Taanit 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

Meitivei:

A bogeret

[a na'ara who has developed two pubic hairs , which are signs of maturity]

is permitted

[permitted]

to disfigure herself during the mourning period of

her father

[whose father died and she is mourning for him ]. Rather, she must adorn herself, so that people will wish to marry her.

It follows that

“Is it a na'ara,”

who is not yet fit to marry,

is permitted

to disfigure herself.

Is it not

the case that when we said that a bogeret is not permitted to disfigure herself, whereas a na'ara is permitted, we were referring to

bathing?

And with what

kind of bathing is this concerned?

If you say with hot water,

is it possible to say that regarding such bathing the baraita teaches that

the bogeret is not permitted

to disfigure herself, but rather she must bathe?

But did

[did he not]

Rav Ḥisda say: A mourner is prohibited

even

from placing a finger in hot water!

Rather, is it not—

the baraita certainly refers to bathing

in cold water?

And the baraita teaches that specifically a bogeret may bathe, whereas a na'ara may not bathe even in cold water. We therefore have proof that a mourner is prohibited from bathing even in cold water!

The Gemara rejects the proof:

No.

The baraita is not referring to bathing. Not only is a bogeret permitted to bathe in cold water; a na'ara and all other mourners are also permitted to bathe in cold water.

Rather, the baraita is speaking of

applying eye makeup

[applying blue eye makeup to the eyes]

and

of

arranging the hair

[hair styling]. These activities are permitted only to a bogeret, who is fit to marry, so that people will hasten to marry her.

The Gemara adds:

Let us say that this supports

[perhaps the following statement supports Rava’s words]:

For Rabbi Abba the priest said in the name of Rabbi Yosei the priest: It once happened that the sons of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina died, and he bathed in cold water all seven days.

We have proof that a mourner is permitted to bathe in cold water!

They said: There, the case was one in which his mourning periods overtook one another.

As it is taught in a baraita: If one’s mourning periods overtook one another, and his hair became heavy,

he may cut it with a razor and wash his garment in water.

Rav Ḥisda said: With a razor

but not with scissors; in water

but not with natron, sand, or ahāl

[“ahāl” is a type of soap used for bathing].

Some say

[there are those who say] that

Rava said as follows: A mourner is prohibited from bathing in cold water all seven days.

The Gemara asks:

What is different

[in what way is bathing in cold water different]

from

eating

meat and

drinking

wine,

which a mourner is permitted to consume?

The Gemara explains:

There,

when he eats meat and drinks wine, it is not for the sake of pleasure; rather,

he does it only to dispel his fear

[he does it to remove his pain and anxiety] .

Let us say that this supports

[can Rava’s words be supported] by the baraita:

A bogeret is not permitted to disfigure herself.

It follows that

“Is it a na'ara”—

she is permitted

to disfigure herself.

In what manner

[is this referring]?

If you say with hot water,

is it possible to say regarding bathing in hot water that

the bogeret is not permitted

to disfigure herself, but is obligated to bathe?

But Rav Ḥisda said: A mourner is prohibited

even

from placing

his finger in hot water!

Rather, is it not—

the baraita certainly refers to bathing

in cold water.

Bathing was permitted specifically to a bogeret. It follows that other mourners are prohibited from bathing even in cold water, in accordance with Rava’s statement!

The Gemara rejects the proof:

No.

The baraita is not referring to bathing at all, but rather to

applying eye makeup and arranging the hair,

as explained above.

Rav Ḥisda said: This indicates

[from the words of the baraita that a mourning na'ara is prohibited from applying eye makeup and arranging her hair; it follows] that

a mourner is prohibited from laundering

[washing his garments]

all seven days of his mourning. The prohibition against laundering resembles the prohibition against applying eye makeup and arranging the hair.

days of his mourning. The prohibition against washing clothing is comparable to the prohibition against applying eye makeup and arranging the hair.

And the halakha

A mourner is prohibited from bathing his entire body, whether in hot water or in cold water, all seven days.

However,

with regard to washing

one’s face, hands, and feet,

there is a distinction between bathing in hot water and bathing in cold water: Washing

in hot water—

is prohibited

even if he washes only his face, hands, and feet.

But washing

in cold water

one’s face, hands, and feet

is permitted.

But a mourner who anoints

his body with oil,

even

a

minimal amount

of his body,

is prohibited .

And if

he does not anoint himself for pleasure, but only

to remove the filth

[to remove and clear away dirt],

it is permitted .

The Gemara now returns to discuss the laws of the fast.

How do we mention the prayer of a fast

[how does one mention the prayer of a fast]?

Rav Yehuda elevated

[honored and raised him to prominence]

Rav Yitzḥak his son

[his son], and

Rav Yitzḥak expounded

as follows:

An individual who accepted a fast upon himself prays

a prayer

of a fast. This means the prayer of “Anenu.”

That is, the prayer “Answer us.”

And where,

in which place in the Amidah,

does he recite it

[does he recite the prayer of “Anenu”]—

He recites the prayer of Anenu with a blessing of its own—that is, he concludes it with a blessing, “Blessed are You, Lord,” and so on—

between

the blessing

“Redeemer

of Israel”

and

the blessing

“Healer

of His people Israel” .

Rav Yitzḥak challenged him: Is

the prayer of a fast of

an individual

really so important that he

establishes

and adds in the Amidah

a blessing of its own?!

Rather, Rav Yitzḥak said:

He mentions the fast

within

the blessing “Hear our voice,” and concludes the entire blessing, including the prayer of the fast, with the blessing

“Who hears prayer” . The same blessing and its conclusion apply both to the fast and to all his prayer.

That blessing and its concluding formula apply both to the fast and to his entire prayer.

And Rav Sheshet likewise said:

He mentions it

in “Who hears prayer” .

Meitivei: There is no

difference

between

the prayer of

an individual and

the prayer of

the community

on a fast,

except

for one matter:

This one,

the individual, includes the prayer of the fast in the blessing “Who hears prayer,” and

recites the Amidah

of eighteen blessings , as in every prayer.

And

if

this one,

the community, recites the prayer of the fast as a blessing of its own, then it follows that he

recites

nineteen

blessings.

And now we must clarify

what

[what the baraita meant when it said]

“an individual,” and what is “the community”?

If you say

[if it is said] that

“an individual”

means an individual

literally,

who prays alone,

and “the community”

means

the communal prayer leader,

is it possible that

these

[the blessings recited by the communal prayer leader on a fast] are only

nineteen

? But

there are twenty-four, as we find below [15a], where the communal prayer leader recites twenty-four blessings on a fast!

[as we find below [15a], that the leader of the prayer says twenty-four blessings during a fast]!

Rather, it must be

said that

this is what it means

[this is the baraita’s intention]:

The only difference between an individual who accepted

a fast

of an individual and an individual who accepted

a

communal fast is

this distinction:

This one,

who accepted an individual fast,

recites the Amidah

of eighteen blessings.

And this one,

who accepted a communal fast,

recites nineteen.

Learn from this

[it is evident from this] that

an individual establishes

the prayer of the fast in

a blessing of its own!

This is contrary to the statements of Rav Yitzḥak and Rav Sheshet, who said that an individual includes it in the blessing “Who hears prayer.”

The Gemara rejects the challenge:

No.

I will always say

[I will indeed say] that when the baraita says “the community,” it means

the communal prayer leader.

And as for what is difficult for you

[what was difficult for you]—how can the baraita teach that the communal prayer leader recites nineteen blessings, when

the communal prayer leader recites twenty-four

[prayers]—

There is no difficulty. The baraita is speaking

of the first three fasts, when there are not

[there are no]

twenty-four

blessings, as we find below in the Gemara [15a].

The Gemara is astonished:

Is that so?

Is it indeed the case that on the first three fasts twenty-four blessings are not recited?

But

in the baraita that lists distinctions between the first fasts and the intermediate fasts, it does not mention this distinction—that on the first fasts twenty-four blessings are not recited. Rather, it says in the formulation

“the only difference is”!

This is what the baraita teaches:

“The only difference between the first three

fasts

and the three intermediate fasts is

this distinction:

On these,

the first fasts,

work is permitted.

And on these,

the later fasts,

work is prohibited.”

The reason is that the first fasts are more lenient.

The wording “the only difference, and so on” implies limitation: These are specifically the distinctions between the first fasts and the intermediate ones—and no more.

It follows that

with regard to

reciting

twenty-four

blessings , there is no difference between the first fasts and the intermediate ones; rather,

both are equal!

—