Taanit 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Ḥisda said:

That which you said

that

one fasts for part of the day, and this

is specifically when

he

had not accepted upon himself to fast for the entire day before the day began, but only for part of the day. However, ultimately, he reconsidered and

tasted nothing

the entire day,

until evening.

However, if he began fasting until midday, and afterward ate, and did not complete the day by fasting, this is not considered affliction, and certainly is not considered a fast. In such a case, if he ate before midday, it is of no consequence, and he did not violate his acceptance.

Abaye said to him:

If he accepted upon himself to fast only until midday, but ultimately fasted the entire day,

this

is obviously

a superior fast

—surely it is an exemplary fast — and there is no need to teach us this!

Rather, certainly a partial-day fast means that he fasts until midday.

Rather, Abaye says: What needs to be taught is that a partial-day fast is considered a fast even though, in fact, he fasted the entire day,

it is necessary

[this is needed] only in a case

where

he had initially had no intention whatsoever of fasting that day, but was occupied with some matter and did not eat until midday. When midday arrived,

he reconsidered his decision

[he changed his mind] and said: Since I have fasted until midday, I will now fast the entire day. The novelty is that although he had had no initial intention to fast, nevertheless this is considered a fast .

And

further

Rav Ḥisda said: Any fast that he did not

continue fasting until

the sun had set over him

, meaning that he did not fast until the end of the day, but ate beforehand—

is not called a fast.

A challenge was raised

from the Mishna below, where we learned:

“The men of the priestly watch,”

the priests who serve in the Temple,

“fast”

with the community

“but do not complete”

their fast, because they are occupied with the Temple service and cannot complete the fast and abstain from food for the entire day.

It follows that one who fasts without waiting for the sun to set has nevertheless observed a fast!

The Gemara rejects the difficulty: In truth, if he did not fast until the end of the day, this is not considered a fast. And the statement that we learned

there

[there,] that the men of the priestly watch fasted but did not complete their fast,

was merely to afflict themselves

[they did so only in order to afflict themselves along with the community], and not in order that it should be considered a fast for them.

And since their fast is not considered a fast, they do not recite the prayer of “Answer us,” and they may end their fast whenever they wish.

Come and hear: For Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok said: I am descended from the descendants of Senaah

son of Benjamin

[from the tribe of Benjamin].

And the tenth of Av was a festival for them [for that family, the family of Senaah]. Because of an incident that occurred [as related below, on 26a], the Sages established this day for them to volunteer and bring wood for future generations, and to burn it on the arrangement upon the altar, even when there was already other wood in the Temple for the arrangement.

This was unlike the case of other people who volunteered and brought wood for the arrangement . For if there was already other wood, they would first burn that wood, and not the new wood that the volunteers had just brought.

Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok continued his account:

And once the Ninth of Av occurred on Shabbat.

And

since one does not fast on Shabbat,

we postponed it

[we postponed it, the fast of the Ninth of Av]

until after Shabbat,

to Sunday, which was the tenth of Av.

And we fasted on it,

on Sunday, the fast of the Ninth of Av—

but we did not complete it

[we did not complete the fast until evening] ,

because

the tenth of Av

is our festival .

It follows that a fast that they did not complete, but during which they fasted for only several hours, is considered a fast!

The Gemara rejects this:

There too

[even there, in that incident,] what they fasted

was merely to afflict themselves

[only in order to afflict themselves along with the community ]. In truth, this fast is not considered a complete fast.

Come and hear, for Rabbi Yoḥanan said

[Rabbi Yoḥanan would sometimes say]:

“I will be

in a fast

until I arrive at my home!”

And when he arrived at his home, although it was not the end of the day but only after several hours, he would eat. It follows that Rabbi Yoḥanan called a fast that was not completed “a fast”!

The Gemara rejects this:

There,

what he accepted upon himself was not accepted as an obligatory fast, but in order

to extricate himself from the household of the Nasi

[he did this to remove himself from the members of the Nasi’s household]. They would invite him and pressure him to eat with them, but he did not wish to do so. Therefore, he would tell them that he was fasting and was forbidden to eat.

In truth, however, he had no intention of accepting a fast upon himself at all, and if he wished, he could have eaten immediately , and there was nothing substantive in his vow.

Shmuel said: Any fast

that he did not accept upon himself before the day began—

is not called a fast

[it is not considered a fast] .

The Gemara asks:

And if he sat

[and if he fasted even though he had not accepted it upon himself before the day began, is there any significance or distinction to this, or not]?

Rabba bar Sheila said:

This person, who fasted without accepting the fast upon himself,

is comparable to a bellows filled with air

[he is like a bellows filled with air]. He needlessly filled himself with air and refrained from eating, since there is no benefit in doing so.

The Gemara now discusses the acceptance of a fast.

When must he accept it

[when must he accept the fast upon himself before the day begins]?

Rav said:

He must accept the fast

at

the time of

Minha

[at the time appropriate for the Minha prayer] . That is, from nine and a half hours onward [this is the time of the “short Minha”].

However, it is not necessary to accept the fast during the prayer itself. Even when he is standing in the marketplace and occupied with his affairs, he may interrupt himself for a moment and say: “I am fasting tomorrow.”

And Shmuel said:

He must accept the fast specifically

during

the

Minha prayer .

At what point during the prayer does he accept the fast upon himself?

At what point in the prayer does he accept the fast upon himself?

When he recites the words of appeasement and supplication at the end of the prayer , he adds and says: “I am fasting tomorrow” .

Rav Yosef said: Shmuel’s view

[in accordance with Shmuel’s words, that the fast must be accepted during the Minha prayer]

is more reasonable

[is logical].

For it is written

in Megillat Ta’anit,

after various dates were mentioned on which good events had occurred for Israel, and on which one may therefore not fast: “These are the days on which one may not fast”:

only

“every person who brought upon himself [fasts] from beforehand shall bind himself”

[every person who had previously undertaken fasts—for example, if he accepted upon himself ten or twenty days of fasting, and within those days one of these festive days arrived on which it is forbidden to fast—“shall bind himself”].

It is now necessary to explain the meaning of “shall bind himself.”

Is it not

intended to say that

he should bind himself through his prayer?

That is, the word “shall bind” means “shall prohibit,” namely, that he should prohibit himself through the acceptance of a fast during the Minha prayer , and then his fast overrides those festive days?

It is evident that only accepting the fast during prayer is effective. And if he did not accept the fast in this manner, he has accomplished nothing! The Gemara rejects this:

No.

The meaning of the word “ייסר” is from the expression “יאסר,” meaning that he

prohibits himself.

That is, if he accepted the fast upon himself before those festive days, he is prohibited from eating, and his fast overrides those festive days.

They disagree about it [

they disagree about this matter]—

Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi.

One says [

one says] that in Megillat Ta’anit one must read

And one says that there one must read

The Gemara asks:

Granted, according to the one who says “ייסר,”

this is

as we said [

as we said]—that he must prohibit something to himself during the Minhah prayer, and only then does the fast take effect for him.

But according to the one who says “יאסר”—

what does this mean [

what is meant by this, and what does he hold]?

The Gemara explains:

As it is taught in Megillat Ta’anit: “Any person who accepts it upon himself beforehand is prohibited.”

How so?

An individual who accepted upon himself

to fast on

Mondays and Thursdays throughout the entire year, and festive days recorded in Megillat Ta’anit occurred on them,

the law is as follows:

If his vow preceded our decree,

that is, he made his vow before the Sages decreed and instituted those festive days on which one may not fast —

it shall override [

it shall nullify]

his vow our decree,

and he continues his fasts even on those festive days.

But if our decree preceded his vow,

that is, he made his vow after the Sages had already decreed and instituted those festive days, then the law is that although he made his vow before those festive days arrived—

our decree shall override his vow,

and he does not fast on those festive days .

The Sages taught:

A person who accepted upon himself a fast for the following day —

until when may he eat and drink

during the night preceding the fast?—

Until dawn,

the words of Rabbi.

Rashi wrote: “ "

Rabbi Eliezer bar Shimon says: Until cockcrow [

until the rooster calls] the first time .

Abaye said: They taught

that he may eat during the night preceding his fast until dawn, or until cockcrow [each according to his position], only

in

the case

where he did not conclude his meal

until close to that time.

But

if he

concluded his meal

before then, according to everyone he

may not eat

any more .

Rava raised an objection

from a baraita, in which we learned:

He ate

his meal and recited Birkat HaMazon,

and stood

from his table—

he may

resume

eating

afterward. This teaches us that even though he concluded his meal, he may resume eating as long as day has not dawned!

The Gemara answers:

There [

there] it is speaking

when he did not remove

the table from before him . In such a case, he did not divert his attention from continuing to eat, and therefore if he resumed his meal, it is considered a continuation of the same meal; and we have said that he may continue eating until the beginning of the day.

There are those who say [

there are those who state] the dispute between Rava and Abaye differently:

Rava said: They taught

that he may eat until dawn only

when he had not slept

yet during that night.

But

if he

slept,

this is considered an interruption, and he

may not eat again.

Abaye raised an objection

from a baraita. For this is what we learned there:

He slept

during the night of the fast day and then awoke

and rose

later that night—

he may eat [

he may continue eating]. This teaches us that even if he slept during that night, he may continue eating until morning!

The Gemara rejects the objection:

There

it is not referring to a case in which he actually slept, but

to dozing.

But if he actually slept, he may not eat afterward.

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances of dozing [

under what circumstances is he considered to be dozing rather than actually sleeping]?