Taanit 14a — the Talmud in English

But he left out [the Tanna left out another distinction: on the final fasts they take out the

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

to the open area of the city, whereas on the intermediate fasts they do not take it out]

!

The Gemara rejects the difficulty: indeed, when the Tanna uses the expression “there is no difference,” he means it precisely.

And

if it is because

the Tanna left out this distinction concerning taking out the

ark

to the open area of the city—

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

For the Tanna

teaches matters done privately [things done in private], such as the proclamation, which is in the synagogue, and likewise the twenty-four blessings, which he recites in the synagogue—

he teaches [he stated in the Mishna] .

But

matters done publicly [things done openly, in the open area of the city], such as taking out the ark—

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

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

For it teaches: “What are these

the final fasts,

more than the initial ones”—

Rather,

this matter:

“that on these,”

the final ones,

they proclaim and lock the shops.

It follows:

but in all

the other

matters,

even concerning the twenty-four blessings—

this one and that one are equal.

Thus, both on the intermediate fasts and on the final fasts, they recite the twenty-four blessings.

And if you would say

that

here too

[also here]

the Tanna

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

and left out

this distinction between them, that on the intermediate fasts they do not recite the twenty-four blessings—

But “What are these

more than the initial ones, etc.”

he teaches,

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

The Gemara wonders:

And can you understand

that when the Tanna uses the expression

“What are these,”

the meaning is that what the Tanna stated is

precisely so?

But he left out

the matter of taking out the

ark

to the open area of the city, which applies only on the final fasts!

The Gemara rejects the difficulty: indeed, it may be said that “What are these” means precisely so.

And

if it is because

of taking out the

ark

which the Tanna left out—

it is not an omission [this is not considered an omission]. For the reason that 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 following chapter].

The Gemara says:

Now that you have arrived at this [now that you have arrived at this reasoning], that something which the Tanna taught elsewhere is not considered an omission, it may be said that in truth the twenty-four blessings are not recited on the intermediate fasts, but only on the final fasts.

And the reason that the Tanna did not mention this distinction between the intermediate and final fasts—that only on the final fasts does one recite

twenty-four

blessings—

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

for

he

teaches it in the other chapter [for the Tanna taught this below].

Accordingly, we can explain the beraita above, in which we learned: “There is no difference between an individual and the congregation except that this one prays eighteen [blessings] and that one prays nineteen,” that “congregation” means the prayer leader, and that it is speaking of the initial fasts, on which they do not recite the twenty-four blessings [for had it been speaking of an individual who accepts upon himself a communal fast, this beraita would prove that an individual establishes a blessing for himself, as was explained above].

What has become of it [what became of the earlier issue], 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 “Answer us”

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

“Who hears prayer,”

and the prayer of the fast does not establish a blessing for itself.

And the halakha [and the practical halakha]: he mentions it

in “Who hears prayer.”

Since the Gemara is discussing the initial, intermediate, and final fasts, it brings another issue concerning this matter.

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

pregnant women

[pregnant women]

and nursing women fast on

the

initial fasts, but do not fast on the final ones.

The beraita did not make clear what is meant by “initial” and what is meant by “final.”

And

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

initial fasts.

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

do not fast, neither on the initial ones—

nor on the final ones.

At first glance, it appears that there are here three conflicting opinions. The first opinion is that they fast on the initial ones but not on the final ones. The second opinion is that they fast on the final ones but not on the initial ones. And the third opinion is that they fast neither on these nor on those.

However, since it was not explicitly clarified which “initial” and “final” fasts are mentioned in the beraitot, the Gemara discusses whether it is possible to reconcile the beraitot so that they do not disagree with one another.

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

For all of them can be reconciled [for according to this assumption it is possible to reconcile all the beraitot as holding one opinion].

What we learned in the first beraita, that they fast on the initial ones, does not refer to the initial ones of all the days of the fasts, but to the intermediate ones. For relative to the seven final fasts, they are considered initial, since they precede them. And on the seven final fasts they do not fast. Since they are seven days, pregnant women and nursing women cannot endure this.

And what we learned in the middle beraita, that they fast on the final ones and do not fast on the initial ones, means that they fast on the intermediate ones. For relative to the actual initial ones, they are considered final, since they come after them. But on the initial ones of all of them they do not fast. Since there is not yet such great divine anger, for many days of the withholding of rain have not yet passed, they were lenient with pregnant women and nursing women so that they would not fast.

And what we learned in the final beraita, that they do not fast neither on the initial ones nor on the final ones, is to be understood literally. On the seven final ones they do not fast, since the days of fasting are numerous . And on the initial ones they do not fast, since there is not yet much divine anger.

We learned in our Mishna:

“What are these more than the initial ones? That on these they proclaim and lock the shops.”

With what do they proclaim [how do they proclaim]?

Rav Yehuda said:

With a blast

on shofars .

For the expression “proclamation” is like teru'a. And an ordinary teru'a has a blast before it and a blast after it .

And they blow on shofars in order to be remembered before the Lord, as it is stated: “And you shall sound the trumpets, and they shall be for you as a remembrance before your God,” and in order to subdue their hearts through the sound of the shofar, so that they will recoil from their sin.

And this is how they used to do:

With the six blessings that they would add to the eighteen blessings on the day of the fast [as we brought above, that they recite twenty-four blessings], they would sound one teru'a for each blessing. Together with the blasts before and after the teru'ot, this gives us eighteen proclamations.

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

It is impossible to say that the intention is to the blowing of a shofar. For if so, he should have used the expression “they sound a teru'a,” and not “they proclaim”!

Rather, the intention is that they proclaim

by

reciting

“Answer us.”

They pray and cry out: “Answer us, our Father, answer us; answer us, God of Abraham, answer us, etc.,” all as they say at the end of the penitential prayers .

But “Answer us,” which they add in the Eighteen Benedictions prayer, is said on all fasts. Even an individual says it in the blessing “Who hears prayer” .

It might have entered our mind [it entered our mind; that is, this was the Gemara’s assumption] that

the one who says

that they proclaim

by

reciting

“Answer us”—

does not say [does not hold] that they proclaim

by

blowing

shofars,

but that the proclamation is only through reciting “Answer us.”

And

so too

the one who says

that they proclaim

by

blowing

shofars—

does not say

that they proclaim

by

reciting

“Answer us,”

for a proclamation is specifically with shofars .

The Gemara continues to discuss on the basis of this assumption.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

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

one may not reduce the communal fasts below seven, during which there are eighteen proclamations .

They add six blessings to the eighteen blessings of the Eighteen Benedictions prayer. And with each blessing that they add, there are three teru'ot.

And a sign for the matter,

so that you should not err concerning whether this proclamation mentioned in the beraita is prayer or a blast: the city of

Jericho.

For we find that they blew shofars during the conquest of the city [as recounted in the Book of Joshua, chapter 6].

Thus, Jericho is a sign for the proclamations.

And

indeed, in

Jericho—

it was shofars [they were] ,

and it is a refutation of the one who says [and from here there is a difficulty against the one who holds] that they proclaim

by

reciting

“Answer us”!

Necessarily, this assumption that we made is incorrect.

Rather,

with shofars—

everyone agrees that it is called a proclamation. There is no disagreement concerning this matter: the blowing of shofars is called a proclamation. And what we learned in our Mishna, that they proclaim on fasts, refers to shofars.

When they disagree [what Rav Yehuda and Rav disagree about] is concerning other calamities ,

in which we find that they proclaim. Is the proclamation

by

reciting

“Answer us,”

or not?

Master,

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

holds

that the proclamation stated concerning other calamities is the recitation of “Answer us,” for “Answer us” also

is called a proclamation [they call the recitation of “Answer us” a proclamation].

And the master,

Rav Yehuda,

holds

that this proclamation means the blowing of a shofar, like the proclamation stated concerning fasts. For “Answer us”

is not called a proclamation [the recitation of “Answer us” is not called a proclamation].

According to the one who says

that proclamation means

by

reciting

“Answer us”—

all the more so

that a blast

on shofars

is considered a proclamation.

The Gemara wonders:

But according to the one who says

that proclamation means

with shofars—

but by

reciting

“Answer us” it is not

considered a proclamation?

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

, such as skin disease [a disease with which one rubs and scratches oneself ],

the 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 sending of snakes and scorpions [“sending” means that they attack a person unnaturally, as we find below [22a]: a dangerous animal concerning which they said that one proclaims refers to when it has been sent from Heaven]—

they would not proclaim

about them, but

would cry out

in prayer.

From the words of the beraita, “They would not sound an alarm, but would cry out,” it is proved that crying out and sounding an alarm are two different things.

And

from the fact that crying out is vocal

[and behold, crying out certainly means prayer vocally] you are forced to say that

sounding an alarm

is not with vocal prayer, for crying out has already been stated; rather, certainly this is blowing

with shofarot!

And we say: This matter—whether in other calamities “sounding an alarm” means with shofarot or with the recitation of Anenu—

is a dispute between tannaim

[they disputed it, tannaim].

For it was taught: concerning

events

of these they sound an alarm on Shabbat:

For a city that an army has surrounded

[an enemy force],

or

that the

river

surrounding the city has risen, and is liable to wash away fields and houses,

and for a storm-tossed ship

[that moves and is tossed about]

in

the waves of the

sea,

and is liable to sink.

Rabbi Yose said:

They sound an alarm

for

the purpose

of assistance,

so that they will hear from far away and come to assist them.

But they do not

sound an alarm

for crying out,

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, that which we learned in the beraita, that they sound an alarm,

in what,

in what manner is it speaking?

If you say

[if it is said] that the intention is blowing

with shofarot,

it is impossible to say so. For blowing with

shofarot on Shabbat—is it permitted

[is it permitted]?!

Rather, is it not—

you are forced to say that the intention is

in

the recitation of

Anenu.

And he calls it

[and calls it] the tanna calls the recitation of Anenu

“sounding an alarm.”

Thus we have that tannaim disputed this: whether the recitation of Anenu is considered “sounding an alarm” or not. For in this beraita it is proved that “sounding an alarm” means the recitation of Anenu, whereas in the preceding beraita it is proved that “sounding an alarm” means with shofarot.

The Gemara concludes:

Infer from it.

Indeed, it is proved from here that tannaim disputed this matter.

In the days of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia

[in the days of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia]

there was distress

[there was distress from a calamity that had come upon the world].