Taanit 14b — the Talmud in English

decreed upon the community

Rabbi Judah

thirteen fasts [

namely, the first three, the middle three, and the last seven, as we find concerning the withholding of rain] —

and they were not answered [

and they were not answered from Heaven].

Rabbi Judah thought

Rabbi Judah

to decree further [

to decree further fasts upon the community] .

Rabbi Ami said to him: But they said: One does not overburden the community excessively.

Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, said: Rabbi Ami, what he did [

what he did, when he argued to Rabbi Judah that one does not overburden the community excessively] —

he did for himself [

he did it for his own needs], so that he would not have to fast further] .

Rather, so [

thus]

said Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: They taught

that such is the order of the fasts, three, three, and seven, and no more, only

for

the withholding of

rain.

But for the other kinds of calamities, one fasts continuously

without limitation until

they are answered from Heaven.

It was also taught so [

so we likewise learned in a beraita]:

When they said

that one fasts

three

fasts,

and when they said seven

fasts,

they said it only for

the withholding of

rain.

But for the other kinds of calamities, one fasts continuously, until they are answered.

The Gemara asks:

Let us say that this is a refutation of Rabbi Ami [

shall we say that there is from this beraita a difficulty against Rabbi Ami’s statement], who maintained that one should not fast further, because one does not overburden the community excessively? For here we learned explicitly that one fasts continuously until they are answered!

And the Gemara says: There is no difficulty from here. For

Rabbi Ami can say to you [

Rabbi Ami would say to you]: This matter, whether one fasts more than thirteen fasts—

it is a dispute between tannaim [

it is subject to a dispute between tannaim]. And I hold like the tanna who says that one does not fast further.

For it was taught: One does not decree more than thirteen fasts upon the community, because one does not overburden the community excessively.

These are the words of Rabbi.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: This is not the reason [

this is not the reason that one does not fast further, because one does not overburden the community].

Rather

the reason is

because

after those thirteen fasts have passed,

the time

has already

passed for the reviyah [

for the falling of rain], and there is no further reason to fast.

It follows that according to Rabbi’s view, the reason that one does not decree more than thirteen fasts—namely, because one does not overburden the community excessively—applies not specifically to fasts for rain; rather, the same law applies to fasts for various calamities.

But according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s view, it is specifically with regard to fasts for rain that one does not fast more than thirteen fasts, because the time for its falling has already passed. But when other calamities occur, whose time is not limited, one fasts until those calamities cease.

The people of Nineveh sent to Rabbi: For people such as we [

such as we],

who require rain even during the season of Tammuz [

who ask for rain even during the season of Tammuz],

what should we do [

how should we conduct ourselves]?

Are we considered like individuals, or are we considered like the community [

are we considered individuals, or the community]?

And the practical consequence is,

whether

we are considered like individuals [

we resemble individuals], for the community no longer mentions the falling of rain during the season of Tammuz [and the reason that even an individual always mentions the falling of rain in his prayer, in the blessing of the years, is that, in the end, this is the time when the entire community mentions the falling of rain],

and

if so, we must mention the rain

in

the blessing of

“Who hears prayer,”

like the request of an individual. As we find in tractate Avodah Zarah [8a] and in tractate Berakhot [31a], concerning one who had a sick person in his house, that he mentions him in “Who hears prayer” ,

Or

perhaps—

we are considered like the community, and

if so, we must mention the rain

in the blessing of the years?

He sent to them [

Rabbi sent them a reply]: Since the entire community does not now mention the rain,

you are likened to individuals [

you resemble individuals],

and

you must mention it

in

the blessing

“Who hears prayer” .

It was objected: Rabbi Judah said: When

this is the order of the fasts , as we learned in our Mishna—

when the years are in their proper order,

when the harvest is in Nisan and sowing is in Marcheshvan, for this is the order of the years in the Land of Israel,

and Israel dwells upon its soil,

in the Land of Israel.

But in the present time,

when Israel does not dwell upon its soil and the years are not in their proper order,

everything depends on

the order of

the years. Therefore, if that year requires rain—for example, if it is parched and requires much rain—the order of the fasts changes.

Therefore, if that year requires rain—for example, if it is a drought year and requires much rain—the order of the fasts changes.

Everything depends on the places. Therefore, in a place such as Nineveh, which requires rain even during the season of Tammuz, the order of asking for rain changes.

Therefore, in a place such as Nineveh, which requires rain even during the season of Tammuz, the order of requesting rain changes.

And

everything depends on the time!

We have learned, then, that in a place where the pattern of rainfall is unlike that of the entire world, the order of the fasts and the asking for rain change. If so, the people of Nineveh, who require rain even during the season of Tammuz, ask for rain in the blessing of the years, like the community!

He said to him: Do you bring a beraita as an objection against Rabbi [

you raise a difficulty against Rabbi from a beraita]?

But

Rabbi is a tanna—

and he disagrees [

and he disagrees] with the tanna of the beraita.

What became of it [

what became of our question, whether they mention it in the blessing of the years or in “Who hears prayer”]?

Rav Nahman said: In the blessing of the years.

Rav Sheshet said: In “Who hears prayer”.

And the halakha is: In “Who hears prayer” .

We learned in our Mishna:

On Mondays they partially open

at nightfall, and on Thursdays the entire day, because of the honor of Shabbat.

From the wording of the tanna, it is not clear how they conduct themselves on Thursday during the days of the fast. Do they partially open, as they do on Monday, or do they open the shops as usual?

It was asked of them: How is it taught [

how did we learn it, what is the intention of the tanna]: Is the intention that

on Mondays they partially open,

that is, they open the shops only somewhat, and even this they do only

at nightfall,

at the end of the fast,

and

whereas

on Thursdays

they partially open

the entire day, because of the honor of Shabbat,

or perhaps: On Mondays they partially open, and

whereas

on Thursdays they open

the shops as usual, and for

the entire day?

Come and hear, for it was taught: On Mondays they partially open until evening

, and on Thursdays they open the entire day—

because of the honor of Shabbat.

It follows for us that on Thursday they open the shops as on every day.

The beraita continues and says: If

he had two

doors

to his shop, he may open his shop even on Monday for the entire day, in such a manner that he

opens

one door

and locks one .

and closing the other .

And if

he had a platform [

a kind of chair or bench]

opposite his doorway,

so that his shop is not openly exposed to the public domain , for the platform conceals it,

he opens

his shop even on Monday

as usual—

and he need not be concerned .

We learned in our Mishna:

When these have passed—

and they were not answered, they reduce business transactions, building, and planting.

The tanna:

What we learned, that they reduce

building,

does not refer to building that he requires for his residence or livelihood; rather, it refers to

building for joy .

Likewise, what we learned, that they reduce

planting,

does not refer to planting that he requires for his livelihood; rather, it refers to

planting for joy.

And now the Gemara explains what building and planting for joy are.

What is building for joy —

This is one who builds a wedding house [

a wedding]

for his son,

in order to hold his wedding canopy there .

What is planting for joy—

This is one who plants the avurvanki of kings.

It was customary that when a king’s son was born, they would plant a tree for him. On the day the son was crowned, they would make a royal throne for him from that tree .

We learned in our Mishna:

And in greeting [

after the fasts had passed—and they were not answered, they are forbidden to exchange greetings].

The Sages taught: Colleagues,

Torah scholars who know the laws of the days of fasting,

do not exchange greetings among themselves [

that is, they do not ask after one another’s welfare].

The common people,

who do not know that it is forbidden to ask after the welfare of their fellows,

who ask

after the welfare of Torah scholars—

the Torah scholars return their greetings

to them, but they do so

with subdued speech and a solemn demeanor.

And they,

the colleagues,

wrap themselves [

they wrap their heads ]

and sit, like mourners and ostracized persons [

who are obligated to wrap themselves, as it is said: “And he shall cover his upper lip” ],

like people rebuked by the Omnipresent [

as though they had been ostracized from Heaven],

until they are shown compassion from Heaven.

Rabbi Elazar said: An important person is not permitted to fall on his face,

falling on his face when he prays and requests something for himself and for the public, lest they not answer him from Heaven, and he be disgraced before the public—and they shame him .

And he is not permitted to do this,

unless

they know and recognize that he is important and

answered like

him

Joshua son of Nun .

And where do we find that Joshua son of Nun was answered when he fell on his face?

As it is stated

in Joshua [the incident is brought in the Book of Joshua, chapter 7], in the war against Ai, when approximately thirty-six men of the people fell: “And Joshua tore his garments and fell on his face to the ground,

and the Lord said to Joshua: Arise for yourself; why is this that you are falling on your face?”

Thus we have that Joshua fell on his face and was answered .

And Rabbi Elazar said: An important person is not permitted to gird sackcloth

around his loins, which is a sign of mourning, when he prays and supplicates before the Holy One, blessed be He, lest they not answer him from Heaven.

And he is not to conduct himself in this manner,

unless

he knows that he is

answered like Jehoram son of Ahab .

As it is stated

in regard to Jehoram [who was a wicked king, and there was such a great famine in his days that the price of a donkey’s head was eighty pieces of silver. See the entire incident in the Book of Kings II, chapter 6]:

“And it was, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he tore his garments, and he was passing over the wall; and the people saw, and behold, the sackcloth was upon his flesh, etc.”

And it is stated there afterward that Jehoram was indeed answered, and the grain became very inexpensive: “And it was according to the word of the man of God: two seahs of barley for a shekel, and a seah of fine flour for a shekel.”

And Rabbi Elazar said: Not everyone

is answered

through tearing [

through tearing the garments, which is a sign of mourning],

and not everyone

is answered

through falling

on their faces.

As we find that

Moses and Aaron

were answered

through falling

on their faces.

Whereas

Joshua and Caleb,

who were not as important as Moses and Aaron, were answered only

through tearing .

And now the Gemara explains from where we have this matter.

Moses and Aaron

were answered

through falling, as it is written

in the incident of the spies, when they brought an evil report about the land, and the entire assembly accepted their words and said to one another, “Let us appoint a head and return to Egypt”:

“And Moses and Aaron fell on their faces.”

Whereas

Joshua and Caleb -

were answered

through tearing, as it is written

in the continuation of the above verse:

“And Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh tore their garments” .

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to it—and some say, Rav Shmuel bar Nahmani: If it had been written [

[had it been written, “Joshua son of Nun tore their garments,” it would indeed have meant]

as you say [

[as you said, that Joshua and Caleb only tore their garments and did not fall on their faces].

But

now [

now],

since it is written: “And Joshua

tore their garments,” the vav in the word “and Joshua” teaches that this is a continuation of the previous verse. It follows that Joshua and Caleb—

did both [

they did both things] . They fell on their faces and tore their garments.

For this is the meaning of the verse: “And Moses and Aaron fell on their faces, and Joshua”—that Joshua and Caleb also fell on their faces.

And they also tore their garments, for we attach the word “and Joshua” also to the continuation of the verse, and read it as follows: “And Joshua, etc., tore their garments.”

And Rabbi Elazar said: Not all,

not all the important people of the nations of the world will be

standing

to greet Israel in the future,

and not all

will be

bowing.

Kings -

will be

standing.

And ministers -

bowing.