Taanit 13b — the Talmud in English

Meitivi: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

The bogeret [a

maiden who has brought forth two hairs , which are signs of maturity]

is permitted

[permitted]

to disfigure herself during the days of mourning for

her father

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

It follows:

“but the maiden,”

who is not yet fit to be married—

is permitted

to disfigure herself.

What, is it not

the case that what we said—that the bogeret is not permitted to disfigure herself, whereas the maiden is permitted—refers

to bathing?

And with what

kind of bathing does it refer?

If you say, in hot water,

is it possible to say that concerning such bathing we learned in the beraita that

the bogeret is not permitted

to disfigure herself, but must bathe?

But has

[he not said]

Rav Hisda: A mourner is prohibited

even

from putting his finger into hot water!

Rather, is it not—

certainly the reference is to bathing

in cold water!

And we learned in the beraita that specifically the bogeret bathes. But the maiden does not bathe even in cold water. We have therefore found that a mourner is prohibited from bathing even in cold water!

The Gemara rejects the proof:

No.

The beraita is not referring to bathing. For not only is the bogeret permitted to bathe in cold water, but the maiden as well, and all other mourners, are permitted to bathe in cold water.

Rather, the beraita is speaking of

applying eye makeup

[about applying blue eye makeup, which is placing blue paint on the eyes]

and

about

arranging the hair

[arranging the hair]. For these things are permitted only to a bogeret, who is fit to be married, so that people will hasten to marry her.

The Gemara further says:

Let us say that it supports him

[perhaps there is support for Rava’s statement] from the following statement:

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

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

They said: There, it was when his mourning followed upon him one after another.

As it was taught: If his mourning followed upon him one after another, and his hair became heavy,

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

Rav Hisda said: With a razor—

but not with scissors; in water—

but not with natron, nor with sand, nor with ahal

[“ahal” is a type of soap with which one washes].

There are those who say

[there are those who say] that this is what

Rava said: 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,

with which a mourner is permitted?

The Gemara explains:

There,

when he eats meat and drinks wine, it is not for pleasure, but

he does it only to dispel his fear

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

Let us say that it supports him

[is it possible to support Rava’s statement from the beraita]:

The bogeret is not permitted to disfigure herself.

It follows:

the maiden—

is permitted

to disfigure herself.

In what manner

[in what manner does it refer]?

If you say, in hot water,

is it possible to say concerning bathing in hot water that

the bogeret is not permitted

to disfigure herself, but is obligated to bathe?

But Rav Hisda said: A mourner is prohibited

even

from putting

his finger into hot water!

Rather, is it not—

certainly the beraita is speaking of bathing

in cold water.

And specifically the bogeret was permitted to bathe. It follows that for other mourners it is prohibited to bathe even in cold water, in accordance with Rava’s statement!

The Gemara rejects the proof:

No.

The beraita is not speaking about bathing at all, but

about applying eye makeup and arranging the hair,

as was explained above.

Rav Hisda said: This means

[from the words of the beraita , that a mourning maiden is prohibited from applying eye makeup and arranging her hair, it follows] that

a mourner is prohibited from laundering

[from laundering his garments]

all seven days of his mourning. For the prohibition of laundering is similar to the prohibition of 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.

But

with regard to bathing

his face, hands, and feet,

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

in hot water—

is prohibited

even if it is only his face, hands, and feet.

But to bathe

in cold water

his face, hands, and feet—

is permitted.

But a mourner who anoints

his body with oil,

even

a part

of any amount

of his body—

is prohibited .

And if

he does not anoint himself in order to enjoy himself, but only in order

to remove the filth

[to remove and clear away the dirt]—

it is permitted .

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

The prayer of a fast, how do we mention it

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

He elevated

[he honored him and raised him to greatness]

Rav Judah to Rav Isaac his son

[his son], and

Rav Isaac expounded:

Rav Isaac

A private individual who accepted a fast upon himself prays

a prayer

of a fast.

That is, the prayer “Answer us.”

And where,

in which place in the Eighteen Benedictions,

does he say it

[say the prayer “Answer us”]—

He says the prayer “Answer us” with a blessing of its own [that is, he concludes it with a blessing, “Blessed are You, Hashem,” and so forth],

between the blessing

“

Redeemer

of Israel” and

the blessing

“

Who heals

the sick of His people Israel” .

Rav Isaac challenged him: And is

the prayer of a fast of

an individual

so important, to such an extent that he

establishes

and adds in the Eighteen Benedictions

a blessing of its own?!

Rather, Rav Isaac 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” .

For that blessing and its conclusion indicate both the fast and his entire prayer.

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

And likewise Rav Sheshet said:

He mentions it

in “Who hears prayer” .

Meitivi: There is no

difference

between the prayer of

an

individual and the prayer of

the

community in a fast,

except

for one matter:

for one matter:

“This one,

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

prays eighteen

blessings , as in every prayer.

And

if

this one,

the community, says the prayer of the fast with a blessing of its own. If so, it follows that he

prays

nineteen

blessings.

And now we must clarify

what

[the beraita intended when it said]

“an individual,” and what “the community” means.

If you say

[if it is said] that

“an individual”

means an individual

literally,

who prays alone,

and “the community”

means

the leader of the prayer,

then are

these

[these blessings that the leader of the prayer recites during a fast] only

nineteen

? But

they are twenty-four,

[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 intention of the beraita]:

There is no difference between an individual who accepted upon himself

to fast

an individual fast, and an individual who accepted upon himself

to fast

a communal fast, except

for this distinction:

this one

who accepted an individual fast upon himself

prays eighteen

blessings.

And this one

who accepted a communal fast upon himself

prays nineteen.

Learn from this

[it is proven from this] that

an individual establishes

the prayer of a fast in

a blessing of its own!

And not in accordance with the words of Rav Isaac and Rav Sheshet, who said that an individual establishes it in the blessing “Who hears prayer.”

The Gemara rejects the objection:

No.

I can say to you in truth

[I truly say to you] that what we learned in the beraita as “the community” means

the leader of the prayer.

And what was difficult for you

[and what was difficult for you was this]: How did we learn in the beraita that the leader of the prayer prays nineteen blessings, when

the leader of the prayer prays twenty-four

[prays]—

There is no difficulty. For the beraita is speaking

of the first three fasts, when there are not

[there are not]

twenty-four

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

The Gemara wonders:

Is that so?

Do they indeed not recite twenty-four blessings during the first three fasts?

But in the beraita that brought distinctions between the first fasts and the intermediate ones, and did not bring this distinction—that during the first fasts they do not recite twenty-four blessings—the wording

the beraita lists distinctions between the first fasts and the intermediate fasts, but does not mention this distinction—that on the first fasts they do not recite twenty-four blessings. It uses the wording

“There is no difference” is taught!

This is what we learned in the beraita:

“There is no difference between the three

first fasts

and the three intermediate ones, except

for this distinction:

in these,

the first fasts,

engaging in work is permitted. And in these,

And on these,

the last fasts,

engaging in work is prohibited.”

And the reason is that the first fasts are more lenient.

And the meaning of the wording “There is no difference, and so forth,” which is wording of limitation, is that specifically these distinctions exist between the first fasts and the intermediate ones—and no more.

It follows:

but with regard to

reciting

twenty-four

blessings, there is no distinction between the first fasts and the intermediate ones, but

this one and that one are equal!

Гемара отвергает это затруднение: правило не таково, как мы предположили, будто, когда таннай использует выражение «нет различия», он имеет в виду, что между первыми и средними постами существуют только перечисленные различия и больше никаких.

Однако

Гемара отвергает это возражение: правило не таково, как мы предположили: когда таннай использует выражение «нет различия», он не обязательно имеет в виду, что перечисленные различия — единственные различия между первыми и средними постами.

Ибо таннай [изложил] эти различия

и оставил [то есть опустил] другие различия. Он не упомянул различие между первыми и средними постами относительно благословений.

Гемара возражает: ведь таннай обычно не перечисляет все положения, опуская лишь одно. Если так, почему таннай не упомянул и то положение, которое он опустил? Ведь для этого ему не пришлось бы значительно удлинять формулировку.

Напротив, если таннай что-либо опускает, он опускает по меньшей мере два положения, поскольку не привел их, желая быть кратким.

Итак,

что еще опустил

таннай

—

помимо того, что опустил это, то есть различие относительно благословений?

И еще:

ведь

сказано выражение

«нет различия»!

Это означает, что помимо различий, упомянутых таннаем, между первыми и средними постами нет никакого иного различия! И из-за этих возражений объяснение Гемары отвергается.

Гемара предлагает другое объяснение:

«Напротив, таннай говорит о запретах» [таннай говорит о том, что разрешено и что запрещено в дни постов]. Но

о

вопросах

молитв —

не говорит [то есть не упоминает их].

Поэтому таннай не упомянул различие между первыми и средними постами в отношении благословений, поскольку это различие относится к вопросам молитвы.

Гемара приводит еще одно объяснение возражения.

«А если хочешь, скажи так»:

«Даже во время средних постов он не молится

двадцатью четырьмя

благословениями. Поэтому таннай не упомянул это различие между первыми и средними постами.

Гемара удивляется:

«Разве нет?»

Неужели во время средних постов не произносят двадцать четыре благословения?!

«Но ведь сказано в барайте:

«Нет различия между тремя

вторыми

постами [средними] и

семью

последними,

кроме

только следующего различия:

«На этих

последних постах

трубят в шофар и запирают лавки».

Отсюда следует:

«во всех

остальных

их положениях —

и те и другие [средние и последние посты]

одинаковы. Но во время последних постов, безусловно, произносят двадцать четыре благословения; следовательно, и во время средних постов их произносят!»

последние посты

трубят в шофар и закрывают лавки.

Следовательно,

это означает: во всех

остальных

их положениях

«А если скажешь, что и здесь так же [то есть таннай перечислил эти различия — то, что трубят в шофар и запирают лавки] —

таннай [изложивший] эти различия

и опустил

различие относительно благословений,

ведь сказано выражение «нет различия», что означает: между средними и последними постами нет дополнительного различия! Гемара удивляется: «Разве можно так полагать? [Неужели ты считаешь], что когда таннай использует выражение

«нет различия» —

имеется в виду, что

именно

эти положения различают их, и не более того?»

различие в отношении благословений,

ведь

сказано выражение

«нет различия»,

из чего следует, что между средними и последними постами нет никакого дополнительного различия!

Гемара удивляется:

неужели ты полагаешь

что, когда таннай использует выражение

«нет различия»,

он имеет в виду, что

именно

между ними существуют перечисленные различия и больше никаких?