Taanit 14a (יד.) — the Talmud in English

But he omitted [that is, the tanna omitted another distinction: on the final fasts they take out the

ark, the chest in which they place the Torah scrolls,

ark [the ark in which the Torah scrolls are placed] into the city street, whereas on the intermediate fasts they do not take it out]!

!

The Gemara rejects the difficulty: in fact, when the tanna uses the formulation “there is no difference,” he means it precisely.

And

if it is because the tanna omitted this distinction concerning taking out the

the Tanna left out this distinction concerning taking out the

ark

into the city street—

it is not an omission [this is not considered an omission].

For when the tanna discusses

matters done privately [matters performed discreetly], such as sounding the alarm, which is done in the synagogue, and likewise the twenty-four blessings, which are recited in the synagogue—

he teaches [he taught this in the Mishna] .

But

matters done publicly [matters performed openly, in the city street], such as taking out the ark—

he does not teach [he did not teach this]. Therefore, the tanna did not mention this distinction in our Mishna .

Rav Ashi said: Our Mishna also proves this [that there is no distinction between the intermediate and final fasts with regard to the twenty-four blessings; this too can be precisely inferred from our Mishna].

For it teaches: “In what way are these—

the final fasts—

greater than the earlier ones”—

Rather, this is the distinction:

this matter:

“On these,”

the final fasts,

“they sound the alarm and close the shops.”

It follows that

in every

other

matter of theirs,

including the matter of the twenty-four blessings—

these and those are the same.

Thus, on both the intermediate fasts and the final fasts, the twenty-four blessings are recited.

And if you would say

that

here too

[also here]

the tanna taught [the tanna taught] only some of the distinctions between the intermediate and final fasts,

taught only some of the differences between the intermediate and final fasts,

and omitted

the distinction between them that on the intermediate fasts the twenty-four blessings are not recited—

But “In what way are these

greater, etc.,”

he teaches,

indicating that these are the only distinctions, and no others!

The Gemara objects:

And can you understand

that whenever the tanna uses the expression

“In what way are these,”

the meaning is that what the tanna mentioned is

specifically the complete list?

But he omitted the matter of taking out the

the matter of taking the

ark

into the city street, which is practiced only on the final fasts!

The Gemara rejects the difficulty: in fact, it is possible to say that “In what way are these” means specifically the complete list.

And

if it is because of taking out the

of taking out the

ark

which the tanna omitted—

it is not an omission [this is not considered an omission]. For the reason the tanna did not mention this matter here is

because he counts it in the other chapter [because the tanna mentions this matter in the chapter below].

The Gemara says:

Now that you have arrived at this [now that you have arrived at this reasoning], namely, that something which the tanna taught elsewhere is not considered an omission, it is possible to say that in fact the twenty-four blessings are not recited on the intermediate fasts, but only on the final fasts.

And the reason the tanna did not mention this distinction between the intermediate and final fasts—that only on the final fasts one recites

twenty-four

blessings—is

also not an omission [it is not considered an omission],

for

he

he teaches it in the other chapter [as the tanna taught this below].

Accordingly, we can resolve the beraita cited above, which we learned: “There is no difference between an individual and the congregation, except that this one recites eighteen blessings and that one recites nineteen.” “The congregation” refers to the prayer leader, and the reference is to the first fasts, on which the twenty-four blessings are not recited [for had the reference been to an individual who accepts upon himself a communal fast, this beraita would prove that an individual establishes a blessing for himself, as explained above].

What was decided about it [what became of the matter discussed above]—where does an individual mention the fast in his prayer?

Rav Shmuel bar Sasartai said, and Rav

Hiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav:

He mentions the fast by reciting “Anenu”

between “Redeemer” and “Healer,”

as a blessing in its own right.

And Rav Ashi said in the name of Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael:

He mentions it

in

the blessing of

“Who hears prayer,”

and the prayer of the fast does not establish a blessing of its own.

And the halakha [and this is the practical halakha]: He mentions it

in “Who hears prayer.”

Since the Gemara is discussing the first, intermediate, and final fasts, it brings another matter concerning them.

One [beraita] teaches [we learned in one beraita]:

Pregnant women [pregnant women]

[pregnant women]

and nursing women fast on

the

first fasts, but do not fast on the final fasts.

The beraita does not clarify what is meant by “first” and what is meant by “final.”

But,

in contrast,

another [beraita] teaches [we learned in another beraita]: Pregnant women and nursing women

fast on

the

final fasts, but do not fast on

the

first fasts.

And another [beraita] teaches [and we learned in another beraita]: Pregnant women and nursing women

do not fast, neither on the first fasts—

nor on the final fasts.

At first glance, there appear to be three conflicting opinions here. The first opinion is that they fast on the first fasts but not on the final fasts. The second is that they fast on the final fasts but not on the first fasts. And the third is that they fast neither on these nor on those.

However, since it has not been explicitly established which fasts are called “first” and which are called “final” in the beraitot, the Gemara considers whether the beraitot can be reconciled so that they do not disagree with one another.

Rav Ashi said: Take the intermediate fasts in your hand [hold on to the intermediate fasts], namely, that they fast on the three intermediate fasts .

For then all of them can be reconciled [for according to this assumption, all the beraitot can be understood as expressing one opinion].

The statement in the first beraita that they fast on the first fasts does not refer to the first fasts of all the days of fasting, but to the intermediate fasts. Relative to the seven final fasts, these are considered “first,” since they precede them. And they do not fast on the seven final fasts. Since there are seven days, pregnant and nursing women cannot withstand it.

And the statement in the intermediate beraita that they fast on the final fasts but do not fast on the first fasts refers to the fact that they fast on the intermediate fasts. Relative to the actual first fasts, these are considered “final,” since they follow them. But on the first fasts of all, they do not fast. Since the divine anger is not yet so great, as many days of withheld rain have not yet passed, the pregnant and nursing women were exempted from fasting.

And the statement in the final beraita that they do not fast neither on the first fasts nor on the final fasts is to be understood literally: they do not fast on the seven final fasts, since the number of days of fasting is great . And they do not fast on the first fasts, since the divine anger is not yet great.

We learned in our Mishna:

“In what way are these greater than the earlier ones? On these they sound the alarm and close the shops.”

How do they sound the alarm [how do they sound the alarm]?

Rav Yehuda said:

With blasts

on shofarot . The expression “sounding the alarm” is like terua. And an ordinary terua has a blast before it and a blast after it .

The expression “sounding the alarm” is like the word for a terua blast. And an unspecified terua blast is preceded and followed by a teki’a blast.

They sound the shofarot in order to be remembered before God, as it is stated: “You shall sound the trumpets, and they shall be a remembrance for you before your God,” and in order to humble their hearts through the sound of the shofar, so that they will recoil from their sins.

And this is how they would do it:

With the six blessings that they added to the eighteen blessings on a fast day [as we brought above, that they recite twenty-four blessings], they sounded one terua for each blessing. Together with the blasts before and after the teruot, this gives us eighteen alarm signals.

And Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav:

It is impossible to say that the intention is to sound the shofar, for if so, the Mishna should have used the expression “they sound,” rather than “they sound the alarm”!

Rather, the intention is that they sound the alarm

by

reciting

“Anenu.” They pray and cry out: “Answer us, our Father, answer us; answer us, God of Abraham, answer us,” and so on, all in the manner in which it is recited at the end of the selihot .

They pray and cry out: “Answer us, our Father, answer us; answer us, God of Abraham, answer us, and so forth,” exactly as they recite at the end of the seliḥot prayers.

But the “Anenu” that is added to the Amidah is recited on all fasts. Even an individual recites it in the blessing “Who hears prayer” .

It might have entered our minds [that is, this was the Gemara’s initial assumption] that

the one who says [the one who holds] that they sound the alarm

that they proclaim

by

reciting

“Anenu”—

does not say [does not hold] that they sound the alarm

by

sounding

shofarot,

but rather that the alarm consists only of reciting “Anenu.”

And

so too,

the one who says that they sound the alarm

that they proclaim

by

sounding

shofarot—

does not say that they sound the alarm

that they proclaim

by

reciting

“Anenu,”

for the alarm is specifically sounded on shofarot .

The Gemara continues its discussion on the basis of this assumption.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But it was taught [and yet we learned in a beraita]: On the final fasts,

one may not reduce the number of communal fasts below seven, during which there are eighteen alarm signals . They add six blessings to the eighteen blessings of the Amidah. For each added blessing, there are three teruot.

They add six blessings to the eighteen blessings of the Eighteen Benedictions, and for each added blessing there are three terua blasts.

And there is a sign for the matter,

so that you will not err concerning whether the alarm mentioned in the beraita is prayer or a blast: the city of

Jericho.

For we find that they sounded shofarot during the conquest of the city [as related in the Book of Joshua, chapter 6].

Thus, Jericho is a sign for the alarm signals.

And

indeed, in

Jericho—

there were shofarot [there were shofarot] ,

and this is a refutation of the one who says [and this presents a difficulty for the one who holds] that they sound the alarm

by

reciting

“Anenu”!

It is necessarily the case that our initial assumption is incorrect.

Rather, concerning

shofarot—

everyone agrees that it is called an alarm. There is no dispute concerning this matter: sounding shofarot is called sounding the alarm. And what we learned in our Mishna, that they sound the alarm on fasts, refers to shofarot.

When they disagree [what Rav Yehuda and Rav disagree about] is with regard to other calamities ,

for we find that an alarm is sounded in response to them as well. Is the alarm

by

reciting

“Anenu,”

or not?

The Master,

Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, in the name of Rav,

holds

that the alarm mentioned with regard to other calamities is the recitation of Anenu, because “Anenu”

is also called an alarm [the recitation of “Anenu” is called an alarm].

And the Master,

Rav Yehuda,

holds

that that alarm refers to sounding a shofar, like the alarm mentioned with regard to fasts. For “Anenu”

is not called an alarm [the recitation of “Anenu” is not called an alarm].

According to the one who says that an alarm means

that proclamation means

the

recitation of

“Anenu”—

all the more so

that sounding

shofarot is considered an alarm.

is considered a proclamation.

The Gemara objects:

But according to the one who says that an alarm means

that proclamation means

shofarot—

but

reciting

“Anenu” is not

considered an alarm?

But it was taught: “And for all other types of calamities that occur

, such as an outbreak of skin disease [a disease that causes one to rub and scratch oneself ],

a plague of

locusts

, flies, hornets, and mosquitoes [insects that enter a person’s eyes and nostrils],

[insects that enter a person’s eyes and nostrils],

and the infestation of snakes and scorpions [“infestation” means that they attack people unnaturally, as we find below [22a]: when a dangerous animal is said to warrant sounding the alarm, this means when it has been sent by Heaven],

they would not sound the alarm

concerning them, but

would cry out

in prayer.”

It is evident from the wording of the beraita, “They did not sound the alarm; rather, they cried out,” that crying out and sounding the alarm are two different things.

And

since crying out is verbal

[and after all, crying out certainly means prayer with the mouth] it necessarily follows that

sounding the alarm

does not refer to prayer with the mouth, since crying out has already been mentioned. Rather, it certainly refers to sounding

shofarot!

And we say: The matter of whether, in other calamities, sounding the alarm means sounding shofarot or reciting Anenu

is a dispute between tannaim

[they disagree about it].

As it is taught: For

the events

listed here, they sound the alarm on Shabbat:

For a city that was surrounded by an army

[an enemy force],

or

if the

river

surrounding the city rose and was liable to flood fields and houses,

and for a ship being tossed about

[being moved and thrown about]

in

the waves of the

sea,

and liable to sink.

Rabbi Yosi said:

They sound the alarm

for

the purpose of

assistance,

so that they will be heard from a distance and people will come to help them.

But they do not

sound the alarm

for crying out,

that is, for prayer. For we are not so certain that our prayer will be effective that we should cry out in prayer on Shabbat.

And now, regarding what we learned in the beraita, that they sound the alarm,

in what manner,

that is, what case is being discussed?

If you say

[if it is said] that the reference is to sounding

shofarot,

it is impossible to say so. For sounding

shofarot on Shabbat—is it permitted

[is it permitted]?!

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that the reference is to

the

recitation of

Anenu?

And he calls it

[and the tanna calls it] “

sounding the alarm” .

Thus, we find that the tannaim disagree as to whether the recitation of Anenu is considered sounding the alarm or not. For this beraita demonstrates that sounding the alarm means reciting Anenu, whereas the earlier beraita demonstrates that sounding the alarm means sounding shofarot.

The Gemara concludes:

It follows.

Indeed, it is demonstrated from here that the tannaim disagree about this matter.

During the time of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia

[in the days of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia]

there was distress

[there was distress because of a calamity that had befallen the world].