period has arrived, indicating that rain was no longer beneficial.
The Gemara asks why work is prohibited during these fasts. It understands the fast as a period of distress, and removing ordinary pleasures is part of that distress. Rav Chisda, in the name of Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba, derives this from the verse, “Sanctify a fast, proclaim an assembly, gather the elders.” The verse compares the fast to an assembly.
Just as on a festival, such as Shavuot, work is prohibited, so too work is prohibited on these fast days. The word “assembly” indicates a day of cessation from work. Therefore, the prohibition against work applies during the day of the fast.
The Gemara challenges this comparison. If the fast is compared to a festival, perhaps the prohibition against work should begin the evening before, just as the sanctity of a festival begins at night. Rav Yirmeyah answers that the verse specifically compares the fast to the gathering of the elders. That gathering took place during the day, so the fast-related restrictions also apply during the day rather than beginning the night before.
The Gemara asks whether the gathering of the elders itself took place at night. Rav Sheshet, in the name of Rabbi Yirmeyah, answers that the elders gathered early in the morning. From the morning until midday, they examined the conduct of the city and investigated the deeds of its inhabitants. They looked for the reason that rain had not fallen and considered what corrections the community needed to make.
From midday onward, they read the Torah portion and the prophetic reading. They then prayed, as the verse says that the people gathered, read from the Torah of God, confessed, and bowed before God. The verse appears to place the reading before the prayer.
The Gemara asks whether the order might be reversed: perhaps they prayed first and then read the Torah. It rejects that possibility based on the verse describing Ezra. Ezra says that he sat in mourning until the evening offering, and at the time of the evening offering he arose from his fast. This indicates that the prayer and confession occurred later in the day, supporting the view that the examination of the city took place in the morning and the reading and prayer followed afterward.
The Gemara analyzes the wording further. Since Ezra says that he arose at the time of the evening offering, and the communal prayer took place later in the day, the first part of the day must have been devoted to examining the conduct of the community. Only afterward did they read the Torah and pray.
Tosafot raises a final difficulty. The verse says that the gathering of the elders took place during the day, and the Gemara derives that the fast also applies during the day. But the Mishnah says that people eat and drink while it is still day, which seems to imply that they may eat during the night as well. Why does the Gemara derive from the gathering of the elders that the fast itself is limited to the daytime?
Tosafot answers that the derivation is specifically regarding the prohibition against work. The word “fast” can include several components, such as abstaining from food, refraining from work, and other forms of affliction. The verse establishes that the prohibition against work applies during the day. It does not necessarily establish that every aspect of the fast begins or ends at precisely the same time.
The Gemara’s language, however, refers to the fast generally, rather than explicitly mentioning work. Tosafot explains that the verse is being used to derive only the element that can properly be compared to the gathering of the elders. The gathering took place during the day, and therefore the prohibition against work applies during the day. The other details of the fast follow their own rules.
That concludes the discussion of page 15. Next time, we will continue with the details of the communal fasts and the practices that applied during the various stages of the drought.