Taanit 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Pappa said: As Rav said

above, regarding the first of Nisan:

It was necessary

only to prohibit the day preceding it.

Here too,

even here, with regard to our matter, what we find in Megillat Ta’anit, that it is prohibited from the eighth of Nisan until the end of the festival,

it was necessary

only

to prohibit the day following it

after the festival.

The Gemara raises an objection:

According to whom,

according to which opinion are you establishing this matter—

According to

the view of

Rabbi Yosei, who said

that on those holidays mentioned in Megillat Ta’anit,

both before it

before the holiday

and after it—

it is prohibited

to eulogize and fast?

If so,

if the day following the holiday is also prohibited,

on the twenty-ninth

of Adar

as well,

as we said above: the reason that we state in Megillat Ta’anit that the first day of Nisan is prohibited, despite the fact that Rosh Chodesh itself is a festival, is to teach that the twenty-ninth of Adar, which is the day preceding the holiday — is prohibited [because it is not prohibited on account of the holiday of Rosh Chodesh, since that is from the Torah and does not require reinforcement],

Why specifically

did it have to say that the reason is

that it is the day preceding the day on which the daily offering was established

that is, the day preceding the holiday, on which the daily offering was established, as we said above?

In any event,

let it emerge

that it is prohibited because

it is the day following the twenty-eighth of that month

which is the day following the twenty-eighth of Adar, which is a holiday! And why did they make it a holiday?

For it was taught: On the twenty-eighth of that month

on the twenty-eighth of it, in the month of Adar,

good news came to the Jews

good news came to the Jews,

that they would not be removed from the Torah

that they would not be prevented and forced to abandon Torah study.

This

is what happened:

Once, the wicked kingdom decreed

a

persecution decree against Israel.

And what did they decree against them?

A.

That they should not engage in Torah study,

B.

that they should not circumcise their sons,

C.

and that they should profane Shabbat .

.

What did Judah ben Shammua and his colleagues do?

They went and sought advice from a certain matron

with whom all the prominent Romans were accustomed to associate

and they asked her what should be done in order to annul the decree.

She said to them: Rise and demonstrate

shout

at night .

.

They went and demonstrated at night.

They said

and cried out to the Holy One, blessed be He, concerning those harsh decrees:

“Alas, O Heaven!”

as in: “Ah, O Lord!”

And addressing those who had issued the evil decrees against them, they said: Are we not

your brothers

as you are?

Are we not the sons of one father? Are we not the sons of one mother?

After all, we are all the children of the same father and mother: Adam and Eve!

How are we different from every nation and language, that you decree

only

evil decrees against us!?

The leaders of the government heard Israel’s outcry over the decrees—

and they annulled them.

And that day

on which the news arrived that the decrees had been annulled—

they made it a holiday.

We thus learn that the twenty-eighth of Adar is a holiday. Consequently, the twenty-ninth of Adar is prohibited for fasting because it is the day following a holiday!

Abaye said:

What we said above—that the twenty-ninth of Adar is prohibited because it is the day preceding a holiday, and not because it is the day following a holiday—

was necessary

only

for

the case in which

the month of

Adar

is full.

That is, in a leap year , in which there are two months of Adar: the first is deficient, consisting of twenty-nine days, and the second is full, consisting of thirty days .

For in that case the final day of the month of Adar is not the day following the twenty-eighth of Adar, but the day following the twenty-ninth, and it is not prohibited for fasting and eulogies on account of the holiday of the twenty-eighth of Adar. In such a case, it was necessary to say that the first day of Nisan is a holiday; consequently, the final day of Adar, its thirtieth day, is prohibited for eulogies and fasting because it is the day preceding a holiday .

Rav Ashi said: You may even say that

the month is

deficient;

nevertheless, it was necessary to say that the twenty-ninth of Adar is prohibited because it is the day preceding the first day of Nisan, which is a holiday. It is not sufficient that it is the day following the holiday of the twenty-eighth of Adar.

Because

every

day

following it,

following a holiday,

is prohibited for fasting.

But for eulogies—

it is permitted.

Likewise, every day preceding a holiday is prohibited only for fasting, but eulogies are permitted .

And

the day

itself,

the twenty-ninth of Adar,

since it is

itself

placed between two holidays ,

for it is before the first day of Nisan, which is a holiday, and after the twenty-eighth of Adar, which is a holiday—

Therefore,

they made it

more stringent

like the holiday itself, and

therefore

even eulogies are prohibited.

The Master said: From the eighth of that month until the end of the festival, the festival of Shavuot was restored, so that one may not eulogize.

The Gemara asks:

Why do I need to say

and establish a holiday

from the eighth of that month

from the eighth day of the month of Nisan?

Let us say

that it is a holiday only

from the ninth of that month.

And the eighth itself

the eighth day itself would automatically

be prohibited, since

it

was the day on which the daily offering was established,

as we learned in Megillat Ta’anit: from Rosh Chodesh until the eighth of Nisan is a holiday, because that was when the daily offering was properly established!

The Gemara explains:

Since, if an event were to occur

and we were to annul the seven

if something were to occur—for example, an evil decree were issued against Israel—and some of those holidays from Rosh Chodesh Nisan were consequently annulled; and since some of them were annulled, they would all be annulled, because partial annulment is not possible. In that case, all eight days from the beginning of Nisan would be permitted for eulogies and fasting—

in such a case, although the days of rejoicing at the beginning of Nisan had been annulled,

the eighth itself

the eighth day of Nisan itself

would remain prohibited,

because

it would be the first day on which the festival of Shavuot was restored

because, independently of the days of rejoicing at the beginning of Nisan, it was the first of the days of rejoicing instituted because the festival of Shavuot had been restored to its proper status .

On the basis of these matters, the Gemara continues and says:

Now that you have arrived at this

now that you have reached this reasoning, it can likewise be applied to the question raised above concerning the twenty-ninth of Adar: Why was it necessary to say that it is prohibited because it is the day preceding the first of Nisan? Let it emerge that it is the day following the twenty-eighth of Adar, which is a holiday! For

the twenty-ninth day

of Adar

also, since, if an event were to occur and we were to annul the twenty-eighth

if an event were to occur and the rejoicing of the twenty-eighth of Adar were annulled, the

twenty-ninth

of Adar

itself

itself

would remain prohibited,

because

it would be the day preceding the day on which the daily offering was established

the day preceding the day on which the days of rejoicing begin because the daily offering was established in its proper place.

It was stated: Rabbi Hiyya bar Asi said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei

mentioned in our Mishna, who holds that on those holidays mentioned in Megillat Ta’anit as days on which one may not eulogize [and certainly on which one may not fast, as explained above in the Mishna], it is prohibited to eulogize both on the days preceding them and on the days following them.

But on days concerning which Megillat Ta’anit states only that one may not fast, since they are less stringent, fasting is prohibited only on the days preceding them, whereas on the days following them it is permitted.

And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

who is more lenient and holds that on days concerning which it is stated that eulogies are prohibited, only the day preceding them is prohibited, but the day following them is permitted.

And on days concerning which it is stated that only fasting is prohibited, both the days preceding them and the days following them are permitted.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And did Shmuel say this,

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir?

But it was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: What is the meaning of the verse

what is taught by what is stated in Megillat Ta’anit: “These are the days on which one may not fast,” and “some of them are days on which one may not eulogize,” and so on? Why did the Sages use the word

“on them, on them” twice?

Rather, the word “on them,” meaning “on those days,” comes to emphasize and

teach you that

only

they,

those holidays themselves,

are prohibited.

But the days

preceding them and following them—

are permitted.

And Shmuel said,

since those festive days are rabbinic in origin, one is not so stringent concerning them; therefore, we rule

in accordance with the halakha according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

that both the days preceding them and those following them are permitted.

But here Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who holds that the days preceding them are prohibited!

The Gemara answers: Shmuel proceeded from the premise that since these festive days are rabbinic in origin, one should be lenient concerning them as much as possible.

And therefore,

initially [

at the outset, when he had not yet heard Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s opinion,

he reasoned: Since there is no tanna who is more lenient than Rabbi Meir [

since there is no tanna who is at least as lenient as Rabbi Meir, who holds that the days following them are permitted,

he said

that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

since this is the most lenient opinion.

But ultimately,

since he heard Rabban Shimon’s opinion, which is more lenient [

since he heard the view of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who is more lenient and holds that even the days preceding them are permitted,

he said

that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

The Gemara continues its discussion of the halakhic ruling in the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei.

And likewise,

just as R. Hiyya bar Asi said earlier in the name of Rav that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, so

said

also

Bali [

the name of a Sage]

R. Hiyya bar Abba said that R. Yohanan said [

in the name of R. Hiyya bar Abba, who said it in the name of R. Yohanan]:

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that both the days preceding it and those following it are prohibited.

R. Hiyya said to Bali: I will explain this to you [

I will explain the matter to you].

When R. Yohanan said [

when R. Yohanan said that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei—

it was with regard to not fasting [

with regard to those festive days mentioned in Megillat Ta'anit, on which one may not fast—that he stated his ruling: it is prohibited to fast both on the days preceding them and on those following them.

But with regard to those days concerning which we learned that it is prohibited to eulogize, the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, who said that both the days preceding them and those following them are prohibited. Rather, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who holds that only the days preceding them are prohibited. But those following them are permitted.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Did R. Yohanan really say this [

did R. Yohanan say so]?

But didn’t R. Yohanan say:

this is a general principle in halakhic rulings:

the halakha follows an unattributed Mishna [

the halakha follows a Mishna that was taught without attribution, without the name of the tanna who stated the matters recorded in it being specified] .

And

And

we learned

in tractate Megilla, with regard to the reading of the Megilla:

Although the Sages said

that although the established time for reading the Megilla is the fourteenth of Adar for the residents of unwalled towns and the fifteenth of Adar for the residents of walled cities, there are cases in which they

read it earlier

such as the villagers [as explained there, at the beginning of tractate Megilla],