Today’s study of Ta’anit, dedicated by the Jamal brothers—Norman, Joseph, and Jacob—in memory of their grandparents, Norman and Sally Jamal, as well as Joe and Vicky Beira, begins on page 17, side one, at the fourth line. We will use the mnemonic “street, ark, sackcloth, ashes, cemetery, Moriah, and sign” to remember the next page of the Gemara.
The first sign is “street.” We learned that on the last of the communal fasts, the people would leave the synagogue and pray in the street. Why would they go outside to pray? Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba explains that it was as though they were saying: “We cried out to You in the synagogue, which is a private place, and we were not answered. Now we will humiliate ourselves by praying publicly, in a place where our humiliation will be greater, and perhaps we will be answered.”
According to this first explanation, the point was to do something humiliating in public. The Gemara then considers another possibility: perhaps leaving the synagogue was itself an act of exile. To leave the synagogue and go out into the street was a form of exiling themselves. If so, even moving from one synagogue to another could qualify as exile. But if the purpose was public humiliation, moving from one synagogue to another would not accomplish that, because one would still be in a private place.
What does this Gemara teach us? It teaches something remarkable: when a person moves from one synagogue to another, that movement can itself be a form of atonement. This congregation knows that very well. A person can move from one place to another, and then from one place to another again. That is a form of exile. The Creator does not minimize any inconvenience a person has to endure. If a person is not in a permanent place and has to keep relocating, that itself can be considered an atonement through exile.
This is no different from what the Gemara or the Midrash teaches about sitting in the sukkah on Sukkot. Why do we sit in a sukkah? Because we are exiling ourselves from our homes and entering the sukkah, so that this exile can provide atonement in case a negative judgment has been decreed against us. Exile does not necessarily mean being sent to a foreign country. Any inconvenience that displaces a person from one place to another can already be considered a form of exile.
The people would also bring the ark into the city square. The ark is a modest piece of furniture in the synagogue. Consider what is happening to it: it is being brought out and exposed publicly. It is not a park bench; it is a private synagogue object. Now it is being taken into public view. That too is part of the humiliation, and they hoped that it would serve as a correction and an atonement.
They would then cover themselves with sackcloth. Sackcloth is made from animal hair, particularly goat hair. By wearing it, they were making themselves like animals. In other words, they were acknowledging that they had committed sins because they had not been careful and had allowed the animalistic part of themselves to take control.
Why would they place ashes on top of the ark? As we learned, the ark represents, in a certain sense, the position of the Divine Presence. Placing ashes on the ark was like saying that God empathizes with us: “I am with you in your troubles.” In all the troubles of the Jewish people, the Divine Presence is also present.
When I first saw that the rabbis placed ashes on the ark, my entire body trembled. There is a lesson in that. The first time a person sees such an act, it can make a profound impression: what a humiliation, that the Divine Presence is willing to lower itself, so to speak, and allow ashes to be placed on the ark. Afterward, a person may become accustomed to it, but the first impression was one of tremendous moral force.
The Gemara also discusses whether the ashes were placed on the ark or on the people themselves. Perhaps the text should be understood as saying that each person placed ashes on himself. The point would then be that we are like dust, like nothing. But what exactly are these ashes? The simplest explanation is that ashes have no value. There is very little one can do with them; they are worthless.
When Abraham said, “I am dust and ashes,” the commentators explain that ashes have a past. Ashes come from something that was once valuable, such as a piece of furniture, but ashes have no future. Abraham was saying: “Whatever I accomplished in the past is not enough for what I must accomplish in the future.”
Thus, according to one explanation, we are trying to evoke the ashes of the Binding of Isaac. If the purpose is merely to express our lowliness—to say that we are nothing—then ordinary ashes would suffice. One could even use dirt. But if the purpose is to remember the Binding of Isaac, then actual ashes are required, and, as Tosafot taught us yesterday, they should be ashes from a bone. If that is not the purpose, one could simply burn a piece of paper. What difference would it make?
The people would also go out to the cemetery on these fast days. Why? One explanation is that they were saying, “We are like dead people; we are worthless.” Another explanation is that the dead do not perform commandments, and we are saying that we are also failing to perform commandments even though we are alive. A further possibility is that they wanted to enlist the dead to pray for them.
What is the practical difference between these explanations? If the purpose was for the dead to pray for them, then they would obviously not go to the graves of gentiles, because the gentiles cannot even pray for themselves, let alone pray for us. But if the purpose was simply to humble themselves and say, “We are like the dead,” then even the graves of gentiles would serve that purpose.
Sackcloth is made from goat hair, which explains why the people were dressing themselves like animals. If the purpose of the ashes was not to recall the Binding of Isaac, but only to demonstrate that they were nothing, then ordinary ashes or dirt would suffice; there would be no need for ashes from a bone.
Tosafot presents three discussions here. If the purpose is exile, then moving from one synagogue to another serves as exile, because the synagogue is a private place. Tosafot explains that the ashes were ashes from a bone that had been burned, specifically ashes from a human bone, in order to recall the Binding of Isaac. If the purpose was merely to say, “We are like ashes,” then ordinary dust would suffice. Rashi did not have this version of the text, but Tosafot did. According to that reading, ordinary dust can also be considered ashes; it does not have to come from a bone.
Tosafot also discusses the custom of going to the cemetery. This was a custom in many places on communal fasts, particularly on the Ninth of Av. The question is whether people still go to the cemetery today. The commentary of the Mahar says that the ark is brought out because, ordinarily, the prayer leader stands before the ark. Once the people are praying in the public square, they must bring the ark out with them.
The Maharsha offers another reason. The ark represents the Divine Presence, so bringing it out is a sign that the Divine Presence is with us in our suffering.
Why is sackcloth used? The explanation is that sackcloth comes from animal hair. One might object that wool also comes from animals. Are we therefore like animals whenever we wear a wool coat? The answer is that sackcloth was specifically used to cover animals when people wanted to protect them. It is not an expensive garment like wool. The people wore it to express humiliation and discomfort.
The verses mention people wearing sackcloth, so why does the Gemara need to give another explanation for its use during the fasts? The answer is that, in those verses, the sackcloth appears to have been worn directly on the body, causing pain. During the communal fasts, however, the custom was to place it over their clothing. Since it was not directly against the body, the Gemara explains that its purpose was not physical pain. Rather, it was to make them resemble animals and thereby humble themselves.
We find another distinction in the verses describing the time of Mordecai. There, the people did not merely place ashes on themselves; they rolled in ashes, covering their bodies. That was an act of physical suffering. During the fasts, by contrast, they placed only a small amount of ashes on the ark or at the place of the tefillin. That was not intended as physical suffering. It was symbolic.
What were they symbolizing? We bring the ark into the street and place ashes on it because the Torah scroll is placed on the ark. The holiness of the ark is connected to the Torah scroll placed upon it. Even when the scroll is not there, the ark retains its sanctity; how much more so when the Torah scroll is actually placed upon it. The ark represents the Divine Presence in the Temple, and bringing it outside expresses that the Divine Presence is with us in our suffering.
The verse says, “In all their suffering, He suffers.” The word is written in a way that can be read as “He does not suffer,” but it is also read as “He suffers.” The idea is that God is with the Jewish people in their suffering. A person who is incarcerated cannot release himself from prison; someone else must come and release him. Similarly, the Jewish people cannot redeem themselves. The angel of redemption has an open face because a prisoner cannot release himself.
In the future, however, God’s name and throne will be complete. The letters that are missing from the Divine Name and from the word for throne will be restored. Thus, when the verse refers to the future redemption, it uses the word “He,” alluding to the completion of the Divine Name. In this world, our relationship with God is compared to a betrothal; in the future, it will be complete and permanent.
The Gemara then discusses the case of a betrothed woman who was divorced before the marriage was completed. If she was only betrothed and then divorced, she may return to the original man, because she was not married to someone else in the interim. This is used to explain the relationship between God and Israel: in this world, the relationship is not yet complete, but in the future it will be complete and permanent.
We now come to the next subject: Mount Moriah. The Mishnah says, “May the God who answered Abraham on Mount Moriah answer us.” We know that Mount Moriah refers to the Temple Mount, where Abraham went for the Binding of Isaac. But why is it called Mount Moriah?
One opinion identifies Mount Moriah as the mountain from which instruction went forth to the Jewish people. This refers to Jerusalem, where the Sanhedrin taught Torah. The same rabbis who argued about the earlier matter are now presented as arguing about the meaning of Mount Moriah. The point is not merely that the Mishnah mentioned the name; the Gemara is bringing another dispute among those same rabbis.
According to this explanation, Mount Moriah is associated with instruction because Torah instruction came from there. It is also a mountain of fear, because fear came upon the nations as a result of what happened there. When the nations heard about the greatness of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, they were frightened.
Another opinion identifies Mount Moriah with Mount Sinai, because instruction came forth from Mount Sinai as well. Thus, the dispute is whether Mount Moriah is Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, or Mount Sinai.
Tosafot explains that Mount Moriah is the mountain from which instruction went forth to Israel. Some explain that this refers to Jerusalem. The name Jerusalem combines the name given by Abraham with the earlier name of the place, associated with Malki-Tzedek. Abraham called the place by a name connected with seeing God, while Malki-Tzedek had called it Shalem. The two names were combined.
There is also a discussion about the spelling and pronunciation of Jerusalem. In the biblical spelling, the name does not contain the letter yud between the two lameds. It reflects the combination of the two names. Another explanation is that there are two Jerusalems: a Jerusalem above and a Jerusalem below. The plural form can be compared to words such as eyes and ears, which refer to pairs. In that sense, the name Jerusalem itself can allude to two Jerusalems.
The Maharsha asks: We know that Abraham was answered on Mount Moriah, the location of the Temple. But the verse says that Abraham was answered on Mount Moriah. What if there was another mountain in the land of Moriah, as there are other mountains in that region? How do we know that it was the Temple Mount?
He answers that Mount Moriah is the mountain from which instruction will come forth in the future. If so, Abraham also called it Moriah because he was answered there during the Binding of Isaac. The name therefore connects the place with both instruction and the answering of prayer.
The Gemara now returns to the order of the communal fast. The elder would stand and say words that touched the hearts of the people, encouraging them to repent. If there was an elder present, he would deliver the moral exhortation. If there was no elder, a scholar would speak. If there was no scholar, a person of stature would speak, so that the people would listen and accept his words.
Abaye explains that the elder mentioned here is also a scholar. If there was an elder who was a scholar, he would speak. If there was no such elder, a scholar would speak. If there was no scholar, a person of stature would speak.
What is meant by a person of stature? It means someone who has a dignified appearance and commands respect. Even if he is not a Torah scholar, people may listen to him because of his stature and reputation. Tosafot explains that he is a person whose words are likely to be heard and accepted because of his standing.
The Gemara then emphasizes that it is not the sackcloth or the fast itself that brings an answer. Repentance and good deeds are what bring an answer. We find this in the people of Nineveh. The verse does not say merely that they wore sackcloth and fasted. It says that God saw their actions and that they turned from their evil ways.
The people of Nineveh even separated the animals from their mothers and offspring. They were saying, in effect: “If You will not have mercy on us, we will not have mercy on them.” This was a powerful form of prayer. They wanted to arouse Divine mercy by demonstrating that they themselves were prepared to act with mercy.
The Gemara says that they cried out to God forcefully, almost as though they were presenting a legal claim. What was their claim? “The one who is suffering and the one who is not suffering—who should yield to whom?” They were saying that they were the ones suffering, while God was not suffering, and therefore He should yield to them.
This is a strong and bold form of prayer. They were not merely asking quietly; they were presenting an argument. At the same time, their repentance was genuine. If someone had stolen a beam and built it into his house, he would dismantle the entire building in order to return the stolen property. They returned what they had taken and corrected their actions completely.
That is why the animals were separated from their mothers. The people were saying: “You ask us to have mercy, so we will demonstrate mercy ourselves.” Their repentance was intended to awaken mercy from Above.
The Gemara teaches that a person who has a sin in his hand and confesses, but does not stop committing the sin, is compared to someone who immerses in a ritual bath while holding a defiling creature in his hand. Even if he immerses in all the ritual baths in the world, he remains impure until he lets go of the creature. Similarly, confession alone is not enough if the person continues to hold on to the sin.
The Maharsha connects this discussion with the verse, “Let us lift our hearts with our hands to God in heaven.” Just as a person washes his hands to remove all dirt from them, so too a person who repents must ensure that he has removed the sin from himself. He cannot simply lift his hands in prayer while still holding on to the wrongdoing. The heart must be cleansed as well.
Tosafot explains that a person of stature is a person with an imposing presence, someone whose words will be heard. In another place, Tosafot explains the term as referring to a scholar, but that cannot be the meaning here, because the scholar has already been mentioned separately. Here it means someone with worldly stature and knowledge who commands respect. Because people consider him intelligent and successful, they may give him the opportunity to speak even if he is not a Torah scholar.
Why, then, is such a person wearing sackcloth and participating in the fast? Not because the sackcloth itself is the primary act, but because it is meant to humble the heart and lead to repentance.
The Gemara’s statement about separating the animals from their mothers is learned from the verse in Jonah. However, the verse itself only states that the people and animals wore sackcloth. It does not explicitly say that they separated the mothers from their offspring. The Gemara is deriving this additional detail, and the Maharsha leaves the matter as a question.
The Maharsha also discusses the phrase referring to the righteous and the wicked: “Who should yield before whom?” One explanation is that the people of Nineveh were speaking with boldness, almost insolently. Their prayer was a forceful claim: “We are suffering, while You are not. Why should we be punished?” Another explanation connects the statement with the idea that there must be righteous people in every generation. If the righteous are present, why should they be destroyed because of the wicked? Their argument was that the righteous should not be punished together with the sinners.
The expression may therefore be understood as a bold and audacious prayer, not necessarily a claim that is literally correct. The people were demanding mercy in a forceful manner, while at the same time demonstrating that their repentance was sincere.
The Gemara now discusses the person who leads the prayer. He is accustomed to prayer and fluent in the order of the service. He has many children but nothing with which to support them. He works in the field, and his house is empty. He also has a good reputation, is humble, and is accepted by the people. His voice is pleasant and draws the congregation. He knows Scripture well and knows the special blessings that are recited on these fasts.
The Gemara asks: If he has many children and lacks food to support them, what does it mean that his house is empty? Is this not the same point? The Gemara answers that one statement refers to one kind of poverty and the other to another. He may have no food, but his house is also free of stolen property. Everything in his home is honestly acquired.
The description also indicates that he had a good reputation from his youth. People knew that he had been clean and upright from the beginning. The prayer leader is not merely someone with a pleasant voice. He must also possess the other qualities mentioned: humility, integrity, acceptance by the community, knowledge, and appropriate character.
The prophet says, “They called Me with their voices, and I did not listen to them.” The Gemara understands this as referring to a prayer leader whose voice was pleasant but whose character was deficient. The Holy One does not want the prayer of a person who possesses only a good voice while lacking the other qualities. A beautiful voice is not enough.
Rashi explains that this refers to a prayer leader who is more hated by God than anyone else because he presents himself as a representative of the people while having no concern for the spiritual qualities required of him. He may have a strong voice, but he lacks humility, integrity, and good deeds.
On these fasts, the prayer leader would recite twenty-four blessings: the regular eighteen blessings of the Amidah, with six additional blessings. The Mishnah lists the six additional blessings. The first of those six is actually counted after the blessing of the Redeemer of Israel, because that blessing was also lengthened. Thus, when the Mishnah refers to the second blessing, it is effectively the first of the six additional blessings, and so on.
The first blessing that was lengthened was the blessing of the Redeemer of Israel. After that, the prayer leader would say, “Blessed is the One who answered Abraham on Mount Moriah; may He answer you on this day.” The congregation would then sound the shofar. In the next blessing, the wording would refer to another kind of shofar blast. Each blessing had its own order: in one, they would begin with a straight blast, and in another, with a broken or wavering blast.
This procedure applied outside the Temple. In the Temple, the practice was different. They still fasted and sounded the shofar, but they did not answer “Amen” after each blessing. How do we know that they did not answer “Amen” in the Temple? The verse says, “Arise and bless God your Lord from this world to the next world.” The Gemara understands this as indicating that, after the blessing, they would respond with the full phrase praising God, rather than merely answering “Amen.”
In the Temple, the response was therefore, “Blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever.” The service in the Temple was different from the service outside it.
One version of the Gemara describes Rabbi Halafta in Sepphoris and Rabbi Hananiah in Sikhnin who followed this practice. When the sages heard what Rabbi Halafta was doing, they were not satisfied. The issue was that he was not following the accepted practice of responding with the full phrase in place of “Amen.”
There are two versions of this account. In one version, the first blessing was clearly part of the blessing of the Redeemer of Israel. The prayer leader would say, “Blessed are You, God, the Redeemer of Israel,” and then add the statement that God should answer Abraham and answer all their cries. In another version, the statement about Abraham appears as an addition after the blessing, almost like a supplementary response. This difference may explain the different versions found in the Gemara.
The practice described here applied specifically in the Second Temple. Some of the phrases were added later. Originally, the wording was “from this world to the next world,” but those who denied the World to Come altered the formulation, and the wording was changed accordingly. Nevertheless, the general practice of reciting these blessings and responding in the Temple was already in use.
Tosafot supports the reading that the blessing of the Redeemer of Israel was not counted among the six additional blessings. It was the first blessing to be lengthened, but the six additional blessings followed it. Each blessing had an appropriate conclusion and a connection to the event being recalled. The congregation was not merely reciting beautiful phrases; each blessing corresponded to a particular redemption, prayer, or response.
The first blessing, the blessing of the Redeemer of Israel, recalls Abraham. Who was the first person to be saved? Abraham, who was saved from Nimrod. Therefore the blessing concludes with the redemption of Israel, while the prayer recalls Abraham’s salvation.
The next blessing recalls the redemption from Egypt. The Jewish people were in Egypt and had no apparent hope of redemption, until God remembered them. The blessing therefore recalls that redemption and asks God to redeem us as well.
Another blessing recalls Joshua and the sounding of the shofar. Joshua entered the land and used the shofar at Jericho. The shofar was connected with the conquest and redemption of the land.
Another blessing recalls Samuel and his prayer. The sources differ in the order of the references to Samuel and Elijah. Some versions associate the word for prayer with Samuel and the cry of “Answer me” with Elijah; others reverse them. Elijah prayed on Mount Carmel, while Samuel is associated with his own form of prayer and supplication.
Other blessings recall David and Solomon. They prayed for the land, and the conclusion of the blessing was, “Blessed are You, who has mercy on the land.” Historically, David preceded Solomon, but the order of the blessings was arranged according to the desired conclusion. Since the final blessing needed to conclude with a prayer for the land, the references were arranged in a way that placed that blessing at the end.
The Maharsha also discusses the mention of theft in the description of the prayer leader. Why does the Gemara specify that there is no stolen property in his house? The point is that he must have nothing acquired through theft or dishonesty.
At this point, the Maharsha departs from the straightforward explanation and offers criticism of the prayer leaders of his own generation. He says that many prayer leaders fulfilled only the requirement of having a pleasant voice. They went from meal to meal, drinking wine and participating in celebrations, and then demanded payment from the people. When the people did not want to pay, the prayer leaders pressured them and created a disturbance until they were paid against their will.
The Maharsha’s criticism is that these prayer leaders had been given only a voice, but lacked the other qualities required of a prayer leader. A pleasant voice is only one of the qualities listed. It does not replace humility, integrity, knowledge, repentance, and good character.
The discussion then turns briefly to the order of the shofar blasts. A straight blast comes first, followed by a broken or wavering sound. The straight blast represents a direct, complete sound, while the broken sound represents something fractured. The broken sound can also be understood as a softened form of judgment.
The Maharsha’s words must be read in full, because omitting the central phrase changes his meaning. His point is that the prayer leaders were taking payment from the people against their will. They were going from meal to meal, drinking, and then creating a commotion until the people paid them. The Maharsha is describing a serious abuse of the position of prayer leader.
The Gemara concludes with a lengthy teaching. At first, the prayer leader would say, “Blessed is God, the Lord of Israel, from this world to the next world,” followed by the blessing of the Redeemer of Israel. The congregation would respond with the appropriate phrase, and the prayer leader would then continue to the next blessing. The same general pattern was followed throughout the additional blessings.
Another version states that Rabbi Halafta in Sepphoris and Rabbi Hananiah in Sikhnin followed this custom. The difference between the versions may concern whether the additional statement about Abraham was part of the blessing itself or was recited afterward as a separate response. In one version, the prayer leader says the blessing of the Redeemer of Israel and then the congregation responds with the statement about Abraham. In another, the statement appears within the structure of the blessing.
This distinction explains why some versions make it sound as though the blessing of Abraham came after the blessing of the Redeemer of Israel, while other sources clearly indicate that the first of the additional blessings was incorporated into the blessing of the Redeemer of Israel. The various versions are describing different arrangements of the same service.
According to one reading, the prayer leader would say the blessing of the Redeemer of Israel, and another person would then recite the statement about the one who answered Abraham. That second person functioned almost like the person who responds to the blessing. This reading preserves the order of the blessings and explains why the statement about Abraham is not necessarily part of the original blessing.
Thus, the different versions do not necessarily change the order of the blessings. They may simply reflect whether the words about Abraham were included in the blessing or recited afterward as an additional response. That is the main distinction between the versions.
This concludes today’s study.