Daf Ditty Taanis 12: Personal Trials and Fasting

MISHNA: If these three regular fasts have passed and they have not been answered with rain,
the court decrees three other fasts upon the community. These are severe fasts, in which one

1
may eat and drink only while it is still day, before the beginning of the night of the fast, and on
the day of the fast itself they are prohibited to engage in the performance of work, in bathing,
in smearing with oil, in wearing shoes, and in marital relations; and they lock the bathhouses
so that no one should come to bathe on that day.

If these three fasts have passed and they still have not been answered, the court decrees on
them another seven fasts, which are a total of thirteen fasts, upon the community, not
including the first three fasts observed by individuals. These seven fast days are more severe than
the first ones, as on these days, in addition to all the earlier stringencies, they sound the alarm,
as will be explained in the Gemara, and they lock the stores. Although shops must remain closed
most of the time on these days, on Monday they open them a little at nightfall to allow people to
purchase food for breaking their fast, and on Thursday they are permitted to open the stores all
day in deference to Shabbat, so that people may purchase food for the sacred day.

If these fasts have passed and they have not been answered the court does not decree additional
fasts, but the entire community observes the customs of mourning. They decrease their
engagement in business transactions, in building and planting, in betrothals and marriages,
and in greetings between each person and his fellow, like people who have been rebuked by
God. The individuals, i.e., Torah scholars, resume fasting every Monday and Thursday until the
month of Nisan ends. After this date they no longer pray for rain, since if Nisan has ended and
rains subsequently fall, they are a sign of a curse, as it is stated:

‫ֶאְק ָרא‬--‫ ַהיּוֹם‬,‫ִחִטּים‬-‫יז ֲהלוֹא ְקִציר‬ 17 Is it not wheat harvest to-day? I will call unto the
‫ ְו ִיֵתּן ֹקלוֹת וָּמָטר; וְּדעוּ‬,‫ ְיהָוה‬-‫ֶאל‬ LORD, that He may send thunder and rain; and ye shall
‫ ָרַﬠְתֶכם ַרָבּה ֲאֶשׁר ֲﬠִשׂיֶתם‬-‫ ִכּי‬,‫וּ ְראוּ‬ know and see that your wickedness is great, which ye
{‫ }ס‬.j‫ ֶמֶל‬,‫ ִלְשׁאוֹל ָלֶכם‬,‫ְבֵּﬠיֵני ְיהָוה‬ have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking you a
king.' {S}

2
 I Sam 12:17

“Is not the wheat harvest today? I will call to the Lord that He may send thunder and rain, and
you will know and see that your wickedness is great” The wheat harvest is around the time of
Shavuot, well after Nisan.

Summary

If the New Moon of Kislev arrived and rain has still not fallen, the court decrees three fasts on
the entire community. Similar to the individual fasts, everyone may eat and drink after dark,
and they are permitted to engage in the performance of work, in bathing, in smearing one’s
body with oil, in wearing shoes, and in conjugal relations.

If these three regular fasts have passed and they have not been answered with rain, the court
decrees three other fasts upon the community. These are severe fasts, in which one may eat and
drink only while it is still day, before the beginning of the night of the fast, and on the day of
the fast itself they are prohibited to engage in the performance of work, in bathing, in smearing
with oil, in wearing shoes, and in marital relations; and they lock the bathhouses so that no one
should come to bathe on that day. If these three fasts have passed and they still have not been
answered, the court decrees on them another seven fasts, which are a total of thirteen fasts,
upon the community, not including the first three fasts observed by individuals. These seven fast
days are more severe than the first ones, as on these days, in addition to all the earlier
stringencies, they sound the alarm, as will be explained in the Gemara, and they lock the stores.
Although shops must remain closed most of the time on these days, on Monday they open them
a little at nightfall to allow people to purchase food for breaking their fast, and on Thursday
they are permitted to open the stores all day in deference to Shabbat, so that people may purchase
food for the sacred day.

If these fasts have passed and they have not been answered the court does not decree additional
fasts, but the entire community observes the customs of mourning. They decrease their
engagement in business transactions, in building and planting, in betrothals and marriages,
and in greetings between each person and his fellow, like people who have been rebuked by
God. The individuals, i.e., Torah scholars, resume fasting every Monday and Thursday until the
month of Nisan ends. After this date they no longer pray for rain, since if Nisan has ended and
rains subsequently fall, they are a sign of a curse, as it is stated: “Is not the wheat harvest today?
I will call to the Lord that He may send thunder and rain, and you will know and see that your
wickedness is great” (I Samuel 12:17). The wheat harvest is around the time of Shavuot, well
after Nisan.

3
Introduction1

This mishnah continues with the series of increasingly more stringent fasts.

If these passed and there was no answer, the court decrees three more fasts on the
community.

If after the first three communal fasts there is still no rain, then the court decrees another set of
three fasts on the community.

They may eat and drink [only] while it is still day; they may not work, bathe, anoint
themselves with oil, wear shoes, or have marital, relations. And the bathhouses are closed.

These fasts are stricter because they begin the night before. The mishnah refers to the day before
the fast and rules that one can eat only while it is still day.

On these fasts all of the major prohibitions apply. These are the same prohibitions that apply on
Yom Kippur. The bathhouses are closed because there is no need for them to be open. Also, this
is a very public sign of mourning.

If these passed and there was no answer the court decrees upon the community a further
seven, making a total of thirteen.

If these three fasts are not effective, then another seven are decreed, bringing the total number of
communal fasts to thirteen.

These are greater than the first, for on these they blast the shofar, and they lock the shops.

All of the prohibitions from the previous three fasts still apply and new practices are added. They
blow the shofar as a sign of distress (on this practice see the introduction to the tractate). They also
close the shops as a further sign of communal mourning and distress.

On Mondays the shutters [of the shops] are opened a little when it gets dark, but on
Thursdays they are permitted [the whole day] because of the Shabbat.

The problem with closing the stores is that people need to buy supplies for the next day. Therefore
they allow the stores to open their shutters a little bit towards the end of the day on Monday. On
Thursday the stores are allowed to be opened all day because people need to buy food for Shabbat.
We can see a value statement being made here. As important as it is to pray for rain and as dire as
the situation of drought may be, people must remember and be able to honor the Shabbat.

1
https://www.sefaria.org/Taanit.12b.9?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Taanit.1.6&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%20of%20Mis
hnah&lang3=en

4
 Vowing to Fast as an Individual

The Gemara covers a number of conversations regarding those who vow to fast as individuals:2

• Can a fast last only a few hours? (yes, with conditions)*

• When should one take on an individual fast? That day? The afternoon before? (the
afternoon before is ideal, and this intention must be stated within the amidah prayer either
aloud or internally)
• How do we mark the ending of a meal and the beginning of a fast? The start of
sleep and the beginning of a fast? (this is trickier...)
• dozing: Rav Ashi defines dozing as when "one is asleep but not asleep, awake but
not awake; that if they call him he will answer, but he cannot give a reason. And when we
remind him, he remembers it".
• When is one allowed to 'borrow his fast and repay the fast' at a later date? (yes, with
conditions)
• What is the difference between dream fasts and other individual fasts? (some say
we should disregard dreams; others say that dream fasts should be undertaken the day
following the dream, even if it falls on Shabbat, as this aligns with our observance of
Shabbat)

A new Mishna compares this with individuals who join in a collective fast. We learn how the
community calls out to G-d for rain. If the rain does not come, they move to the next stage of
imploring G-d for help:

1. Three regular fasts

2. Three additional fasts: people can eat/drink during the day ('erev fast day'), and on
the fast day they are prohibited from working, bathing, smearing themselves with oil,
wearing shoes, marital relations; bathhouses are locked
3. Seven severe fasts (thirteen in total not including three fasts taken on by
individuals): in addition to the above, they sound the alarm, and they lock the stores,
opening them only on Monday and Thursday for a short time in the evenings to allow
people to prepare for breaking the fast and for Shabbat.
4. No more fasts, but more hardships: fewer business transactions, building, planing,
betroths, marriages, greetings. Individuals resume fasts on Mondays and Thursdays.

When rain falls after Nisan, it is considered to be a curse (I Samuel 12:17).

At the very end of our daf, Abaye describes fast days: From the morning until the middle of the
day they look for flaws in city business. Moral or other problems might be the cause of 'Divine
punishment'. The next quarter of the day is used to learn a portion from the Torah, a portion from
the Prophets, as was advised in Nehemiah (9:3).

2
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/06/

5
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3

FASTING UNTIL NIGHTFALL

[When one accepts a fast upon himself, it must be completed; if not, his fast is invalidated.]

Rav Chisda rules that one, who eats on a fast day before nightfall is not regarded as fasting. The
Gemora cites a Mishna (15b) which rules that the people of the Mishmar (group of kohanim and
levi’im who served in the Beis Hamikdosh for one week at a time) would fast but would not
complete the fast. It would seem from the Mishna that this is considered fasting even though it was
not completed.

The Gemora explains that this was not a genuine fast, they fasted for part of the day only to afflict
themselves. The Gemora questions Rav Chisda’s ruling from a statement that Rabbi Elozar the
son of Rabbi Tzadok said: I was of the sons of Sna'av from the tribe of Binyamin. One time Tisha
B'av occurred on Shabbos, and it was pushed off to Sunday. We fasted but did not complete the
fast because it was our Yom Tov.

[Rashi explains that the lottery for bringing the wood offering for that family was on the Tenth of
Av during the days of Ezra, and it was a Yom Tov for them forever. It is evident that it is considered
a valid fast even though it was not completed.]

The Gemora answers that this was not meant to be a genuine fast; it was only undertaken to afflict
them somewhat. The Gemora relates that Rabbi Yochanan would occasionally declare that he is
accepting to fast until he reaches his house. [This again challenges Rav Chisda’s teaching that it is
not regarded as a fast unless it is completed.]

The Gemora explains that this was not a genuine fast; he did this in order to avoid eating at the
house of the Nasi. (12a)

NIGHT PRECEDING THE FAST

[The Gemora discusses the issue of ‘accepting the fast’ prior to the fast itself.]

Shmuel rules that one must accept to fast prior to commencing the fast in order for it to be regarded
as a valid fast.

Rabbah bar Shila said: If one fasts (without accepting it on the previous day), he is compared to a
bellows that is filled with air (for he has abstained from eating, but he has not accomplished
anything). There is a dispute in the Gemora if one accepts the fast by Minchah time on the previous
day (Rav) or during the Minchah prayer (Shmuel). Rav Yosef said: The view of Shmuel appears
the more reasonable, since it is written in Megillas Taanis (the Scroll of Fasts which recorded the
miracles that occurred on certain days): However (although it is a festive day that one may not
fast), any man who has been subject to a fast previous to this (i.e., he had accepted upon himself a
series of ten or twenty fasts) should prohibit (and fast, for the fats were accepted before the
3
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Taanis_12.pdf

6
holidays). Does this not refer to an acceptance made (again) during (the Minchah) prayer (on the
day before)? The Gemora answers: No; this only denotes that he is prohibited (to break his series
of fasts because of his previous undertaking).

Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon the son of Rebbe differ on this: One reads ‘yeisar’ -- he should
prohibit himself (through another acceptance), and the other reads: yei’a’ser’ -- he is prohibited
(from breaking his fast).

The Gemora explains: The one who reads ‘yeisar’ justifies his view in the way we have just stated
(that he must accept the fast again through the Minchah prayer), but the one who reads, yeaser,
what does this mean?

The Gemora answers: It has been taught in Megillas Taanis: Any man who is subject to a fast
previous to this holiday is prohibited. How is this to be understood? If a man undertook to fast on
Mondays and Thursdays throughout the year and any of the festive days enumerated in Megillas
Taanis happens to fall on those days, then if his vow was made previous to our decree his vow
overrides our decree, but if our decree was made before his vow then our decree overrides his vow.
Rebbe maintains that after one accepts to fast on the following day, he is permitted to eat until
daybreak.

Rabbi Eliezer bar Shimon holds that he may eat until the rooster crows. Abaye qualifies the
previous ruling and maintains that one is permitted to eat throughout the night only if he didn’t
complete his meal from the night before; however if the table was removed after the meal, he is
forbidden to eat during the night. An alternative version is cited that Rava qualifies the ruling and
states that one is forbidden to eat during the night if he went to sleep even if he wakes up before
daybreak; however if he remained awake or was merely dozing, he is permitted to eat during the
night.

LEATHER SHOES ON A PUBLIC FAST DAY IN BAVEL

Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav that one who accepts a fast upon himself is prohibited from
wearing leather shoes since we are concerned that he accepted upon himself the stringencies of a
public fast. The Mishna ruled that on a public fast day of the second or third series, one is forbidden
from wearing leather shoes. Shmuel said that only Tisha B’Av in Bavel is the equivalent of a public
fast day with all of the stringencies similar to a public fast for rain in Eretz Yisroel. Other public
fasts in Bavel did not have these stringencies and one would be permitted to wear leather shoes.
Abaye and Rava would wear leather shoes without soles on a public fast day.

Mereimar and Mar Zutra would switch the right shoe to the left and the left shoe to the right. These
Amoraim agreed with Shmuel that there is no prohibition against wearing leather shoes in Bavel
on a public fast day, but they accepted upon themselves token stringencies to resemble the public
fasts in Eretz Yisroel and that is why they wore their shoes in an unusual manner.

7
BORROW ONE’S FAST

Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav that one is permitted to eat on the day that he accepted to fast
and repay his obligation by fasting on a different day. Shmuel disagrees and holds that since it was
only voluntary, if he is unable to fast on the designated day, there is no reason to fast on another
day. The Gemora presents an alternative version regarding Shmuel’s opinion on this issue. Shmuel
agreed with Rav and stated that this is obviously the correct halacha. The person made a vow to
fast and if he could not fulfill it on the designated day, he must fulfill it on a different day.

FASTING FOR A DREAM

There is one personal fast that must take place on a specific day - a Tta'anit halom. A fast that is
the result of a disturbing dream must be done immediately after the dream takes place. This rule
is so severe that Rav Yosef teaches that someone who is disturbed by their dream must fast even
on Shabbos, concluding that he will have to fast a second time as repentance for having
"desecrated" the holiness of Shabbos by fasting. (Courtesy of the Aleph Society)

MORE DECREED FASTS

The Mishna continues to discuss the process of conducting public fasts in the situation when there
is a drought. If after the first series of public fasts, it did not begin to rain; Beis Din declares another
three public fasts. The fasts begin at sunset, and they are forbidden to perform work. They are not
allowed to wash and anoint themselves. They are prohibited from wearing leather shoes and
engaging in marital relations. The bathhouses would be closed as well. If these fasts passed and it
still did not rain, Beis din would declare a series of seven fasts, which would be a total of thirteen
decreed fasts. On these seven fasts, there was a stringency that they would cry out and they would
close the stores. On Monday, the stores would open towards evening in order for the people to
purchase food to eat after the fast. On Thursday, the stores would be opened the entire day in order
for people to prepare for Shabbos. If they wouldn’t be answered with rain after these fasts, the
Mishna rules that they should conduct less business. They should not become involved with
building, planting, marrying, or greeting their friends. They should conduct their lives as if they
were condemned by Hashem. The pious people would fast until the end of Nissan. The Mishna
concludes that it would be regarded as a curse if rain would descend after Nissan.

SCHEDULE OF THE FAST

The Gemora explains that the reason the Rabbis established that they are not permitted to work on
these fasts is based on a Scriptural verse comparing public fasts to festivals. Rav Huna explains
that since on a public fast, they gather in the morning to pray, the prohibition against working
commences then. Abaye provides the particulars of the schedule of a public fast day. In the
morning, they would analyze the business practices of the people in the city. During the first
portion of the afternoon, they would read from the Torah and the Haftorah (a portion from Isaiah).
The remainder of the day, they would pray to Hashem for mercy. The Gemora cites a scriptural
verse proving that the praying and reading from the Torah should be in the latter part of the day
and not in the morning.

8
BRIS MILAH ON TISHA B’AV THAT WAS POSTPONED

Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Tzadok said: I was of the sons of Sna'av from the tribe of Binyamin. One
time Tisha B'av occurred on Shabbos, and it was pushed off to Sunday. We fasted but did not
complete the fast because it was our Yom Tov. Rashi explains that the lottery for bringing the
wood offering for that family was on the Tenth of Av during the days of Ezra, and it was a Yom
Tov for them forever. It is evident that it is considered a valid fast even though it was not
completed.

The Gemora answers that this was not meant to be a genuine fast; it was only undertaken to afflict
them somewhat. The Tur (O”C 559) writes that one year Tisha B'av fell on Shabbos, and it was
pushed off to Sunday. Rabbeinu Ya'avetz was a Ba'al Bris and he davened Mincha early in the
afternoon. He washed and did not complete his fast because it was a Yom Tov for him - and his
source was the case of Rav Elazar bar Tzadok.

The Chasam Sofer (O”C 157) writes that the Yom Tov for the bringing of the wood was established
before Tisha B’av and therefore takes precedence over Tisha B’av; however a bris milah where
the obligation came about after the establishment of Tisha B’av does not take precedence and
therefore they would be required to complete the fast. The Chasam Sofer concludes that the proof
is actually from Rabbi Elozar ben Rabbi Tzadok who was a kohen. He was a son-in-law of Sna’av
as Tosfos in Eruvin (41) explains.

It emerges that Tisha B’av should have taken precedence over his Yom Tov and nevertheless he
did not conclude his fast. This was the proof of Rabbeinu Ya’avetz.

DISTRESS ON SHABBOS

The Gemara states that a fast is good for a dream, and the fast should occur on the day of the
dream, even if that day occurs on Shabbos. If one does fast on Shabbos for a dream, he should fast
again on a different day because he afflicted himself on Shabbos. Rashi explains that the reason
one can fast for a dream on Shabbos is because it relieves his pain. The Rishonim write that
nonetheless, one should fast as atonement for having fasted on Shabbos, because although he had
pleasure in fasting on Shabbos to relieve his pain, it is preferable to delight properly in the Shabbos
than to fast on Shabbos.

This being the case, one should contemplate the beautiful gift of Shabbos that HaShem bestowed
upon His Chosen Nation, and one should certainly not intentionally cause himself or others distress
on Shabbos. It is specifically for this reason that we recite in Bircas HaMzaon on Shabbos the
prayer velo sehei tzarah veyagon vanacha beyom menuchaseinu, may it be Hashem’s will that
there be no distress, grief, or lament on this Day of our contentment.

9
 EATING BEFORE AND AFTER A "TA'ANIS SHA'OS"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

Rav Chisda states that a Ta'anis Sha'os is a valid Ta'anis only when the person does not eat anything
until nightfall.

If a Ta'anis Sha'os is when one does not eat for the entire day, in what way does a Ta'anis Sha'os
differ from an ordinary Ta'anis?

(a) RASHI says that although a person who observes a Ta'anis Sha'os does not eat all day, his
Ta'anis differs from an ordinary Ta'anis in that he did not accept upon himself the Ta'anis the day
before. Only during the day that he actually fasted did he decide to formally accept upon himself
the day as a fast. In contrast, when one accepts the Ta'anis the day before, his fast is an ordinary
Ta'anis.

(b) The RAMBAN and RITVA cite the Yerushalmi which says explicitly that a person may
observe a Ta'anis Sha'os even after he ate cheese and drank water. They explain that when the
Gemara here says that a person may not eat anything on the day of a Ta'anis Sha'os, it means that
one may not eat anything as a Se'udas Keva, a normal meal. One may, however, taste foods and
then start his Ta'anis Sha'os afterwards, as the Yerushalmi implies.

When Rav Chisda says that one may not taste anything on a Ta'anis Sha'os until nightfall, he means
that one may not taste anything after he starts to fast. He may taste something before he starts to
fast.

(c) The RAN also rules like the Yerushalmi and says that one may eat on the day of a Ta'anis
Sha'os before the Ta'anis begins. In contrast to the view of the Ramban and Ritva, however, he
does not differentiate between tasting food (a snack) and eating a full meal. This is also the ruling
of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ta'anis 1:13). The Ran and Rambam maintain that Rav Chisda
discusses only the obligation to fast after one starts the Ta'anis Sha'os until nightfall. He does not
mean that one must fast from daybreak until the time of his Ta'anis Sha'os.
(d) The Yerushalmi cited by the Rishonim adds another point. Not only is one permitted to eat
before the Ta'anis Sha'os, but one may even observe a Ta'anis Sha'os during the first half of the
day and eat after the Ta'anis, during the second half of the day.

The Yerushalmi's allowance seems to contradict the Gemara here which says that one must fast
until nightfall. The ROSH (1:12) and TOSFOS (Avodah Zarah 34a) suggest that perhaps the
Gemara here and the Yerushalmi do not disagree, and that the Gemara here also maintains that one
may eat before nightfall after he observes a Ta'anis Sha'os during the first part of the day. When
Rav Chisda says that one must fast until nightfall, he means that l'Chatchilah if one wants to
experience the severity of a Ta'anis properly (in order to recite Aneinu), he must refrain from eating
until nightfall. However, even if he accepts only to fast until midday and he plans to eat afterwards,

4
https://dafyomi.co.il/taanis/insites/tn-dt-012.htm

10
his word is still binding because a half-day fast is also considered a fast with regard to his
obligation to fast until the time he stipulated.

(This is in contrast to what Rashi writes numerous times throughout the Sugya, that when one
accepts too fast for only part of a day, his Kabalah is not considered a "Nidrei Mitzvah" at all and
is not binding. See Rashi DH l'Tze'urei Nafshei.)

(e) The TERUMAS HA'DESHEN (#157) asserts that when one accepts to fast until midday and
to eat afterwards, even Rav Chisda would agree that his fast is a full-fledged Ta'anis Sha'os and
that he must recite Aneinu. Rav Chisda maintains that one must fast until nightfall only when he
accepted upon himself to fast for an entire day. If he accepted only a Ta'anis Sha'os, he may eat
after the Ta'anis Sha'os is over, as the Yerushalmi says.

The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 562:1) cites the Gemara here which says that one who
accepts a Ta'anis only until midday does not recite Aneinu. The Shulchan Aruch (562:11)
rules like the ROSH and says that although one does not recite Aneinu, he is required to
fulfill his pledge to fast until midday (or from midday until nightfall), but he may eat during
the rest of the day.

The REMA (562:1) says that one should consider the opinion of the TERUMAS
HA'DESHEN who rules that one recites Aneinu even if he accepted to fast only until midday
and plans to eat after that. Therefore, one should recite Aneinu in the blessing of "Shome'a
Tefilah" on such a fast. The MISHNAH BERURAH (562:6) adds that this applies only if one
recites Minchah before he ends his fast. If he eats before Minchah, he does not recite Aneinu
even according to the Terumas ha'Deshen.

ACCEPTING UPON ONESELF A "TA'ANIS SHA'OS"

Shmuel says that if one does not formally accept upon himself to fast the day before he intends to
fast, his fast is not a valid Ta'anis. The Gemara earlier (11b), however, discusses a "Ta'anis Sha'os,"
a fast which one observes without accepting it the day before (as Rashi explains there), which is
nonetheless a valid Ta'anis.

According to Shmuel, such a fast should not be a valid Ta'anis since the person did not accept it
upon himself the day before. How are these two statements of the Gemara to be reconciled?
(a) The RITVA and RAN explain that Shmuel emphasizes that one must accept upon himself the
Ta'anis before he begins to fast, but he does not necessarily have to accept it the day before he
fasts. A Ta'anis Sha'os also needs a Kabalah, but it does not need to be done the day before the
fast. Shmuel refers to an ordinary Ta’anis when one accepts upon himself to fast the entire day. In
the case of an ordinary Ta'anis, the person must accept the fast on the previous day.

(b) TOSFOS in Avodah Zarah (34a) and the ROSH (1:12) indeed rule that one must accept the
Ta'anis Sha'os the day before (see Insights to Ta'anis 11:2). This is easy to understand according
to the Yerushalmi which says that a partial Ta'anis (Ta'anis Sha'os) is acceptable even when one
eats on the same day as the Ta'anis (before it starts or after it finishes). One may accept upon

11
himself, on the preceding day, to observe a Ta'anis Sha'os which will last for only a few hours, and
he may eat until the time at which his fast starts.

However, according to those Rishonim (such as Rashi) who explain that a Ta'anis Sha'os refers to
a full-day fast without a formal Kabalah the day before, how is it possible to accept upon oneself,
the day before, to observe a Ta'anis Sha'os on the following day? By definition, the fast is a Ta'anis
Sha'os only when one does not accept it the day before!

Tosfos in Avodah Zarah explains that even according to those Rishonim, it is possible for a person
to accept upon himself a Ta'anis Sha'os on the previous day. The person can accept upon himself
that if he does not eat (for whatever reason) the next day until midday, then now he accepts upon
himself to fast from midday tomorrow until the end of the day. In such a case, he fasts the entire
day with a Kabalas Ta'anis, but without accepting upon himself to fast the entire day.

(c) Tosfos and the Rosh cite RABEINU TAM who says that Shmuel requires a Kabalah only
l'Chatchilah. The Kabalah makes a person's fast into a valid, full-fledged Ta'anis. Even without a
Kabalah, however, his fast is still considered a valid Ta'anis (and he fulfills his obligation to fast,
and perhaps he may even recite Aneinu). When the Gemara says that one who fasts without a
Kabalah is like a "blown-up sack," it means that he must repent for the misdeed of afflicting
himself without a formal acceptance of the Ta'anis.

(d) The RIF omits the entire Sugya of Ta'anis Sha'os. The RAN suggests that the Rif may have
understood that Shmuel argues with Rav Huna and with those who say that a Ta'anis Sha'os is a
valid Ta'anis, and he rules like Shmuel that there is no such thing as a Ta'anis Sha'os. One must
accept upon himself his fast the day before, and there is no partial Ta'anis.

The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 562:5) rules like Shmuel who says that one must accept upon
himself a Ta'anis the day before. He cites two opinions ((a) and (b) above) with regard to
whether a Ta'anis Sha'os requires a Kabalah the day before or not (562:10).
The REMA (562:5) cites the opinion of Rabeinu Tam who says that the requirement to
accept the Ta'anis is only l'Chatchilah, and even if one did not formally accept to fast he may
still recite Aneinu.

(The MISHNAH BERURAH adds that one may recite Aneinu when he fasts without a
Kabalah only if he fasts for the entire day, but not if he fasts for only part of the day.
However, he still may recite Aneinu without the words "Yom Tzom Ta'anisenu.")

In the case of a Ta'anis Chalom (a fast for a bad dream), everyone agrees that no Kabalah is
necessary, and one may recite Aneinu.

12
 "YE'ASER" OR "YEYASER"?
The Gemara records a dispute between Rav and Shmuel about when one must accept upon himself
a Ta'anis. Rav maintains that one may accept the Ta'anis at any time before the day of the Ta'anis.
Shmuel maintains that one must accept the Ta'anis specifically in the Minchah Shemoneh Esreh
on the day before the Ta'anis.

The Gemara cites support for Shmuel's view from a Beraisa in Megilas Ta'anis. After the Beraisa
lists the days on which fasting is prohibited, it says that "any person who accepted upon himself
from before those days, Yeyaser."

RASHI explains that "Yeyaser" means that the person must "make himself prohibited" from eating
by accepting the "Ta'anis" again before the day of the Ta'anis. Even though he already accepted
upon himself to fast, his initial Kabalah did not make the Ta'anis binding enough to override the
Yom Tov of Megilas Ta'anis. Only if he formally accepts upon himself again -- with the wording
of an oath -- to fast is his Kabalah considered strong enough to override the Yom Tov. The Gemara
infers from this Beraisa support for the view of Shmuel who maintains that one must accept the
Ta'anis during the Minchah Shemoneh Esreh.

In defense of Rav, the Gemara cites another version of the Beraisa which reads "Ye'aser" instead
of "Yeyaser." "Ye'aser" means that "he will be prohibited" from eating because he accepted upon
himself to fast. The Gemara asks that according to this version of the Beraisa, what new law does
the Beraisa teach? It is obvious that one becomes prohibited from eating when he accepts upon
himself to fast! The Gemara answers that the Beraisa teaches that the status of his Ta'anis depends
on when he accepted the fast: if he accepted the fast before the Chachamim declared that day a
Yom Tov, his oath to fast is binding. If he accepted to fast after the Chachamim declared that day
a Yom Tov, his oath is not binding and his fast is not observed.

A number of points in the Gemara needs clarification. First, what is the Gemara's proof from the
Beraisa for Shmuel's opinion? While the Beraisa does indicate that one's acceptance of the Ta'anis
must be made in advance, how does the Beraisa prove that it must be made in the Minchah
Shemoneh Esreh before the Ta'anis?

Second, why does the Gemara explain -- according to the version of the Beraisa which reads
"Ye'aser" -- that the status of the Ta'anis depends on when the person accepted the Ta'anis? What
difficulty does the Gemara have with the Beraisa such that it needs to give additional details in
order to understand it?

Why does the Beraisa become less clear if it says "Ye'aser" and not "Yeyaser"? The Beraisa still
teaches something new, because one would have assumed that he is not required to fast when he
accepts upon himself to fast on one of the days mentioned in Megilas Ta'anis. Since those days
were instituted as days of celebration, one might have thought that even if he accepted upon
himself to fast on one of those days he is not obligated to fulfill his word (as the Gemara indeed
concludes). The Beraisa, therefore, is needed to teach that he nevertheless must fast.

13
(a) According to Rav (who says that one is not required to accept the Ta'anis specifically in the
Minchah Shemoneh Esreh), one may accept the Ta'anis any time before the day of the Ta'anis,
even months in advance. Just as Rav is lenient and does not require that one accept the Ta'anis in
Shemoneh Esreh, he is lenient and does not require that one accept the Ta'anis immediately before
it starts. (RITVA)

According to Shmuel, however, one's decision to observe a fast is never binding unless he formally
accepts the fast in the Minchah Shemoneh Esreh before the day of the fast, immediately before the
fast.

This assumption provides clarity for the proof from the Beraisa for Shmuel's view. Why does the
Beraisa say that one who accepted a series of fasts must accept them again ("Yeyaser")? It must
be that there is a requirement to accept each Ta'anis immediately before the day of the Ta'anis, as
Shmuel says.

When the Gemara cites the version of the Beraisa which says "Ye'aser," it re-explains the Beraisa
based on that change. If the Beraisa means merely that the person is prohibited from eating, then
why does the Beraisa mention that "if he accepted the Ta'anis from before, he becomes prohibited
from eating"? What is the meaning of the words "from before" -- "from before" what? Those words
seem irrelevant; the Beraisa should have said that "if he accepted the Ta'anis, he becomes
prohibited from eating," without the words "from before."

According to Shmuel, the need for the words "from before" in the Beraisa is clear. Since he
accepted the Ta'anis long before the day of the Ta'anis, he must re-accept it right before the Ta'anis.
According to Rav, however, what do the words "from before" mean?

The Gemara answers that the Beraisa means that one's Kabalah makes the day into a Ta'anis only
when it was proclaimed from before the day became a Yom Tov. If his Kabalah was made after the
day became a Yom Tov, he does not have to fast because the celebration overrides the Ta'anis. (-
Based on the RAN.)

(b) TOSFOS apparently has the opposite Girsa in the Gemara. Tosfos asserts that the version of
the Beraisa which says "Ye'aser" (with an Alef) is proof for Shmuel's opinion because "Ye'aser"
means that one has succeeded in prohibiting himself from eating (by making a Kabalah to fast).
"Yeyaser," on the other hand, implies that he is "removed" from the obligation to fast -- his Ta'anis
is pushed aside by the Yom Tov, and he may eat. The Gemara asks what the Beraisa means by
this.

The Gemara answers that the Beraisa means that the status of the fast depends on when he made
his Kabalah: if he made his Kabalah before the Chachamim enacted the day as a Yom Tov, then
he must fast, and if he made his Kabalah after the Chachamim enacted the day as a Yom Tov, then
he does not fast but rather "Yeyaser" -- he is removed from the obligation to fast.

According to Tosfos, how does the Beraisa support Shmuel's opinion that one must accept the
Ta'anis in Minchah the day before? The Beraisa says only that he is prohibited from eating
("Ye'aser"); it says nothing about when he needs to accept the Ta'anis! Moreover, what is the

14
Gemara's question on the version that says "Yeyaser"? Perhaps that version of the Beraisa teaches
simply that one's Kabalah to observe a Ta'anis Yachid does not override a Yom Tov of Megilas
Ta'anis.

Tosfos' explanation can be understood based on the comments of the HAGAHOS

MAIMONIYOS (Hilchos Ta'anis 1:7) who explains the Gemara in the opposite way of Rashi.
While Rashi says that the Kabalah for a Ta'anis is more effective when it is made closer to the
Ta'anis, the Hagahos Maimoniyos says that the Kabalah for a Ta'anis is more effective the earlier it
is made. The Hagahos Maimoniyos quotes the RA'AVYAH who says that it is better to make the
Kabalah long before the day of the Ta'anis. Shmuel says that even a "weak" Kabalah -- one made
close to the Ta'anis -- suffices, even if it is made immediately before the Ta'anis begins (in the
Minchah Shemoneh Esreh of the day before). Rav is more stringent and requires that the Kabalah
be made before the Minchah Shemoneh Esreh of the day before the Ta'anis.

The inference from the Beraisa in Megilas Ta'anis may be based on the words, "if he accepted the
Ta'anis from before...." The words "from before" seem extra. Apparently, they teach that from any
time before the day of the Ta'anis, the Kabalah is valid (as Shmuel says), even if it is made only a
very short time before the Ta'anis. Thus, the Beraisa supports Shmuel.

The Gemara then cites the version of the Beraisa which reads "Yeyaser," which means that one
does not need to fast. The Gemara asks what do the words "from before" mean according to this
text of the Beraisa. If the Beraisa intends to teach that the Ta'anis never overrides the Yom Tov,
what difference does it make whether the Kabalah was made immediately before the Ta'anis or
much earlier? Even if the Kabalah was made earlier, the Ta'anis should not override the Yom Tov.

The Gemara answers that the Beraisa teaches that if one makes his Kabalah shortly before the Yom
Tov arrives, when the Chachamim had already instituted that day to be a Yom Tov before his
Kabalah, then "Yeyaser" -- his obligation to fast "is removed." If, however, he accepted the Ta'anis
long before the Yom Tov (i.e. before the Yom Tov was even instituted), the Ta'anis remains
binding. (M. Kornfeld)

"BORROWING" A TA'ANIS AND "PAYING IT BACK"

Rav says that one may "borrow" a Ta'anis from one day and "pay it back" to another day ("Loveh
u'Pore'a"). That is, if one pledged to fast on a certain day but was unable to fast when that day
arrived, he may make it up on another day.

According to the Gemara's first version of the dialogue, Shmuel disagrees with Rav and says that
when a person accepted upon himself to fast and then found himself unable to fast on the
designated day, he does not have to fast, and he is not required to make it up on another day because
he never made a Neder (a vow) to fast. According to the Gemara's second version, Shmuel agrees
with Rav that one must make up the fast on another day if he does not fast on the day he designated
as a Ta'anis.
Why is a person's Kabalah to fast not considered a Neder? His Kabalah should be binding like a
Neder, and he should not be permitted to delay its fulfillment by fasting on a different day.

15
Moreover, why does Shmuel say (in the Gemara's first version) that one who finds it difficult to
fast is not required to fast and is not required to make it up on a different day? Why is his Kabalah
not binding?

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Nedarim 4:16) explains that Rav's statement refers only to a case in
which one accepted to fast a certain number of fasts but did not specify on what days those fasts
would occur. He began to fast on a day he thought would be a good day on which to fulfill one of
his fasts, but as the day progressed he discovered that it was not a good day to fast (for example,
he was invited to a Se'udas Mitzvah, or it became very hot, and he was weak). In such a case he
may "borrow and pay back" because he never accepted upon himself to observe a fast specifically
on this day. (According to the Rambam, an acceptance to fast without specifying the day is
considered a valid Kabalah for the Ta'anis.) The Rambam's explanation is based on the
Yerushalmi, as cited by the Ran.

This approach explains the view of Rav. Why, though, does Shmuel say that the person's Kabalah
is not binding at all, and if one cannot fast on the day he intended he does not have to fast or make
up for it? Since he made an oath to fast for a certain number of days, he must fulfill his word and
complete that number of fasts. If he does not make up for this day, he fails to fulfill his word to
fast for a specific number of days.

The answer is that the Rambam learns like the BA'AL HA'TZEROROS (see also RABEINU
CHANANEL) who says that the Gemara refers to a case in which the person fasted part of the
day and then he needed to stop. The physical distress that he experienced from his partial fast
counts as a day of Ta'anis to fulfill his Neder. Rav argues and says that he must make up his fast
on another day because his Kabalah was to fast a full day.

The ROSH explains that according to Rav when the person originally accepted to fast he did not
accept the fast with the terminology of a Neder or Shevu'ah. Rather, he merely said that he accepts
upon himself to fast. He is obligated to fast not because of a Neder but because of his Kabalah to
do a Mitzvah. When a person makes a Kabalas Mitzvah to fast, he presumably has in mind to
fulfill the Mitzvah of fasting whenever he has the opportunity, and he leaves himself the option to
choose a different day on which to fast if the day he originally designated turns out to be
inconvenient.

The Rosh cites the RA'AVAD who quotes the Gemara in Erchin (7a) which says that when one
makes a Neder to give certain coins to a charity, he may change his mind and give different coins
until the treasurer comes and takes the actual coins which he promised to give. The NIMUKEI
YOSEF here explains that this is based on the same principle as a Kabalas Mitzvah to fast: when
a person makes a Neder of Nidrei Mitzvah, he presumably intends to retain the right to do the
Mitzvah at a different time or with a different object if the need arises.

According to the Rosh, Rav refers even to a case in which one specifies a date for the Ta'anis (in
contrast to the opinion of the Rambam). He may still "borrow" the Ta'anis from that day and "pay
it back" on another day, because that was his original intention.
Shmuel extends this condition and says that if a person sees that it is too difficult for him to fast
on this day, not only is he not required to fast on that day, but he is also not required to make up

16
the fast on another day. Shmuel's reason is because it is assumed that the person had in mind at the
time of his Neder to fast only if he would be able to fast.

HALACHAH: The Halachah follows the view of Rav, in accordance with the principle that
in any argument between Rav and Shmuel which involves a non-monetary matter, the
Halachah follows the view of Rav. The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 568:2) rules like the
Rambam's understanding of Rav, that when one accepted upon himself to fast a certain
number of days but did not specify which days, he may change his mind on a day on which
he begins to fast if he realizes that he will not be able to fast that day, and he may make it up
on another day. However, one may do this only if there is a strong reason not to fast; for
example, he was invited to a Bris Milah or to a Siyum, or he was invited to dine with a Torah
sage. Being invited to dine with friends is not a valid reason to push off his fast (MISHNAH
BERURAH 568:9).

The allowance to push off a fast to another day applies only to a Ta'anis Yachid, but not to
Ta'anis Chalom or to a Ta'anis Tzibur (REMA 568:2).

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

Rav Yehuda quotes Rav as teaching that an individual who accepts upon himself to fast for
personal reasons (as opposed to communal fast days determined by the bet din) can “borrow
against the fast and pay back later” – i.e. he can choose to eat today and substitute another day of
fasting instead.

Many of the commentators interpret this to apply only in a case where the person did not commit
himself to fast on a specific day (e.g. where he planned to fast on a certain number of days during
the year). Nevertheless, many of the rishonim (the Ra’avad, Rashba, Re’ah, Ritva and others)
argue that the Gemara makes no such distinction and that a person can even switch his fast from
one day to the next. These rishonim understand that this is Shmuel‘s intent when he compares a
personal fast day to a person who takes an oath. Someone who takes an oath to give charity, for
example, can switch one coin for another, so long as they have the same value; similarly, fasting
on one day is the equivalent of fasting on another.

There is one personal fast that must take place on a specific day – a ta’anit chalom. A fast that is
the result of a disturbing dream must be done immediately after the dream takes place. This rule
is so severe that Rav Yosef teaches that someone who is disturbed by their dream must fast even
on Shabbat, concluding that he will have to fast a second time as repentance for having
“desecrated” the holiness of Shabbat by fasting.

Given Shmuel’s ruling that dreams are not to be seen as carrying with them any significance, the
Ritva explains that the underlying idea of fasting because of a dream is that a very disturbing dream
should be seen as a heavenly call to examine one’s actions. Thus, it is essential to act while the
feeling of dread is still fresh. But how can one fast on Shabbat? Here the Ritva explains that eating

5
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_taanit1117/

17
on Shabbat is the fulfillment of the mitzva of oneg Shabbat – making Shabbat pleasurable. Under
such circumstances, a festive meal would not be enjoyable, and fasting is a more appropriate
expression of oneg Shabbat.

A day fast begins with ‫השחר עלות‬.6 Rava explains that the restriction to not eat only begins with
the morning if a person has not gone to sleep. If one goes to sleep the night before a fast day, he
has effectively accepted the fast at that point, and even if he gets up in the middle of the night, he
may not eat. The Gemara clarifies that if he becomes drowsy— this is not considered
falling asleep. The definition of drowsy in this context is when he is in a state of semi-sleep. He is
alert enough that if we call to him, the person will answer, but he cannot answer rationally to a
question we ask. If we remind him later, he will, however, recall that we spoke to him. The wording
of the Gemara in defining this term is

Rashi explains that this is as a person is falling asleep. Tosafos, however, suggests that the double
expression refers to one of two cases. One is when one is about to fall asleep. As he enters a state
of sleep nim.., he is not yet fast asleep velo nim.. After sleeping, and one is waking up, there is a
quasi-state of sleep. Here, the person is awake (‫) תיר‬, but he is not fully awake (‫)תיר לא‬

Yet Tosafos notes that this explanation cannot be accurate, because we find a Gemara (Pesachim
120b) which discusses the law that a person cannot eat from the Korban Pesach in two locations.
In fact, if one falls asleep, he cannot even finish eating in the same location either upon waking,
because this is similar to his eating in two places.

The Gemara then states that this is only a problem if he actually falls asleep but becoming drowsy
.

And Rabbah bar Mechasya said in the name of R’ Chama bar Gurya who said in the name of Rav
a fast is helpful [to nullify the harmful message] of a dream as fire is [effective to burning] flax.
And R’ Chisda said [that it must be observed] that day and R’ Yosef said [that it may be observed]
even on Shabbos.

6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Taanis%20012.pdf

18
The Tur (1) cites opinions who assert that nowadays people should not fast on Shabbos if they
experience a bad dream because we no longer know how to properly interpret dreams to know
whether the dream portends good or bad things to come.

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (2) explains that this applies even to those dreams that were explained
by Chazal. Just like medical treatments mentioned by Chazal are no longer practiced, so too their
interpretation of dreams is no longer practiced. Therefore, one should not fast on Shabbos since
we are uncertain whether the dream is truly bad.

The Kaf HaChaim (3) cites opinions who advise that rather than fasting on Shabbos following a
bad dream, one should refrain from talking with others and recite the entire book of Tehillim. On
Sunday if they wish to fast they may fast and the appropriate tzedaka should be given at that time.

The Aruch HaShulchan (4) writes that if the person thought about matters related to the dream
during the day or if the person went to sleep with a full stomach it is not categorized as a bad dream
that requires fasting even during the week. He then notes that the custom in his time was for people
who experienced a bad dream to consult with their rov, who would interpret it positively.

Furthermore, the S’dei Chemed (5) mentions in the opinion of some authorities that one who does
not refrain from eating meat and drinking wine on days on which tachanun is recited should not
be concerned about his dreams because they will not be of any significance.

A chossid once asked Rav Pinchas of Koretz, zt”l, “We find in the Sefer Chasidim that even though
the Gemara in Taanis 12 tells us that fasting is good for destroying the bad parts of a dream like a
fire destroys the bad parts of flax, it only refers to one who has repented. All the fasting in the
world, however, will not avail for one who does not do teshuvah.

The Sefer Chassidim goes on to tell of someone who had a bad dream on Shabbos and tried to
ameliorate it by fasting that day and the next. Unfortunately, his dream came to be in all its detail
because he failed to do teshuvah. My question is, if someone has a bad dream why not just
concentrate on doing teshuvah instead of fasting, since this is the main objective of the fast
anyway?”
The Rebbe answered, “Fasting is preferable for a very simple reason. The more physical something
is, the more we find of it in this world. For example, there is more inanimate matter in the world
than animate life. Likewise, there are far more non-Jews than Jews in the world. Even within the

19
Jewish people itself, there are more wicked people than righteous. And within the overwhelming
majority of people, there are worse or useless thoughts than good.

Most people have a hard time focusing on any good thought for more than half an hour or so. This
is especially true of someone whose day is almost entirely focused on mundane matters. To feel
connected all the time to spirituality in such a situation is rare indeed! Anyone who fasts in order
to come to teshuvah is involved in doing a mitzvah the entire day, and this is true even if he finds
it difficult to focus on the teshuvah aspect of the fast throughout the day.”

Rav Pinchas added, “Another reason why fasting is better is that it naturally subdues the physical.
This is a great help for one who wishes to do teshuvah. One can come to the highest levels while
fasting. It is very rare that one who understands the purpose of the fast will fail to come to true
teshuvah!”

Fasting for part of a day

Mark Kerzner writes:7

Can one accept on himself too fast for only a part of the day? Rav Chisda said that it is impossible:
if he ate before the end of the day, it is not considered a fast. Then what is the concept of a partial
fast? Rav Chisda will answer: one who was too busy to eat in the first part of the day, and then
decided to accept the fast until the end of the day: such a fast is valid, and he is even allowed to
say the special prayer "Answer us!" for the fast days.

But how about the lay people who were accompanying the kohanim in bringing the sacrifices -
they were fasting but not completing the fast, and nevertheless it is called a fast? - Ravi Chisda
answers, "They did it just to afflict themselves, but it is not an official fast." So then what about
Rabbi Yochanan who used to declare, "I am in a fast until I come home." - He was only doing this
to avoid the social obligation of a meal at the house of the ruling prince. And yet, some say that
there is a concept of partial fast having spiritual significance.

Rav Yehoshua visited the home of Rav Idi, and they made a special meal for him, a calf one-third
grown. He said, "I can't eat, I am fasting." They told him, "Do this: cancel this fast and repay it
later!" He answered, "My fast has a reason: I saw a bad dream. In that case you cannot change the
day, since the fast must be on the day of the dream." That is true even on Shabbat, except that on
Shabbat one should not fast - so what does one do? Fast now, and then fast again on a weekday,
to atone for his fasting on Shabbat.

Ben Harris writes:8

7
https://talmudilluminated.com/taanit/taanit12.html
8
Myjewishlearning.com

20
On our daf, the rabbis continue to discuss the laws of personal fasts. While most of Tractate Taanit
concerns public fasts that were called in response to some kind of communal emergency — most
notably lack of rain — individuals could also choose to undertake personal fasts. Though this
practice has largely been abandoned, in rabbinic times these fasts could be observed for any
number of reasons, including as a gesture of repentance, for spiritual cleansing, or on
the yahrzeit of a loved one or a teacher.

They could also be undertaken in case of a bad dream, a fast known as a taanit halom — which
literally means (you guessed it) “dream fast.” The rabbis believed that dreams could convey
profound truths, even messages from another realm. A disturbing dream could be a portentous sign
of things to come and fasting was seen as a method of averting whatever evil fate might be in
store.

And so we encounter this story on our daf:

Rav Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, happened to visit the house of Rav Asi. They prepared a third-
born calf (whose meat is high quality) for him.

They said to him: Let the Master taste something.

He said to them: I am observing a fast.

They said to him: And let the master borrow and repay the fast. Doesn’t the master hold in
accordance with this halakhahthat Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A person may borrow his
fast and repay?

Rav Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, said to them: It is a fast for a dream.

The context for this story is a teaching from Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav that one may “borrow
and repay” a fast — that is, if someone cannot fast on the day they intended to, they simply annul
the fast and fast on a different day. The story of Rav Yehoshua suggests that a taanit halom is an
exception to this rule.

The Gemara goes on:

And Rabba bar Mehasseya said that Rav Hama bar Gurya said that Rav said: A fast is effective
to neutralize a bad dream like fire is effective for burning chaff.

Rav Hisda said: The fast is effective specifically on that day that one dreamed.

Unlike other types of personal fasts, a taanit halom must be undertaken on the day one had the
dream. It can’t be delayed. This practice is so important, in fact, that it’s even permissible to
observe a taanit halom on Shabbat.

21
Enjoying Shabbat is so sacred that every fast day (save for Yom Kippur ) is bumped forward a day
if it falls out on Shabbat. But if someone had a frightening dream on a Friday night, this rule is
suspended and a personal fast is permitted.

So how does one make up for desecrating Shabbat by fasting? Easy, the Gemara tells us:

Let him sit in observance of another fast, on another day, to atone for his fast on Shabbat.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:9

We are taught in our daf (Ta’anit 12b) that ‘a fast is effective in [nullifying] a [bad] dream as a
fire is [effective] in [burning] chaff’, and notwithstanding the poetic nature of this statement it is
repeated, word-for-word, in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 220:2), to which the Rema then
adds that, ‘this specifically applies when fasting on the very day when one has had a bad dream,
even if this is Shabbat.’

In terms of understanding the concept of a ‫( תענית חלום‬the Hebrew terms for a fast undertaken in
response to a bad dream), our Sages view it as a form of sacrifice which, coupled with feelings of
repentance, are ‘offered’ to God by someone who has had a bad dream as a penance to overcome
the threat of bad tidings. And though a ‫ תענית חלום‬is considered a choice (‫ )רשות‬as opposed to an
obligation (‫ )חובה‬- which certainly means that anyone who is physically vulnerable, those unwell,
or pregnant or nursing should not do so (see Mishna Berura on 220 se’if katan 5), there are those
who claim that a ‫ תענית חלום‬is like an action undertaken to physically save themselves (‫)פיקוח נפש‬
from danger, while others see it as a positive action taken to alleviate stress and worry.

Still, there is a concept that our dreams are affected by what we see and hear while awake, and –
as noted by Rabbi Simcha Rabinowitz (Piskei Teshuvot, OC 220:1) - while frightening dreams
experienced by those who lived simpler lives in previous generations who did not read about or
see frightening events in the news or media were taken more seriously, today, many of the things
we dream about are often memories or remnants of images that we may have encountered while
awake. Consequently, far less emphasis is placed today on undertaking a ‫תענית חלום‬.

In fact, this is all the more the case when considering the propriety of fasting on Shabbat, and
though the Rema does indicate that one should fast on Shabbat in response to a bad dream, the
general approach of most halachic decisors is to avoid doing so (see Piskei Teshuvot ibid., Yechave
Da’at 4:24).

Still, if one is shaken by a bad dream, it is certainly appropriate to think of ways of improving
one’s behaviour and to take steps to do so (teshuva), to pray (tefillah), to learn (torah) and to give
charity (tzedakah). And in doing so, we hope that our actions will, like the Gemara itself explains,
nullify a bad dream as quickly as a fire is able to burn chaff.

9
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

22
Rabbi Mendel Weinbach zt'l writes:10

The fast days legislated by our Sages in a season when there is no rain begin in the month of
Cheshvan and end with the month of Nissan. The reason for not fasting beyond Nissan, says
the mishna, is that rain which falls (in Eretz Yisrael) after the month of Nissan is the sign of a
heavenly curse since it is counterproductive at such a late date.

As a source for this, the mishna cites the confrontation the Prophet Shmuel had with the Israelites
after they demanded a king to rule them in his place. To demonstrate to them that Heaven
disapproved of the manner in which they had made this demand he declared: "Today is the time
of the wheat harvest and I shall call to Hashem, and He shall deliver thunder and rain; thus shall
you know and see how great the evil in the eyes of Hashem is which you have done to demand a
king." (Samuel I 12:17)

Although the surface reading of our mishna would indicate that anytime rain falls after Nissan it
is a cursed sign, the commentaries cite a statement in the Jerusalem Talmud (1:8) to the effect that
this is so only if no rain had fallen previously; only then is rain after Nissan a blessing rather than
a curse.

This distinction, points out Tosefot Yom Tov in his commentary on the mishna, is evident in the
text of this mishna as it appears in the standard editions of the Mishnayot. In contrast to the text -
"Nissan has passed and rain falls" - which appears in the standard editions of the Talmud, the text
there reads "if Nissan has passed and rain has not fallen." Although both texts refer to rainfall after
Nissan, the Mishnayot text indicates, like the Jerusalem Talmud, that the problem is only when
rain has not previously fallen. As a parallel, Tosefot Yom Tov cites the mishna in Masechta Moed
Katan (3:3) which distinguishes between plants which were watered before a holiday and those
that weren't, in regard to the benefit they will derive from being watered during the intermediate
days of the holiday.

We may suggest that there is even a hint in the biblical text to this distinction. The passage
following Shmuel's statement (12:18) relates that the prophet called to Hashem "and Hashem
delivered thunder and rain on that day." The stress on "that day" seems to signal that no rain had
fallen before that day, and that is why it was considered a sign of Heavenly disfavor, which would
not have been the case if rain had fallen before "that day."

10
https://ohr.edu/explore_judaism/daf_yomi/the_weekly_daf/332

23
 The Power of a Single Word
Harav Aharon Lichtenstein11 spoke:12

The Gemara in Ta'anit (12b) describes the order to be followed on a fast day as follows:

The Shulchan Arukh rules:

The Magen Avraham (ad loc.) comments on the Shulchan Arukh's ruling:

11
Based on a shiur by Harav Aharon Lichtenstein zt"l ASARA BE-TEVET 5775

12
Adapted by Shaul Barth Translated by David Strauss at https://torah.etzion.org.il/en/asara-be-tevet-5775-power-single-word

24
 The Magen Avraham's astonishment can be understood as relating to the fact that in our
time it is not the customary practice to divide the time from Mincha onward between reading from
the Torah and the haftara and prayer. It seems, however, that, according to the simple meaning of
his words, the Magen Avraham's astonishment is directed at why we do not examine the affairs of
the city for half the day. If, indeed, this is the Magen Avraham's difficulty, it is possible that the
reason that today the custom of examining the affairs of the city is not widespread stems from the
difference in formulation between what is stated in the Gemara in Ta'anit and what is brought in
the Rambam.

The Gemara in Ta'anit opens with a description of "what is the order of a fast," but in the
Rambam in Hilkhot Ta'anit, the description is limited to a very specific type of fast:

According to the Rambam, the order described in the Gemara applies only to fasts that
"were instituted for the community because of distressing circumstances." It seems that, in the
Rambam’s opinion, occupation with the relevant problems is necessary only on fasts that are
instituted against a background of actual problems, but not on fasts that were instituted against a
distant historical background.

In any event, the Magen Avraham's astonishment is valid; and therefore, in the spirit of this
Talmudic passage, we in Yeshivat Har Etzion devote much of the fast day to discussion groups
that consider "the affairs of the city" of our Beit Midrash. (Rav Yitzchak Levi deserves credit for
this idea.) I hope that this initiative will also result in practical approaches to dealing with our
problems, individually and collectively.

What are these "affairs of the city" alluded to by the Gemara? In the Gemara itself these
affairs are not identified. On the other hand, from the details appearing in the Shulchan Arukh and
in the Rambam, we are dealing primarily with serious offenses between man and his fellow,
especially those involving violent and mighty men. It seems to me that in our yeshiva such
problems do not exist.

However, does this mean that we are free from the need to examine our actions and
conduct, both on the communal and the individual level? Examining "the affairs of the city"
requires us not only to practice caution against the commission of transgressions, but also to set a
high bar for the service of God, both in terms of quantity and of quality. In this context, it seems
that there is certainly much to examine even in the world of the Yeshiva. This is for two reasons:

25
First, because in this area "the sky is the limit," and there is always room to aspire for more; and
second, because there are issues in our Yeshiva which need improvement, sooner rather than later.
Today, I want to address one of the areas that require examination and improvement: prayer.

We all understand that there is a close connection between Torah study and prayer. On the
simplest level this follows from the Sifrei which interprets the verse, "to serve Him with all your
heart," as referring to both prayer and Torah study. However, on the more essential level, it seems
to me that the connection is even stronger.

From time to time I meet people from the United States, who come to Israel to promote
peace initiatives for the Middle East. When they come to the Yeshiva, I am not infrequently asked:
Where is the Yeshiva's chapel? In the world with which they are familiar, every self-respecting
institution has a library for reading and research, classrooms for learning, and a chapel for those
interested in praying. Guests from the outside wonder: Is it possible that in a Yeshiva there is no
building for prayer?

I explain to them that there cannot be and there must not be a disconnection between Torah
study and prayer. On the one hand, the passion that characterizes the experiential aspect of prayer
should accompany the maturity and depth, the wisdom and clarity of learning; on the other hand,
learning should fill prayer with content and meaning. The Gemara relates that even though there
were thirteen synagogues in Tiberias, R. Ami and R. Asi would pray only in the place where they
studied Torah (Berakhot 30b). It seems from that Gemara that it is preferable to pray alone as an
individual in the place where one studies, rather than to pray with the congregation in a synagogue.
The assumption is that prayer should be saturated with thought and understanding, and not only
with experience, and that learning should possess an experiential dimension, and not remain
exclusively on the intellectual plane.

If we ask ourselves where we stand in relation to prayer, it seems that many of us have
greater enthusiasm, devotion, and ambition in our learning than in our prayer. The percentage of
the students in the Yeshiva who learn Torah not only because they are obligated to do so, but
because they love it and desire it, is higher than the percentage of the students who pray not only
out of obligation but out of inner desire.

Rav Soloveitchik z” l once said: "The average Jew doesn’t want to daven; he wants to
be oisgedavent [he doesn’t want to pray, but to have fulfilled his obligation to pray]." If so,
the question that everyone must ask himself is to what extent does he pray for the sake of his soul,
and to what extent does he do so merely out of obligation and as part of his daily routine?

Here arises a piercing question: To what degree do we succeed in building an integrated

system, saturated with both passion and understanding, that in the place of prayer there be the song
of Torah, and that in the place of the song of Torah there be prayer?

From here, I want to move to a specific point regarding prayer. If there is one specific area
where I sense a certain laxity in relation to prayer, I think I can narrow it down to one word, even

26
though it repeats itself many times during the prayer. I refer to that word of many uses, the
applications and various meanings of which are discussed by the Gemara in Shevuot (36a) –
"Amen."

The Gemara in Shabbat expands upon the potency of saying "Amen":

What force, what power and what meaning, do Chazal attach to this "Amen"! By
responding "Amen," one is even forgiven for a taint of idolatry. A removal of the barriers
separating man from God and the building of a bridge between him and God – all because of one
word!

If we perceive the word "Amen" as a tool to open gates and achieve forgiveness, it is no
wonder that Chazal understood that this "Amen" should be uttered at a certain level and with a
certain quality. The Gemara in Shabbat speaks of "Amen" pronounced "with all one's might."
Rabbeinu Yona explains that the reference is not to might on the physical level, but rather in terms
of intention – "with all one's might" means “with full intention.”

Here we must ask: What is the intention referred to here? In the sentence: "Amen, May His
great Name be blessed," it is not difficult to understand the essence of the required intention; but
does "with his full intention" apply in the case of an ordinary "Amen"? The Gemara
in Shevuot (29b) states that the pronouncement of one word can reconstruct an entire sentence:
"Shemuel said: He who responds Amen after an oath, it is as if he uttered the oathwith his own
mouth." A person can accept upon himself everything that was said to him, all with a single
"Amen."

If so, "with one's full intention" demands of a person that he relate to the "Amen" not
merely as a random word or as something meaningless issuing from his mouth, like a cough or a
sneeze, but rather as the encapsulation of a statement, as if he had pronounced the blessing himself
– indeed, as if he had taken an oath! For this, intention is undoubtedly necessary, full intention!

The Rambam teaches that there is another dimension to saying "Amen." As we have seen,
"Amen" can accompany a solitary blessing uttered by a person. But alongside this, according to
the Rambam, "Amen" draws together those who recite communal prayer or the Grace after Meals.
This is evident from the fact that the Rambam discusses and expands upon the meaning of "Amen"

27
only in the ninth chapter of Hilkhot Tefilla, in the chapter beginning with the words: "The order of
communal prayer is as follows":

And then in the continuation in the description of the cantor's repetition of the Amida prayer:

This is not an "Amen" through which the responders fulfill their obligation to recite the
prayer, utilizing the rule that “one who hears a statement is treated as if he had uttered it.” Despite
the fact that during the prayer all of the congregants are standing very close to each other, when
they do not all respond "Amen," each person is considered an island of prayer. If only because of
this, one should make sure to respond "Amen" in the proper place. It unifies the congregation into
a single entity of prayer.

If so, while "Amen" is indeed a small detail, a small word, it is so very saturated with
meaning and content, and so very connected to "the affairs of our city" that require repair and
improvement. Let us examine "the affairs of our city" and learn how to improve ourselves!13

13
This sicha was delivered on Asara be-Tevet 5768

28
Kahal Zur Israel was a Jewish synagogue located at Rua do Bom Jesus (Rua
dos Judeus) number 197 in Recife, Brazil. It was established in 1636 by
Portuguese and Spanish Sephardic Jews that had taken refuge in
the Netherlands fleeing forced conversion and were joined by New Christians,
who possibly helped to build the structure and were already living in the colony.
It was the first synagogue erected in the Americas.

Praying for Rain

Sharona Margolin Halickman writes:14

Last night (the Seventh of Cheshvan) in Israel we began to include the prayer for rain “VeTen tal
Umatar Livracha”, “and grant rain and dew for a blessing” in the Birkhat haShanim blessing of
the Shmoneh Esrei.

14
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/praying-for-rain-2/

29
Those outside of the Land of Israel only begin to recite the prayer for rain sixty days after the fall
season begins (December 5).

Why is there a difference?

Originally, the sixty-day rule was for the Jews who lived in Bavel (Babylonia) which at the time
was considered the Golah (diaspora) where rain was only needed sixty days after the fall season
began. In the Middle Ages, the date for the Golah was extended to Europe and North Africa even
though the time of year where rain is needed varies by the country. The exception was Provence
and maybe a few other places which followed the custom of the Land of Israel.

The Rosh (Rabeinu Asher ben Yechiel 1259-1327, Germany, Spain) taught in his commentary on
the Talmud, Taanit 12b: I am surprised that we follow the Babylonian practice in this
regard. While our Talmud is Babylonian, the matter (of praying for rain) depends upon the Land
of Israel. Why should we not follow their custom? Even if Babylonia has abundant water and
does not need rain, other countries need rain in Cheshvan so why delay the prayer until the 60th day
of the season? Why should we not follow the ruling of the Mishnah? In Provence I have seen that
they pray for rain beginning with Cheshvan and I heartily approve!
The Tur, Rabeinu Asher’s son did not accept his opinion and those in the Golah continued to follow
the sixty-day rule.

30
According to the terms of the capitulation protocol of January 26, 1654,
Portugal decreed that Jewish and Dutch settlers had three months to leave
Brazil. Approximately 150 Jewish families of Portuguese descent fled the
Brazilian city of Recife, in the state of Pernambuco. By September, twenty-
three of these refugees had established the first community of Jews in New
Amsterdam.

Dr. Moshe Sokolow in his article “VeTen Tal U-Matar, What is So Holy about the 4th (or 5th or
6th) of December? Some Insights into the Interplay between the Calendar and the
Liturgy”, points out that in 1637, in the Portuguese colony of Recife, in Brazil, one of the first
religious problems was reckoning the proper time to say VeTen Tal U-Matar Lvracha. On the one
hand they were all accustomed to following the Babylonian custom, which had won out, time and
again, over all attempts — such as that of R. Asher — to modify it in accordance with local
conditions.

On the other hand was the overwhelming illogic of praying for rain during Brazil’s summer, and
forgoing the prayer precisely when rain was needed, just because the tradition was founded in

31
another era and a different hemisphere! Congregation Zur Yisrael raised this question in a letter to
Rabbi Chaim Shabbetai of Salonica, whose answer set the precedent by which most of the Jews of
South America and Australia abide to this very day. Basing himself upon the opinions of
Rambam and taking the responsum of Rabeinu Asher into consideration, Rabbi Shabbetai ruled
that since during the months of Nisan through Tishrei prayers for rain may be recited only
in Shome’a Tefillah as individuals and since one should not have to pray for rain at a time in which
it would be harmful for him, the Jews of Brazil should:

Never say Viten Tal U-Matar in Birkhat haShanim;

Never even say Mashiv haRu’ah U’Morid haGeshem (He makes the wind blow and He makes
the rain fall)
During their winter they were entitled to say ViTen Tal U-Matar in Shome’a Tefillah if the
need arose.

In Israel we started praying for rain during the Maariv service and it has been raining on and off
all of last night and today.

As we watched the rain pour down on our way home from school today, my son Yehuda declared:
“It is now official, the winter season has officially begun.”

Fasting and Prayer in Times of Crisis?

Dr Maurice M. Mizrahi writes:15

In the Torah portion of Vayikra, we begin the study of animal sacrifices. According to
Maimonides, God instituted them as a concession to what was being practiced at the time to
communicate with the Divine. It was restricted to a specific place (the Temple), specific times,
and could be carried out only by specific people (the kohanim). Then the Temple was destroyed
2000 years ago, and sacrifices could no longer be performed. The rabbis said there was still one
way to communicate with God: Prayer. This could be done at any time, in any place, and by
anybody. But prayer is just words. People felt deeply that they will not get something for nothing.
15
https://images.shulcloud.com/618/uploads/PDFs/Divrei_Torah/200325-FastingandPrayerinTimesofCrisisVayikra.pdf

32
They were convinced they had to give something to God in exchange for God granting their
petition. They felt that God wants something more than words, something more personal in
exchange for favors. So the rabbis came up with an idea. Let people offer their hunger, their pain.
Let them fast. Take rain, for example. Later in Leviticus, it says:

Rain meant the difference between food and famine. No rain meant no water to drink and no crops.
No crops meant no food. So, if the rain was late in coming, the ancient rabbis would order the
community to fast. In Tractate Taanit, the tractate reserved to fasts, the Mishna says:

The Gemara adds:

In other words, for purposes of fasting, even students must consider themselves “distinguished”!
(Nice try!)

But the only fasting the Torah mandates is Yom Kippur. It does not mandate or even mention
fasting for rain. That practice was instituted by the rabbis. It is rarely done nowadays, but it is
done. The Chief Rabbis of Israel sometimes call for it. In 2017, Chief Rabbi Goldstein of Cape
Town, South Africa, called for all South African Jews to fast for a half-day for rain in their country.
Now the idea is being revived in the State of Israel, which is being hit hard by the coronavirus.
The Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Israel, David Lau, called for a fast day on Erev Rosh Chodesh
Nissan, in response to the coronavirus epidemic. He wrote:

33
Many rabbis echoed the call, including the leader of the Lithuanian Jewish world and the Bet Din
of Manchester, UK. 3

But Chabad Rabbi Braun, a member of the Bet Din in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, which has also
been hit hard by the coronavirus, rejected the call:

I’m asking people not to fast in this community. We need to have healthy people. [Don’t fast]
even if you feel healthy. Drink as much as possible. Give tzedakah, charity, for the cost of a day’s
meals, increase Torah study, specifically the teachings of the Rebbe, engage in prayer, read psalms,
and decrease idle talk. Fasting to get something from God is a very old idea and is found in the
books of the Bible that come after the Torah. Consider the example of King David, who fasted so
his sick son would live:

34
The fasting didn’t work, so David quickly moved on. But he got another son, destined to succeed
him. Perhaps God wanted Solomon the Wise, and not the older son, to succeed David.

Or the example of King Ahab:

So his fasting brought him a small but appreciable reprieve.

Israel fasted to ask God for victory in war and got it. The Book of Judges says:

Psalm 35 says:

Evidently, then, fasting sometimes works, sometimes doesn’t, and sometimes works part way.

35
Now, is fasting to get something from God a good idea? Not all rabbis thought so. The Talmud
says:

In Tosefta, we read:

Rabbi Yosei said:

Another story looks down on even praying for mercy:

Fasting is practiced by mystics and kabbalists. Hassidic Jews are opposed to it, as we saw earlier.

Now, fasting for relief may have psychological effects even if it doesn’t work, because it makes
people feel they are not helpless, that there is something they can do to control the events around
them. 5

Going beyond fasting, the rabbis of the Talmud tried to slow the people’s enthusiasm even for
prayer. They said: Don’t overdo prayer, don’t ask God for too much, don’t pray for more than one
thing at a time:

36
Nevertheless, people do pray for more than one thing at a time.

Petitioning the divine comes naturally to most people, with or without the “enhancement” of
fasting:

-Some people don’t pray, believing it’s like talking to a wall. There is this old joke about people
praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. When their prayer is not answered, they say “It’s like
talking to a wall!”

-Others believe prayer focuses mental energy and accomplishes its goal in mind-over-matter
fashion. In that case, prayer is more likely 6 to come to fruition when a lot of people are praying
for the same thing at the same time, which the rabbis always encourage. -Some believe the value
of fasting is to focus the mind on the prayer.

Other’s object, “But does it, if you are hungry?”

-Most people believe prayer, to be effective, must be accompanied by giving something in return:
a person, an animal, food, ornate objects, improved behavior, or some degree of comfort.

Our tradition includes fixed prayers at fixed times, with the option to add others of your own. The
rest is up to us. Shabbat shalom.

37
 Gush Katif Fasting and Kinnot
Rabbi Chaim Jachter writes:16

The Churban (destruction) of Gush Katif and a number of Jewish communities in the Northern
Shomron in August 2005 was a most traumatic event. Although the intention was to improve the
security and stability of Medinat Yisrael, the destruction of highly productive Jewish
communities and the dislocation of more than eight thousand residents is a tragedy even if one
believes that it was essential to secure Israel’s future. A highly significant article appears in
Techumin volume 30 in which Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi Rav Yonah Metzger discusses whether
a new fast day replete with Kinnot composed for the occasion, should be instituted as a yearly
mourning of this tragic event. Although Rav Metzger offers three reasons to reject this proposal,
there are appropriate vehicles to mourn Churban Gush Katif within the existing traditional liturgy
of our people.

The Fasts Listed in Shulchan Aruch

Rav Metzger notes that Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim chapter 580) lists no less than twenty-
one days “that are appropriate days to fast” due to various calamities that occurred on those days.
For example, Nadav and Avihu died on the first of Nissan, on the first of Av Aharon HaKohein
died, and the twenty third of Shevat began the terrible civil war against the tribe of Binyamin
that is recorded in the end of Sefer Shofetim. The Magein Avraham (ad. loc. number nine) adds

16
https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/gush-katif-fasting-and-kinnot-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter?rq=fasting

38
that the twentieth of Sivan is a day set aside to mourn the Khmelnitsky pogroms of 1641-1642
(Tach VeTat; see Rav Soloveitchik’s comments regarding this commemoration, recorded in
“The Lord is Righteous in All His Ways” pp.300-301). Thus, it would seem appropriate to add
the day of Churban Gush Katif to the list of days of mourning.

However, Rav Metzger cites the Aruch HaShulchan (ad. loc.) who writes “However, now in our
times and in our communities, we have not heard of anyone who fasts on these days.” The Aruch
HaShulchan justifies this practice noting that “The edict was not an obligation to fast on these
days but rather a recommendation that it is proper to fast on these days. In addition, there exists
no authority in post-Talmudic times to issue a decree upon all Jews {to fast on these days].” This
last point emerges from a celebrated statement of the Rosh (Shabbat 2:15 and Niddah 10:13) that
in the post-Talmudic era we are not authorized to add new edicts and decrees.

Accordingly, if these twenty-one days are observed in the breach, it makes little sense to add a
day to mourn Churban Gush Katif. We may add that it is appropriate to mourn for Gush Katif
within the framework of Tish’ah BeAv. A possible reason that the fasts listed in Shulchan Aruch
are not observed is that it is too much of a burden on the community for us to mourn every tragic
event in our long and sometimes tumultuous history. Instead we set aside four days in the year
to mourn the tragedies of our people and one especially intense day of mourning on Tish’ah
BeAv. As Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik stressed on many occasions (based on the commentary
ascribed to Rashi to Divrei HaYamim II 35:25), Tish’ah BeAv is a day for mourning all the
tragedies of our People. Thus, a reasonable and proportionate commemoration of Gush Katif
may be included in that day’s mourning.

Rav Moshe Feinstein on Mourning the Holocaust

Rav Metzger cites Rav Moshe Feinstein’s response (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Yoreh Dei’ah
4:57:11) to the proposal of establishing a new day of fasting for the Holocaust. Rav Moshe
rejected the suggestion citing the precedent of the absence of a new day of fasting for the
enormous suffering we endured during the Crusades. He notes that Ashkenazic Jews incorporate
Kinnot for the Crusades within the liturgy of Tish’ah BeAv (noted in the aforementioned
comment of the commentary ascribed to Rashi). We may add that Sephardic Jews have similarly
not added a special day of fasting for the Spanish Inquisition and the subsequent expulsion from
Spain but rather add a Kinnah for this awful event. Rav Moshe writes that the Holocaust should
be seen “as part of the many tragedies we have endured during this long Galut (Exile).” Indeed,
the perceived need for the withdrawal from Gush Katif was entirely due to the relentless
intolerance of many Arabs for Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael, which is yet another
expression of the anti-Semitism so unfortunately characteristic of this long Exile.

Rav Soloveitchik cited (in addition to the aforementioned commentary ascribed to Rashi) a
Kinnah for Tish’ah BeAv (“Mi Yittein Roshi Mayim,” mourning the Crusades) states that we
are not authorized to add more days of mourning to Tish’ah BeAv, “Vechi Ein Lehosif Moed
Shever VeTaveirah.” On this basis, Rav Soloveitchik objected to instituting Yom HaShoah as a
special day of mourning for the Holocaust (see the essay archived at www.koltorah.org where
we present a full discussion of this issue). Although many communities do observe Yom

39
Hashoah following the opinion of Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg and those Rabbanim who felt
it appropriate to do so, one cannot compare Gush Katif to the Holocaust. Without dismissing or
minimizing the suffering endured in the dislocations of August 2005, it is nonetheless not even
remotely comparable to the suffering endured during the massacres of the Crusades, Spanish
Inquisition and Holocaust.

Lo Titgodedu

Rav Metzger notes Chazal’s (Sifrei to Devarim 14:1 and Yevamot 14a) interpretation of the
Torah’s prohibition of Lo Titgodedu as a call “not to break into different groups but rather to act
as one unit, Agudah Achat.” Rambam (Teshuvot number 151) explains “The entire House of
Israel should act as one unit and there should not be any Machloket (dissent) in any matter. You
wise individuals are aware of the punishment for Machloket and the many problems it causes.”
Rav Metzger observes “Regrettably, the topic of the dismantling of the Katif Strip was the
subject of a bitter and painful communal Machloket within our nation. An enactment to
eternalize this dismantling as a day of fasting and remembrance of the destruction is liable to
add and magnify dissent within the nation. This too is a reason not to issue such a decree.”

Composing New Kinnot for Gush Katif

Rav Metzger cites the opposition of Rav Soloveitchik to composing new Kinnot to mourn the
Holocaust even on Tish’ah BeAv. Rav Soloveitchik argued (as presented in “The Lord is
Righteous in All His Ways” pp. 298-299).

I do not like new ‘prayers.’ I cannot use it (a new Kinnah composed to mourn the Holocaust)
because, in my opinion, there is no one, no contemporary, who has all the qualities indispensable
for writing prayers. I am always reluctant to accept new compositions; in general, I do not trust
anyone who tells me he intends to compose a prayer. I do not believe in so-called liturgical
creativity or creative liturgy. The Gemara (Megillah 17b) says that "One hundred and twenty
elders, among whom were many prophets," wrote our Shemoneh Esreh. Only they could write
it.

Prayer is not just a hymn, but a copy of a conversation between Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu and a
human being. Who can write such a conversation? Only the Men of the Great Assembly and the
prophets were able to do it. That is why we are so careful about every word in the nusah ha-
tefillah, the text of the liturgy.

Of course, later piyutim (not tefillot) were written by Hakhmei Ashkenaz and Hakhmei Tzarfat.
There is no doubt that the authors of the piyutim mourning the destruction during the Crusades
were of the Ba'alei ha-Tosafot. But the Hakhmei Ashkenaz and Hakhmei Tzarfat were the
Hakhmei ha-Masorah! They were responsible not only for piyutim, but for the shalshelet ha-
kabbalah, the transmission of the tradition as a whole! Tosafot quotes Rabbi El'azar ha-Kalir
many times when he has a halakhic problem. Rabbi El'azar ha-Kalir was not simply a paytan; he
was one of the Hakhmei ha-Masorah. So, of course, if he wrote a piyut of a kinah, it has

40
relevance. But I cannot trust others to do it. Not that I am suspicious. Not that I, God forbid,
have anything against the author of a contemporary kinah. I just do not believe that a
contemporary has the inner ability, the faith, the depth, the sweep of experience, the ecstacy, and
the taharat ha-nefesh, the purity of soul, that would authorize him or give him permission to
write a piyut. I just do not believe that there is anyone today who is qualified to do this.

Although many communities do recite a Kinnah for the Holocaust on Tish’ah BeAv such as the
one written by Rav Shimon Schwab, this is due to the overwhelming horror of the Holocaust.
Many feel that we cannot let Tish’ah BeAv pass without acknowledgement of this horror in the
form of a Kinnah. However, Rav Soloveitchik’s words of caution are heeded for tragedies of any
lesser magnitude. For example, Rav Ben Zion Uzziel, the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael
from 1939-1953, composed a compelling Kinnah commemorating the tragedy of the fall of the
Jewish Quarter of Yerushalayim in Israel’s 1948 War of Independence (printed in Rav Uziel’s
“Michmanei Uzziel”). This Kinnah, to the best of my knowledge, is not incorporated in the
Tish’ah BeAv Kinnot by any community nor was it recited even prior to the recapture of the old
city of Yerushalayim in June 1967. The fall of the old city of Jerusalem in 1948 was a terrible
tragedy that included hundreds of deaths of its Jewish residents and defenders. If we do not recite
Rav Uzziel’s Kinnah for this terrible event, how can we recite a Kinnah for Gush Katif?

Conclusion: A Proposed Manner to Mourn the Loss of Gush Katif

Rav Metzger concludes his article by noting, “Due to our many sins, a portion of our homeland
was torn away, and the grief and sorrow is great. Despite the great pain and anguish a new fat
day should not be instituted” nor should new Kinnot be recited. He does recommend reciting
“Baruch Dayan Emet” (without saying Hashem’s name; see Mishnah Berurah 224:14) in light
of Berachot 58b which states “One who sees Jewish homes in ruins should recite Baruch Dayan
Emet.”

We may add based on Rav Soloveitchik’s aforementioned remarks regarding new Kinnot for the
Holocaust: Rav Soloveitchik notes that there is ample room within the already existing
traditional liturgy to express our mourning for the Holocaust.

On Tish'ah be-Av, our eulogy is not limited to the Ten Martyrs. They were the first victims. We
also deliver a eulogy for the victims of the Crusades, and for the deaths of millions of Jews down
through Jewish history, including those killed by Hitler. I would rather use a piyut by one of the
Ba'alei ha-Tosafot or any other of the Hakhmei Ashkenaz than a liturgical piece by a present-
day writer.

In light of this point, I propose that we bear in mind the tragedy of Gush Katif when we recite in
Selichot “Yefi Admateinu L’Nochrim,” the beauty of our land is in the hands of Nochrim. This
phrase perfectly matches and captures the tragic loss of Gush Katif. In addition, in the Sephardic
liturgy for Tish’ah BeAv there is mentioned immediately prior to the removal of the Sefer Torah
for Keriat HaTorah, that Eretz Yisrael is Kevushah, conquered. Not only may we bear in mind
that this refers to Gush Katif, but it may also remind us that even today we are not free to act as

41
we wish in Eretz Yisrael but are subject to pressures from outside of Israel that brought about
the loss of Gush Katif.

Better To Suffer or Better To Live?

Eating—and Not Eating—as a Meritorious Jewish Act

Talmudic rabbis debate Jewish solidarity in the face of misfortune, a communal imperative
that still holds today

ADAM KIRSCH writes:17

17
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/belief/articles/daf-yomi-88

42
Is fasting a meritorious act? You might expect that a Talmudic tractate called Ta’anit, after the
Hebrew word for fast day, would be unequivocal on the subject. The whole point of the tractate is
that at times of trouble—in particular, when the rain refuses to fall—the Jewish community can
appease God and win his favor by fasting. As Daf Yomi readers completed chapter 2 of Ta’anit,
we learned that there is a set procedure for declaring fast days, with the fasts increasing in strictness
if drought stretches on.

We already saw, in last week’s reading, that Jews begin to “mention the might of the rains” in the
Amidah prayer at the end of Sukkot. This involves inserting a phrase into the prayer that mentions
God’s power over the wind and rain, as a low-key, implicit way of reminding God that the rainy
season is coming, and his people need their crops watered. If rain hasn’t begun by the third of
Cheshvan—roughly the middle of October—we turn to explicit prayer, adding the words “and
give dew and rain” to the Amidah. This dating is keyed to the agricultural needs of the Land of
Israel; in Babylonia, Hananya adds, Jews begin to request rain 60 days after the autumn equinox,
that is, in late November. In general, we learn on Ta’anit 14b, the rule is that “all is in accordance
with the place and all is in accordance with the time”: Local conditions govern the prayers for rain.

If two weeks go by and the rain still hasn’t fallen by the 17th of Cheshvan, then the fasting begins:
“Individuals begin to fast three fasts.” “Individuals,” the Gemara explains, means not just anyone
but the leading members of the community, the Torah scholars. (“Not everyone who wishes to
make himself an individual may do so,” the Gemara warns—for a lay person, and am ha’aretz, to
fast would be laying claim to a holiness he doesn’t possess.) The sages undertake three fast days
pegged to the cycle of Torah reading, on Monday, Thursday, and the following Monday. These
fasts are not severe: The sages are forbidden to eat during daylight hours, but like Muslims in
Ramadan, they may eat at night. They can also continue to work, bathe, and have sex, all of which
are forbidden on strict fast days like Yom Kippur.

If two more weeks pass and the sages’ fasts haven’t brought any rain, then the whole Jewish
community must start fasting, undertaking the same three days of lenient fasts. If this still doesn’t
work, a new set of three fasts begins on a stricter basis: No one may eat for a full 24-hour period;
and work, bathing, and sex are all prohibited. Finally, if the rain still hasn’t come, emergency
measures are taken: The community must undertake seven days of strict fasting, along with public
signs of distress like the sounding of alarms and the closing of all stores. If even this fails to work,
then the entire Jewish community must go into mourning, as described in the mishna on Ta’anit
12b: “They decrease their engagement in business, in building and planting, in betrothals and
marriages, and in greetings between each person and his fellow, like people who have been
rebuked by God.”

As we would expect, many details about fasting and prayer are canvassed during the course of the
Talmudic discussion. May a fasting person bathe with warm water or only cold water? Can you
wear shoes on a fast day? (Some sages would wear their shoes on the wrong feet, to make things
less comfortable for themselves.) If you are eating at night and fasting during the day, does that
mean you can eat all night long, or only one meal at dinner time?

43
Despite all these specifications, however, the Talmud is by no means enthusiastic about fasting for
its own sake. Indeed, the very strictness of the rules for declaring communal fasts is meant to
control the ascetic impulse, not encourage it. Here as always, Judaism stands in sharp contrast to
Christianity in its attitude toward asceticism: There is no Jewish imperative to scourge the body in
order to elevate the soul. Celibacy has never been a Jewish virtue—all Jews are bound by the
commandment to be fruitful and multiply—and while the holiest Christians are those who
withdraw from the world, the holiest Jews, the Torah sages, were businessmen and family men.
The Judaism we have come to know in the Talmud is emphatically a religion for living in the
world, not for fleeing or disparaging the world.

The Talmudic ambivalence about fasting stands out sharply in Ta’anit 11a, where Shmuel says,
rather surprisingly, that “whoever sits in observance of a fast is called a sinner.” This seems
counterintuitive, and Rabbi Elazar stakes out the opposition position when he says, “One who
accepts a fast upon himself is called sacred.” How could both of these views be correct? Perhaps
we are meant to learn that while fasting may sometimes be necessary, it is still an evil, because it
causes suffering to the body, and suffering can ever be inherently desirable.

Elazar makes this point with a striking and powerful image: “A person should always consider
himself as though a sacred object is immersed in his bowels.” There is something sacred literally
inside of us; our bodies are not just envelopes for our souls, but a kind of holy cargo that we have
to treat with decency and kindness. Accordingly, Elazar holds that if you are able to fast without
causing yourself bodily harm, you are “sacred”; but if a fast would damage your body, you would
be a “sinner” to undertake it.

The Gemara goes on to list other exceptions to the obligation of fasting. According to Reish Lakish,
“A Torah scholar is not permitted to sit in observance of a fast, due to the fact that fasting reduces
his strength for heavenly service.” Rav Sheshet says the same thing more harshly: “The student of
a Torah academy who sits in observance of a fast has let a dog eat his portion.” The rabbis debate
the status of “pregnant and nursing women”: Some say that they are exempt from the early fasts
but must join in the later, more onerous fasts, while others say the reverse, that they must engage
in the lenient fasts but are spared the more intensive ones.

Later, the sages mention that while most Jews are forbidden to bathe during the communal
mourning period, this doesn’t apply to young, unmarried women. They may continue to bathe and
use cosmetics, because “a grown woman is not permitted to render herself unattractive,” since it
may jeopardize her chance of getting a husband. We might well feel that this leniency is actually
a form of condescension, as if a woman’s appearance mattered more than her spiritual intentions;
but clearly the rabbis believed they were doing women a favor by this rule.

For all their ambivalence about fasting, however, the rabbis insist on one point. When the Jewish
community is in trouble, each Jew must join in the common mourning and share the common
burden. “When the community is immersed in suffering, a person may not say: I will go to my
home, and I will eat and drink.” Such a person is described by the Talmud as “middling,” an
average kind of sinner. But if you go further and actually enjoy yourself during a fast, saying, in
the words of Isaiah, “Come, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink,” you

44
are a “wicked person.” For the rule is that “a person should be distressed together with the
community.”

Even today, when most Jews no longer recognize the authority of the Talmud, this principle
continues to govern the Jewish community. Solidarity in the face of misfortune is one of today’s
few remaining Jewish imperatives—as the widespread concern for the three kidnapped Israeli
teenagers has shown. And if you think that you can separate yourself from the community—say,
by eating secretly during a fast—and no one will know, think again: On the Day of Judgment, the
Talmud warns, “the stones of a person’s house and the beams of a person’s house testify against
him.” This image, of a dwelling giving testimony about what happened inside it, is wonderfully
vivid and uncanny—a reminder that God has eyes everywhere.

Photo By Evan Whitehall

Living A Meaningful Life: Why Suffering Matters

Evan Whitehall writes:18

18
https://medium.com/swlh/why-suffering-matters-for-a-meaningful-life-58f45bcf055b

45
Suffering: it’s part of being human that most people avoid at all costs. We constantly miss

opportunities for growth when we turn our heads and hearts away from what brings us pain.

Being alive means you will die, guaranteeing a certain amount of suffering for everyone that is

born. It’s best to figure out what to do with it sooner than later.

Most likely, there will be devastation at several junctures of your life, leaving you feeling helpless,

insecure, and scared about the future. It turns out that this is a necessary part of development for

quality humans.

We don’t need to seek out suffering, it will find us without fail. It’s up to us to respond accordingly

and use it for our own development.

Being human is not easy, and I don’t claim to have a shortcut to happiness or a way to take your

suffering away.

The best thing I can offer you is a way to shift your perspective.

We can reorient ourselves toward suffering. We can use it to round us out while avoiding falling

into a deep depression.

The goal here is to use our inevitable suffering to reveal our true selves, while simultaneously

avoiding the pain that we create which doesn’t serve us. This requires a certain amount of self-

awareness that can be difficult to achieve if we’ve never had it.

46
This concept is simple enough to understand, but also extremely difficult to do. It means taking

responsibility for our reactions to the terrible things that are done to us and the horrors we bear

witness to. While doing this we also have to maintain our awareness.

In my opinion, this is the ultimate challenge for a human being.

How can losing a child be good for us? How can watching your partner die of cancer be something

that enriches your life? These are questions that are important to ponder.

Events of this magnitude will come for you someday even if you live the most blessed life

imaginable. Your response to these challenges will determine whether you have a life worth living.

Will you shut down your feelings in an attempt to power through the pain? Or will you recognize

feelings as signals to pay attention, as our own voices calling us to be strong and compassionate in

the most inopportune times? Basically, will we love what we fear most and embrace it as part of

who we are, or will we bury our head in consumerism and distraction?

What I offer here is an outline of what's happening in our heads and hearts during our worst

suffering and why we act the way we do.

Then, I take you through a brief journey of my continuing self-realization and why I am the way

that I am.

Finally, I offer some practical techniques that can give you a foothold if you want to change the

way you feel.

47
This is in order to help you start building up self-awareness that is necessary for transmuting our

suffering into compassion that will enrich your life. I want you to turn lead into gold.

With increased self-awareness comes increased capability to process our misery at the moment it

happens. Our suffering then becomes a vehicle for meaningful change in our lives and the world at

large, instead putting us into downward misery spirals that lead us into a living hell where we

destroy the things we love. Cause that’s no fun.

We only need to suffer when we need to; we don’t need to create more by avoiding
pain.

Most of us in the Western world struggle with suffering because we refuse to acknowledge it. We

tend to take the classical economical approach when bad things happen: We try to increase comfort

and convenience while avoiding suffering.

This is a road directly to hell. If we bury our heads in the sand, we fail to incorporate the fact that

we are mortal into our daily lives. We miss our chances for love, compassion, and authenticity in

favor of immediate gratification of our desire to be pain-free.

Our time as humans is limited; every second that passes by is a gift that is not guaranteed to be

followed by more. We assume that when we are suffering, it will eventually get better on its own.

It won’t.

Yet, most of us prefer to pretend that we are all gonna be okay in the end.

We start learning this flawed strategy as soon as we can walk. If we fall and scrape ourselves, we

are told to be tough. The boys that don’t cry get special treatment and admiration. Girls are told to

48
be pretty and obedient and not to speak up for themselves. We are fenced in from the start, unable

to suffer in peace.

We are instructed to stuff our misery and pain into small boxes so that it doesn’t contaminate our

seemingly perfect world. Then, one day, it spills out of us into the world and causes catastrophe

millions of times more powerful than the original feelings we had.

We mop up the mess and try to stuff it back into the box, and we go back to work convincing

ourselves that everything is okay.

This is how most people live and die if they never confront their suffering.

My personal journey to this realization has been painful for me and the rest of the world around me.

I have fucked up so many things because I was trying to avoid the inevitable. When I finally learned

to feel, I felt stupid for not doing it sooner. But I’m glad I finally did the work, even if it cost

everything that it did.

I’m not too hard on myself, though. I was up against some tough odds from the get-go.

I learned from a young age that toughness is paramount for a man in America. To acknowledge my

suffering feel it deeply meant that I was not tough. This would be a big failure on my part.

This defeat, I imagined, would lead to the worst kind of suffering because it meant that I was not

good enough. If I wasn’t good enough, then I didn’t deserve love. Without love, why live? This was

the early rationalization process that I learned.

49
It was apparent early on that crying, empathy, and feeling bad about myself were all obstacles to

getting love, friendship, and adoration.

Any feeling or thought that steered attention toward my suffering was better off being

compartmentalized and stored far from waking life. The way to win and get the love I wanted was

to overcome obstacles, not make them up out of thin air because of weakness. Not feeling was

rewarded.

While making me very successful and effective in whatever I chose to do, this kind of mindset made

me dangerously unbalanced.

It brought me to the edge of psychopathy. There was no real connection or authenticity, just

effectiveness and the rewards that came with it.

In war, this would be the optimal mindset and attitude. But I was always in a relatively safe

environment. As a result, my life became isolated and corrosive despite checking all the boxes of a

healthy life.

I was afraid of failure. I was unwilling to take any emotional risks.

Even with a seemingly good life, there was mass confusion and anger in me. I didn’t understand

why I felt the way I did. I had followed the map given to me, and it turns out it was a map to hell.

Without feeling my feelings, I had no capacity for sympathy or empathy. I couldn’t connect fully

with people because I wasn’t a complete human. I didn’t understand why people struggled with

their feelings.

50
If someone was sensitive, they appeared slow and cumbersome. I didn’t like tapdancing around

them. I pretended that I didn’t need those pesky feelings, and I paid the price with interest. My

suffering grew and grew despite my efforts to stop it.

I remained in my own personal prison until I learned how to feel. Feelings allowed me to finally

process my suffering. This allowed me to relate to people again and enjoy life for what it is, instead

of trying to impose happiness onto myself and others around me.

If we compartmentalize how we feel we will compound our unnecessary suffering. If this is

something that you habitually do, it doesn’t mean that you’re totally fucked. Sometimes, life

overwhelms us, and we need some time before we get to work. Compartmentalization gives us that

precious time.

But, at some point, we have to get to work.

We can develop habits to soften our hearts and we can learn to feel again.

Opening up to bad feelings is a huge risk for someone that compartmentalizes their emotions, and

it should not be taken lightly.

If you have a closed emotional framework, the world is a safe place. No one can touch you or phase

you.

The second you open up; you will start to feel terrible feelings along with good ones. You will cry

often. You will feel the world’s pain.

51
It will feel like exercising for the first time after a decade of eating nothing but ice cream. Your soul

will scream in anguish at all of the terrible things you never realized you were doing. Then, it will

get better.

Taking emotional risks will provide the relief that we all seek and allow us to be fully human. Relief

will not come from outside of you. It must come from within. Then, you can connect with other

people and experience life’s true treasures.

Without connecting to other people, we are lost. We can’t do everything on our own. Even if we

are alone by choice, we need to feel our deepest, darkest feelings in order to truly know ourselves

and share our gifts with the world.

Otherwise, we’re just pretending like we’re headed toward some unknown destination and the

sooner we get there, the less suffering we’ll have to endure. We will be strangers in our own skin,

confused about why we feel so terrible no matter what we do to stop it. Then, we die confused about

why we never felt good about anything.

The stark reality is that there is nowhere to go in this life. We are stuck here for the moment. There

is no point in accelerating toward the red light. We have to feel each moment, or we are relegated

to the mercy of life, and life has no mercy in the end.

We can at least avoid the unnecessary suffering by confronting it.

If we neglect the fact that we’re going to suffer at some point, we just compound it. This works

similar to interest on credit cards. Pay the balance before the interest compounds or get stuck in the

spiral.

52
Techniques for processing suffering that work:

If you’re interested in starting to feel more deeply, there are methods and techniques that require no

entry fee. They are free, safe, and proven to work. You can do them in the privacy of your own

home.

But, like anything worthwhile, they will take something from you for the gift that they give. Make

sure that you want to see change in your life before you start.

There is no putting the genie back in the bottle once you start feeling deeply.

Breathing Exercises

Here are some videos that feature techniques that are great for forcing hidden feelings out. I cried

like a bitch for the first dozen times I did these. It’s not painful or dangerous if you follow their

instructions. Go easy, and don’t underestimate how transformative it can be.

Transcendental Meditation

Although it’s tough to get at first, it eventually can give you enough space to observe your own

idiosyncrasies. When you can observe yourself, you gain self-awareness that can help you be

present during your suffering. It can also keep life from sucking too much if you’re stuck in a bad

place. Like breathing, it doesn’t cost you anything and it can’t hurt you. Here’s a good intro

technique to get you started and in the right frame of non-mind:

If this is hard for you, don’t give up. It takes time and discipline to see positive results. Be easy on

yourself if you tend to be a go-getter. The less you try, the more you do.

53
Journaling

Writing daily can give you a look at yourself, especially if you don’t have a taste for meditation.

You can discover things about yourself that you didn’t know you were holding on to. It makes you

more observant, and therefore more self-aware. Like everything that is worth anything, it takes time

and energy to see results. Keep journaling and be honest with yourself. No one will see it except

for you, so it’s okay to take all the risks you want.

Journaling is a long-haul approach. You won’t feel any better after a week. It takes months of
dedication, but it will turn into a powerful vehicle for transmuting your bad feelings into compassion

for yourself and others.

However you decide to eat the shit sandwich that is life’s inevitable suffering, the important thing

is that you get busy eating. Your life is waiting for you. It’s getting shorter every day, and that

sandwich is just getting smellier. Start with a small bite and take one every day. You will not regret

it.

Your life will start to populate with rich ideas and good humans. You won’t have to fight yourself

to feel good. Good luck, and don’t lose hope.

54