This page of Gemara, from the tractate dedicated by the Jamal brothers—Norman, Joseph, and Jacob—and by their grandparents, Norman and Sally Jamal and Joseph and Vicky Bader, is dedicated in memory of those whose souls are in the Garden of Eden. The page is also studied for the elevation of the souls of Shaul ben Bahieh and Natan ben Simecha.
We are discussing any fast that contains an element of mourning. The first category is a fast instituted to commemorate something connected with mourning. Tisha B’Av, for example, commemorates the destruction of the Temple and is a fast based on mourning. An actual mourner is also subject to the laws of mourning. What do these two cases have in common?
Regarding bathing, neither may bathe with hot water, and according to the initial understanding, neither may bathe even with cold water. As we know from our practice on Tisha B’Av, we do not use water at all. However, anything prohibited because of mourning is different from something prohibited because of self-denial. If the purpose of the fast is to deprive a person of pleasure, as in a public fast instituted for rain, the issue is not mourning. The purpose is to deprive oneself of pleasure so that God will answer us.
What is considered pleasure? Taking a hot bath or a hot shower is pleasurable. Cold water, however, is not generally considered pleasurable. Therefore, according to Rav Hisda, bathing in cold water is permitted.
Let us examine Rashi for a moment. A proof is brought from the Mishnah. We learned that on these fast days for rain, one of the things the people do is close the bathhouses. A bathhouse refers to hot water. This seems to imply that anything prohibited because of self-denial includes hot water, while cold water remains permitted.
Abaye rejects this proof. What else could the Mishnah have said? Could it have said that they close the rivers? Obviously not. There is no way to close a river, so the fact that the Mishnah mentions closing the bathhouses does not prove that cold water is permitted.
Rav Hisda responds that the proof comes from the redundancy in the Mishnah. The Mishnah already says that bathing is prohibited. The words “they close the bathhouses” therefore seem unnecessary. If bathing is prohibited, that would imply both hot and cold water. Why, then, does the Mishnah add that they close the bathhouses? It comes to limit the prohibition to hot water and to exclude cold water. From this repetition, Rav Hisda brings his proof: hot water is prohibited, while cold water is permitted.
The Gemara then presents another version of the discussion. Rav Idi bar Avin says that we, too, have learned this distinction from the Mishnah: “They close the bathhouses,” meaning the hot bathhouses, while cold water remains permitted. He asks: If cold water were also prohibited, how could the Mishnah have communicated that? It could not have said that they close the rivers. Therefore, the Mishnah’s wording indicates that hot water is prohibited but cold water is permitted.
Tosafot makes an important point here. According to Rav Hisda, if cold water is also prohibited in a case of mourning, how did people clean themselves in the morning? Tosafot cites the Jerusalem Talmud regarding Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur. A person would wash his hands, wipe them on a cloth, and pass the dampness over his face. Rabbi Yonah would place his cloth beneath his pillow so that it would remain moist, and he would use it to clean himself. This was the way people cleaned themselves with a damp cloth without actually washing.
We do not have these particular public fasts today—the fasts in which one deprives oneself of pleasure. Perhaps their restriction is connected to mourning; I am not even certain that it should be classified precisely as mourning. Tosafot says that this is the only public fast that begins the night before. Aside from Tisha B’Av, and aside from Yom Kippur, which is required by Torah law, we do not have another fast of this nature today.
Tosafot therefore discusses whether one may take a hot bath on the seventeenth of Tammuz. The seventeenth of Tammuz is connected with mourning, but it is not the same type of public fast. The prohibition would have to be one of mourning and a public fast, not merely an ordinary fast day. Tosafot also discusses whether a mourner may bathe with hot water. This is a dispute among the early commentators.
The Gemara now says: Let us bring a proof. A woman who is obligated to immerse—for example, a menstruant or a woman who has given birth—is permitted to go to the ritual bath. What type of ritual bath are we discussing? In earlier times, hot water had to be heated and then poured into the bath. That water would technically be drawn water. Since the Mishnah permits a woman to immerse on the Sabbath, perhaps it must be referring to a cold ritual bath. If only a woman who is obligated to immerse may enter cold water, while everyone else may not, this would imply that cold water is prohibited.
The Gemara rejects this proof. There was a type of ritual bath called the Tiberian Hot Springs. It was naturally hot, rather than water that had been heated and poured into the bath. The Mishnah may be referring to those waters. Perhaps cold water is indeed permitted, but the woman was allowed to immerse specifically in the naturally hot waters because she was obligated to immerse, while everyone else was prohibited from bathing in hot water.
There is a question concerning the distinction between warming water and making it hot. In earlier times, a metal object could be placed in the water merely to remove its chill. That did not make the water genuinely hot. The discussion here concerns hot water that provides pleasure, not water from which the chill has merely been removed.
The Gemara then asks about the conclusion of the Mishnah. Rabbi Hanina, the deputy High Priest, said that because of the destruction of the Temple, it would be appropriate to cancel immersion once a year, even for a woman who was obligated to go to the ritual bath. The language is that it is worthwhile to forgo the immersion. Why would the statement say that the immersion should be canceled? If cold water is permitted, she could simply immerse in a cold ritual bath. She would only be prohibited from using the hot springs.
From the fact that Rabbi Hanina says to forgo the immersion altogether, it seems that even cold water is prohibited. The Gemara responds that perhaps there was no available cold ritual bath. Since the naturally hot bath was in Tiberias, and there was no other suitable bath available, the woman could not immerse. The discussion then returns to the question of how the Mishnah could express a prohibition against cold water. Once again, the Gemara concludes that the wording of the Mishnah indicates that cold water is prohibited.
Tosafot discusses another issue involving a ritual bath. Suppose water that was heated was then directed into a ritual bath through a process of drawing it naturally into the pool. Why did the Gemara need to speak about naturally hot water? Why could it not have spoken about water that was heated and then directed into the bath?
The answer is that there is a distinction between water that disqualifies a ritual bath as drawn water and water into which one may immerse. If a ritual bath contains the required measure of valid water and additional water is directed into it, that additional water does not disqualify the bath as drawn water. However, if the ritual bath itself is composed of water that was directed into it in this manner, one may not immerse in it. Thus, the water does not necessarily invalidate the bath under the laws of drawn water, but one may nevertheless not immerse in a bath created entirely through this process.
This also explains the practical distinction between drawing water into a bath and making a connection between two bodies of water. These are separate procedures with separate rules. The discussion is not referring to the ordinary connection used in a contemporary ritual bath, nor to water entering through a regular pipe. The issue here is specifically the process of drawing the water into the bath.
We now return to the Gemara. It says that when the Mishnah states that work is prohibited on these fast days, that prohibition applies only during the day. At night, work is permitted. Similarly, when the Mishnah says that bathing is prohibited, it means that the entire body may not be bathed. However, one may wash the face, the hands, and the feet.
The Gemara then says that the same laws apply to a person under a ban and to a mourner. The question is whether this means that everything just mentioned applies equally to a mourner, including the permission to wash the face, hands, and feet with cold water.
The question cannot be that hot water is permitted for a mourner. Hot water is treated so strictly that a mourner may not even place a finger into hot water. Therefore, the discussion must concern cold water. The Mishnah seems to say that a mourner may wash the face, hands, and feet with cold water. This appears to contradict Rav Hisda, who said that anything prohibited because of mourning is prohibited with both hot and cold water.
At first, the question seems to be directly against the laws of a public fast. Rav Hisda said that because the purpose of a public fast is self-denial, cold water is permitted for the entire body. Yet this teaching says that only the face, hands, and feet may be washed. That is a direct contradiction.
There is also a possible question concerning mourning itself, but that depends on how one understands Rav Hisda’s statement. Perhaps Rav Hisda said only that cold water is prohibited for a mourner when washing the entire body. He may not have addressed washing the face, hands, and feet. The clear question, however, is against the rules of the public fast: Rav Hisda permits cold-water bathing for the entire body, whereas the teaching permits only washing the face, hands, and feet.
The Gemara answers that the discussion is actually referring to hot water. The entire body may not be washed with hot water, but the face, hands, and feet may be washed with hot water. This raises the question: How could hot water be permitted at all? We know that a mourner may not even place a finger into hot water.
The answer is that the statement about the mourner is not discussing bathing. The phrase “and likewise for a mourner” refers to the other laws mentioned there, such as the restrictions on work, but not to the laws of bathing. According to this explanation, there is no question from the laws of mourning. The remaining discussion concerns only the public fast, where the distinction is between hot water, which is prohibited, and cold water, which is permitted.
Tosafot understands the passage differently. Tosafot says that when we state that cold water is permitted, this applies to a mourner as well. Therefore, Tosafot understands that the question is not only from the public fast but also from mourning. Rav Hisda said that anything prohibited because of mourning is prohibited whether the water is hot or cold, while the teaching permits a mourner to wash the face, hands, and feet with cold water.
Thus, according to Tosafot, the question is from both cases. According to Rashi, the question is specifically from the public fast, because Rav Hisda’s statement that cold water is prohibited might refer only to washing the entire body. He may agree that washing the face, hands, and feet with cold water is permitted.
The Gemara then brings a further source. Rabbi Yosef the Priest relates that Rabbi Yosef ben Levi died, and another son of Rabbi Hanina bar Menon died shortly afterward. Because the two deaths occurred one after the other, their mourning was consecutive. The mourner was permitted to wash with cold water during the seven days.
This appears to be a proof that a mourner may wash with cold water. The case was especially severe because the mourning periods followed one another. If his hair became heavy, he was permitted to lighten it with a razor, but not in the ordinary manner of shaving. He could launder his clothing with water, but not with detergent or other cleansing agents. He could perform these acts in an unusual manner, because of the exceptional circumstances of consecutive mourning.
Tosafot explains that lightening the beard with a razor is not the same as shaving in the ordinary manner. One may thin or shorten it in a way that does not constitute the normal act of shaving. The prohibition is against ordinary shaving, not against every possible act of reducing the beard.
The Gemara then says that a mourner may eat meat and drink wine. Rav said that a mourner may also bathe. Just as meat and wine are permitted even though they provide pleasure, perhaps cold-water bathing should likewise be permitted.
The Gemara rejects the comparison. Meat and wine serve to remove fear and distress; they calm a person. Their purpose is not merely pleasure for its own sake. Therefore, permitting meat and wine does not necessarily permit a cold shower. There are different levels of pleasure. Hot water provides a greater degree of pleasure, while cold water may provide a lesser degree. The question is whether the permission for meat and wine extends to that lesser form of pleasure.
The Gemara then returns to the case of a young girl. A girl who is already of marriageable age may not make herself unattractive during mourning, whether her father died or whether her father is mourning. A younger girl, however, may do so. What is the practical meaning of this distinction? It seems that an older girl may bathe, while a younger girl may not.
That cannot refer to hot water. No one would permit even an older girl to bathe in hot water during mourning; we have already established that a mourner may not even place a finger into hot water. The discussion must therefore concern cold water. It seems that the older girl may bathe in cold water, while the younger girl may not.
Rav Hisda explains that the distinction concerns braiding the hair and applying cosmetics. The older girl is permitted to make herself attractive because she is of marriageable age, while the younger girl must make herself unattractive as part of the mourning. The text is not necessarily discussing bathing at all. The terms refer to the hair and to cosmetics, such as mascara or makeup.
This may be the source for the practice that when a close family member is mourning, even a person who is not personally obligated in mourning may refrain from certain forms of beautification. The passage gives an example in which a father is mourning because he lost a son, or in which the girl’s father himself died. In either case, she is required to observe this restriction.
Rava then says that cold water is permitted for a mourner. Rav Yosef brings the story of Rabbi Yosef ben Levi, who bathed in cold water during the seven days. The Gemara rejects the proof by saying that this was an exceptional case: one period of mourning followed immediately upon another. Because the mourning was consecutive, special leniencies were granted, including lightening the beard with a razor and washing clothing with water, but not with soap, detergent, or other cleansing agents.
There is another version of Rava’s statement. According to that version, Rava says that a mourner is prohibited from bathing in cold water throughout the seven days. The Gemara asks why this should be different from meat and wine, which are permitted. The answer is that meat and wine are permitted only to remove fear and distress. They are not permitted as ordinary forms of pleasure. Cold-water bathing, however, is an independent form of pleasure and remains prohibited.
The Gemara then brings another proof from the law that an older girl may not make herself unattractive, while a younger girl is permitted to do so. If this refers to bathing in hot water, it is impossible, since hot water is not permitted even for the older girl. If it refers to cold water, however, it appears that cold-water bathing is prohibited during the entire week of mourning.
Rav Hisda explains that the teaching proves that a mourner is prohibited from laundering during the seven days. Just as a younger girl must make herself unattractive and may not beautify herself, so too a mourner may not launder clothing, because laundering is also a form of beautification.
The Gemara presents the practical conclusion: A mourner may not wash the entire body during the seven days, whether with hot water or cold water. Washing the face, hands, and feet with hot water is prohibited, but washing them with cold water is permitted. Applying oils or similar substances is prohibited even in a small amount if done for pleasure. If the purpose is merely to remove sweat or an unpleasant odor, it is permitted, because that is removing discomfort rather than seeking pleasure.
The Gemara now moves to a new subject: Where do we find the prayer of “Answer us” in the first blessings of the Amidah? Rav Yehudah was walking with his son, Rabbi Yitzhak, and they discussed its placement between the blessings of Redemption and Healing.
Could an individual have a separate blessing for himself in the Amidah? We do not generally establish an additional blessing for an individual. The Gemara asks whether an individual is important enough to have a separate blessing added to his prayer. Rashi explains that although an individual is important, he is not important enough to establish a new blessing as a permanent part of the Amidah.
Instead, an individual includes the prayer of “Answer us” within the blessing that concludes, “Who hears prayer.” The blessing of “Who hears prayer” encompasses all requests, and therefore the prayer is inserted there. Rabbi Yitzhak explains that the individual says it within that blessing, while the prayer leader recites it as a separate blessing before the blessing of “Who hears prayer.” The public therefore responds to a full blessing.
The Gemara asks whether there is a difference between an individual and the public in the number of blessings of the Amidah. An individual recites what is commonly called eighteen blessings, although it is actually nineteen, while the public prayer may contain additional blessings. If the public prayer on the more severe fasts contains twenty-four blessings, then the original statement cannot be referring simply to an individual and a prayer leader, because the numbers would be eighteen and twenty-four rather than eighteen and nineteen.
Therefore, the distinction must concern the type of fast. There is an individual fast, which a person accepts upon himself, and there is a public fast. On an individual fast, the person recites the regular Amidah and inserts “Answer us.” On a public fast, the prayer leader may recite an additional blessing.
The Gemara objects: We were told that an individual does not establish a blessing for himself, yet here it appears that an individual on a public fast adds a blessing. The answer is that the phrase “individual” may refer to the prayer leader, who is acting as the representative of the public. The question is not about an ordinary individual but about the prayer leader’s role.
The Gemara offers another answer: The Mishnah is discussing differences relating to prohibitions, not differences in prayer. There are certainly differences in the Amidah between the various fasts, but the Mishnah is listing only differences such as whether work is permitted. It is not attempting to list every distinction in prayer.
The Gemara then compares the first three fasts, the middle three fasts, and the final seven fasts. The first three and the middle three have certain differences, such as the laws of work. The final seven are more severe: the shofar is sounded, the stores are closed, and the Ark is brought out to the public square. The question is whether the middle three fasts also include the full twenty-four blessings, like the final seven.
One possibility is that the Mishnah left out the matter of the twenty-four blessings. But if the Mishnah omits one distinction, the usual rule is that another distinction must also have been omitted. The Gemara asks what other distinction could have been omitted. Furthermore, the expression “there is no difference between” sounds as though the listed distinctions are the only ones.
The Gemara initially responds that the Mishnah may have omitted the bringing of the Ark to the public square. Tosafot explains that they would take the Ark from the synagogue and bring it into the middle of the city. However, this is not a sufficient answer, because the Mishnah’s wording suggests that the listed differences are exhaustive.
The Gemara then explains that the Mishnah is not listing every distinction, but only distinctions connected with prohibitions. The bringing of the Ark and sounding the shofar are public practices, not prohibitions. Since the Mishnah is discussing matters of prohibition, it may omit those public practices.
According to this approach, the first and middle fasts may both have the same number of blessings, while the final seven have the full additional blessings. Alternatively, the original statement that an individual recites eighteen blessings and the public recites nineteen may refer specifically to the first three fasts. On those fasts, the individual recites the regular Amidah with “Answer us” inserted, while the prayer leader recites one additional blessing. On the final seven fasts, the prayer leader recites the expanded order of twenty-four blessings.
The individual does not establish a separate blessing for himself. He inserts “Answer us” within the blessing of “Who hears prayer.” The prayer leader, representing the public, recites the additional blessing as a full blessing. Thus, the individual’s prayer remains eighteen blessings, while the prayer leader’s prayer on the appropriate fasts contains one additional blessing, and on the final seven fasts follows the expanded order.
Tosafot discusses the phrase “the Mishnah omitted a distinction.” The initial assumption was that the Mishnah stated the difference between the first three and the middle three fasts, but omitted the fact that the middle three also contain twenty-four blessings. The Gemara asks: If the Mishnah omitted that distinction, what else did it omit? It would not normally omit a single item from an entire list.
The Gemara also asks how the phrase “there is no difference between” can be reconciled with an omitted distinction. Tosafot brings a parallel from the tractate Megillah. There, the Mishnah says that there is no difference between a vow and a donation except that a vow remains the person’s obligation even if the designated animal dies, whereas a donation applies only to the particular animal. Yet there are other distinctions: a vow must be funded from ordinary money, while a donation may be funded from tithe money.
Tosafot answers that the Mishnah in Megillah is discussing offerings of the same type. In that context, there is no additional distinction between a vow and a donation beyond the one stated. The other rule applies to different categories of offerings and is therefore outside the Mishnah’s subject.
Returning to our Mishnah, the statement “there is no difference” may likewise be limited to the category under discussion. The Mishnah is comparing the fasts with respect to prohibitions. It is not necessarily listing differences in prayer or public practices. Therefore, the fact that the middle fasts may contain the same expanded prayer as the final fasts does not contradict the wording of the Mishnah.
The essential distinction is between matters of prohibition and public practices. Work, for example, is permitted during the first fasts and prohibited during the later fasts. Sounding the shofar and bringing out the Ark are public practices. The Mishnah may list only the differences involving prohibitions while leaving the differences in prayer and public ceremony to be derived elsewhere.