Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Ta'anis 12

1) EATING BEFORE AND AFTER A "TA'ANIS SHA'OS"

OPINIONS: Rav Chisda states that a Ta'anis Sha'os is a valid Ta'anis only when the person does not eat anything until nightfall. This implies that in a Ta'anis Sha'os, one does not eat all day. If so, how does a Ta'anis Sha'os differ from a regular Ta'anis?

(a) RASHI says that although a person observing a Ta'anis Sha'os indeed does not eat all day, it differs from a regular Ta'anis in that one was not Mekabel it upon himself the day before. Only during the day that he was fasting did he decide to formally accept it upon himself as a day of fasting. A regular Ta'anis, though, is when one was Mekabel the Ta'anis the day before. (See Insights to 11:2:a)

(b) The RAMBAN and RITVA cite the Yerushalmi that says explicitly that a person is allowed to observe a Ta'anis Sha'os even after he ate cheese and drank water. They explain that when our Gemara 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 something, and then start his Ta'anis Sha'os afterwards. That, too, is what the Yerushalmi means.

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

(c) The RAN also rules like the Yerushalmi and says that one may eat before a Ta'anis Sha'os. In contrast to the Ramban and Ritva, though, 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). They contend that Rav Chisda in our Gemara is only discussing the obligation to fast *after* the Ta'anis Sha'os until nightfall. He does not mean that one must fast from daybreak until the Ta'anis Sha'os as well.

(d) The YERUSHALMI cited by the Rishonim adds another point. Not only is it 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.

This seems to contradict our Gemara, which says that one must fast until nightfall. However, the ROSH here (1:12) and TOSFOS (Avodah Zarah 34a) suggest that perhaps our Gemara and the Yerushalmi do not disagree, and that our Gemara also maintains that one may eat before nightfall after fasting a Ta'anis Sha'os. 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 say Aneinu), he must refrain from eating until nightfall. But even if one accepts to fast only until midday and afterwards he will eat, his word is still binding, since a half-day fast is also considered a fast with regard to obligating him to fast until the time that he originally designated.

(This is in contrast to what Rashi writes numerous times in our Sugya, that if one accepts to fast for only part of a day, it is not considered a "Nidrei Mitzvah" at all, and is not binding -- see Rashi DH Letze'urei Nafshei.)

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

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 562:1) cites our Gemara that if one is Mekabel a Ta'anis only until midday, one does not say Aneinu. He rules (562:11) like the ROSH (d) and says that although one does not say Aneinu, one does have to keep his pledge to fast until midday (or from midday until nightfall), but he may eat the rest of the day.

The REMA (562:1) says that one should take into account the opinion of the Terumas ha'Deshen (e) as well, who rules that one says Aneinu even if he was Mekabel to fast only until midday and plans to eat after that. Therefore, the Rema says, one should say Aneinu in the Berachah of "Shome'a Tefilah" for such a fast. The MISHNAH BERURAH (562:6) adds that this applies only if one Davens Minchah before he ends his fast. If one ate before Minchah, he does not say Aneinu even according to the Terumas ha'Deshen.

QUESTION: Shmuel says that if one does not make a formal Kabalah to fast on the day before he fasts, his Ta'anis is not a valid Ta'anis. The Gemara earlier (11b), however, discusses a Ta'anis Sha'os, which, as Rashi explains there, is a Ta'anis that one observed without being Mekabel it the day before, and it is a valid Ta'anis! According to Shmuel, it should not be a valid Ta'anis since there was no Kabalah the day before. How do we reconcile these two statements of the Gemara?

ANSWERS:

(a) The RITVA and RAN explain that Shmuel's emphasis is on the *Kabalah* of the Ta'anis. He is emphasizing that one must be Mekabel the Ta'anis before he begins fasting, but one does not necessarily have to be Mekabel it the day before. A Ta'anis Sha'os, too, needs a Kabalah, but it does not have to be the day before the fast. Shmuel was talking about a regular Ta'anis, when one is Mekabel to fast the entire day, in which case the Kabalah must be the day before.

(b) TOSFOS (Avodah Zarah 34a) and the ROSH (1:12) indeed rule that one must be Mekabel the Ta'anis Sha'os the day before (see Insights to 11b). This is easily understood according to the Yerushalmi, that says that a partial Ta'anis (Ta'anis Sha'os) is acceptable even if one eats on the same day as the Ta'anis before it starts, or after it finishes. One can be Mekabel, on the preceding day, to observe a Ta'anis Sha'os on the following day, that will only last a few hours, and he will eat until the time that it starts.

However, according to those Rishonim (such as Rashi), who explain that a Ta'anis Sha'os means a full-day fast without a Kabalah the day before, how can one be Mekabel to fast a Ta'anis Sha'os from the day before? It is only considered a Ta'anis Sha'os if he does not eat even before it starts or after it is over. If a preson accepts not to eat the following day for the entire day, then he has accepted a full-fledged Ta'anis upon himself, and not just a Ta'anis Sha'os!

TOSFOS in Avodah Zarah (34a) explains that even according to this opinion in can still be construed that a person will make a Kabalah to fast a Ta'anis Sha'os on the previous day. The person can be Mekabel on the day before that *if* he does not eat (for whatever reason) the next day until midday, then he accepts upon himself to fast from midday until the end of the day. In such a case, he fasts the entire day with a Kabalas Ta'anis, yet he was not Mekabel to fast the entire day.

(c) TOSFOS and the ROSH cite RABEINU TAM who says that the Kabalah that Shmuel requires is only l'Chatchilah. It makes his fasting into a full- fledged Ta'anis. Even without a Kabalah, though, his act of fasting is still considered a Ta'anis (and it fulfills his obligation to fast, and perhaps it even enables him to say Aneinu). When the Gemara says that one who fasts without a Kabalah is like a "blown up sack," it means he has to do Teshuvah for afflicting himself without accepting the Ta'anis upon himself.

(d) The RIF omits the entire Sugya of Ta'anis Sha'os. The RAN suggests that he may have learned that Shmuel argues with Rav Huna and with those who say that a Ta'anis Sha'os is a valid Ta'anis, and he is ruling like Shmuel that there is no such thing as a Ta'anis Sha'os. One must be Mekabel his Ta'anis the day before, and there is no partial-day Ta'anis.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 562:5) rules like Shmuel, that one must be Mekabel a Ta'anis the day before. He cites two opinions ((a) and (b) above) regarding 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 be Mekabel the Ta'anis is only l'Chatchilah, and even if one did not formally accept to fast the next day, he may still say Aneinu. (The MISHNAH BERURAH adds that one may say Aneinu only if one fasts all day without a Kabalah, but not if one fasts only part of a day without a Kabalah. However, he may say 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 say Aneinu.

QUESTION: The Gemara records an argument between Rav and Shmuel regarding when must one be Mekabel the Ta'anis. Rav says that one may be Mekabel the Ta'anis at any time before the day of the Ta'anis. Shmuel says that one must be Mekabel the Ta'anis in the Tefilas Minchah on the day before the Ta'anis.

The Gemara cites support for Shmuel from a Beraisa in Megilas Ta'anis. After listing the days on which one may not fast, the Beraisa 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 being Mekabel the "Ta'anis" again before the day of the Ta'anis. Even though he already accepted upon himself to fast, his initial Kabalah does not make the Ta'anis binding enough to override the Yom Tov of Megilas Ta'anis. Only if he formally accepts upon himself to fast, with the phrasing of an oath, is his fast considered a Ta'anis to override the Yom Tov. The Gemara says that from here we see that it must be that one must accept the Ta'anis during Tefilas Minchah, like Shmuel says.

In defense of Rav, the Gemara cites another version of the Beraisa which reads "Ye'aser" instead of "Yeyaser." "Ye'aser" means that since the person accepted upon himself to fast, "he will be prohibited" from eating. The Gemara asks that according to that version, what is the Beraisa teaching? It is obvious that he will be prohibited from eating as a result of having accepted upon himself to fast! The Gemara answers that the Beraisa is teaching that the status of his Ta'anis depends on when he accepted to fast: if he accepted to fast *before* that day was pronounced as a Yom Tov by the Chachamim, then his oath to fast is binding; if he accepted to fast *after* the Chachamim declared that day to be a Yom Tov, then his oath is not binding and his fast is not observed.

The Gemara is unclear. First, what was the proof from the Beraisa for Shmuel's opinion? While we do see from the Beraisa that the Kabalah for the Ta'anis must be made in advance, how do we see that it has to be made in the Tefilas Minchah before the Ta'anis?

Second, why does the Gemara explain, according to the version of the Beraisa that reads "Ye'aser," that the status of the Ta'anis depends on when the person was Mekabel the Ta'anis? What is wrong with the Beraisa that the Gemara has to give additional information about it in order to understand it? Why does it become unclear if it says "Ye'aser" and not "Yeyaser?" It is not at all obvious that he will be prohibited from eating as a result of having accepted upon himself to fast; since these days were instituted as days of celebration, one might think that even if he accepted upon himself to fast that day he is not obligated to fast -- as the Gemara actually concludes, in the case that the Ta'anis was accepted after the celebration was instituted.

ANSWERS:

(a) According to Rav, who says that one does not have to accept the Ta'anis in the Minchah Shemoneh Esreh, one may accept the Ta'anis at *any time before the day of the Ta'anis*, even months in advance. Just as Rav is lenient and does not require accepting 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 before the day of the fast -- i.e., in Shemoneh Esreh, and immediately before the Ta'anis.

With this assumption, the proof for Shmuel is now clear. If one was Mekabel a series of fasts, why does the Beraisa say that he must be Mekabel it again ("Yeyaser")? It must be because there is a requirement to be Mekabel the Ta'anis right before the day of the Ta'anis, like Shmuel says.

The Gemara then cites the version of the Beraisa that says "Ye'aser," and re- explains the Beraisa based on that change. If the Beraisa is just saying that the person is prohibited from eating, then why did the Beraisa have to mention that "if he was Mekabel the Ta'anis *from before*, he becomes prohibited from eating?" What is the meaning of the words "from before?" From before what? Those words are irrelevant; the Beraisa should say "if he was Mekabel the Ta'anis, he becomes prohibited from eating," without the words "from before!"

According to Shmuel it makes sense why the Beraisa says "from before." 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, though, what does "from before" mean?

The Gemara answers that the Beraisa is saying that one's Kabalah only makes the day into a Ta'anis if it was made *from before* the day became a Yom Tov. Otherwise, one does not have to fast because the celebration overrides the Ta'anis. (Based on the RAN.)

(b) TOSFOS seems to have had the opposite Girsa in the Gemara. Tosfos asserts that the version of the Beraisa that 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). That is a proof for Shmuel, Tosfos says. "Yeyaser," on the other hand, implies that he is "removed" from having to fast -- his Ta'anis is pushed aside by the Yom Tov and he may eat! What does the Beraisa mean to say by this, asks the Gemara? The Gemara answers that the Beraisa means that it depends when he made his Kabalah; if it was before the Chachamim enacted the day as a Yom Tov, then he must fast, and if it was after the Chachamim enacted the day as a Yom Tov, then he does not fast and "Yeyaser" -- he is removed from the obligation to fast.

According to Tosfos, though, how is the Beraisa proof for Shmuel's opinion that one must be Mekabel the Ta'anis in Tefilas Minchah the day before? The Beraisa says only that he is prohibited from eating ("Ye'aser"), and it says nothing about when he has to be Mekabel the Ta'anis! Furthermore, what is the Gemara's question about the version that says "Yeyaser?" Perhaps that version of the Beraisa is simply teaching that one's Kabalah to observe a Ta'anis Yachid cannot override a Yom Tov of Megilas Ta'anis?

Tosfos can be understood with the comments of the HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS (Hilchos Ta'anis 1:7), who gives the opposite explanation than that of Rashi. Whereas Rashi says that the Kabalah for a Ta'anis is better when it is made *closer* to the Ta'anis, the Hagahos Maimoniyos says that the Kabalah for a Ta'anis is better the *earlier* that 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 weaker Kabalah -- one which is made close to the Ta'anis -- suffices, *even* if it is done right before the Ta'anis, in the Minchah Shemoneh Esreh of the day before. Rav, though, is more stringent and requires that the Kabalah be made before the Tefilah of Minchah on the day before the Ta'anis.

The inference from the Beraisa in Megilas Ta'anis might be based on the words "if he is Mekabel *from before*...." Why does it have to say "from before?" It implies that from *any time* before the day of the Ta'anis, the Kabalah is valid, like Shmuel says, even if it is only a very short time before the Ta'anis. Thus, the Beraisa supports Shmuel.

The Gemara then cites the version of the Beraisa that reads "Yeyaser," meaning that one does *not* have to fast. It asks that according to this text of the Beraisa, what do the words "from before" mean? If the Beraisa is teaching that the fast never overrides the Yom Tov, what difference does it make that the Kabalah was made immediately before the Ta'anis? Even if the Kabalah was made earlier, it would not override the Yom Tov!

The Gemara answers that the Beraisa is teaching that if one is Mekabel to fast *shortly before* the day of the Yom Tov arrives, and thus the Chachamim had already instituted that day to be a Yom Tov before his Kabalah, then "Yeyaser" -- his Ta'anis is removed. But if he was Mekabel the Ta'anis long before the Yom Tov -- i.e. before the Yom Tov was even instituted -- the Ta'anis remains binding. (M. Kornfeld)

12b

QUESTION: 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 had pledged to fast and was unable to fast, for some reason, on the day that he had intended, he may make it up on another day.

According to the Gemara's first version of the dialogue, Shmuel disagrees and says that if a person accepted upon himself to fast and then found himself unable to fast, then he does not have to fast, nor does he have 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 that he had accepted as a Ta'anis.

If a person made a Kabalah to fast, why is it not considered a Neder? It should be binding like a Neder, and he should not be able to delay it and fast on another day if he made an oath to fast on this day!

Moreover, how can Shmuel (of the Gemara's first version) say that if one finds it difficult to fast, he does not have to fast and he does not have to make it up at all. What happened to the person's Kabalah to fast?

ANSWERS:

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

This explains Rav's opinion. How do we understand Shmuel, though? Shmuel says that if one cannot fast on the day that he intended, he does not have to fast nor does he have to make it up. Why not? He made an oath to fast for a certain number of fast days, and he did not fast on this day, and thus he has not fulfilled the pledged number of fasts! What happened to his Neder to observe a certain number of fast days?

The answer is that the Rambam learns like the BA'AL HA'TZEROROS (see also RABEINU CHANANEL), who says that the case is when the person fasted part of the day before he had to stop, and the physical distress that he experienced from that 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 the person's Kabalah was to fast a full day.

(b) The ROSH explains that according to Rav, when a person originally accepted to fast, he did not accept it with an explicit phraseology of a Neder or Shevu'ah. Rather, he just said that he is Mekabel to fast. He is obligated to fast not because of a Neder, but because of the Kabalas Mitzvah. For a Kabalas Mitzvah, we assume that the person is interested in fulfilling the Mitzvah of fasting whenever he wants, and he leaves himself the option to choose a day to make it up if the day he originally intended turns out to be inconvenient.

The Rosh cites the RA'AVAD who quotes the Gemara in Erchin (7a) that if one makes a Neder to give money to a certain Tzedakah, one may change his mind and give different money until the treasurer comes and takes the actual money that he promised to give. The NIMUKEI YOSEF here explains that this is based on the same principle -- for Nidrei Mitzvah, it is assumed that the person had intention when he made the Neder to retain for himself the right to do the Mitzvah at a different time or with a different object than initially intended.

According to the Rosh, Rav is discussing even a case where one specified a specific 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 takes this condition further and says that if a person sees that it is too difficult for him to fast on this day, he does not have to fast, nor does he have to make up the fast. His reason is because we assume that he had in mind at the time of his Neder to fast only if he would be able to fast.

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

The permission to push off a fast to another day applies only to a Ta'anis Yachid, but not to Ta'anis Chalom, nor to a Ta'anis Tzibur (REMA 568:2).