Rosh Hashanah 18b (יח:) — the Talmud in English

As Rav Ḥana bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida: What is the meaning of that which is written

Zechariah 8]:

“So said the Lord of Hosts: The fast

of the fourth month

and the fast

of the fifth month

and the fast

of the seventh month

and the fast

of the tenth month

shall be

for the house of Judah for joy and gladness.”

And this is difficult: On the one hand,

it calls them—the verse calls these days

fasts;

and

on the other hand, it

calls them joy and gladness!

How are these two statements reconciled?

Rather, this is the meaning of the verse:

When there is peace,

when the hand of the nations does not prevail over Israel —

these days shall be

days

of joy and gladness,

and eulogies and fasting are prohibited on them.

But

when

there is a time when

there is no peace—

they shall be

fasts.

And from here it follows that we fast on the seventeenth of Tammuz, which is the fast of the fourth month [counting from Nisan], and likewise on the tenth of Tevet, which is the fast of the tenth month [counting from Nisan].

If so, why do the messengers not go out to the Diaspora to announce these dates?

Rav Pappa said: This is what

Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida meant:

a.

When there is peace—

they shall be for joy and gladness.

b. When there

is a decree of

religious persecution by

the kingdom —

the days shall be

fasts,

and it is obligatory to fast on them.

c. When there

is neither a decree of the kingdom nor peace:

If they wish—

they fast; if they wish

not to fast—

they do not fast.

And since when there is no decree of religious persecution there is no obligation to fast, the messengers are not burdened with being sent concerning them.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if the meaning of the verse is indeed that when there is neither a decree of religious persecution nor peace, fasting is optional, and for this reason messengers were not sent, then there is a difficulty:

the Ninth of Av as well—

messengers should not have gone out concerning it, since fasting on it is optional nowadays!

He said—

Rav Pappa

answered: The Ninth of Av is different

[it differs]

from the Ninth of Av

than from the other fasts,

since many

great

calamities

were doubled on it, as the Master said: On the Ninth of Av, the Temple was destroyed the first time

[the First Temple],

and the second

[the Second Temple],

and Beitar was captured, and the city was plowed under,

the city of Jerusalem.

And although four calamities also occurred on the seventeenth of Tammuz, nevertheless the destruction of the Temple is a very great calamity.

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiva would expound four matters, and I do not expound them in the same manner:

a.

“The fast of the fourth month,”

which is mentioned in the verse—

this is the ninth of Tammuz, on which the city was breached,

the city of Jerusalem.

As it is stated

[Jeremiah 52]:

“In the fourth month, on the ninth day of the month, when the famine prevailed in the city and there was no bread for the people of the land, the city was breached.”

And why does it call it,

the verse, “the fast of the

fourth

month”? Because it is in the

fourth month of the months,

which begin to be counted from Nisan.

b.

“The fast of the fifth month,”

which is mentioned in the verse—

this is the Ninth of Av, on which the House of our God was burned.

And why does it call it “the fifth”?

Because it is the

fifth month of the months.

c.

“The fast of the seventh month”—

this is the third of Tishrei, on which Gedaliah son of Ahikam was killed.

And who killed him?

Ishmael son of Nethaniah killed him!

And since they fast for the killing of the righteous Gedaliah, just as they fast for the burning of the Temple, this serves

to teach you that the death of the righteous is considered equivalent to the burning of the House of our God!

And why does it call it,

the verse,

“the seventh”?

Because it is in the

seventh

month of the months.

d.

“The fast of the tenth month”—

this is the tenth of Tevet, on which the king of Babylonia encamped

and laid siege

to

the walls of

Jerusalem.

As it is stated

[Ezekiel 24]:

“And the word of the Lord came to me in the ninth year, in the tenth month

[Tevet],

on the tenth day of the month, saying: Son of man, write for yourself the name of this day, this very day; the king of Babylonia has laid siege to Jerusalem

[to besiege it].”

And why does the verse call it

the

“tenth”?

Because it is the

tenth of the months.

But surely it would have been appropriate to write this

the fast of the tenth of Tevet

first

in the order of the verse, since it was the first in the sequence of events;

so why was it written here

last?

In order to arrange the months in their proper order.

So that the fasts would be arranged according to the order of the months in which they occur.

These are Rabbi Akiva’s words.

And Rabbi Shimon said concerning this:

But I do not say so.

Rather,

this is what I say concerning “the fast of the tenth month”:

“The fast of the tenth month”—

this is the fifth of Tevet, on which

[the report] came to

the exiles that the city had been struck,

and the Temple had been burned.

As it is stated

[Ezekiel 33]:

“And it came to pass in the twelfth

year, in the tenth month

[Tevet],

on the fifth day of the month, of our exile

[that is, in the twelfth year of our exile],

that a survivor from Jerusalem came to me, saying: The city has been struck!”

And they made

the

day

of the

report

a day of fasting,

as

was the

day

of the

burning,

namely, the Ninth of Av.

And Rabbi Shimon adds and says:

And my words appear

more convincing

than his words!

For I say concerning

the

first

fast mentioned in Scripture—that is, the fast of the seventeenth of Tammuz, which was

first

in the sequence of the calamities:

For initially, on the seventeenth of Tammuz, the city was breached. Afterwards, on the Ninth of Av, the Temple was burned. Afterwards, on the third of Tishrei, Gedaliah was killed. And in the Tevet that followed, the report reached the exiles.

And concerning

the

last

fast mentioned in the verse, namely, the fast of the fifth of Tevet,

I say that this is the last

in the sequence of the calamities.

And

if

he,

Rabbi Akiva,

were to say concerning

the fast mentioned in Scripture

first,

the seventeenth of Tammuz, which is

last

in the sequence of the calamities,

and concerning

the fast mentioned

last,

namely, the tenth of Tevet, he would say that it is

first

in the sequence of the calamities, since on it the king of Babylonia besieged Jerusalem, and only afterwards, on the seventeenth of Tammuz, the city was breached.

Rather, he,

Rabbi Akiva, says that the verse

counts

the fasts

according

to the

order of the months.

But I count them

also

according to the order of the calamities.

The Gemara said above that when there is peace, these four fasts are for joy and gladness. That is, eulogies and fasting are prohibited on them, whereas when there is no peace, these days are fasts.

Incidentally, the Gemara discusses all the “auspicious days” on which fasting is prohibited because miracles occurred on them, and some of which are also days on which eulogies are prohibited. They are enumerated in the scroll called Megillat Ta'anit. -

The question is whether nowadays, when the Temple is destroyed and there is no peace, the laws of these days have been annulled:

It was stated: Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina said: Megillat Ta'anit was annulled

once the Temple was destroyed, and the auspicious days listed in it are permitted for eulogies and fasting.

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Megillat Ta'anit was not annulled.

And the Gemara explains their reasons:

Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina said: Megillat Ta'anit was annulled,

because

this is what

the verse says concerning the fasts established in commemoration of the destruction of the First Temple:

When there is peace, the fasts shall be

for

joy and gladness.

Nevertheless, when there

is no peace,

it is

a fast.

And these too,

the other days that were established during the Second Temple period in Megillat Ta'anit as “auspicious days” for joy and gladness, on which fasting and eulogies are prohibited—

for these

too have the same status as these four fasts, which were called “auspicious days” during the Second Temple period, and once the Temple was destroyed, their joy was annulled.

Whereas

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Megillat Ta'anit was not annulled,

because only

these

fasts,

did the Merciful One make dependent,

the verse made them alone dependent

on the construction of the Temple.

Initially, they were established as days of fasting over the destruction of the Temple, and through the construction of the Temple they became a festival. For when the Temple was built, the exiles asked whether they should continue fasting, and the prophet Zechariah answered them [Zechariah 7] that from then on these days would be for joy and gladness and for appointed festivals.

But these other days,

the other days mentioned in Megillat Ta'anit—the verse did not make them dependent on the construction of the Temple, but

they remain as they were!

Just as they stood under the prohibition against eulogies and fasting when the Temple existed, so they remain prohibited today.

Rav Kahana raised an objection,

contradicting the view that Megillat Ta'anit was annulled:

For we learned in a baraita:

It once happened that they decreed a fast on Hanukkah in Lod,

and they required fasting with regard to the five afflictions: eating, drinking, anointing, bathing, and wearing shoes.

And Rabbi Eliezer went down and bathed, and Rabbi Yehoshua cut his hair

[and had a haircut].

And they said to them,

the people of Lod:

Go out and fast in atonement for what you fasted,

because fasting is prohibited on Hanukkah, as is explained in Megillat Ta'anit.

But Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua lived after the destruction of the Temple [which was destroyed during the lifetime of their teacher, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai], and it follows that even after the Temple was destroyed, Megillat Ta'anit was not annulled [contrary to the view that it was annulled].

He said

—

Rav Yosef

answered: Hanukkah is different

[it differs]

from the other days mentioned in Megillat Ta'anit, and everyone agrees that it was not annulled nowadays, because

there is a mitzva.

For it includes the mitzva of kindling the lamp, and that mitzva was not annulled.

Abaye said to him: Then let it itself be annulled,

Hanukkah itself,

and let

even

its mitzva be annulled!

Rather, he said

—

Rav Yosef

another answer:

Hanukkah is different, since the miracle was publicized.

It is apparent to everyone, because people practice its mitzvot and uphold it as though it were a festival from the Torah.

Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection

contradicting the view that Megillat Ta'anit was annulled, from what is stated in Megillat Ta'anit [which is written in Aramaic]:

“On the third of Tishrei, the mention of the Name was abolished from the documents.”

On the third of Tishrei, the Sages abolished the mention of the Name of God in legal documents, because

the Greek kingdom had issued a decree prohibiting the pronunciation of the Name of Heaven in their manner.

And when the Hasmonean kingdom grew strong

over the Greeks,

and defeated them, they instituted

the Hasmonean kingdom

that they mention the Name of Heaven

with their mouths, and

even in documents.

And this is what they would write

in documents:

“In such-and-such a year of Johanan, High Priest of the Most High God.”

And when the Sages heard about the matter, they said: Tomorrow this [

borrower]

will repay his debt, and a document [

torn ]

will be found lying in the garbage.

And this is a degradation of the Name of Heaven.

And they abolished them

from mentioning the Name of Heaven in documents.

And it was very difficult to dissuade the people from this custom. When the Sages succeeded in doing so, they regarded it as a miracle,

and they made that day a holiday.

And the Gemara assumes that this event took place after the Destruction of the Temple, as follows:

And from here there is a difficulty for those who maintain that in the present era Megillat Ta'anit was annulled:

For,

if it enters your mind

to say that

Megillat Ta'anit was annulled,

there is a difficulty: If

the earlier ones were annulled—

would the later ones be added!?

After all, the original holidays, although they had already been observed during the time of the Temple, were annulled by the Sages; so how could new days be added, days on which joy had never before been observed in the present era?

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing

when did this event occur?

When the Temple

was

standing.

Therefore, they established them as days like a holiday, on which fasting is prohibited.