The tractate of Taanit, page 17, is dedicated by the Jamal brothers, Norman, Joseph, and Jacob, in memory of their grandparents, Sally and Norman Jamal, and Vicki and Joseph Betta, may the spirit of God grant them rest in Gan Eden, Amen. Today's page is being studied for the complete recovery of Chaya Sara bat Simcha, may God heal her swiftly among the other sick of Israel, Amen, Amen. We begin today's page on 16b, the bottom two lines.
Rabbi Yehuda states in the Mishnah that the blessings of Zichronot are not recited on these fast days. Rav Adda bar Minyumi asks, what is Rabbi Yehuda's reasoning? He explains that Zichronot and Shofarot are only recited on Rosh Hashanah and on the Yovel of Yom Kippurim, the fiftieth year on Yom Kippur. We derive this through a Gezeira Shava between Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, meaning what applies to one applies to the other. Additionally, these blessings are recited during wartime. Rashi notes that he does not have a source for reciting these blessings during wartime, though the Gemara states it. Rashi clarifies that on Rosh Hashanah, we say Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot. Regarding the Yovel on Yom Kippurim, it is taught there that the Yovel is equivalent to Rosh Hashanah for the blowing of the Shofar and for the blessing. For wartime, it is written, "And if you go to war in your land against the oppressor who oppresses you, etc." Rashi questions the source for reciting the blessings of Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot specifically during wartime, rather than just blowing the Shofar, leaving this as an open question.
The Gemara then discusses why Malchuyot are not recited on fast days. It is not a day for Malchuyot. However, in Masechet Rosh Hashanah, we learn from verses that whenever Zichronot are recited, Malchuyot are also recited. This implies that on fast days, according to Rabbi Yehuda, Zichronot are not said, so Malchuyot would naturally also be omitted. The Tanna Kamma, however, might have a different view. A Maharsha suggests that fast days are simply not days of Malchuyot.
The text then moves to the specific blessings recited on fast days. For the first blessing, "He who answered Avraham," some reverse the order for the blessings of "He who answered Eliyahu" and "He who answered Shmuel." Some say "He who answered Tze'aka" for Eliyahu and "He who answered Tefilla" for Shmuel. The Gemara questions this, as for Shmuel, both the words "Tefilla" and "Tze'aka" are found in verses, allowing for either. However, for Eliyahu, while "Tefilla" is found, "Tze'aka" is not explicitly written. The Gemara answers that the phrase "Aneni Hashem Aneni" (Answer me, God, answer me) is a form of Tze'aka (a cry). Rashi explains that the blessing for Eliyahu concludes with "Shomea Tze'aka" (Who hears a cry), and for Shmuel, "Shomea Tefilla" (Who hears prayer), as it is written regarding Shmuel, "Gather all Israel to Mitzpah and I will pray for you," and also "Shmuel cried out to God all night." There are varying opinions on the exact verses. The Maharitz Chayut notes that Rashi's commentary here, particularly the phrase "Kach Shamati" (thus I heard) repeated multiple times, is unusual for Rashi and suggests it might be a later addition or a different interpretation.
For the sixth blessing, it is "He who answered Yonah." For the seventh, "He who answered David." The Gemara asks why Yonah is mentioned before David, as Yonah lived chronologically after David and Shlomo. The answer given is that David and Shlomo are related to the fast day's conclusion. A Tanna in the name of Sumchus suggests a different concluding blessing: "Blessed is He who humbles the arrogant," referring to those who humble themselves through repentance. Rashi explains that "Mashpil Haramim" (He who humbles the arrogant) was said instead of "Baruch Mirachem" (Blessed is He who has mercy) because God humbled them by withholding rain, leading them to repentance. David and Shlomo are mentioned last because they prayed for the land of Israel, or because they established the Beit Hamikdash, which is the essence of the land of Israel. Rashi again uses "Kach Shamati," further indicating the unique nature of this commentary.
A new topic begins: "On the first three fasts, the men of the Mishmar fast but do not complete their fast." The Rabbis taught: Why did they say the men of the Mishmar are permitted to drink wine at night but not during the day? This is because they might be called upon if the work becomes too heavy for the men of the Beit Av, and they would need to assist. The Mishmar is the larger group of Kohanim who serve for a week in Jerusalem, divided into seven smaller groups called Batei Av. Why are the men of the Beit Av forbidden to drink wine neither day nor night? Because they are constantly engaged in the Avodah, even at night, tending to the altar and other duties.
From here, they said: Any Kohen who knows his Mishmar (the week he serves) and his Beit Av (the day within that week) and knows that his family's Beit Av is still established (not disqualified from service) is forbidden to drink wine all that day. This is because the Beit Hamikdash might be rebuilt speedily, and he would need to be ready to serve. If he knows his Mishmar (the week) but not his Beit Av (the specific day), he is forbidden to drink wine the entire week. If he knows neither his Mishmar nor his Beit Av, but knows his family's Beit Av is still established, he is forbidden to drink wine all year. Rabbi states: I say he is forbidden to drink wine forever. But what can I do that its remedy became its undoing? Rashi explains that "Mashpil Haramim" refers to God humbling the arrogant who repented due to lack of rain. The phrase "Mikan Amru" (from here they said) teaches that even Kohanim not actively serving, like the men of the Mishmar on their non-working days, are forbidden to drink wine. This applies even today to Kohanim who know their lineage and when their ancestors served. Rashi clarifies that "Kevu'in" means his family's Beit Av was not disqualified. The prohibition to drink wine on that specific day is due to the concern that the Beit Hamikdash might be rebuilt and he would be needed for service. The Maharashburg explains Rashi's "V'tu lo" (and no more) to mean that the concern of the Beit Hamikdash being rebuilt and requiring extra work is not a strong enough Gezeira to extend the prohibition beyond that specific day. If a Kohen does not know for sure that his family still served, we are not concerned that the Beit Hamikdash will be rebuilt and they will be called to work, as this would be a double doubt.
Rabbi's statement, "I say he is forbidden to drink wine forever," is a significant Chiddush. He argues that if we are concerned about the Beit Hamikdash being rebuilt, then any Kohen whose family served should be forbidden to drink wine forever, because the schedule of the Mishmarot might change, or during the dedication of the Beit Hamikdash, all Kohanim might be needed simultaneously. The phrase "Takanato Kalkalato" (its remedy became its undoing) means that the long delay in the rebuilding of the Beit Hamikdash, which has lasted for many years, has become the reason why the prohibition against drinking wine is not enforced. The historical reality of the Galut has unfortunately nullified the immediate concern of "Mehera Yibaneh Beit Hamikdash" (may the Beit Hamikdash be rebuilt speedily) for this Halacha. Rashi notes that this was not the case immediately after the Churban, but at some point, the Sages concluded that the hope for immediate rebuilding could no longer sustain the prohibition. This is Rabbi's opinion, but the Rabbanan disagree, holding that the prohibition should still apply.
The Gemara then discusses other prohibitions for the men of the Mishmar and the men of the Ma'amad (another group associated with the Beit Hamikdash service): they are forbidden to cut their hair or launder their clothes until Thursday, when it is permitted for the honor of Shabbat. Why is hair cutting forbidden? Rabba bar bar Chana in the name of Rabbi Yochanan explains that this is a Gezeira similar to Chol Hamoed, to prevent them from entering their Mishmar in a disheveled state. If they know they cannot cut their hair until Thursday, they will be incentivized to cut it before their service week begins. The Rabbis taught that a king cuts his hair every day, a Kohen Gadol from Erev Shabbat to Erev Shabbat (weekly), and a Kohen Hedyot once every thirty days. A king cuts his hair daily because, as it is written, "Your eyes will behold the king in his beauty." A Kohen Gadol cuts his hair weekly because new Mishmarot come in every Shabbat, and he should appear fresh for them. For a Kohen Hedyot, the thirty-day period is derived from a Gezeira Shava between the word "Pera" (long hair) used for Kohanim and for a Nazir. Just as a Nazir grows his hair for thirty days, so too a Kohen Hedyot's hair growth limit is thirty days. The thirty-day period for a Nazir is derived from the Gematria of the word "Yihiyeh" (will be) which equals thirty. Rav Pappa questioned Abaye, perhaps the verse means Kohanim should not grow their hair at all. Abaye responded that if that were the case, the verse would say "Lo Yeshalchu Pera" (they shall not grow hair). But since it says "U'Pera Lo Yeshalchu" (and Pera they shall not grow), it implies that a certain amount of growth, up to thirty days, is permissible, but they should not let it grow beyond that point.
Rashi clarifies that the prohibition on haircuts for the Mishmar is to ensure they appear presentable, not waiting until they are already serving. For a king, cutting hair daily is a Mitzvah. For a Kohen Gadol, it means he should not delay cutting his hair longer than a week. The Gemara asks, if this is the case, then even today, Kohanim should be forbidden from growing their hair long due to the concern of the Beit Hamikdash being rebuilt. The Gemara answers that this is similar to the prohibition of drinking wine: wine is only forbidden when entering the Beit Hamikdash, but outside, it is permitted. However, this answer only holds according to Rabbi, but the Rabbanan forbid drinking wine. Abaye notes that Kohanim today rely on Rabbi's opinion when drinking wine, implying that the Rabbanan would forbid it due to the concern that the Beit Hamikdash might be rebuilt and a Kohen fit for service would be needed. The Gemara then asks why the same logic doesn't apply to hair. It answers that for hair, it is possible to cut it before serving, whereas wine cannot be removed from the stomach. The Gemara challenges this, suggesting one could simply sleep or walk a short distance to dissipate the effects of wine, as taught by Rami bar Abba. The Gemara clarifies that this only applies to drinking up to a Revi'it (a specific measure of liquid); drinking more than a Revi'it would make one even more intoxicated through walking or sleeping. Therefore, the Sages forbade all wine, fearing that one might drink more than a Revi'it. Hair, however, is easily remedied.
Rav Ashi offers a different distinction: drinking wine invalidates the Avodah (service), so the Rabbis made a Gezeira against it. However, serving with long hair (Perua Rosh), while forbidden, does not invalidate the Avodah, so the Rabbis did not make a Gezeira against it. The Gemara refutes Rav Ashi's distinction by citing a Mishnah that lists those who incur the death penalty, including one who serves while intoxicated (Shetuy Yayin) and one with long hair (Perua Rosh). This implies that both are equally severe. The Gemara explains that the death penalty for Shetuy Yayin is explicitly stated in the Torah. For Perua Rosh, it is derived from a juxtaposition in Yechezkel, where the laws of Perua Rosh and Shetuy Yayin are placed side-by-side, indicating their equivalence in severity, including the death penalty and the invalidation of Avodah. Ravina challenges Rav Ashi, asking how this was known before Yechezkel's prophecy. The Gemara answers that it was a traditional teaching (Gamra Gamila) passed down, and Yechezkel merely provided a Scriptural support (Asmachta).
Rashi explains that Shetuy Yayin invalidates the Avodah because the verse "Do not drink wine or strong drink... to distinguish between the holy and the profane" implies that intoxicated service is profane and invalid. Perua Rosh, however, does not explicitly state such invalidation. The Mishnah in Sanhedrin lists those liable for heavenly death, including Shetuy Yayin. The juxtaposition in Yechezkel extends the invalidation of Avodah from Shetuy Yayin to Perua Rosh. The Gemara's question to Rav Ashi is thus a strong refutation (Teyuvta).
Tosafot adds to the discussion about the Kohen who is uncircumcised due to a medical condition (his brothers died from circumcision). How do we know he cannot serve? This is known from Yechezkel. Tosafot asks why a Kal Vachomer (a fortiori argument) cannot be used: if a Ba'al Mum (Kohen with a blemish), who is permitted to eat Kodashim (sacred food), is forbidden to serve, then an Arel (uncircumcised Kohen), who is forbidden to eat Kodashim, should certainly be forbidden to serve. Tosafot answers that this Kal Vachomer is refuted by a Chalal (a Kohen born from an invalid union), who is forbidden to eat Kodashim but whose Avodah is valid. Alternatively, the Kal Vachomer from Ba'al Mum is flawed because the prohibition of Ba'al Mum applies not only to the Kohen but also to the sacrificial animals, making it a stricter category than Arel, which does not apply to animals. Thus, a direct Scriptural derivation is needed.
The discussion shifts to Megillat Taanit. Any day listed in Megillat Taanit where eulogizing is forbidden, it is forbidden to eulogize on the day before, but permitted on the day after. The Rabbis taught: These are the days on which one may not fast, and some of them on which one may not even eulogize. From the first of Nisan until the eighth, the Korban Tamid was reestablished, and therefore eulogizing is forbidden. From the eighth until the end of the festival, the festival of Shavuot was reestablished, and eulogizing is forbidden. The Gemara asks why the first of Nisan is mentioned, as Rosh Chodesh is already a holiday. Rav explains that the novelty is to forbid eulogizing on the day before. The Gemara counters that the day before Rosh Chodesh is already forbidden. The response is that Rosh Chodesh is a Torah-level prohibition and does not require a strengthening (Chizuk) like Rabbinic prohibitions. Days in Megillat Taanit are Rabbinic prohibitions, which do require a Chizuk, thus extending the prohibition to the day before. Rashi explains that for eight days, the Sages debated with the Tzedukim regarding the Korban Tamid until they prevailed, establishing these days as holidays. The Tzedukim argued that an individual could donate a Korban Tamid, citing the singular form "Ta'aseh" (you shall make) in the verse. The Sages countered with "Et Korbanai Lachmi L'ishai Tishmeru" (My offering, My food for My fire, you shall observe to bring), using the plural "Tishmeru" (you shall observe), indicating it must come from the public treasury. Regarding Shavuot, the Baitusim argued that it should always fall on a Sunday, based on "Mimachorat HaShabbat" (the day after Shabbat) referring to Sunday. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai refuted them, calling them fools, and after a debate, they were forced to concede based on the verses.