| 1. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, 2.12 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fasting, fasts, required number of prayer leaders for Found in books: Kalmin (1998) 119 |
2. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fasting, fasts, required number of prayer leaders for Found in books: Kalmin (1998) 119| 122a. אליבא דמאן,אי אליבא דר' ישמעאל האמר לא מבטל עור ואי אליבא דר"ע פשיטא האמר מבטל עור,לעולם אליבא דרבי ישמעאל וכי אמר רבי ישמעאל לא מבטל עור ה"מ שפלטתו חיה אבל פלטתו סכין בטיל,ת"ש ר' יהודה אומר האלל המכונס אם יש כזית במקום אחד חייבין עליו ואמר רב הונא והוא שכנסו,אי אמרת בשלמא פלטתו סכין לרבי ישמעאל נמי לא בטיל רב הונא דאמר כרבי ישמעאל,אלא אי אמרת פלטתו סכין לר' ישמעאל בטיל רב הונא דאמר כמאן,אלא לעולם פלטתו סכין לר' ישמעאל לא בטיל ורב הונא דאמר כר"ע,פשיטא מהו דתימא כי קאמר ר"ע ה"מ פלטתו סכין אבל פלטתו חיה לא בטיל,קמ"ל טעמא דר"ע מפני שהעור מבטלן ל"ש פלט חיה ול"ש פלט סכין כדקתני סיפא מפני מה ר"ע מטהר בעור מפני שהעור מבטלן:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אלו שעורותיהן כבשרן עור האדם ועור חזיר של ישוב ר' יהודה אומר אף עור חזיר הבר,ועור חטרת של גמל הרכה ועור הראש של עגל הרך ועור הפרסות ועור בית הבושת ועור השליל ועור של תחת האליה ועור האנקה והכח והלטאה והחומט ר' יהודה אומר הלטאה כחולדה,וכולן שעבדן או שהילך בהן כדי עבודה טהורין חוץ מעור האדם ר' יוחנן בן נורי אומר שמונה שרצים יש להן עורות:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר עולא דבר תורה עור אדם טהור ומה טעם אמרו טמא גזירה שמא יעשה אדם עורות אביו ואמו שטיחין,ואיכא דמתני לה אסיפא וכולן שעיבדן או שהילך בהן כדי עבודה טהורין חוץ מעור אדם אמר עולא דבר תורה עור אדם שעבדו טהור ומה טעם אמרו טמא גזירה שמא יעשה אדם עורות אביו ואמו שטיחין,מאן דמתני לה ארישא כ"ש אסיפא ומאן דמתני אסיפא אבל ארישא טומאה דאורייתא:,ועור חזיר [וכו']: במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר האי אשון והאי רכיך ומר סבר האי נמי רכיך:,עור חטרת של גמל הרכה: וכמה גמל הרכה אמר עולא א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל זמן שלא טענה,בעי ר' ירמיה הגיע זמנה לטעון ולא טענה מהו בעי אביי לא הגיע זמנה לטעון וטענה מהו תיקו,יתיב ר"ל וקמיבעיא ליה כמה גמל הרכה א"ל רבי ישמעאל בר אבא הכי א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל זמן שלא טענה א"ל תיב לקבלי,יתיב רבי זירא וקמיבעיא ליה כמה גמל הרכה א"ל רבין בר חיננא הכי אמר עולא א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל זמן שלא טענה הוה קתני לה א"ל חדא הויא לך אמרת,תא חזי מה בין תקיפי ארעא דישראל לחסידי דבבל:,ועור הראש וכו': וכמה עגל הרך עולא אמר בן שנתו ר' יוחנן אמר כל זמן שיונק איבעיא להו היכי קאמר עולא בן שנתו והוא שיונק | 122a. The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion is the statement of Rav Huna? It is taught in the mishna (124a) that in a case where the hide of an unslaughtered carcass was attached to two half olive-bulks of flesh, Rabbi Yishmael says that the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by means of contact with the flesh, because one touches them separately whereas one carries them together. Rabbi Akiva says: One contracts impurity neither by means of contact with the hide nor by means of carrying it., b If /b one maintains that Rav Huna’s statement is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yishmael, didn’t /b Rabbi Yishmael b say /b that the b hide does not nullify /b the attached flesh and therefore the one who carries it becomes impure with the impurity of a carcass? b And if /b one maintains that Rav Huna’s statement is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Akiva, /b then it is b obvious, /b as b didn’t /b Rabbi Akiva b say /b that b the hide nullifies /b the flesh and therefore one who carries it does not become impure?,The Gemara answers: b Actually, /b the statement of Rav Huna is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yishmael. And when Rabbi Yishmael said /b that b the hide does not nullify /b the flesh, b that statement /b applies to a case b where an animal severed /b the hide. b But /b in a case where a person used b a knife /b to b flay /b the hide, the hide b nullifies /b the attached flesh.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a refutation to this explanation of the statement of Rav Huna from that which is taught in the mishna: b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b With regard to b the meat residue /b attached to the hide after flaying b that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk /b of it b in one place /b it imparts impurity of an animal carcass, and one who contracts impurity from it and eats consecrated foods or enters the Temple b is liable /b to receive i karet /i b for it. And Rav Huna says /b in explanation of this statement of Rabbi Yehuda: This i halakha /i b is /b applicable only when a halakhically competent person b collected /b the meat residue in one place, but not if the meat residue was collected by a child or without human intervention.,Since Rav Huna interprets the statement of Rabbi Yehuda as referring to a case where a halakhically competent person collected the pieces of flesh, the mishna must be discussing a case where such a person flayed the hide with a knife in multiple places and then collected the pieces of flesh attached to the hide. Evidently, the hide does not nullify the flesh because if the hide did nullify the flesh, that flesh would not impart the impurity of a carcass even if it were later collected. Therefore, the Gemara challenges: b Granted, if you say /b that b according to Rabbi Yishmael, even /b in a case where a person used b a knife /b to b flay /b the hide, the hide b does not nullify /b the flesh, accordingly, b Rav Huna said /b his statement b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael /b that a hide flayed by a knife does not nullify the flesh, and therefore the flesh imparts the impurity of a carcass if a person collected the pieces., b But if you say /b that b according to Rabbi Yishmael, /b in a case where a person used b a knife /b to b flay /b the hide, the hide b nullifies /b the flesh and therefore the flesh does not impart the impurity of a carcass even if a halakhically competent person collected the pieces, then b in accordance with whose /b opinion b did Rav Huna say /b that the hide does not nullify the flesh and that the pieces of flesh that one collected impart the impurity of a carcass?,The Gemara responds: b Rather, /b it is necessary to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael differently. b Actually, according to Rabbi Yishmael /b even a hide b flayed by a knife does not nullify /b the attached flesh. b And Rav Huna said /b his statement that the hide nullifies attached pieces of flesh b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva. /b ,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it b obvious /b that the hide nullifies the flesh according to Rabbi Akiva? Rav Huna’s statement is unnecessary. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna’s statement is necessary b lest you say: When Rabbi Akiva said /b that the hide nullifies the attached pieces of flesh, b that statement /b applies only to a case where a person used b a knife /b to b flay /b the animal. b But /b if b an animal severed /b the hide, the hide b does not nullify /b the flesh.,Therefore, Rav Huna b teaches us /b that b the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Akiva /b is b because the hide nullifies /b the flesh, and there b is no difference /b whether b an animal severed /b the hide, b and /b there b is no difference /b whether a person used b a knife /b to b flay /b the hide. This statement of Rav Huna is therefore b in accordance with that which the latter clause /b of that mishna b teaches: For what /b reason b does Rabbi Akiva deem /b one ritually b pure in /b a case where he moved both half olive-bulks with b the hide? /b It is b because the hide /b separates between them and b nullifies them. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong b These /b are the entities b whose skin /b has the same halakhic status b as their flesh: The skin of /b a dead b person, /b which imparts impurity like his flesh; b and the skin of a domesticated pig, /b which is soft and eaten by gentiles, and imparts the impurity of an animal carcass like its flesh. b Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the skin of a wild boar /b has the same status., b And /b the halakhic status of the skin of all of the following animals is also like that of their flesh: b The skin of the hump of a young camel /b that did not yet toughen; b and the skin of the head of a young calf; and the hide of the hooves; and the skin of the womb; and the skin of /b an animal b fetus /b in the womb of a slaughtered animal; b and the skin beneath the tail /b of a ewe; b and the skin of the gecko [ i anaka /i ], and the desert monitor [ i ko’aḥ /i ], and the lizard [ i leta’a /i ], and the skink [ i ḥomet /i ], /b four of the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impurity after death. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b The halakhic status of the skin of b the lizard /b is b like /b that of the skin of b the weasel /b and is not like that of its flesh., b And /b with regard to b all of /b these skins, in a case b where one tanned them or /b spread them on the ground and b trod upon them for the period of time required for tanning, /b they are no longer classified as flesh and are b ritually pure, except for the skin of a person, /b which maintains the status of flesh. b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri says: /b All b eight creeping animals /b enumerated in the Torah b have skins /b whose halakhic status is not that of flesh., strong GEMARA: /strong The first clause of the mishna teaches that the skin of a dead person imparts impurity like his flesh. With regard to this, b Ulla says: The skin of /b a dead b person is pure by Torah law; and what /b is the b reason /b that the Sages b said /b that it is b impure? /b It is a rabbinic b decree lest a person fashion mats /b from b the skins of his /b deceased b father and mother. /b , b And there are those who teach /b this statement of Ulla b with regard to the latter clause /b of the mishna: b And /b with regard to b all of /b these skins, in a case b where one tanned them or /b spread them on the ground and b trod upon them for the period of time required for tanning, /b they are no longer classified as flesh and are b ritually pure, except for the skin of a person, /b which maintains the status of flesh. With regard to that clause, b Ulla says: The skin of /b a dead b person that one tanned is pure by Torah law; and what /b is the b reason /b that the Sages b said /b that it is b impure? /b It is a rabbinic b decree lest a person fashion mats /b from b the skins of his /b deceased b father and mother. /b ,The Gemara comments: b The one who teaches /b the statement of Ulla that the skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law b with regard to the first clause /b of the mishna, which discusses a softer hide that is not tanned, b all the more so /b would teach it b with regard to the latter clause /b of the mishna. b But the one who teaches /b this statement b with regard to the latter clause /b of the mishna holds that only the tanned skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law, b but /b does not teach it b with regard to the first clause /b of the mishna because he holds that the b impurity /b of the skin of a corpse that is not tanned is b by Torah law. /b ,§The mishna teaches that according to the first i tanna /i , b the skin of /b a domesticated b pig /b imparts impurity of an animal carcass like its flesh, indicates that the skin of a wild boar does not impart impurity of a carcass. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and holds that even the skin of a wild boar has the same status as its flesh. The Gemara asks: b With regard to what do /b the first i tanna /i and Rabbi Yehuda b disagree? /b The Gemara answers: One b Sage, /b the first i tanna /i , b holds /b that b this /b skin of a wild boar b is tough /b and therefore its status is not that of flesh, b but that /b skin of a domesticated pig b is soft /b and therefore its status is that of flesh. b And /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Yehuda, b holds /b that b this /b skin of a wild boar b is also soft /b and therefore its status is that of flesh.,§The mishna teaches that the b skin of the hump of a young camel /b that did not yet toughen imparts impurity of a carcass like its flesh. The Gemara asks: b And for how long is a camel /b considered b young /b and the status of the skin considered like that of the flesh? b Ulla says /b that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: As long as /b the camel b has not carried /b a burden., b Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to the skin of a camel b whose time, /b i.e., age, b to carry /b a burden b has arrived, but it has not /b yet b carried /b one? b Abaye raises a dilemma: What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to the skin of a camel b whose time to carry /b a burden b has not arrived, but it has /b nevertheless b carried /b one? The Gemara answers: These dilemmas b shall stand /b unresolved., b Reish Lakish sat and raised a dilemma: /b For b how long is a camel /b considered b young? Rabbi Yishmael bar Abba said to him: This is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as /b the camel b has not carried /b a burden. In response to his answer, Reish Lakish honored him and b said to him: Sit opposite me. /b , b Rabbi Zeira sat and raised a dilemma: /b For b how long is a camel /b considered b young? Ravin bar Ḥina said to him: This is what Ulla said /b that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as /b the camel b has not carried /b a burden. Ravin bar Ḥina then b repeated /b his answer to Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira b said to him: Do you have /b only b one /b i halakha /i to b say, /b and that is why you are repeating it?,The Gemara points out: b Come /b and b see what /b the difference is b between the harsh /b scholars b of Eretz Yisrael, /b such as Reish Lakish, b and the saintly ones of Babylonia, /b such as Rabbi Zeira. Although Reish Lakish was known for his harsh nature, he was the one who honored the Sage who resolved his dilemma, whereas Rabbi Zeira responded sharply to the one who taught him this i halakha /i .,§The mishna teaches: b And the skin of the head /b of a young calf has the same halakhic status as the flesh with regard to impurity. The Gemara asks: b And /b for b how long is a calf /b considered b young? Ulla says: /b It is considered young in b its /b first b year of age. Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b For b as long as /b the calf is b suckling. A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: With regard to b what /b case b is Ulla speaking? /b Is he referring to a calf that is in b its /b first b year of age and is /b still b suckling, /b |
|
3. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fasting, fasts, required number of prayer leaders for Found in books: Kalmin (1998) 119| 18b. דאמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר ר"ש חסידא מאי דכתיב (זכריה ח, יט) כה אמר ה' צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה קרי להו צום וקרי להו ששון ושמחה בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום,אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה יש גזרת המלכות צום אין גזרת המלכות ואין שלום רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין,אי הכי ט"ב נמי אמר רב פפא שאני ט' באב הואיל והוכפלו בו צרות דאמר מר בט' באב חרב הבית בראשונה ובשניה ונלכדה ביתר ונחרשה העיר,תניא אמר ר"ש ארבעה דברים היה ר"ע דורש ואני אין דורש כמותו צום הרביעי זה ט' בתמוז שבו הובקעה העיר שנאמר (ירמיהו נב, ו) (ברביעי) בתשעה לחדש ויחזק הרעב בעיר ולא היה לחם לעם הארץ ותבקע העיר ואמאי קרי ליה רביעי רביעי לחדשים,צום החמישי זה תשעה באב שבו נשרף בית אלהינו ואמאי קרי ליה חמישי חמישי לחדשים צום השביעי זה ג' בתשרי שבו נהרג גדליה בן אחיקם ומי הרגו ישמעאל בן נתניה הרגו ללמדך ששקולה מיתתן של צדיקים כשריפת בית אלהינו ואמאי קרי ליה שביעי שביעי לחדשים,צום העשירי זה עשרה בטבת שבו סמך מלך בבל על ירושלים שנאמר (יחזקאל כד, א) ויהי דבר ה' אלי בשנה התשיעית בחדש העשירי בעשור לחדש לאמר בן אדם כתב לך את שם היום את עצם היום הזה סמך מלך בבל אל ירושלם ואמאי קרי ליה עשירי עשירי לחדשים והלא היה ראוי זה לכתוב ראשון ולמה נכתב כאן כדי להסדיר חדשים כתיקנן,ואני איני אומר כן אלא צום העשירי זה חמשה בטבת שבו באת שמועה לגולה שהוכתה העיר שנאמר (יחזקאל לג, כא) ויהי בשתי עשרה שנה בעשירי בחמשה לחדש לגלותנו בא אלי הפליט מירושלם לאמר הוכתה העיר ועשו יום שמועה כיום שריפה,ונראין דברי מדבריו שאני אומר על ראשון ראשון ועל אחרון אחרון והוא אומר על ראשון אחרון ועל אחרון ראשון אלא שהוא מונה לסדר חדשים ואני מונה לסדר פורעניות,איתמר רב ורבי חנינא אמרי בטלה מגילת תענית רבי יוחנן וריב"ל אמרי לא בטלה מגילת תענית,רב ורבי חנינא אמרי בטלה מגילת תענית הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום והנך נמי כי הני,רבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע בן לוי אמרי לא בטלה מגילת תענית הני הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין בהמ"ק אבל הנך כדקיימי קיימי,מתיב רב כהנא מעשה וגזרו תענית בחנוכה בלוד וירד ר"א ורחץ ורבי יהושע וסיפר ואמרו להם צאו והתענו על מה שהתעניתם,א"ר יוסף שאני חנוכה דאיכא מצוה א"ל אביי ותיבטיל איהי ותיבטל מצותה,אלא אמר רב יוסף שאני חנוכה דמיפרסם ניסא,מותיב רב אחא בר הונא בתלתא בתשרי בטילת אדכרתא מן שטרייא שגזרה מלכות יון גזרה שלא להזכיר שם שמים על פיהם וכשגברה מלכות חשמונאי ונצחום התקינו שיהו מזכירין שם שמים אפילו בשטרות וכך היו כותבים בשנת כך וכך ליוחנן כהן גדול לאל עליון,וכששמעו חכמים בדבר אמרו למחר זה פורע את חובו ונמצא שטר מוטל באשפה וביטלום ואותו היום עשאוהו יו"ט ואי סלקא דעתך בטלה מגילת תענית קמייתא בטול אחרנייתא מוסיפין,הכא במאי עסקינן בזמן שבית המקדש קיים | 18b. b As Rav Ḥana bar Bizna said /b that b Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “Thus said the Lord of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall become times of joy and gladness, /b and cheerful seasons, b to the house of Judah” /b (Zechariah 8:19). b It calls them /b days of b “fast” and it calls them /b “times of b joy and gladness.” /b How so? b When there is peace /b in the world, b they will be /b times of b joy and gladness, /b on which eulogies and fasting are forbidden; but when b there is no peace, /b they are days of b fasting. /b In a time when there is no peace, why are messengers not sent out also for the fourth and tenth months, so that people can know when to observe the fasts?, b Rav Pappa said /b that b this is what it is saying: When there is peace /b in the world and the Temple is standing, these days b will be /b times of b joy and gladness; /b when b there is persecution /b and troubles for the Jewish people, they are days of b fasting; /b and when b there is no persecution but /b still b no peace, /b neither particular troubles nor consolation for Israel, the i halakha /i is as follows: If people b wish, they fast, /b and if b they wish, they do not fast. /b Since there is no absolute obligation to fast, messengers are not sent out for these months.,The Gemara asks: b If so, the Ninth of Av /b should b also /b be like the other fast days, that sometimes it is observed and sometimes not, depending upon the wishes of the community at the time. Why does the mishna state that messengers go out for the month of Av? b Rav Pappa said: The Ninth of Av is different, since the calamities /b that occurred on that day b were multiplied. As the Master said: On the Ninth of Av the Temple was destroyed, /b both b the first /b one b and the second /b one; on this day the city of b Beitar was captured; /b and on this day b the city /b of Jerusalem b was plowed /b over by the enemies of the Jewish people, as a sign that it would never be rebuilt. Consequently, the fast of the Ninth of Av is obligatory, and not optional like the other fasts. Messengers are consequently sent out so that people will know when to fast.,§ The Sages disagreed about the fasts alluded to in the words of the prophet, as b it is taught /b in a i baraita /i . b Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiva would expound four verses, but I would not expound /b the texts b as he did. /b One of the disputes relates to the fasts mentioned by Zechariah. Rabbi Akiva would expound the verse as follows: b “The fast of the fourth,” this is the ninth of Tammuz, on which the city /b of Jerusalem b was breached, as it is stated: “And in the fourth month, on the ninth day of the month, the famine was severe in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of the land. Then the city was breached” /b (Jeremiah 52:6–7). b And why does /b the prophet b call it /b the fast of the b fourth? /b Because it is in Tammuz, b the fourth of the months /b when counting from Nisan., b “The fast of the fifth,” this is the Ninth of Av, on which the Temple of our Lord was burnt. And why does he call it /b the fast of the b fifth? /b Because it falls in the b fifth of the months. “The fast of the seventh,” this is the third of Tishrei, on which Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed. And who killed him? Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, killed him /b (see II Kings 25:25; Jeremiah, chapter 41). The Sages established a fast to commemorate Gedaliah’s death b to teach you that the death of the righteous is equivalent to the burning of the Temple of our Lord. And why did /b the prophet b call it /b the fast of the b seventh? /b Because Tishrei is the b seventh of the months. /b , b “The fast of the tenth,” This is the tenth of Tevet, on which the king of Babylonia laid siege to Jerusalem, as it is stated: “And in the ninth year, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Son of man, write the name of the day, of this same day: The king of Babylonia has laid siege to Jerusalem on this very day” /b (Ezekiel 24:1–2). b And why did he call it /b the fast of the b tenth? /b Because it is in Tevet, which is b the tenth of the months. Wouldn’t it have been fitting to write /b this fast b first, /b as the series of events began with the laying of the siege. b Why was /b it b written here /b at the end of the list? This was done b in order to list the months in /b their b proper /b order, as the prophet began with the fourth month and ended with the tenth month. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.,Rabbi Shimon disagreed and said: b I do not say this, but rather /b I expound the verse as follows: b “The fast of the tenth,” this is the fifth of Tevet, on which the report reached the Diaspora that the city had been smitten, as it is stated: “And it came to pass in the twelfth year of our exile, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month, that one that had escaped out of Jerusalem came to me, saying: The city is smitten” /b (Ezekiel 33:21); b and they made the day of the report /b of the destruction b like the day of the /b actual b burning /b and decreed a fast on that day.,And Rabbi Shimon added: b And my statement seems /b more convincing b than his statement, as I say about the first /b fast mentioned by the prophet that it marks the event that took place b first, and about the last /b fast that it marks the event that took place b last. /b According to Rabbi Shimon, the fasts are listed in accordance with the chronological order of the events. b But he, /b Rabbi Akiva, b says about the first /b fast mentioned by the prophet that it marks the event that took place b last, and about the last /b fast mentioned that it marks the event that took place b first, only that he lists /b the fasts b in the order of the months, whereas I list /b them also b in the order of the calamities /b that they mark.,§ b It was stated /b that the Sages disagreed about the following matter: b Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina /b both b say: i Megillat Ta’anit /i , /b a listing of days on which fasting and eulogizing are forbidden, b has been nullified, /b as in the present period of exile there is no reason to celebrate the joyous events that these days commemorate. b Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: i Megillat Ta’anit /i has not been nullified. /b ,The Gemara explains: b Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina say /b that b i Megillat Ta’anit /i has been nullified. This is what /b the prophet b is saying: At a time when there is peace /b in the world, the dates listed b will be /b times of b joy and gladness, /b on which eulogies and fasting are forbidden; but when b there is no peace, /b they are days of b fasting. And those /b days mentioned in i Megillat Ta’anit /i b are also like these /b days of fasting, that is to say, the days of joy listed in i Megillat Ta’anit /i are also nullified when there is no peace., b Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say /b that b i Megillat Ta’anit /i has not been nullified, /b and they reason as follows: b It was those /b fast days mentioned in the Bible b that the Merciful One makes contingent on the building of the Temple, but these /b festive days listed in i Megillat Ta’anit /i b remain as they were /b and have not been nullified., b Rav Kahana raised an objection /b against Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina from a i baraita /i : b There was an incident and /b the Sages b decreed a fast on Hanukkah in Lod, and Rabbi Eliezer went down /b on that day b and bathed /b in the bathhouse b and Rabbi Yehoshua went down and cut /b his hair to show that they did not accept the fast. Furthermore, these two Sages b said to /b the others: b Go out and fast /b another fast as an act of penitence b for what you have /b already b fasted, /b as the days of Hanukkah are days of joy, on which fasting is forbidden. Hanukkah is one of the Festivals listed in i Megillat Ta’anit /i . Even after the destruction of the Temple Hanukkah is celebrated, demonstrating that i Megillat Ta’anit /i has not been nullified., b Rav Yosef said: Hanukkah is different, as there is the mitzva /b of lighting candles, and so, unlike the other days listed in i Megillat Ta’anit /i , the festival of Hanukkah was not nullified. b Abaye said to him: /b What is this argument? b Let /b Hanukkah b itself be nullified, and let its mitzva /b of lighting candles b be nullified /b with it., b Rather, Rav Yosef /b retracted his previous explanation and b said: Hanukkah is different, as its miracle is well known, /b and it has become so widely accepted by all the Jewish people that it would be inappropriate to nullify it., b Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection: /b It is stated in i Megillat Ta’anit /i : b On the third of Tishrei the /b ordice requiring the b mention /b of God’s name b in /b legal b documents was abolished, /b and on that day fasting is forbidden. b For the kingdom of Greece had issued a decree /b against the Jews b forbidding them to mention the name of Heaven on their lips. When the Hasmonean kingdom became strong and defeated /b the Greeks, b they instituted that people should mention the name of Heaven even in their /b legal b documents. And therefore they would write: In year such and such of Yoḥa the High Priest of the God Most High. /b , b And when the Sages heard about this they said: Tomorrow this one, /b the borrower, b will repay his debt, /b the lender will no longer need to save the loan document, b the document will be cast on a dunghill, /b and the name of Heaven written there will come to disgrace. b And /b so b they annulled /b the ordice to mention God’s name in documents, b and they made that day into a Festival. And if it enters your mind /b to say that b i Megillat Ta’anit /i has been nullified, /b can you say that b the first /b prohibitions against fasting b they annulled, and /b then b later /b ones b were added? /b ,The Gemara answers: b With what are we dealing here? /b This is referring to a time b when the Temple was standing /b and all the days listed in i Megillat Ta’anit /i were in force. From time to time new days of commemoration were added. When the i amora’im /i stated that i Megillat Ta’anit /i was nullified they were referring to the time after the destruction of the Temple. |
|
4. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998) 119| 21b. ביום אחד או בארבעה ימים אין זה דבר,דרוקרת עיר המוציאה חמש מאות רגלי הוה ויצאו ממנה שלשה מתים ביום אחד גזר רב נחמן בר רב חסדא תעניתא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כמאן כר"מ,דאמר ריחק נגיחותיו חייב קירב נגיחותיו לא כ"ש,א"ל רב נחמן בר רב חסדא לרב נחמן בר יצחק ליקום מר ליתי לגבן א"ל תנינא רבי יוסי אומר לא מקומו של אדם מכבדו אלא אדם מכבד את מקומו שכן מצינו בהר סיני שכל זמן שהשכינה שרויה עליו אמרה תורה (שמות לד, ג) גם הצאן והבקר אל ירעו אל מול ההר ההוא נסתלקה שכינה ממנו אמרה תורה (שמות יט, יג) במשוך היובל המה יעלו בהר,וכן מצינו באהל מועד שבמדבר שכל זמן שהוא נטוי אמרה תורה (במדבר ה, ב) וישלחו מן המחנה כל צרוע הוגללו הפרוכת הותרו זבין והמצורעים ליכנס שם,אמר ליה אי הכי ניקום אנא לגבי מר אמר ליה מוטב יבא מנה בן פרס אצל מנה בן מנה ואל יבא מנה בן מנה אצל מנה בן פרס,בסורא הוות דברתא בשיבבותיה דרב לא הוות דברתא סברו מיניה משום זכותיה דרב דנפיש איתחזי להו בחילמא רב דנפישא זכותיה טובא הא מילתא זוטרא ליה לרב אלא משום ההוא גברא דשייל מרא וזבילא לקבורה,בדרוקרת הוות דליקתא ובשיבבותיה דרב הונא לא הוות דליקתא סבור מינה בזכותא דרב הונא דנפיש איתחזי להו בחילמא האי זוטרא ליה לרב הונא אלא משום ההיא איתתא דמחממת תנורא ומשיילי לשיבבותיה,אמרו ליה לרב יהודה אתו קמצי גזר תעניתא אמרו ליה לא קא מפסדן אמר להו זוודא אייתו בהדייהו,אמרו ליה לרב יהודה איכא מותנא בחזירי גזר תעניתא נימא קסבר רב יהודה מכה משולחת ממין אחד משולחת מכל המינין לא שאני חזירי דדמיין מעייהו לבני אינשי,אמרו ליה לשמואל איכא מותנא בי חוזאי גזר תעניתא א"ל והא מרחק אמר ליכא מעברא הכא דפסיק ליה,אמרו ליה לרב נחמן איכא מותנא בארעא דישראל גזר תעניתא אמר אם גבירה לוקה שפחה לא כל שכן,טעמא דגבירה ושפחה הא שפחה ושפחה לא והא אמרו ליה לשמואל איכא מותנא בי חוזאי גזר תעניתא שאני התם כיון דאיכא שיירתא דלווי ואתיא בהדיה,אבא אומנא הוה אתי ליה שלמא ממתיבתא דרקיעא כל יומא ולאביי כל מעלי יומא דשבתא לרבא כל מעלי יומא דכיפורי הוה קא חלשא דעתיה דאביי משום דאבא אומנא אמרו ליה לא מצית למיעבד כעובדיה,ומאי הוו עובדיה דאבא אומנא דכי הוה עביד מילתא הוה מחית גברי לחוד ונשי לחוד ואית ליה לבושא דאית ביה קרנא דהוות בזיעא כי כוסילתא כי הוות אתיא ליה איתתא הוה מלביש לה כי היכי דלא ניסתכל בה ואית ליה דוכתא דצניעא דשדי ביה פשיטי דשקיל דאית ליה שדי ביה דלית ליה לא מיכסיף,כי הוה אתרמי ליה צורבא מרבנן אגרא מיניה לא שקיל ובתר דקאי יהיב ליה פשיטי ואמר ליה זיל בריא נפשך יומא חד שדר אביי זוגא דרבנן למיבדקיה אותבינהו ואכלינהו ואשקינהו ומך להו ביסתרקי בליליא | 21b. If all three died b on one day or over four days, /b this is not a plague of b pestilence. /b ,In explanation of the counterintuitive ruling that many deaths in one day is not indicative of a plague, the Gemara relates: b Drokart /b was a city that b sent out five hundred infantrymen, and three dead were removed from it on one day. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda decreed a fast /b on account of the plague. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In accordance with whose opinion /b did you declare this fast? It must be b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir. /b ,This is related to the definition of a forewarned ox, an animal that has gored enough times to be considered a dangerous beast that requires careful supervision, b as /b Rabbi Meir b said: /b The owner of an ox is b liable /b to pay full damages if b its /b acts of b goring were separated, /b i.e., if it gored three times on three consecutive days, as claimed by the Rabbis. If b its /b acts of b goring were near /b each other, performed on a single day, is it b not all the more so /b that this animal should be classified as a forewarned ox? However, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak continued, this represents a minority opinion. Just as Rabbi Meir’s reasoning is rejected for i halakha /i in the case of an ox, so too it is rejected with regard to a plague.,Upon hearing this impressive argument, b Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Let the Master arise and come /b to live b with us /b as our community leader. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak b said to him: We /b already b learned /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yosei says: /b It is b not the place of a person /b that b honors him; rather, /b the b person honors his place, as we found with regard to Mount Sinai, that as long as the Divine Presence rested upon it, the Torah said: “Neither let the flocks nor the herds feed before that mount” /b (Exodus 34:3). Once b the Divine Presence departed from /b the mountain, b the Torah said: “When the i shofar /i sounds long they shall come up to the mount” /b (Exodus 19:13). This indicates that the sanctity was not inherent to the place but was due to the Divine Presence resting there., b And we likewise found with regard to the Tent of Meeting that was in the wilderness, that whenever it was erected, the Torah said: “That they put out of the camp every leper” /b (Numbers 5:2). Once b the curtain was rolled up /b and the Tent of Meeting was prepared for travel, b i zavim /i and lepers were permitted to enter /b the place where it had stood. The place itself had no intrinsic sanctity; rather, it was sacred only because the Divine Presence was there. Accordingly, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak maintained that there is no reason for him to move places to receive honor.,Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda b said to /b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: b If so, let me arise /b and come b to the Master, /b to learn Torah from you. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak b said to him: /b It is b better /b that b one hundred dinars /b that is the b son of a i peras /i , /b fifty dinars, b should come to one hundred dinars /b that is the b son of one hundred dinars; but one hundred dinars /b that is the b son of one hundred dinars, should not come to one hundred dinars /b that is the b son of a i peras /i . /b In other words, although Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was a learned scholar, comparable to one hundred dinars, it was nevertheless more appropriate for him to come to Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda. Whereas Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was the son of a i peras /i , an ordinary man, Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda was the son of a scholar.,The Gemara relates another story involving a plague: Once b there was /b a plague of b pestilence in Sura, /b but b in the neighborhood of Rav there was no pestilence. /b The people b therefore thought /b that this was b due to Rav’s great merit. /b However, b it was revealed to them in a dream /b that b Rav’s merit was too great /b and b this matter too small for /b the merit of b Rav /b to be involved. b Rather, /b his neighborhood was spared b due to /b the acts of kindness of b a certain man, who /b would b lend his hoe [ i mara /i ] and shovel [ i zevila /i ] /b to prepare sites b for burial. /b ,The Gemara relates a similar incident. b In Drokart there was a fire, but in the neighborhood of Rav Huna there was no fire. /b The people b therefore thought /b that this was b due to Rav Huna’s great merit. It was revealed to them in a dream /b that b this /b matter was b too small for /b the merit of b Rav Huna /b to have played a role. b Rather, /b it was b due to a certain woman who heats her oven and lends it, /b i.e., the use of her oven, b to her neighbors. /b , b They said to Rav Yehuda: Locusts have come /b to our region. Rav Yehuda b decreed a fast. They said to him: They are not destroying /b anything, as they are eating only a little. b He said to them: Have they brought provisions with them, /b that they have something else to eat? Even if they are not damaging your crops now, they will certainly eat them soon.,On another occasion, b they said to Rav Yehuda: There is pestilence among the pigs. Rav Yehuda decreed a fast. /b The Gemara asks: b Let us say /b that b Rav Yehuda maintains /b that b a plague affecting one species /b will come to b affect all species, /b and that is why he decreed a fast. The Gemara answers: b No, /b in other cases there is no cause for concern. However, b pigs are different, as their intestines are similar to /b those of b humans. /b Consequently, their disease might spread to people., b They said to Shmuel: There is pestilence in /b the region of b Bei Ḥozai, /b which is quite a distance from Babylonia. Shmuel b decreed a fast. They said to him: But it is far /b from here. b He said: There is no crossing here that will stop /b the pestilence, and therefore there is cause for concern that it will reach us., b They said to Rav Naḥman: There is pestilence in Eretz Yisrael. Rav Naḥman decreed a fast /b in Babylonia, b saying: If the lady /b of the house, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, b is afflicted, /b is it b not all the more so /b that b the maidservant, /b Babylonia, will be afflicted?,The Gemara asks: The b reason /b for this ruling is apparently only because Eretz Yisrael is b a lady /b in comparison to the Diaspora, which is likened to b a maidservant. /b It may be inferred from this that in a case involving b a maidservant and a maidservant, /b i.e., two places in the Diaspora, there is no reason to fast. b But /b in the previous story, when b they said to Shmuel: There is pestilence in /b the region of b Bei Ḥozai, he decreed a fast /b in Neharde’a, despite the fact that Neharde’a is not considered a lady with respect to Bei Ḥozai. The Gemara answers: It b is different there. Since there are caravans /b that regularly travel from Bei Ḥozai to Neharde’a, the pestilence b will join and accompany /b them b in /b the caravans.,§ Apropos the above stories that deal with the merits of ordinary people, the Gemara relates: b Abba the Bloodletter would receive greetings from the yeshiva on High every day, and Abaye would receive /b these greetings b every Shabbat eve, and Rava would receive /b greetings only once a year b on Yom Kippur eve. /b Abaye b was distressed due to Abba the Bloodletter, /b as he did not understand why Abba received greater honor than he did. b They said to him: You are unable to perform what he does, /b and therefore you do not merit the same honor.,The Gemara asks: b And what were these /b righteous b deeds of Abba the Bloodletter? /b The Gemara explains b that when he would perform a matter /b of bloodletting, b he would bring in men separately from women, /b for reasons of modesty. b And he had /b a special b garment /b that b had a slit in the place of the incision [ i kusilta /i ] /b where the bloodletting instrument was inserted. b When a woman came to him, he would /b have b her dress in that garment, so that he would not see her /b exposed. b And /b furthermore, b he had a hidden place /b where he worked, b where /b customers b would place the coins [ i peshitei /i ] that he would take /b as his fee. In this manner, b one who had /b money b would throw /b it b there, /b while b one who did not have money was not embarrassed. /b , b When a Torah scholar came to him /b for bloodletting, b he would take no pay from him, and after /b the scholar b arose, /b Abba b would give him money and say to him: Go /b and purchase food with this money b to heal yourself, /b as it is important to eat healthy food after bloodletting. b One day, Abaye sent a pair of Sages to investigate /b the extent of Abba the Bloodletter’s righteousness. Abba the Bloodletter b sat them down, and gave them /b food b to eat, and gave them /b something b to drink. And at night he spread out mats [ i bistarkei /i ] for them /b to sleep on. |
|
