לימוד ומפגש עם יורם גלילי
כל המתאבל על ירושלים זוכה ורואה בשמחתה,
ושאינו מתאבל על ירושלים - אינו רואה בשמחתה.
between the oven and the stove, which was considered the least respectable place in the house. And he would eat his bread, and drink a jug [kiton] of water with it, and in doing so he would resemble one whose deceased relative is laid out unburied before him. § We learned in a mishna there: In a place where people were accustomed to perform labor on the Ninth of Av, one performs labor. In a place where people were accustomed not to perform labor, one does not perform labor. And in all places, Torah scholars are idle and do not perform labor on the Ninth of Av. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to the Ninth of Av, a person should always conduct himself as a Torah scholar and refrain from performing labor. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A person should always conduct himself as a Torah scholar, so that he will feel the hardship of the fast. It is taught in another baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Whoever eats and drinks on the Ninth of Av, although the prohibition was instituted by the Prophets, it is as though he eats and drinks on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Akiva says: Whoever performs labor on the Ninth of Av never sees a sign of a blessing from that work. And the Sages say: Whoever performs labor on the Ninth of Av and does not mourn for Jerusalem will not see her future joy, as it is stated: “Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad with her, all who love her; rejoice for joy with her, all who mourn for her” (Isaiah 66:10). From here it is stated: Whoever mourns for Jerusalem will merit and see her future joy, and whoever does not mourn for Jerusalem will not see her future joy. This is also taught in a baraita: Whoever eats meat or drinks wine in the meal before the Ninth of Av, about him the verse states: “And whose iniquities are upon their bones, because the terror of the mighty was in the land of the living” (Ezekiel 32:27). § The mishna taught: Rabbi Yehuda obligates one to overturn the bed, but the Rabbis did not agree with him. It is taught in a baraita that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: According to your statement, pregnant women and nursing women, who cannot sleep on the floor, what will become of them? Rabbi Yehuda said to them: I, too, spoke only with regard to those who are able. This is also taught in another baraita: Rabbi Yehuda concedes to the Rabbis with regard to one who is unable to sleep on the floor, and the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one who is able to do so. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the practical difference between them? The Gemara explains: The practical difference between them is the status of other beds. As it is taught in a baraita: When the Rabbis said that a mourner is required to overturn the bed, they meant that he overturns not only his own bed, but also that he must overturn all the beds in the house. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one must likewise overturn all of the beds of one’s house on the Ninth of Av. Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of our mishna, and the Rabbis did not concede to Rabbi Yehuda at all, even with regard to one who is able. Therefore, there is no requirement to overturn one’s bed on the Ninth of Av. § The mishna taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: There were no days as happy for the Jewish people as the fifteenth of Av and as Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: Granted, Yom Kippur is a day of joy because it has the elements of pardon and forgiveness, and moreover, it is the day on which the last pair of tablets were given. However, what is the special joy of the fifteenth of Av? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This was the day on which the members of different tribes were permitted to enter one another’s tribe, by intermarriage. It was initially prohibited to intermarry between tribes, so as to keep each plot of land within the portion of the tribe that originally inherited it. This halakha was instituted by the Torah in the wake of a complaint by the relatives of the daughters of Zelophehad, who were worried that if these women married men from other tribes, the inheritance of Zelophehad would be lost from his tribe (see Numbers 36:1–12). What did they expound, in support of their conclusion that this halakha was no longer in effect? The verse states: “This is the matter that the Lord has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying: Let them marry whom they think best; only into the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry” (Numbers 36:5). They derived from the verse that this matter shall be practiced only in this generation, when Eretz Yisrael was divided among the tribes, but afterward members of different tribes were permitted to marry. On the day this barrier separating the tribes was removed, the Sages established a permanent day of rejoicing. Rav Yosef said that Rav Naḥman said: The fifteenth of Av was the day on which the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to enter the congregation of the Jewish people. After the tragic incident at Gibeah, for which the tribe of Benjamin was blamed, the other tribes ostracized them. They took an oath to prohibit themselves from marrying a member of the tribe of Benjamin, as it is stated: “And the men of Israel had sworn in Mizpah, saying: None of us shall give his daughter to Benjamin as a wife” (Judges 21:1). The Gemara asks: What did they expound that enabled them to dissolve this oath? Rav said: They understood the verse literally, as it states: “None of us,” and not: None of our children, i.e., the oath applied only to the generation that took the oath, not their descendants. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The fifteenth of Av was the day on which the deaths of the Jews in the wilderness ceased. The entire generation that had left Egypt had passed away, as the Master said: After the sin of the spies, on account of which the Jews of that generation were sentenced to die in the wilderness, as long as the death of the Jews in the wilderness had not ceased, God’s speech did not come to Moses, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, when all the men of war were consumed and dead from among the people, that the Lord spoke to me, saying” (Deuteronomy 2:16–17). This indicates that only then, after the last member of that generation had died, was God’s speech delivered to me, i.e., Moses, but not beforehand. When the Jews realized that the decree that God would not speak to Moses had been lifted, they established that day as a permanent day of rejoicing. Ulla said: The fifteenth of Av was the day on which King Hoshea, son of Ela, canceled the guards that Jeroboam, son of Nevat, placed on the roads so that the Jews would not ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrim Festival. And Hoshea, son of Ela, said
האם זו דרך נכונה להתאבל?
תנו רבנן: כשחרב הבית בשניה רבו פרושין (סגפנים) בישראל, [שגזרו על עצמם] שלא לאכול בשר ושלא לשתות יין.
נטפל להן ר' יהושע.
אמר להן: בני, מפני מה אי אתם אוכלין בשר ואין אתם שותין יין?
אמרו לו: נאכל בשר שממנו מקריבין על גבי מזבח, ועכשיו בטל?! נשתה יין שמנסכין על גבי המזבח, ועכשיו בטל?!
אמר להם: אם כן, לחם לא נאכל, שכבר בטלו מנחות!
[אמרו לו:] אפשר [להחליף את הלחם] בפירות.
[אמר להם:] פירות לא נאכל, שכבר בטלו בִּכּוּרִים!
[אמרו לו:] אפשר בפירות אחרים (שאינם משבעת המינים).
[אמר להם:] מים לא נשתה, שכבר בטל ניסוך המים!
שתקו.
אמר להן: בני, בואו ואומר לכם: שלא להתאבל כל עיקר אי אפשר, שכבר נגזרה גזרה, ולהתאבל יותר מדאי אי אפשר, שאין גוזרין גזירה על הצבור אלא אם כן רוב צבור יכולין לעמוד בה. [...] אלא כך אמרו חכמים:
סד (מסייד) אדם את ביתו בסיד ומשַיֵּיר בו דבר מועט (קטע קטן שאינו מסויד), [...] עושה אדם כל צרכי סעודה ומשייר דבר מועט (מקום ריק במקום אחד המאכלים). [...] עושה אשה כל תכשיטיה ומשיירת דבר מועט [...]
Go now, and come tomorrow. At night, Rabbi Yannai sent and had someone cut down that tree that belonged to him. The next day, that man came before Rabbi Yannai, who said to him: Go, cut down your tree. The man said to him: But the Master also has a tree that leans into the public domain. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Go and see: If mine is cut down, then cut yours down. If mine is not cut down, you do not have to cut yours down, either. The Gemara asks: At the outset what did Rabbi Yannai hold, and ultimately, what did he hold? The Gemara replies: At the outset, he held that the general public is amenable to having the tree there, as they sit in its shade. Once he saw that they were preventing someone else who owned a tree from keeping his, he understood that it was only out of respect that they did not object to his tree being there. He therefore sent someone to cut it down. The Gemara asks: But why did he tell the man to return the next day? Let him say to him: Go cut down your tree, and then I will cut mine down. The Gemara answers: Because of the statement of Reish Lakish, who said: The verse states: “Gather yourselves together and gather [hitkosheshu vakoshu]” (Zephaniah 2:1), and this can be explained homiletically to mean: Adorn [keshot] yourself and afterward adorn others, i.e., act properly before requiring others to do so. § The mishna teaches that one may not extend projections or balconies into the public domain. Rather, if he desired to build one he may draw back into his property by moving his wall, and extend the projection to the end of his property line. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one drew back into his property but did not extend the projection at that time, what is the halakha concerning whether he may return and extend it at a later date? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one drew back into his property, he may extend it even later, and Reish Lakish says: If one drew back into his property but did not build the projection at that time, he may not extend it later. The Gemara presents an alternative version of the dispute: Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: I will explain the matter to you. To later extend a projection, everyone agrees that he may extend it, since he is adding within his own property. Where they disagree is with regard to whether he may return the walls to their prior place. And with regard to this disagreement the opposite was stated: Rabbi Yoḥanan says he may not return the walls to their prior place, and Reish Lakish says he may return them. Rabbi Ya’akov explains their reasoning: Rabbi Yoḥanan says that he may not return the walls to their prior place because of the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says: With regard to a path that the public has established as a public thoroughfare, it is prohibited to ruin it, i.e., to prevent people from using it. Once the public has become accustomed to using the place where his wall had stood, he may not repossess that space. And Reish Lakish says that he may return the walls to their prior place, because that matter applies in a case where there is no space, i.e., if he were to move back the wall there would be no space for the public to walk, but here there is space, since they can still walk through the public domain. The mishna teaches that if one purchased a courtyard in which there are projections and balconies extending into the public domain, this courtyard retains its presumptive status, allowing the owner to use the projections. Rav Huna says: If the wall of the courtyard fell, he may return and build it as it was, including the projections or balconies. The Gemara raises an objection based on that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:17): One may not plaster, and one may not tile, and one may not paint [mefayyeḥin] images in the present, as a sign of mourning for the destruction of the Temple. But if one purchased a courtyard that was plastered, tiled, or painted with images, this courtyard retains its presumptive status, and it is assumed that it was done in a permitted manner. If it then fell, he may not return and build it in its previous form. This indicates that one may not rebuild a building in a manner that is prohibited, even if there was an acquired privilege to maintain it in that manner. The Gemara answers: A case of forbidden matters is different, i.e., in the case of the baraita, he may not rebuild it because it is prohibited for him to do so. In this mishna, the issue is encroachment upon the rights of others, and once he had an acquired privilege to use the projections or balconies, he maintains that right. § With regard to the ruling of the above-quoted baraita, the Sages taught (Tosefta, Sota 15:9): A person may not plaster his house with plaster, but if he mixed sand or straw into the plaster, which dulls its luster, it is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he mixed sand into it, it is white cement [terakesid], which is of a higher quality than standard plaster, and it is prohibited, but if he mixed in straw, it is permitted. § Having mentioned the prohibition against plastering, which is a sign of mourning over the destruction of the Temple, the Gemara discusses related matters. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 15:11): When the Temple was destroyed a second time, there was an increase in the number of ascetics among the Jews, whose practice was to not eat meat and to not drink wine. Rabbi Yehoshua joined them to discuss their practice. He said to them: My children, for what reason do you not eat meat and do you not drink wine? They said to him: Shall we eat meat, from which offerings are sacrificed upon the altar, and now the altar has ceased to exist? Shall we drink wine, which is poured as a libation upon the altar, and now the altar has ceased to exist? Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: If so, we will not eat bread either, since the meal-offerings that were offered upon the altar have ceased. They replied: You are correct. It is possible to subsist with produce. He said to them: We will not eat produce either, since the bringing of the first fruits have ceased. They replied: You are correct. We will no longer eat the produce of the seven species from which the first fruits were brought, as it is possible to subsist with other produce. He said to them: If so, we will not drink water, since the water libation has ceased. They were silent, as they realized that they could not survive without water. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: My children, come, and I will tell you how we should act. To not mourn at all is impossible, as the decree was already issued and the Temple has been destroyed. But to mourn excessively as you are doing is also impossible, as the Sages do not issue a decree upon the public unless a majority of the public is able to abide by it, as it is written: “You are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation” (Malachi 3:9), indicating that the prophet rebukes the people for neglecting observances only if they were accepted by the whole nation. Rabbi Yehoshua continues: Rather, this is what the Sages said: A person may plaster his house with plaster, but he must leave over a small amount in it without plaster to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: And how much is a small amount? Rav Yosef said: One cubit by one cubit. Rav Ḥisda said: This should be opposite the entrance, so that it is visible to all. Rabbi Yehoshua continues: The Sages said that a person may prepare all that he needs for a meal, but he must leave out a small item to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: What is this small item? Rav Pappa said: Something akin to small, fried fish. Rabbi Yehoshua continues: The Sages said that a woman may engage in all of her cosmetic treatments, but she must leave out a small matter to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: What is this small matter? Rav said: She does not remove hair from the place on the temple from which women would remove hair. The source for these practices is a verse, as it is stated: “If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember you not; if I set not Jerusalem above my highest joy” (Psalms 137:5–6). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Above my highest [rosh] joy? Rav Yitzḥak says: This is referring to the burnt ashes that are customarily placed on the head [rosh] of bridegrooms at the time of their wedding celebrations, to remember the destruction of the Temple. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Where are they placed? Abaye replied: On the place where phylacteries are placed, as it is stated: “To appoint to them that mourn in Zion, to give to them a garland in place of ashes” (Isaiah 61:3). Since phylacteries are referred to as a garland (see Ezekiel 24:17), it may be inferred from this verse that the ashes were placed in the same place as the phylacteries. The baraita continues: And anyone who mourns for the destruction of Jerusalem will merit and see its joy, as it is stated: “Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all that mourn for her” (Isaiah 66:10). It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 15:10) that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, by right, we should decree upon ourselves not to eat meat and not to drink wine, but the Sages do not issue a decree upon the public unless a majority of the public is able to abide by it. And from the day that the wicked kingdom, i.e., Rome, spread, who decree evil and harsh decrees upon us, and nullify Torah study and the performance of mitzvot for us, and do not allow us to enter the celebration of the first week of a son, i.e., circumcision, and some say: To enter the celebration of the salvation of a firstborn son; by right we should each decree upon ourselves not to marry a woman and not to produce offspring, and it will turn out that the descendants of Abraham our forefather will cease to exist on their own, rather than being forced into a situation where there are sons who are not circumcised. But concerning a situation such as this, the following principle is applied: Leave the Jews alone and do not impose decrees by which they cannot abide. It is better that they be unwitting sinners, who do not know that what they are doing is improper considering the circumstances, and not be intentional wrongdoers, who marry and procreate despite knowing that they should not.
האם צריך להמשיך לצום ולהתענות, גם כאשר "החיים טובים"?
(א) וַֽיְהִי֙ בִּשְׁנַ֣ת אַרְבַּ֔ע לְדָרְיָ֖וֶשׁ הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ הָיָ֨ה דְבַר־יְהוָ֜ה אֶל־זְכַרְיָ֗ה בְּאַרְבָּעָ֛ה לַחֹ֥דֶשׁ הַתְּשִׁעִ֖י בְּכִסְלֵֽו׃
(ב) וַיִּשְׁלַח֙ בֵּֽית־אֵ֔ל שַׂר־אֶ֕צֶר וְרֶ֥גֶם מֶ֖לֶךְ וַֽאֲנָשָׁ֑יו לְחַלּ֖וֹת אֶת־פְּנֵ֥י יְהוָֽה׃ (ג) לֵאמֹ֗ר אֶל־הַכֹּֽהֲנִים֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ לְבֵית־יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת וְאֶל־הַנְּבִיאִ֖ים לֵאמֹ֑ר:
הַֽאֶבְכֶּה֙ בַּחֹ֣דֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁ֔י הִנָּזֵ֕ר כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשִׂ֔יתִי זֶ֖ה כַּמֶּ֥ה שָׁנִֽים?
(ד) וַיְהִ֛י דְּבַר־יְהוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת אֵלַ֥י לֵאמֹֽר׃ (ה) אֱמֹר֙ אֶל־כָּל־עַ֣ם הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִ֖ים לֵאמֹ֑ר: כִּֽי־צַמְתֶּ֨ם וְסָפ֜וֹד בַּחֲמִישִׁ֣י וּבַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י וְזֶה֙ שִׁבְעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה הֲצ֥וֹם צַמְתֻּ֖נִי אָֽנִי?!
(ו) וְכִ֥י תֹאכְל֖וּ וְכִ֣י תִשְׁתּ֑וּ - הֲל֤וֹא אַתֶּם֙ הָאֹ֣כְלִ֔ים וְאַתֶּ֖ם הַשֹּׁתִֽים!
(ז) הֲל֣וֹא אֶת־הַדְּבָרִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר קָרָ֤א יְהוָה֙ בְּיַד֙ הַנְּבִיאִ֣ים הָרִֽאשֹׁנִ֔ים בִּהְי֤וֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַ֙ם֙ יֹשֶׁ֣בֶת וּשְׁלֵוָ֔ה וְעָרֶ֖יהָ סְבִיבֹתֶ֑יהָ וְהַנֶּ֥גֶב וְהַשְּׁפֵלָ֖ה יֹשֵֽׁב׃
(ח) וַֽיְהִי֙ דְּבַר־יְהוָ֔ה אֶל־זְכַרְיָ֖ה לֵאמֹֽר׃ (ט) כֹּ֥ה אָמַ֛ר יְהוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת לֵאמֹ֑ר: מִשְׁפַּ֤ט אֱמֶת֙ שְׁפֹ֔טוּ, וְחֶ֣סֶד וְרַֽחֲמִ֔ים עֲשׂ֖וּ אִ֥ישׁ אֶת־אָחִֽיו׃ (י) וְאַלְמָנָ֧ה וְיָת֛וֹם גֵּ֥ר וְעָנִ֖י אַֽל־תַּעֲשֹׁ֑קוּ, וְרָעַת֙ אִ֣ישׁ אָחִ֔יו אַֽל־תַּחְשְׁב֖וּ בִּלְבַבְכֶֽם׃ (יא) וַיְמָאֲנ֣וּ לְהַקְשִׁ֔יב וַיִּתְּנ֥וּ כָתֵ֖ף סֹרָ֑רֶת, וְאָזְנֵיהֶ֖ם הִכְבִּ֥ידוּ מִשְּׁמֽוֹעַ׃ (יב) וְלִבָּ֞ם שָׂ֣מוּ שָׁמִ֗יר מִ֠שְּׁמוֹעַ אֶת־הַתּוֹרָ֤ה וְאֶת־הַדְּבָרִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר שָׁלַ֜ח יְהוָ֤ה צְבָאוֹת֙ בְּרוּח֔וֹ בְּיַ֖ד הַנְּבִיאִ֣ים הָרִֽאשֹׁנִ֑ים, וַֽיְהִי֙ קֶ֣צֶף גָּד֔וֹל מֵאֵ֖ת יְהוָ֥ה צְבָאֽוֹת׃ (יג) וַיְהִ֥י כַאֲשֶׁר־קָרָ֖א וְלֹ֣א שָׁמֵ֑עוּ כֵּ֤ן יִקְרְאוּ֙ וְלֹ֣א אֶשְׁמָ֔ע אָמַ֖ר יְהוָ֥ה צְבָאֽוֹת׃ (יד) וְאֵ֣סָעֲרֵ֗ם עַ֤ל כָּל־הַגּוֹיִם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹֽא־יְדָע֔וּם וְהָאָ֙רֶץ֙ נָשַׁ֣מָּה אַֽחֲרֵיהֶ֔ם מֵֽעֹבֵ֖ר וּמִשָּׁ֑ב וַיָּשִׂ֥ימוּ אֶֽרֶץ־חֶמְדָּ֖ה לְשַׁמָּֽה׃
(1) In the fourth year of King Darius, on the fourth day of the ninth month, Kislev, the word of the LORD came to Zechariah— (2) when Bethel-sharezer and Regem-melech and his men sent to entreat the favor of the LORD, (3) [and] to address this inquiry to the priests of the House of the LORD and to the prophets: “Shall I weep and practice abstinence in the fifth month, as I have been doing all these years?” (4) Thereupon the word of the LORD of Hosts came to me: (5) Say to all the people of the land and to the priests: When you fasted and lamented in the fifth and seventh months all these seventy years, did you fast for my benefit? (6) And when you eat and drink, who but you does the eating, and who but you does the drinking? (7) Look, this is the message that the LORD proclaimed through the earlier prophets, when Jerusalem and the towns about her were peopled and tranquil, when the Negeb and the Shephelah were peopled. (8) And the word of the LORD to Zechariah continued: (9) Thus said the LORD of Hosts: Execute true justice; deal loyally and compassionately with one another. (10) Do not defraud the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and the poor; and do not plot evil against one another.— (11) But they refused to pay heed. They presented a balky back and turned a deaf ear. (12) They hardened their hearts like adamant against heeding the instruction and admonition that the LORD of Hosts sent to them by His spirit through the earlier prophets; and a terrible wrath issued from the LORD of Hosts. (13) Even as He called and they would not listen, “So,” said the LORD of Hosts, “let them call and I will not listen.” (14) I dispersed them among all those nations which they had not known, and the land was left behind them desolate, without any who came and went. They caused a delightful land to be turned into a desolation.
(טז) אֵ֥לֶּה הַדְּבָרִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר תַּֽעֲשׂ֑וּ:
דַּבְּר֤וּ אֱמֶת֙ אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵ֔הוּ אֱמֶת֙ וּמִשְׁפַּ֣ט שָׁל֔וֹם שִׁפְט֖וּ בְּשַׁעֲרֵיכֶֽם,
(יז) וְאִ֣ישׁ ׀ אֶת־רָעַ֣ת רֵעֵ֗הוּ אַֽל־תַּחְשְׁבוּ֙ בִּלְבַבְכֶ֔ם,
וּשְׁבֻ֥עַת שֶׁ֖קֶר אַֽל־תֶּאֱהָ֑בוּ -
כִּ֧י אֶת־כָּל־אֵ֛לֶּה אֲשֶׁ֥ר שָׂנֵ֖אתִי נְאֻם־יְהוָֽה.
(יח) וַיְהִ֛י דְּבַר־יְהוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת אֵלַ֥י לֵאמֹֽר׃ (יט) כֹּֽה־אָמַ֞ר יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֗וֹת:
צ֣וֹם הָרְבִיעִ֡י וְצ֣וֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי֩ וְצ֨וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֜י וְצ֣וֹם הָעֲשִׂירִ֗י יִהְיֶ֤ה לְבֵית־יְהוּדָה֙ לְשָׂשׂ֣וֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָ֔ה וּֽלְמֹעֲדִ֖ים טוֹבִ֑ים, וְהָאֱמֶ֥ת וְהַשָּׁל֖וֹם אֱהָֽבוּ.
(1) The word of the LORD of Hosts came [to me]: (2) Thus said the LORD of Hosts: I am very jealous for Zion, I am fiercely jealous for her. (3) Thus said the LORD: I have returned to Zion, and I will dwell in Jerusalem. Jerusalem will be called the City of Faithfulness, and the mount of the LORD of Hosts the Holy Mount. (4) Thus said the LORD of Hosts: There shall yet be old men and women in the squares of Jerusalem, each with staff in hand because of their great age. (5) And the squares of the city shall be crowded with boys and girls playing in the squares. (6) Thus said the LORD of Hosts: Though it will seem impossible to the remnant of this people in those days, shall it also be impossible to Me?—declares the LORD of Hosts. (7) Thus said the LORD of Hosts: I will rescue My people from the lands of the east and from the lands of the west, (8) and I will bring them home to dwell in Jerusalem. They shall be My people, and I will be their God—in truth and sincerity. (9) Thus said the LORD of Hosts: Take courage, you who now hear these words which the prophets spoke when the foundations were laid for the rebuilding of the Temple, the House of the LORD of Hosts. (10) For before that time, the earnings of men were nil, and profits from beasts were nothing. It was not safe to go about one’s business on account of enemies; and I set all men against one another. (11) But now I will not treat the remnant of this people as before—declares the LORD of Hosts— (12) but what it sows shall prosper: The vine shall produce its fruit, the ground shall produce its yield, and the skies shall provide their moisture. I will bestow all these things upon the remnant of this people. (13) And just as you were a curse among the nations, O House of Judah and House of Israel, so, when I vindicate you, you shall become a blessing. Have no fear; take courage! (14) For thus said the LORD of Hosts: Just as I planned to afflict you and did not relent when your fathers provoked Me to anger—said the LORD of Hosts— (15) so, at this time, I have turned and planned to do good to Jerusalem and to the House of Judah. Have no fear! (16) These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to one another, render true and perfect justice in your gates. (17) And do not contrive evil against one another, and do not love perjury, because all those are things that I hate—declares the LORD. (18) And the word of the LORD of Hosts came to me, saying, (19) Thus said the LORD of Hosts: The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month shall become occasions for joy and gladness, happy festivals for the House of Judah; but you must love honesty and integrity. (20) Thus said the LORD of Hosts: Peoples and the inhabitants of many cities shall yet come— (21) the inhabitants of one shall go to the other and say, “Let us go and entreat the favor of the LORD, let us seek the LORD of Hosts; I will go, too.” (22) The many peoples and the multitude of nations shall come to seek the LORD of Hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the LORD. (23) Thus said the LORD of Hosts: In those days, ten men from nations of every tongue will take hold—they will take hold of every Jew by a corner of his cloak and say, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”
[...] אמר רבי חנינא: רבי נטע נטיעה בפורים
the rejoicing that takes place on Purim is practiced only in its designated time, the fourteenth of Adar. § Rav said: One may read the Megilla in its proper time, i.e., on the fourteenth of Adar, even privately. However, when it is read not at its proper time, e.g., when the villages advance their reading to the day of assembly, it must be read with a quorum of ten, because the enactment allowing the Megilla to be read before its proper time was only made for a community. Rav Asi disagreed and said: Both at its proper time and not at its proper time, the Megilla must be read with a quorum of ten. The Gemara relates that there was an incident where Rav had to read the Megilla on Purim, and he was concerned for this opinion of Rav Asi and gathered ten men even though he was reading the Megilla in its proper time, on the fourteenth of Adar. The Gemara asks: And did Rav actually say this, that when the Megilla is read not at its proper time, it can only be read with a quorum of ten? Didn’t Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, say in the name of Rav: If Purim occurs on Shabbat, Shabbat eve is the proper time for reading the Megilla? The Gemara expresses surprise with regard to the wording of Rav’s statement: Is Shabbat eve the proper time for reading the Megilla? Isn’t Shabbat itself its proper time? Rather, is it not true that this is what he said, i.e., that this is the way his statement should be understood: Reading the Megilla not at its proper time is like reading it at its proper time; just as at its proper time, it can be read even privately, so too, not at its proper time, it can be read even privately. The Gemara rejects this argument: Rav’s statement was not made with regard to reading the Megilla with a quorum of ten. Rather, what is the meaning of Rav’s statement that Shabbat eve is the proper time? It was meant to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Since the readings in the large towns were already deferred from their usual date and the Megilla was not read on the fourteenth, they are deferred to the day of assembly. This statement of Rav teaches us that Shabbat eve is the proper time for these towns to read the Megilla, as stated in the mishna. MISHNA: What is considered a large city, where the Megilla is read on the fourteenth of Adar? Any city in which there are ten idlers. However, if there are fewer than that, it is considered a village, even if it has many inhabitants. It was with regard to these times for reading the Megilla that the Sages said that one advances the reading of the Megilla before the fourteenth of Adar and one does not postpone the reading to after its proper time. However, with regard to the time when families of priests donate wood for the fire on the altar, which were times those families would treat as Festivals; as well as the fast of the Ninth of Av; the Festival peace-offering that was brought on the Festivals; and the commandment of assembly [hakhel] of the entire Jewish people in the Temple courtyard on Sukkot in the year following the Sabbatical year to hear the king read the book of Deuteronomy; one postpones their observance until after Shabbat and does not advance their observance to before Shabbat. The mishna continues: Even though the Sages said that one advances the time for reading the Megilla and one does not postpone the reading, one is permitted to eulogize and fast on these days, as they are not actually Purim; nevertheless, gifts for the poor are distributed on this day. Rabbi Yehuda said: When is the Megilla read on the day of assembly, before the fourteenth of Adar? In a place where the villagers generally enter town on Monday and Thursday. However, in a place where they do not generally enter town on Monday and Thursday, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time, the fourteenth of Adar. GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that a large city is one that has ten idlers. It was taught in a baraita: The ten idlers that are mentioned here are ten idlers that are in the synagogue, i.e., men who do not have professional responsibilities other than to sit in the synagogue and attend to communal religious needs. The presence of ten such men establishes a location as a prominent city. We learned in the mishna: It was with regard to these times for reading the Megilla that the Sages said that one advances the reading of the Megilla and one does not postpone it. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: The verse states: “The Jews ordained, and took upon them, and upon their seed, and upon all who joined themselves to them, and it shall not pass, that they should keep these two days” (Esther 9:27), which indicates that the designated time must not pass without the reading of the Megilla. Having mentioned a teaching of Rabbi Abba in the name of Shmuel, the Gemara cites another of his statements: And Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: From where is it derived that one does not count days to make up years, i.e., a year is considered to be comprised of either twelve or thirteen lunar months, and not 365 days? As it is stated: “Of the months of the year” (Exodus 12:2), which indicates that you count months to make up years, but you do not count days to make up years. The Gemara adds: And the Sages of Caesarea said in the name of Rabbi Abba: From where is it derived that one does not calculate hours to reckon the months? A lunar cycle takes approximately twenty-nine and a half days, but a calendar month is considered to be twenty-nine or thirty full days and not precisely a lunar cycle. As it is stated: “Until a month of days” (Numbers 11:20), which indicates that you calculate days to reckon the months, but you do not calculate hours to reckon the months. § We learned in the mishna: However, with regard to the time when families of priests donate wood for the fire on the altar, the fast of the Ninth of Av, the Festival peace-offering, and the commandment of assembly [hakhel ], one postpones their observance until after Shabbat and does not advance their observance to before Shabbat. The Gemara explains the reason for this halakha with respect to each item mentioned in the mishna. The fast of the Ninth of Av is not advanced because one does not advance calamity; since the Ninth of Av is a tragic time, its observance is postponed as long as possible. The Festival peace-offering and the commandment of assembly [hakhel ] are not advanced because the time of their obligation has not yet arrived, and it is impossible to fulfill mitzvot before the designated time has arrived. It was taught in a baraita: One postpones the Festival peace-offering and the entire time period of the Festival peace-offering. The Gemara attempts to clarify this statement: Granted that when the baraita says that the Festival peace-offering is postponed, it means that if a Festival occurs on Shabbat, when the Festival peace-offering cannot be sacrificed, one postpones it until after Shabbat and sacrifices the offering on the intermediate days of the Festival. However, what is the meaning of the phrase: The time period of the Festival peace-offering? Rav Oshaya said: This is what the baraita is saying: One postpones the Festival peace-offering if the Festival occurs on Shabbat, and one postpones the burnt-offering of appearance even due to the Festival itself. Despite the fact that a Festival day is the time for sacrificing a Festival peace-offering, the burnt-offering of appearance may not be sacrificed until after the Festival day. The Gemara adds: Whose opinion is reflected in the mishna according to Rav Oshaya’s explanation? It is the opinion of Beit Shammai, as we learned in a mishna (Beitza 19a) that Beit Shammai say: One may bring peace-offerings on a Festival day to be sacrificed in the Temple. Most portions of a peace-offering are eaten by the priests and the individual who brought the offering. Consequently, its slaughter is considered food preparation, which is permitted on a Festival day. And one may not place his hands on the head of the offering, as that includes leaning with all one’s might upon the animal, which is prohibited on a Festival. However, burnt-offerings may not be brought at all on the Festival. Since they are not eaten, their slaughter is not considered food preparation, and it therefore constitutes a prohibited labor on the Festival. Beit Hillel disagree and say: One may bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings on a Festival day, and one may even place his hands on them. Rava said that the baraita should be understood as follows: One postpones the Festival peace-offering for the entire time period of the Festival peace-offering, i.e., for the entire duration of the Festival. However, it may not be postponed for longer than this. As we learned in a mishna (Ḥagiga 9a): One who did not offer the Festival peace-offering on the first Festival day of the festival of Sukkot may offer the Festival peace-offering for the duration of the entire pilgrimage Festival, including the intermediate days and the last day of the Festival. If the pilgrimage Festival has passed and he did not yet bring the Festival peace-offering, he is not obligated to pay restitution for it. The obligation is no longer in force, and he therefore is not liable to bring another offering as compensation. Rav Ashi said that the baraita should be understood as follows: The Festival peace-offering may be postponed for the entire time period of a Festival peace-offering. This indicates that even if Shavuot, which is one day, occurs on Shabbat, one postpones the Festival peace-offering and offers it on one of the six days after Shavuot. As we learned in a mishna (Ḥagiga 17a): Beit Hillel concede that if Shavuot occurs on Shabbat, the day of slaughter is after Shabbat. Since the Festival peace-offering and the burnt-offering of appearance cannot be sacrificed on Shabbat, they are slaughtered after Shabbat. This indicates that the Festival peace-offering may be slaughtered after the Festival day of Shavuot, as is the case on the other Festivals. Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did several unusual things: He planted a sapling on Purim, and was not concerned about performing labor and thereby possibly denigrating the day.
ורחץ בקרונה של צפורי בשבעה עשר בתמוז, וּבִקֵּש לעקור תשעה באב, ולא הודו לו.
אמר לפניו רבי אבא בר זבדא: רבי, לא כך היה מעשה, אלא תשעה באב שחל להיות בשבת הוה, ודחינוהו לאחר השבת, ואמר רבי "הואיל ונדחה - יִדָּחֶה" - ולא הודו חכמים; קרי עליה: "טובים השנים מן האחד" (קהלת ד', 9).
And he bathed at the time when the wagons [kerona] were traveling through Tzippori, i.e., on the market day, when the public would know about it, on the seventeenth of Tammuz, to show that bathing is permitted on that day. And he sought to abolish the fast of the Ninth of Av. And with respect to the Ninth of Av, the Sages did not agree with him. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said to Rabbi Elazar: My teacher, the incident did not occur in this fashion. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi never sought to abolish the fast of the Ninth of Av. Rather, it was a year when the Ninth of Av occurred on Shabbat, and they postponed it until after Shabbat. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said about that case: Since it has already been deferred from its usual time, let it be altogether deferred this year. And the Rabbis did not agree with him. Rabbi Elazar read the verse about Rabbi Abba bar Zavda: “Two are better than one” (Ecclesiastes 4:9), meaning, it is good that you were here to provide an accurate report about that incident. The Gemara asks: And how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi plant a sapling on Purim? Didn’t Rav Yosef teach with regard to the verse: “Therefore the Jews of the villages, who dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month of Adar a day of gladness and feasting, and a good day [yom tov]” (Esther 9:19), that the term “gladness” teaches that it is prohibited to eulogize on Purim; “feasting” teaches that it is prohibited to fast; and the term “good day” [yom tov] teaches that it is prohibited to perform labor, just as on a Festival, which is also referred to as a yom tov? Rather, what happened was as follows: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was in a place that observed Purim on the fourteenth, and when he planted the sapling, he planted it on the fifteenth. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Wasn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Tiberias, and Tiberias was surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun. Consequently, he was obligated to observe Purim on the fifteenth. Rather, say just the opposite: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi lived in a place that observed Purim on the fifteenth, and when he planted the sapling, he planted it on the fourteenth. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it obvious to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the city of Tiberias was surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? Didn’t Hezekiah read the Megilla in Tiberias both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth of Adar, because he was uncertain if it had been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, or not? The Gemara answers: Hezekiah was indeed uncertain about the matter, whereas it was obvious to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that Tiberias had been surrounded by a wall in the time of Joshua. The Gemara asks further: And when it was obvious to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the Megilla should be read in Tiberias on the fifteenth, was it permitted to plant there on the fourteenth? Isn’t it written in Megillat Ta’anit that the fourteenth day and the fifteenth day of Adar are the days of Purim, and one is not permitted to eulogize on them? And Rava said: This statement is necessary only to prohibit those who observe Purim on this day to eulogize on that day, and those who observe Purim on that day to eulogize on this day. Since the two days are mentioned in the Bible, it was only necessary to mention them in Megillat Ta’anit in order to indicate that the prohibition against eulogizing applies to both days. Presumably, the same should apply to the prohibition against performing labor. Consequently, how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi plant a sapling on the fourteenth of Adar? The Gemara answers: That applies only to eulogies and fasting. However, labor is prohibited for only one day, either the fourteenth or the fifteenth, and no more. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav see a certain man planting flax on Purim, and cursed him, and the man’s flax never grew. The Gemara answers: There, the man was obligated to observe Purim on that day that he planted the flax. Therefore, it was certainly prohibited to perform labor. Rabba, son of Rava, said a different answer to the question: Even if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi planted the sapling on his own day of Purim, i.e., on the day that the Megilla was read in his location, it was still permitted to plant the sapling. This is because the Jewish people accepted upon themselves the prohibitions against eulogizing and fasting on Purim, but they did not accept upon themselves the prohibition against performing labor. This can be proven from the fact that initially, when Mordecai and Esther proposed the celebration of Purim, it is written: “A day of gladness and feasting and a good day [yom tov]” (Esther 9:19), and at the end, when it the celebration of Purim was accepted by the Jewish people, it is written: “That they should make them days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22), whereas the term good day [yom tov], which alludes to a day when it is prohibited to perform labor, is not written. The people never accepted upon themselves the prohibition against performing labor on Purim as if it were a Festival, and therefore the prohibition never took effect. The Gemara asks: If labor is permitted on Purim, what is the reason that Rav cursed that man who planted the flax? The Gemara answers: It was a case of matters that are permitted by halakha, but others were accustomed to treat them as a prohibition, in which case one may not permit these actions in their presence, lest they come to treat other prohibitions lightly. In the place where that man planted his flax, it was customary to abstain from labor on Purim. However, in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s place, it was not the custom to abstain from labor on Purim, and therefore it was permitted for him to plant the sapling even in public. And if you wish, say an alternative answer: Actually, it was the custom to abstain from labor on Purim in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s place, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi engaged in a joyful act of planting, for pleasure rather than for financial benefit. As we learned in a mishna with regard to public fasts: If these fasts for rain have passed and the community’s prayers have still not been answered, and the drought continues, one decreases his business activities, as well as construction, planting, betrothals, and marriages. And it was taught in a baraita about this mishna: When the Sages said that construction must be decreased on public fasts, they were not referring to the construction of homes for people who have nowhere to live, but to joyful construction. Similarly, when they said that planting must be decreased, they were not referring to planting food crops, but to joyful planting. What is meant by joyful construction? This is referring to one who builds a wedding chamber for his son. It was customary to build a special house where the wedding would take place, and at times the couple would also live there. What is meant by joyful planting? This is referring to one who plants trees for shade and pleasure such as one might find in a royal garden [avurneki]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi engaged in joyful planting on Purim, in keeping with the joyous nature of the day. § The Gemara examines the matter itself cited in the previous discussion. Hezekiah read the Megilla in Tiberias both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth of Adar, because he was uncertain if it had been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, or not. The Gemara asks: Was he really uncertain about the matter of Tiberias? Isn’t it written: “And the fortified cities were Ziddim-zer, and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth” (Joshua 19:35), and we maintain that Rakkath is Tiberias? The Gemara answers: This is the reason that he was uncertain: Although Tiberias was surrounded by a wall in the time of Joshua, Hezekiah was uncertain about the halakha due to the fact that on one side, there was a wall of the sea, i.e., there was no physical wall, but the city was protected due to the fact that it adjoined the sea. The Gemara asks: If so, why was he uncertain? The sea is certainly not a wall. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the sale of houses in walled cities, the phrase: “Which has a wall” (Leviticus 25:30), indicates that the city has a bona fide wall and not merely a wall of roofs. If a city is completely encircled by attached houses but there is no separate wall, it is not considered a walled city. The next verse, which is referring to cities that have no wall “round about them” (Leviticus 25:31), excludes Tiberias from being considered a walled city, as the sea is its wall on one side and it is not fully encircled by a physical wall. Consequently, Tiberias is not considered a walled city. The Gemara answers: With regard to the sale of houses of walled cities, Hezekiah was not uncertain. Where he was uncertain was with regard to the reading of the Megilla: What are the unwalled towns and what are the walled cities that are written with regard to the reading of the Megilla? Is the difference between them due to the fact that these unwalled towns are exposed, whereas those walled cities are not exposed? If so, since Tiberias is also exposed, as it is not entirely surrounded by a wall, it should be considered unwalled. Or perhaps the difference is due to the fact that these walled cities are protected, whereas those unwalled towns are not protected, and Tiberias is also protected by the sea and should be treated as a walled city. It was due to that reason that Hezekiah was uncertain when to read the Megilla. The Gemara relates that Rav Asi read the Megilla in the city of Huzal in Babylonia on both the fourteenth and the fifteenth of Adar, because he was uncertain if it had been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, or not. Huzal was an ancient city, and it was possible that it had been surrounded by a wall in the time of Joshua. Some say a different version of this report, according to which there was no uncertainty. Rav Asi said: This city of Huzal of the house of Benjamin was walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun. Incidental to the previous discussion concerning Tiberias, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When I was a child I said something that I later asked the Elders about,
"קרונה של ציפורי" התגלה רק ב-2018, בחפירה של רשות הטבע והגנים. מה עשה פר בקרקעית הבריכה?? כאן תוכלו לקרוא על זה.
דאמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר ר' שמעון חסידא: מאי דכתיב (זכריה ח, יט) "כה אמר ה' צבאות: צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה"? קַָרֵי להוּ "צום" וקָרֵי 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 (=שְׁמָד) - צום.,
אין גזרת המלכות ואין שלום - רצו מתענִין, רצו - אין מתענין.
אי הכי - ט' באב נמי!
אמר רב פפא: שאני ט' באב, הואיל והוכפלו בו צרות, דאמר מר: בט' באב חרב הבית בראשונה ובשניה, ונלכדה ביתר ונחרשה העיר.
As Rav Ḥana bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said: What is the meaning of that 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, and cheerful seasons, to the house of Judah” (Zechariah 8:19). It calls them days of “fast” and it calls them “times of joy and gladness.” How so? When there is peace in the world, they will be times of joy and gladness, on which eulogies and fasting are forbidden; but when there is no peace, they are days of fasting. 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? Rav Pappa said that this is what it is saying: When there is peace in the world and the Temple is standing, these days will be times of joy and gladness; when there is persecution and troubles for the Jewish people, they are days of fasting; and when there is no persecution but still no peace, neither particular troubles nor consolation for Israel, the halakha is as follows: If people wish, they fast, and if they wish, they do not fast. Since there is no absolute obligation to fast, messengers are not sent out for these months. The Gemara asks: If so, the Ninth of Av should also 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? Rav Pappa said: The Ninth of Av is different, since the calamities that occurred on that day were multiplied. As the Master said: On the Ninth of Av the Temple was destroyed, both the first one and the second one; on this day the city of Beitar was captured; and on this day the city of Jerusalem was plowed 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 it is taught in a baraita. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiva would expound four verses, but I would not expound the texts as he did. One of the disputes relates to the fasts mentioned by Zechariah. Rabbi Akiva would expound the verse as follows: “The fast of the fourth,” this is the ninth of Tammuz, on which the city of Jerusalem 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” (Jeremiah 52:6–7). And why does the prophet call it the fast of the fourth? Because it is in Tammuz, the fourth of the months when counting from Nisan. “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 the fast of the fifth? Because it falls in the 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 (see II Kings 25:25; Jeremiah, chapter 41). The Sages established a fast to commemorate Gedaliah’s death to teach you that the death of the righteous is equivalent to the burning of the Temple of our Lord. And why did the prophet call it the fast of the seventh? Because Tishrei is the seventh of the months. “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” (Ezekiel 24:1–2). And why did he call it the fast of the tenth? Because it is in Tevet, which is the tenth of the months. Wouldn’t it have been fitting to write this fast first, as the series of events began with the laying of the siege. Why was it written here at the end of the list? This was done in order to list the months in their proper 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: I do not say this, but rather I expound the verse as follows: “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” (Ezekiel 33:21); and they made the day of the report of the destruction like the day of the actual burning and decreed a fast on that day. And Rabbi Shimon added: And my statement seems more convincing than his statement, as I say about the first fast mentioned by the prophet that it marks the event that took place first, and about the last fast that it marks the event that took place last. According to Rabbi Shimon, the fasts are listed in accordance with the chronological order of the events. But he, Rabbi Akiva, says about the first fast mentioned by the prophet that it marks the event that took place last, and about the last fast mentioned that it marks the event that took place first, only that he lists the fasts in the order of the months, whereas I list them also in the order of the calamities that they mark. § It was stated that the Sages disagreed about the following matter: Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina both say: Megillat Ta’anit, a listing of days on which fasting and eulogizing are forbidden, has been nullified, as in the present period of exile there is no reason to celebrate the joyous events that these days commemorate. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: Megillat Ta’anit has not been nullified. The Gemara explains: Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina say that Megillat Ta’anit has been nullified. This is what the prophet is saying: At a time when there is peace in the world, the dates listed will be times of joy and gladness, on which eulogies and fasting are forbidden; but when there is no peace, they are days of fasting. And those days mentioned in Megillat Ta’anit are also like these days of fasting, that is to say, the days of joy listed in Megillat Ta’anit are also nullified when there is no peace. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say that Megillat Ta’anit has not been nullified, and they reason as follows: It was those fast days mentioned in the Bible that the Merciful One makes contingent on the building of the Temple, but these festive days listed in Megillat Ta’anit remain as they were and have not been nullified. Rav Kahana raised an objection against Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina from a baraita: There was an incident and the Sages decreed a fast on Hanukkah in Lod, and Rabbi Eliezer went down on that day and bathed in the bathhouse and Rabbi Yehoshua went down and cut his hair to show that they did not accept the fast. Furthermore, these two Sages said to the others: Go out and fast another fast as an act of penitence for what you have already fasted, as the days of Hanukkah are days of joy, on which fasting is forbidden. Hanukkah is one of the Festivals listed in Megillat Ta’anit. Even after the destruction of the Temple Hanukkah is celebrated, demonstrating that Megillat Ta’anit has not been nullified. Rav Yosef said: Hanukkah is different, as there is the mitzva of lighting candles, and so, unlike the other days listed in Megillat Ta’anit, the festival of Hanukkah was not nullified. Abaye said to him: What is this argument? Let Hanukkah itself be nullified, and let its mitzva of lighting candles be nullified with it. Rather, Rav Yosef retracted his previous explanation and said: Hanukkah is different, as its miracle is well known, and it has become so widely accepted by all the Jewish people that it would be inappropriate to nullify it. Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection: It is stated in Megillat Ta’anit: On the third of Tishrei the ordinance requiring the mention of God’s name in legal documents was abolished, and on that day fasting is forbidden. For the kingdom of Greece had issued a decree against the Jews forbidding them to mention the name of Heaven on their lips. When the Hasmonean kingdom became strong and defeated the Greeks, they instituted that people should mention the name of Heaven even in their legal documents. And therefore they would write: In year such and such of Yoḥanan the High Priest of the God Most High. And when the Sages heard about this they said: Tomorrow this one, the borrower, will repay his debt, the lender will no longer need to save the loan document, the document will be cast on a dunghill, and the name of Heaven written there will come to disgrace. And so they annulled the ordinance to mention God’s name in documents, and they made that day into a Festival. And if it enters your mind to say that Megillat Ta’anit has been nullified, can you say that the first prohibitions against fasting they annulled, and then later ones were added? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is referring to a time when the Temple was standing and all the days listed in Megillat Ta’anit were in force. From time to time new days of commemoration were added. When the amora’im stated that Megillat Ta’anit was nullified they were referring to the time after the destruction of the Temple.
בסוף ט' באב לא בוטל. האם טוב שכך הוא?
מה היחס אליו בעשרות השנים האחרונות?
מה היחס אליו בעשרות השנים האחרונות?
חורבן ותלישוּת
שמעתי כי אחת מהסתדרויות הנוער קבעה את יציאת חבריה למחנה קיץ באותו לילה שבו מבכה ישראל את חורבנו, את שעבודו ואת מרי גלותו. אין להעלות על הדעת כי מישהו עשה זאת במתכוון. אין להעלות על הדעת כי מדריכי נוער חלוצי, המחנכים אותו ל"חיי הגשמה", כלומר, למאמצי שחרור מן הגלות ותיקון הנגעים והמומים שחלו בנו בעקב החורבן – אין להעלות על הדעת כי הם עשו זאת מתוך ידיעה מה הם עושים. אולם אי-ידיעה זו כשהיא לעצמה היא המעוררת מחשבות נוגות על רמתם התרבותית ועל ערך פעולתם החינוכית של כמה ממדריכי הנוער.
מה ערכה ומה פרייה של תנועת שחרור שאין עימה שורשיות ויש עימה שיכחה, אשר תחת לטפח ולהעמיק בקרב נושאיה את הרגשת המקור ואת ידיעת המקורות, היא מטשטשת את זכרון נקודת המוצא ומקצצת בַּנִּימִין, אשר דרכן יונקת התנועה את לְשָׁדָהּ? כלום היינו עוד מסוגלים כיום הזה לתנועת-תקומה לולא היה עם ישראל שומר בליבו בקשיות עורף קדושה את זכר החורבן? לולא היה מייחד בזיכרונו ובהרגשתו ובהליכות-חייו את יום החורבן מכל הימים? זהו כוחו של הסמל החיוני המגובש והמפרה בקורות עם. אלמלא ידע ישראל להתאבל במשך דורות על חורבנו ביום הזכרון, בכל חריפות ההרגשה של מי שמתו מוטל לפניו, של מי שאך זה עתה אבדו לו חירותו ומולדתו, לא היו קמים לונו לא הס ולא פינסקר, לא הרצל ולא נורדוי, לא סירקין ולא בורוכוב, לא א.ד. גורדון ולא י"ח ברנר. ויהודה הלוי לא היה יכול ליצור את "ציון הלא תשאלי" וביאליק לא היה יכול לכתוב את "מגילת האש"...
ברל כצנלסון, "דבר", תרצ"ד (1934)
קראו כאן על המאמר, הרקע לכתיבתו, ועוד
שמעתי כי אחת מהסתדרויות הנוער קבעה את יציאת חבריה למחנה קיץ באותו לילה שבו מבכה ישראל את חורבנו, את שעבודו ואת מרי גלותו. אין להעלות על הדעת כי מישהו עשה זאת במתכוון. אין להעלות על הדעת כי מדריכי נוער חלוצי, המחנכים אותו ל"חיי הגשמה", כלומר, למאמצי שחרור מן הגלות ותיקון הנגעים והמומים שחלו בנו בעקב החורבן – אין להעלות על הדעת כי הם עשו זאת מתוך ידיעה מה הם עושים. אולם אי-ידיעה זו כשהיא לעצמה היא המעוררת מחשבות נוגות על רמתם התרבותית ועל ערך פעולתם החינוכית של כמה ממדריכי הנוער.
מה ערכה ומה פרייה של תנועת שחרור שאין עימה שורשיות ויש עימה שיכחה, אשר תחת לטפח ולהעמיק בקרב נושאיה את הרגשת המקור ואת ידיעת המקורות, היא מטשטשת את זכרון נקודת המוצא ומקצצת בַּנִּימִין, אשר דרכן יונקת התנועה את לְשָׁדָהּ? כלום היינו עוד מסוגלים כיום הזה לתנועת-תקומה לולא היה עם ישראל שומר בליבו בקשיות עורף קדושה את זכר החורבן? לולא היה מייחד בזיכרונו ובהרגשתו ובהליכות-חייו את יום החורבן מכל הימים? זהו כוחו של הסמל החיוני המגובש והמפרה בקורות עם. אלמלא ידע ישראל להתאבל במשך דורות על חורבנו ביום הזכרון, בכל חריפות ההרגשה של מי שמתו מוטל לפניו, של מי שאך זה עתה אבדו לו חירותו ומולדתו, לא היו קמים לונו לא הס ולא פינסקר, לא הרצל ולא נורדוי, לא סירקין ולא בורוכוב, לא א.ד. גורדון ולא י"ח ברנר. ויהודה הלוי לא היה יכול ליצור את "ציון הלא תשאלי" וביאליק לא היה יכול לכתוב את "מגילת האש"...
ברל כצנלסון, "דבר", תרצ"ד (1934)
קראו כאן על המאמר, הרקע לכתיבתו, ועוד
נאמר: "אם אשכחך ירושלים תשכח ימיני, תדבק לשוני לחכי אם לא אזכרכי, אם לא אעלה את ירושלים על ראש שמחתי" (תהלים קל"ז, 5).
מאי "על ראש שמחתי"? אמר רב יצחק: זה אפר מַקְלֵה שבראש חתנים.
אמר לו רב פפא לאביי: היכא מנח לה? במקום תפילין, שנאמר: "לָשׂוּם לַאֲבֵלֵי צִיּוֹן לָתֵת לָהֶם פְּאֵר תַּחַת אֵפֶר" (ישעיה ס"א, 3).
וכל המתאבל על ירושלים זוכה ורואה בשמחתה שנאמר: "שמחו את ירושלים וגילו בה כל אוהביה, שישו איתה משוש כל המתאבלים עליה" (ישעיה ס"ו, 10).
(המשך הסוגיה מתלמוד בבלי, מסכת בבא בתרא, דף ס' עמ' ב')
מאי "על ראש שמחתי"? אמר רב יצחק: זה אפר מַקְלֵה שבראש חתנים.
אמר לו רב פפא לאביי: היכא מנח לה? במקום תפילין, שנאמר: "לָשׂוּם לַאֲבֵלֵי צִיּוֹן לָתֵת לָהֶם פְּאֵר תַּחַת אֵפֶר" (ישעיה ס"א, 3).
וכל המתאבל על ירושלים זוכה ורואה בשמחתה שנאמר: "שמחו את ירושלים וגילו בה כל אוהביה, שישו איתה משוש כל המתאבלים עליה" (ישעיה ס"ו, 10).
(המשך הסוגיה מתלמוד בבלי, מסכת בבא בתרא, דף ס' עמ' ב')
״עִבְדוּ אֶת ה׳ בְּיִרְאָה וְגִילוּ בִּרְעָדָה״ (תהלים ב', 11) - מַאי ״וְגִילוּ בִּרְעָדָה״?
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָא אָמַר רַבָּה: בִּמְקוֹם גִּילָה שָׁם תְּהֵא רְעָדָה. [..]
מָר, בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא, עֲבַד הִילּוּלָא לִבְרֵיהּ. חֲזַנְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דַּהֲווֹ קָבָדְחִי טוּבָא. אַיְּיתִי כָּסָא דְמוֹקְרָא בַּת אַרְבַּע מְאָה זוּזִי, וְתַבַּר קַמַּיְהוּ, וְאִעֲצִיבוּ.
רַב אָשֵׁי עֲבַד הִילּוּלָא לִבְרֵיהּ. חֲזַנְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דַּהֲווֹ קָא בָדְחִי טוּבָא, אַיְּיתִי כָּסָא דְּזוּגִּיתָא חִיוָּרְתָּא, וְתַבַּר קַמַּיְהוּ, וְאִעֲצִיבוּ.
a person should associate himself with the congregation and should not pray for himself alone. How should he say it? May it be Your will, Lord our God, that You lead us to peace, etc., in the plural. The Gemara discusses specific details pertaining to this prayer. When does one pray? Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rav Ḥisda said: From when one sets out on his journey, and not before. How long must one’s planned journey be in order to require him to recite this prayer (Ba’al Halakhot Gedolot)? Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rav Ḥisda said: At least a parasang. How does he recite this prayer? Rav Ḥisda said: Only while standing in one place. Rav Sheshet said: Even walking or sitting. The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda and Rav Sheshet were walking along the path, Rav Ḥisda stood and recited the traveler’s prayer. Since he was blind and did not see his colleague, Rav Sheshet asked his servant: What is Rav Ḥisda doing now? His servant said to him: He is standing and praying. Rav Sheshet said to his servant: Stand me up as well and I will pray. Even though Rav Sheshet held that there is no need to stand during this prayer, nevertheless: From being good, do not be called wicked. In other words, one should do better if he is able. Rav Sheshet said that one is not required to stop and stand. He did not say that it is preferable to walk or sit. Since standing in this case required no special effort on his part, as Rav Ḥisda had stopped to stand and pray anyway, why insist on sitting? The mishna mentioned both a brief prayer recited in times of danger and an abridged prayer, with regard to which there was a dispute between the tanna’im. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference between the abridged prayer: Grant us understanding and the brief prayer recited in times of danger? The Gemara answers: One who recites: Grant us understanding is required to recite the first three blessings and the last three blessings of the Amida prayer, and when he reaches his home, he need not pray again. One who recites the brief prayer, however, need recite neither the first three blessings nor the last three blessings of the Amida prayer. However, when he reaches his home, he must pray again. Grant us understanding has the legal status of the Amida prayer, despite its brevity, while the brief prayer is merely recited in place of the Amida prayer in exigent circumstances. The halakha is: Grant us understanding, as mentioned above, has the legal status of the Amida prayer, and must therefore be recited while standing. The brief prayer, since it does not have that status, may be recited whether one is standing or whether one is walking. We learned in the mishna: One who was riding on a donkey should dismount and pray. Only in exigent circumstances may he pray while riding, focusing his heart toward Jerusalem and the Holy of Holies. The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who was riding on a donkey and the time for prayer arrived, if he has someone to hold onto the donkey, he should dismount and pray. If not, he should sit in his place atop the donkey and pray. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In any case, whether or not there is someone to hold onto the donkey, he should sit in his place atop the donkey and pray, as his mind will not be calm. Since he is hurrying to arrive at his destination, the need to dismount the donkey, stand in prayer, and remount the donkey would delay his journey, and the delay is likely to interfere with his concentration during prayer. Rava, and some say Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said: The halakha here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Sages taught in a Tosefta: A blind person and one who is unable to approximate the directions and, therefore, is unable to face Jerusalem in order to pray, may focus his heart towards his Father in Heaven, as it is stated: “And they shall pray to the Lord” (I Kings 8:44). One who was standing in prayer in the Diaspora, should focus his heart toward Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “And they shall pray to You by way of their land which You have given to their fathers” (I Kings 8:48).
One who was standing in Eretz Yisrael, should focus his heart toward Jerusalem, as it is stated: “And they shall pray to the Lord by way of the city that You have chosen” (I Kings 8:44).
One who was standing in Jerusalem, should focus his heart toward the Temple, as it is stated: “And they shall pray toward this house” (II Chronicles 6:32).
One who was standing in the Temple, should focus his heart toward the Holy of Holies, as it is stated: “And they shall pray toward this place” (I Kings 8:35).
One who was standing in the Holy of Holies, should focus his heart toward the seat of the ark-cover [kapporet], atop the ark, the dwelling place of God’s glory.
One who was standing behind the seat of the ark-cover, should visualize himself as if standing before the ark-cover and turn toward it.
Consequently, one standing in prayer in the East turns to face west, and one standing in the West, turns to face east. One standing in the South, turns to face north, and one standing in the North, turns to face south; all of the people of Israel find themselves focusing their hearts toward one place, the Holy of Holies in the Temple. An allusion to this is found in what Rabbi Avin, and some say Rabbi Avina, said: What verse alludes to this? “Your neck is like the Tower of David, built with turrets [talpiyyot], one thousand shields hang from it, all of the armor of the mighty” (Song of Songs 4:4). He interprets the word talpiyyot as the hill [tel] toward which all mouths [piyyot] turn, i.e., the Temple Mount. With regard to prayer while traveling, the Gemara relates: When Shmuel’s father and Levi wanted to set out on a journey in the morning, they would pray early before sunrise. When, during their journey, the time to recite Shema would arrive, they recited it. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did they do this? In accordance with this tanna, as it was taught in the Tosefta: One who rose early to set out on his path before the time to recite Shema arrives, they bring him a shofar and he sounds it, if it was Rosh HaShana; a lulav and he takes it on Sukkot; a megilla, the Scroll of Esther, and he reads it on Purim; and when the time comes to recite Shema, he recites it. So too, one who rose early to sit in a wagon or in a boat prays, and when the time comes to recite Shema, he recites it. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, says: In either case, it is preferable to recite Shema and then pray the Amida prayer in the wagon so that he will juxtapose redemption and prayer. The Gemara explains: Regarding what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: This Sage, the first tanna, holds that prayer while standing is preferable. Therefore, one should pray earlier, at home, while standing. This Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, holds that the juxtaposition of redemption and prayer is preferable, even if in doing so one is unable to stand while praying. On a similar note, the Gemara cites additional circumstances where Sages were forced to make exceptional arrangements to pray. Mareimar and Mar Zutra would gather ten people on the Shabbat of the festival and pray, and set out to deliver their lecture [pirka]. Due to the crowds that gathered to hear the lectures of the Sages on the festival, they were unable to pray at the proper time, so they were forced to pray earlier. In similar circumstances, Rav Ashi would pray with the congregation individually while seated, so that they would not notice that he was praying. Afterwards, when he would come to his house, he would pray again while standing in order to pray without distraction. The Sages said to him: The Master should do as Mareimar and Mar Zutra do, i.e., gather a prayer quorum at home to pray before the lecture. He said to them: It is burdensome to me to delay the lecture so much. The Sages said to him: The Master should do as Shmuel’s father and Levi did and pray before sunrise. He said to them: I have not seen Sages older than us do that, indicating that this is not the accepted halakha. MISHNA: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The additional prayer is only recited in a city where there is a quorum of ten [ḥever ir]. The Rabbis say: One may recite the additional prayer with a ḥever ir or without a ḥever ir. Rabbi Yehuda says another opinion in his name, the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: Any place where there is a ḥever ir, an individual is completely exempt from reciting the additional prayer. GEMARA: There is no apparent difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and the opinion cited in his name by Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya cited by the first tanna. The Gemara answers: There is a practical halakhic difference between them: The case of an individual who is not in a place where there is a ḥever ir. In other words, in a place where there is not a prayer quorum of ten people, the first tanna holds that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s opinion is that the individual is exempt from reciting the additional prayer, as it was only instituted to be recited with a quorum. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s opinion is that the individual is obligated to recite the additional prayer, as he is only exempt in a place where there is a prayer quorum, and, therefore, a communal prayer leader fulfills his obligation. Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said that Ḥiyya bar Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said it in the name of his mentor, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: You have spoken well, as proven by what Shmuel said: In all my days I have never prayed the additional prayer as an individual in Neharde’a, where there is always a prayer quorum, except for the day when the king’s army [pulmusa] came to the city, and the Sages were preoccupied and did not pray communally, and I prayed as an individual, and I was an individual who was not praying in a prayer quorum. Shmuel’s conduct was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this matter. Yet this opinion was not universally accepted. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina Kara, the Bible expert, sat before Rabbi Yannai, and he sat and he said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Go and read your verses outside, as that halakha is not accepted by the Sages in the study hall, and it belongs outside, as the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I saw Rabbi Yannai, who prayed and then prayed again. Presumably, his first prayer was the morning prayer and his second prayer was the additional prayer. Apparently, he does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rather, he holds that even when not part of a prayer quorum, an individual must recite the additional prayer. Later on, when this story was related in the study hall, Rabbi Yirmeya said to his teacher, Rabbi Zeira: What proof is there that the second prayer was the additional prayer? Perhaps initially he did not focus his mind on his prayer and ultimately he focused his mind, i.e., he repeated the morning prayer in order to do so with proper concentration. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Look at who the great man is who is testifying about him. Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly observed carefully before relating what he witnessed. Regarding prayers of the Sages, the Gemara further relates that, although there were thirteen synagogues in Tiberias, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would only pray between the columns where they studied, as prayer is beloved in the eyes of God, specifically in a place of Torah. It was stated: Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav, said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed and then prayed again. Rav Zeira said to him: Why did the Master do this? If you say because the Master did not focus his mind the first time, didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say: One must always evaluate himself before he prays? If he is able to focus his heart on prayer, he should pray, but if not, if he is unable to do so, he should not pray. Apparently, that was not the reason that he prayed twice. Rather, because my Master did not mention the New Moon in his prayer, so he prayed again. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the evening prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the morning prayer. One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the morning prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the additional prayer. One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the additional prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the afternoon prayer? Omitting mention of the New Moon does not require one to repeat the Amida prayer. Consequently, that was not the reason that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed a second time. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Wasn’t it stated about that baraita that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught this baraita specifically with regard to prayer in a communal framework? However, an individual who fails to mention the New Moon is required to pray again? That is why Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed twice. Stemming from the discussion about individuals who recite two prayers consecutively, the Gemara asks: How long should one wait between the first prayer and the second prayer? Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda agreed about this in principle, but they formulated their opinions differently (Rashi). One said that an individual must wait long enough so that his mind will be in a pleading mode [titḥonen], enabling him to recite the second prayer as a plea. One of them said: Long enough so that his mind will be in a beseeching mode [titḥolel], enabling him to beseech God in his second prayer. The Gemara points out that both Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda based their positions on the prayers of Moses. The one who said: So that his mind will be in a pleading mode [titḥonen], as it is written: “And I pleaded [va’etḥanan] before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 3:23). And the one who said: So that his mind will be in a beseeching mode [titḥolel] as it is written: “And Moses besought [vayeḥal] the Lord” (Exodus 32:11). The Gemara resumes the above discussion with regard to omission of the mention of the New Moon in the Amida prayer. Rav Anan said that Rav said: One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the evening prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because the court only sanctifies the new month by day, and the prayer of the New Moon, which parallels the court’s sanctification of the new month, belongs in the daytime prayer. Ameimar said: Rav’s statement is reasonable in a full month, i.e., a month in which there are two potential days of the New Moon, the thirtieth day of the previous month and the first day of the new month. If one neglected to mention the New Moon on the night of the thirtieth, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can mention it the next night, which is the night of the first of the new month, which is the primary day of the New Moon. But in a short month of twenty-nine days, followed by one day of the New Moon, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, even in the evening prayer. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Since Rav states a reason for his statement, what difference is there to me if the month is short, and what difference is there to me if it is full? Rather, there is no difference. Rav based his opinion on the parallel drawn between the sanctification of the month and the mention of the New Moon in the Amida prayer; the sanctification of the month is not relevant at night. May we return unto thee : The morning Tefillah ! MISHNA: One may only stand and begin to pray from an approach of gravity and submission. There is a tradition that the early generations of pious men would wait one hour, in order to reach the solemn frame of mind appropriate for prayer, and then pray, so that they would focus their hearts toward their Father in Heaven. Standing in prayer is standing before God and, as such, even if the king greets him, he should not respond to him; and even if a snake is wrapped on his heel, he should not interrupt his prayer. GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that prayer should be undertaken in an atmosphere of gravity. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Elazar said: They are derived from the verses describing the prayer of Hannah, mother of Samuel, as the verse states: “And she felt bitterness of soul, and she prayed to the Lord and she wept and wept” (I Samuel 1:10). The Gemara rejects this proof: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps Hannah is different, as her heart was extremely embittered, her prayer was embittered as well. This does not prove that everyone must pray in that frame of mind. Rather, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said, it can be proved from here, as David said: “But as for me, by Your abundant loving-kindness I will enter Your house, at Your Holy Temple I will bow in reverence for You” (Psalms 5:8). Entering into prayer like entering the Holy Temple must be performed reverentially. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps David is different, as he would excessively afflict himself in prayer in order to atone for his transgression with Bathsheba. Consequently, his cannot serve as a paradigm for proper conduct in prayer. Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, it can be derived from here, from this verse that David said, not about his own worship, but about worship of God in general: “Give, unto the Lord, the honor of His name, bow to the Lord in the beauty of holiness [behadrat kodesh]” (Psalms 29:2). Do not read: In the beauty of [behadrat] holiness. Rather read: In trembling of [beḥerdat] holiness; one must enter into prayer from an atmosphere of gravity engendered by sanctity. The Gemara rejects this too: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps, actually I would say to you that it should be read as it is written: Specifically, “in the beauty,” and it means that one should pray in beautiful clothing, as in the case of Rav Yehuda who would adorn himself and then pray. Rav Yehuda believed that one who comes before the King must wear his most beautiful clothing. The Gemara has yet to find a source for the halakha that one must approach prayer from an atmosphere of gravity. Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said it can be derived from here, from this verse: “Serve the Lord in fear and rejoice with trembling” (Psalms 2:11). Having cited this verse from Psalms, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of rejoice with trembling? Rav Adda bar Mattana said that Rabba said: One may not experience unbridled joy; even where there is rejoicing, there should be trembling. On that note, the Gemara relates: Abaye was sitting before his teacher Rabba, and Rabba saw that he was excessively joyful. He said to Abaye: It is written: Rejoice with trembling, one’s joy should not be unrestrained. Abaye said to him: It is permissible for me because I am donning phylacteries now and as long as they are upon me they ensure that the fear of God is upon me. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira. He saw that Rabbi Yirmeya was excessively joyful. He said to him: It is written: “In all sorrow there is profit” (Proverbs 14:23); sorrow is appropriate, not excessive joy. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: It is permissible for me because I am donning phylacteries. On a similar note, the Gemara relates: Mar, son of Ravina, made a wedding feast for his son and he saw the Sages, who were excessively joyous. He brought a valuable cup worth four hundred zuz and broke it before them and they became sad. The Gemara also relates: Rav Ashi made a wedding feast for his son and he saw the Sages, who were excessively joyous. He brought a cup of extremely valuable white glass and broke it before them, and they became sad. Similarly, the Gemara relates: The Sages said to Rav Hamnuna Zuti at the wedding feast of Mar, son of Ravina: Let the Master sing for us. Since he believed that the merriment had become excessive, he said to them, singing: Woe unto us, for we shall die, woe unto us, for we shall die. They said to him: What shall we respond after you? What is the chorus of the song? He said to them, you should respond: Where is Torah and where is mitzva that protect us? In a similar vein, Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: One is forbidden to fill his mouth with mirth in this world, as long as we are in exile (ge’onim), as it is stated: “When the Lord returns the captivity of Zion we will be as dreamers” (Psalms 126:1). Only “then will our mouths fill with laughter and our lips with song” (Psalms 126:2). When will that joyous era arrive? When “they will say among nations, the Lord has done great things with these” (Psalms 126:2). They said about Reish Lakish that throughout his life he did not fill his mouth with laughter in this world once he heard this statement from his teacher, Rabbi Yoḥanan. We learned in the mishna that it is appropriate to stand and begin to pray from an atmosphere of gravity. Regarding this, the Sages taught: One may neither stand and begin to pray, directly from involvement in judgment nor directly from deliberation over the ruling in a matter of halakha, as his preoccupation with the judgment or the halakhic ruling will distract him from prayer. Rather it is appropriate to pray directly from involvement in the study of a universally accepted conclusive halakha that leaves no room for further deliberation and will not distract him during prayer. And the Gemara asks: What is an example of a conclusive halakha? The Gemara offers several examples: Abaye said: One like this halakha of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said: The daughters of Israel were stringent with themselves; to the extent that even if they see a drop of blood corresponding to the size of a mustard seed she sits seven clean days for it. By Torah law, a woman who witnesses the emission of blood during the eleven days following her fixed menstrual period is not considered a menstruating woman; rather she immerses herself and is purified the next day. However, the women of Israel accepted the stringency upon themselves that if they see any blood whatsoever, they act as it if were the blood of a zava, which obligates her to count seven more clean days before becoming ritually pure (see Leviticus 15:25). Citing an additional example of a conclusive halakha, Rava said: One like this halakha of Rav Hoshaya, as Rav Hoshaya said: A person may employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain and bring it into the courtyard in its chaff so that his animal will eat from it, and the grain is exempt from tithes. Halakha dictates that one is obligated to tithe grain that has been threshed and piled, regardless of the ultimate purpose for which the grain was intended. By Torah law, one is exempt from tithing grain that was not threshed and is therefore still in its chaff. By rabbinic law, one is prohibited from eating this grain in the framework of a meal. Feeding animals is permitted without first tithing that grain. And if you wish, say instead yet another example of a conclusive halakha, which is the recommended prelude to prayer. One like this halakha of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said that Rabbi Zeira said: One who lets blood from a consecrated animal that was consecrated as a sacrifice; deriving benefit from that blood is prohibited. Although blood of an offering that was sprinkled on the altar is not considered Temple property, nevertheless, deriving benefit from the blood of a living, consecrated animal is considered prohibited use of Temple property. In so doing, one misuses property consecrated to the Temple, and as in any other case of misusing Temple property, if he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering. It is related that the Sages acted in accordance with the opinion of our mishna and rose to pray from an atmosphere of gravity; Rav Ashi acted in accordance with the opinion of the baraita and preceded his prayer with a conclusive halakha. On the topic of proper preparation for prayer, the Sages taught: One may neither stand to pray from an atmosphere of sorrow nor from an atmosphere of laziness, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of conversation, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of purposeless matters. Rather, one should approach prayer from an atmosphere imbued with the joy of a mitzva. Similarly, a person should neither take leave of another from an atmosphere of conversation, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of purposeless matters. Rather, one should take leave of another from involvement in a matter of halakha. As we found in the books of the Bible dealing with the early prophets, that they would conclude their talks with words of praise and consolation. And so Mari, the grandson of Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, taught in a baraita: One should only take leave of another from involvement in a matter of halakha, so that, consequently, he will remember him; whenever he recalls the one from whom he took leave, he will think well of him because of the new halakha that he taught him (Eliyahu Zuta). As in the incident related by the Gemara that Rav Kahana accompanied Rav Shimi bar Ashi from the town of Pum Nahara to the palm grove in Babylonia. When he arrived there, Rav Kahana said to Rav Shimi bar Ashi: Master, what is meant by that which people say: These palm trees of Babylonia have been in this place from the time of Adam the first man until now? Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: You reminded me of something that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “In a land through which no man has passed and where no person [adam] has settled” (Jeremiah 2:6)? This verse is difficult; since it is a land through which no person has passed, how could anyone have settled there permanently? The statement that “no person has settled there” is redundant. Rather, this verse comes to teach that every land through which Adam the first man passed and decreed that it would be settled was settled, and every land through which Adam passed and decreed that it would not be settled was not settled. Based on this, what people say is true, and the palm trees of Babylonia are from the time of Adam, meaning that from the time of Adam this land was decreed to be suitable for growing palm trees (Me’iri). The Gemara cited an example of how one who parts from another with Torah learns something new. Having mentioned the mitzva for a student to accompany his Rabbi, the Gemara relates that Rav Mordekhai accompanied his mentor, Rav Shimi bar Ashi, a great distance, from the city of Hagronya to Bei Keifei; and some say that he accompanied from Hagronya to Bei Dura. Returning to the topic of preparation for prayer, the Sages taught in the Tosefta: One who prays must focus his heart toward Heaven. Abba Shaul says: An indication of the importance of this matter is stated in the verse: “The desire of the humble You have heard, Lord; direct their hearts, Your ear will listen” (Psalms 10:17). In other words, if one focuses his heart in prayer as a result of God directing his heart, his prayer will be accepted as God’s ear will listen. With regard to one’s intent during prayer, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: This was the custom of Rabbi Akiva, when he would pray with the congregation he would shorten his prayer and go up, due to his desire to avoid being an encumbrance on the congregation by making them wait for him to finish his prayer. But when he prayed by himself he would extend his prayers to an extent that a person would leave Rabbi Akiva alone in one corner of the study hall and later find him still praying in another corner. And why would Rabbi Akiva move about so much? Because of his bows and prostrations. Rabbi Akiva’s enthusiasm in prayer was so great, that as a result of his bows and prostrations, he would unwittingly move from one corner to the other (Rav Hai Gaon). Many halakhot are derived from evoking the prayers of biblical characters. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: One should always pray in a house with windows, as it is stated regarding Daniel: “And when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went to his house. In his attic there were open windows facing Jerusalem, and three times a day he knelt upon his knees and prayed and gave thanks before his God, just as he had done before” (Daniel 6:11). In the Tosefta, additional halakhot were derived from Daniel’s prayer. I might have thought that one could pray as many times as he wishes throughout the entire day; it has already been articulated by Daniel, with regard to whom it is stated: “And three times a day he knelt upon his knees and prayed.” This teaches that there are fixed prayers. I might have thought that this practice of fixed prayer began only when he came to the Babylonian exile; it was stated: “Just as he had done before.” Further, I might have thought that one may pray facing any direction he wishes; the verse states: The appropriate direction for prayer is “facing Jerusalem.” Daniel does not describe how these three prayers are distributed during the day. I might have thought that one may include all three prayers at one time; it has already been articulated by David that one may not do so, as it is written: “Evening and morning and noon, I pray and cry aloud and He hears my voice” (Psalms 55:18). Furthermore, I might have thought that one may make his voice heard in his Amida prayer; it has already been articulated by Hannah in her prayer, as it is stated: “And Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved and her voice could not be heard” (I Samuel 1:13). Halakhot regarding the order of the prayers were also learned from the prayers of biblical characters. I might have thought that one should request his own needs first, and afterwards recite prayers of thanksgiving and praise; it has already been articulated by Solomon that this is not so, as in Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Holy Temple it is stated: “To hear the song and the prayer that Your servant prays before You today” (I Kings 8:28). In this verse, song is prayer in the sense of thanks and praise, and prayer is one’s request of his personal needs. Therefore, one who is praying does not speak matters of request after he began to recite emet veyatziv prior to the Amida prayer, which is the essence of prayer. Rather, he begins with praise in the first three blessings of the Amida prayer, and only thereafter does he include requests for his needs. But after the Amida prayer there is no limit. If he desires to recite even the equivalent of the order of the confession of Yom Kippur, he may recite it. This was also stated by an amora; Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Although the Sages said that one requests his personal needs in the blessing: Who listens to prayer, that is with regard to one who wishes to do so as part of the Amida prayer. If he comes to add and recite additional requests after completing his Amida prayer, even if his personal requests are the equivalent of the order of the confession of Yom Kippur, he may recite them. Rav Hamnuna said: How many significant halakhot can be derived from these verses of the prayer of Hannah? As it says: “And Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved and her voice could not be heard, so Eli thought her to be drunk” (I Samuel 1:13). The Gemara elaborates: From that which is stated here: “And Hannah spoke in her heart,” the halakha that one who prays must focus his heart on his prayer is derived. And from that which is stated here: “Only her lips moved,” the halakha that one who prays must enunciate the words with his lips, not only contemplate them in his heart, is derived. From that which is written here: “And her voice could not be heard,” the halakha that one is forbidden to raise his voice in his Amida prayer as it must be recited silently. From the continuation of the verse here: “So Eli thought her to be drunk,” the halakha that a drunk person is forbidden to pray. That is why he rebuked her. On the subject of Eli’s rebuke of Hannah, as it is stated: “And Eli said to her: How long will you remain drunk? Remove your wine from yourself” (I Samuel 1:14); Rabbi Elazar said: From here the halakha that one who sees in another
One who was standing in Eretz Yisrael, should focus his heart toward Jerusalem, as it is stated: “And they shall pray to the Lord by way of the city that You have chosen” (I Kings 8:44).
One who was standing in Jerusalem, should focus his heart toward the Temple, as it is stated: “And they shall pray toward this house” (II Chronicles 6:32).
One who was standing in the Temple, should focus his heart toward the Holy of Holies, as it is stated: “And they shall pray toward this place” (I Kings 8:35).
One who was standing in the Holy of Holies, should focus his heart toward the seat of the ark-cover [kapporet], atop the ark, the dwelling place of God’s glory.
One who was standing behind the seat of the ark-cover, should visualize himself as if standing before the ark-cover and turn toward it.
Consequently, one standing in prayer in the East turns to face west, and one standing in the West, turns to face east. One standing in the South, turns to face north, and one standing in the North, turns to face south; all of the people of Israel find themselves focusing their hearts toward one place, the Holy of Holies in the Temple. An allusion to this is found in what Rabbi Avin, and some say Rabbi Avina, said: What verse alludes to this? “Your neck is like the Tower of David, built with turrets [talpiyyot], one thousand shields hang from it, all of the armor of the mighty” (Song of Songs 4:4). He interprets the word talpiyyot as the hill [tel] toward which all mouths [piyyot] turn, i.e., the Temple Mount. With regard to prayer while traveling, the Gemara relates: When Shmuel’s father and Levi wanted to set out on a journey in the morning, they would pray early before sunrise. When, during their journey, the time to recite Shema would arrive, they recited it. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did they do this? In accordance with this tanna, as it was taught in the Tosefta: One who rose early to set out on his path before the time to recite Shema arrives, they bring him a shofar and he sounds it, if it was Rosh HaShana; a lulav and he takes it on Sukkot; a megilla, the Scroll of Esther, and he reads it on Purim; and when the time comes to recite Shema, he recites it. So too, one who rose early to sit in a wagon or in a boat prays, and when the time comes to recite Shema, he recites it. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, says: In either case, it is preferable to recite Shema and then pray the Amida prayer in the wagon so that he will juxtapose redemption and prayer. The Gemara explains: Regarding what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: This Sage, the first tanna, holds that prayer while standing is preferable. Therefore, one should pray earlier, at home, while standing. This Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, holds that the juxtaposition of redemption and prayer is preferable, even if in doing so one is unable to stand while praying. On a similar note, the Gemara cites additional circumstances where Sages were forced to make exceptional arrangements to pray. Mareimar and Mar Zutra would gather ten people on the Shabbat of the festival and pray, and set out to deliver their lecture [pirka]. Due to the crowds that gathered to hear the lectures of the Sages on the festival, they were unable to pray at the proper time, so they were forced to pray earlier. In similar circumstances, Rav Ashi would pray with the congregation individually while seated, so that they would not notice that he was praying. Afterwards, when he would come to his house, he would pray again while standing in order to pray without distraction. The Sages said to him: The Master should do as Mareimar and Mar Zutra do, i.e., gather a prayer quorum at home to pray before the lecture. He said to them: It is burdensome to me to delay the lecture so much. The Sages said to him: The Master should do as Shmuel’s father and Levi did and pray before sunrise. He said to them: I have not seen Sages older than us do that, indicating that this is not the accepted halakha. MISHNA: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The additional prayer is only recited in a city where there is a quorum of ten [ḥever ir]. The Rabbis say: One may recite the additional prayer with a ḥever ir or without a ḥever ir. Rabbi Yehuda says another opinion in his name, the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: Any place where there is a ḥever ir, an individual is completely exempt from reciting the additional prayer. GEMARA: There is no apparent difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and the opinion cited in his name by Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya cited by the first tanna. The Gemara answers: There is a practical halakhic difference between them: The case of an individual who is not in a place where there is a ḥever ir. In other words, in a place where there is not a prayer quorum of ten people, the first tanna holds that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s opinion is that the individual is exempt from reciting the additional prayer, as it was only instituted to be recited with a quorum. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s opinion is that the individual is obligated to recite the additional prayer, as he is only exempt in a place where there is a prayer quorum, and, therefore, a communal prayer leader fulfills his obligation. Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said that Ḥiyya bar Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said it in the name of his mentor, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: You have spoken well, as proven by what Shmuel said: In all my days I have never prayed the additional prayer as an individual in Neharde’a, where there is always a prayer quorum, except for the day when the king’s army [pulmusa] came to the city, and the Sages were preoccupied and did not pray communally, and I prayed as an individual, and I was an individual who was not praying in a prayer quorum. Shmuel’s conduct was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this matter. Yet this opinion was not universally accepted. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina Kara, the Bible expert, sat before Rabbi Yannai, and he sat and he said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Go and read your verses outside, as that halakha is not accepted by the Sages in the study hall, and it belongs outside, as the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I saw Rabbi Yannai, who prayed and then prayed again. Presumably, his first prayer was the morning prayer and his second prayer was the additional prayer. Apparently, he does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rather, he holds that even when not part of a prayer quorum, an individual must recite the additional prayer. Later on, when this story was related in the study hall, Rabbi Yirmeya said to his teacher, Rabbi Zeira: What proof is there that the second prayer was the additional prayer? Perhaps initially he did not focus his mind on his prayer and ultimately he focused his mind, i.e., he repeated the morning prayer in order to do so with proper concentration. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Look at who the great man is who is testifying about him. Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly observed carefully before relating what he witnessed. Regarding prayers of the Sages, the Gemara further relates that, although there were thirteen synagogues in Tiberias, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would only pray between the columns where they studied, as prayer is beloved in the eyes of God, specifically in a place of Torah. It was stated: Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav, said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed and then prayed again. Rav Zeira said to him: Why did the Master do this? If you say because the Master did not focus his mind the first time, didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say: One must always evaluate himself before he prays? If he is able to focus his heart on prayer, he should pray, but if not, if he is unable to do so, he should not pray. Apparently, that was not the reason that he prayed twice. Rather, because my Master did not mention the New Moon in his prayer, so he prayed again. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the evening prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the morning prayer. One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the morning prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the additional prayer. One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the additional prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the afternoon prayer? Omitting mention of the New Moon does not require one to repeat the Amida prayer. Consequently, that was not the reason that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed a second time. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Wasn’t it stated about that baraita that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught this baraita specifically with regard to prayer in a communal framework? However, an individual who fails to mention the New Moon is required to pray again? That is why Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed twice. Stemming from the discussion about individuals who recite two prayers consecutively, the Gemara asks: How long should one wait between the first prayer and the second prayer? Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda agreed about this in principle, but they formulated their opinions differently (Rashi). One said that an individual must wait long enough so that his mind will be in a pleading mode [titḥonen], enabling him to recite the second prayer as a plea. One of them said: Long enough so that his mind will be in a beseeching mode [titḥolel], enabling him to beseech God in his second prayer. The Gemara points out that both Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda based their positions on the prayers of Moses. The one who said: So that his mind will be in a pleading mode [titḥonen], as it is written: “And I pleaded [va’etḥanan] before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 3:23). And the one who said: So that his mind will be in a beseeching mode [titḥolel] as it is written: “And Moses besought [vayeḥal] the Lord” (Exodus 32:11). The Gemara resumes the above discussion with regard to omission of the mention of the New Moon in the Amida prayer. Rav Anan said that Rav said: One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the evening prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because the court only sanctifies the new month by day, and the prayer of the New Moon, which parallels the court’s sanctification of the new month, belongs in the daytime prayer. Ameimar said: Rav’s statement is reasonable in a full month, i.e., a month in which there are two potential days of the New Moon, the thirtieth day of the previous month and the first day of the new month. If one neglected to mention the New Moon on the night of the thirtieth, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can mention it the next night, which is the night of the first of the new month, which is the primary day of the New Moon. But in a short month of twenty-nine days, followed by one day of the New Moon, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, even in the evening prayer. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Since Rav states a reason for his statement, what difference is there to me if the month is short, and what difference is there to me if it is full? Rather, there is no difference. Rav based his opinion on the parallel drawn between the sanctification of the month and the mention of the New Moon in the Amida prayer; the sanctification of the month is not relevant at night. May we return unto thee : The morning Tefillah ! MISHNA: One may only stand and begin to pray from an approach of gravity and submission. There is a tradition that the early generations of pious men would wait one hour, in order to reach the solemn frame of mind appropriate for prayer, and then pray, so that they would focus their hearts toward their Father in Heaven. Standing in prayer is standing before God and, as such, even if the king greets him, he should not respond to him; and even if a snake is wrapped on his heel, he should not interrupt his prayer. GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that prayer should be undertaken in an atmosphere of gravity. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Elazar said: They are derived from the verses describing the prayer of Hannah, mother of Samuel, as the verse states: “And she felt bitterness of soul, and she prayed to the Lord and she wept and wept” (I Samuel 1:10). The Gemara rejects this proof: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps Hannah is different, as her heart was extremely embittered, her prayer was embittered as well. This does not prove that everyone must pray in that frame of mind. Rather, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said, it can be proved from here, as David said: “But as for me, by Your abundant loving-kindness I will enter Your house, at Your Holy Temple I will bow in reverence for You” (Psalms 5:8). Entering into prayer like entering the Holy Temple must be performed reverentially. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps David is different, as he would excessively afflict himself in prayer in order to atone for his transgression with Bathsheba. Consequently, his cannot serve as a paradigm for proper conduct in prayer. Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, it can be derived from here, from this verse that David said, not about his own worship, but about worship of God in general: “Give, unto the Lord, the honor of His name, bow to the Lord in the beauty of holiness [behadrat kodesh]” (Psalms 29:2). Do not read: In the beauty of [behadrat] holiness. Rather read: In trembling of [beḥerdat] holiness; one must enter into prayer from an atmosphere of gravity engendered by sanctity. The Gemara rejects this too: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps, actually I would say to you that it should be read as it is written: Specifically, “in the beauty,” and it means that one should pray in beautiful clothing, as in the case of Rav Yehuda who would adorn himself and then pray. Rav Yehuda believed that one who comes before the King must wear his most beautiful clothing. The Gemara has yet to find a source for the halakha that one must approach prayer from an atmosphere of gravity. Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said it can be derived from here, from this verse: “Serve the Lord in fear and rejoice with trembling” (Psalms 2:11). Having cited this verse from Psalms, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of rejoice with trembling? Rav Adda bar Mattana said that Rabba said: One may not experience unbridled joy; even where there is rejoicing, there should be trembling. On that note, the Gemara relates: Abaye was sitting before his teacher Rabba, and Rabba saw that he was excessively joyful. He said to Abaye: It is written: Rejoice with trembling, one’s joy should not be unrestrained. Abaye said to him: It is permissible for me because I am donning phylacteries now and as long as they are upon me they ensure that the fear of God is upon me. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira. He saw that Rabbi Yirmeya was excessively joyful. He said to him: It is written: “In all sorrow there is profit” (Proverbs 14:23); sorrow is appropriate, not excessive joy. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: It is permissible for me because I am donning phylacteries. On a similar note, the Gemara relates: Mar, son of Ravina, made a wedding feast for his son and he saw the Sages, who were excessively joyous. He brought a valuable cup worth four hundred zuz and broke it before them and they became sad. The Gemara also relates: Rav Ashi made a wedding feast for his son and he saw the Sages, who were excessively joyous. He brought a cup of extremely valuable white glass and broke it before them, and they became sad. Similarly, the Gemara relates: The Sages said to Rav Hamnuna Zuti at the wedding feast of Mar, son of Ravina: Let the Master sing for us. Since he believed that the merriment had become excessive, he said to them, singing: Woe unto us, for we shall die, woe unto us, for we shall die. They said to him: What shall we respond after you? What is the chorus of the song? He said to them, you should respond: Where is Torah and where is mitzva that protect us? In a similar vein, Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: One is forbidden to fill his mouth with mirth in this world, as long as we are in exile (ge’onim), as it is stated: “When the Lord returns the captivity of Zion we will be as dreamers” (Psalms 126:1). Only “then will our mouths fill with laughter and our lips with song” (Psalms 126:2). When will that joyous era arrive? When “they will say among nations, the Lord has done great things with these” (Psalms 126:2). They said about Reish Lakish that throughout his life he did not fill his mouth with laughter in this world once he heard this statement from his teacher, Rabbi Yoḥanan. We learned in the mishna that it is appropriate to stand and begin to pray from an atmosphere of gravity. Regarding this, the Sages taught: One may neither stand and begin to pray, directly from involvement in judgment nor directly from deliberation over the ruling in a matter of halakha, as his preoccupation with the judgment or the halakhic ruling will distract him from prayer. Rather it is appropriate to pray directly from involvement in the study of a universally accepted conclusive halakha that leaves no room for further deliberation and will not distract him during prayer. And the Gemara asks: What is an example of a conclusive halakha? The Gemara offers several examples: Abaye said: One like this halakha of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said: The daughters of Israel were stringent with themselves; to the extent that even if they see a drop of blood corresponding to the size of a mustard seed she sits seven clean days for it. By Torah law, a woman who witnesses the emission of blood during the eleven days following her fixed menstrual period is not considered a menstruating woman; rather she immerses herself and is purified the next day. However, the women of Israel accepted the stringency upon themselves that if they see any blood whatsoever, they act as it if were the blood of a zava, which obligates her to count seven more clean days before becoming ritually pure (see Leviticus 15:25). Citing an additional example of a conclusive halakha, Rava said: One like this halakha of Rav Hoshaya, as Rav Hoshaya said: A person may employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain and bring it into the courtyard in its chaff so that his animal will eat from it, and the grain is exempt from tithes. Halakha dictates that one is obligated to tithe grain that has been threshed and piled, regardless of the ultimate purpose for which the grain was intended. By Torah law, one is exempt from tithing grain that was not threshed and is therefore still in its chaff. By rabbinic law, one is prohibited from eating this grain in the framework of a meal. Feeding animals is permitted without first tithing that grain. And if you wish, say instead yet another example of a conclusive halakha, which is the recommended prelude to prayer. One like this halakha of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said that Rabbi Zeira said: One who lets blood from a consecrated animal that was consecrated as a sacrifice; deriving benefit from that blood is prohibited. Although blood of an offering that was sprinkled on the altar is not considered Temple property, nevertheless, deriving benefit from the blood of a living, consecrated animal is considered prohibited use of Temple property. In so doing, one misuses property consecrated to the Temple, and as in any other case of misusing Temple property, if he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering. It is related that the Sages acted in accordance with the opinion of our mishna and rose to pray from an atmosphere of gravity; Rav Ashi acted in accordance with the opinion of the baraita and preceded his prayer with a conclusive halakha. On the topic of proper preparation for prayer, the Sages taught: One may neither stand to pray from an atmosphere of sorrow nor from an atmosphere of laziness, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of conversation, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of purposeless matters. Rather, one should approach prayer from an atmosphere imbued with the joy of a mitzva. Similarly, a person should neither take leave of another from an atmosphere of conversation, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of purposeless matters. Rather, one should take leave of another from involvement in a matter of halakha. As we found in the books of the Bible dealing with the early prophets, that they would conclude their talks with words of praise and consolation. And so Mari, the grandson of Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, taught in a baraita: One should only take leave of another from involvement in a matter of halakha, so that, consequently, he will remember him; whenever he recalls the one from whom he took leave, he will think well of him because of the new halakha that he taught him (Eliyahu Zuta). As in the incident related by the Gemara that Rav Kahana accompanied Rav Shimi bar Ashi from the town of Pum Nahara to the palm grove in Babylonia. When he arrived there, Rav Kahana said to Rav Shimi bar Ashi: Master, what is meant by that which people say: These palm trees of Babylonia have been in this place from the time of Adam the first man until now? Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: You reminded me of something that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “In a land through which no man has passed and where no person [adam] has settled” (Jeremiah 2:6)? This verse is difficult; since it is a land through which no person has passed, how could anyone have settled there permanently? The statement that “no person has settled there” is redundant. Rather, this verse comes to teach that every land through which Adam the first man passed and decreed that it would be settled was settled, and every land through which Adam passed and decreed that it would not be settled was not settled. Based on this, what people say is true, and the palm trees of Babylonia are from the time of Adam, meaning that from the time of Adam this land was decreed to be suitable for growing palm trees (Me’iri). The Gemara cited an example of how one who parts from another with Torah learns something new. Having mentioned the mitzva for a student to accompany his Rabbi, the Gemara relates that Rav Mordekhai accompanied his mentor, Rav Shimi bar Ashi, a great distance, from the city of Hagronya to Bei Keifei; and some say that he accompanied from Hagronya to Bei Dura. Returning to the topic of preparation for prayer, the Sages taught in the Tosefta: One who prays must focus his heart toward Heaven. Abba Shaul says: An indication of the importance of this matter is stated in the verse: “The desire of the humble You have heard, Lord; direct their hearts, Your ear will listen” (Psalms 10:17). In other words, if one focuses his heart in prayer as a result of God directing his heart, his prayer will be accepted as God’s ear will listen. With regard to one’s intent during prayer, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: This was the custom of Rabbi Akiva, when he would pray with the congregation he would shorten his prayer and go up, due to his desire to avoid being an encumbrance on the congregation by making them wait for him to finish his prayer. But when he prayed by himself he would extend his prayers to an extent that a person would leave Rabbi Akiva alone in one corner of the study hall and later find him still praying in another corner. And why would Rabbi Akiva move about so much? Because of his bows and prostrations. Rabbi Akiva’s enthusiasm in prayer was so great, that as a result of his bows and prostrations, he would unwittingly move from one corner to the other (Rav Hai Gaon). Many halakhot are derived from evoking the prayers of biblical characters. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: One should always pray in a house with windows, as it is stated regarding Daniel: “And when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went to his house. In his attic there were open windows facing Jerusalem, and three times a day he knelt upon his knees and prayed and gave thanks before his God, just as he had done before” (Daniel 6:11). In the Tosefta, additional halakhot were derived from Daniel’s prayer. I might have thought that one could pray as many times as he wishes throughout the entire day; it has already been articulated by Daniel, with regard to whom it is stated: “And three times a day he knelt upon his knees and prayed.” This teaches that there are fixed prayers. I might have thought that this practice of fixed prayer began only when he came to the Babylonian exile; it was stated: “Just as he had done before.” Further, I might have thought that one may pray facing any direction he wishes; the verse states: The appropriate direction for prayer is “facing Jerusalem.” Daniel does not describe how these three prayers are distributed during the day. I might have thought that one may include all three prayers at one time; it has already been articulated by David that one may not do so, as it is written: “Evening and morning and noon, I pray and cry aloud and He hears my voice” (Psalms 55:18). Furthermore, I might have thought that one may make his voice heard in his Amida prayer; it has already been articulated by Hannah in her prayer, as it is stated: “And Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved and her voice could not be heard” (I Samuel 1:13). Halakhot regarding the order of the prayers were also learned from the prayers of biblical characters. I might have thought that one should request his own needs first, and afterwards recite prayers of thanksgiving and praise; it has already been articulated by Solomon that this is not so, as in Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Holy Temple it is stated: “To hear the song and the prayer that Your servant prays before You today” (I Kings 8:28). In this verse, song is prayer in the sense of thanks and praise, and prayer is one’s request of his personal needs. Therefore, one who is praying does not speak matters of request after he began to recite emet veyatziv prior to the Amida prayer, which is the essence of prayer. Rather, he begins with praise in the first three blessings of the Amida prayer, and only thereafter does he include requests for his needs. But after the Amida prayer there is no limit. If he desires to recite even the equivalent of the order of the confession of Yom Kippur, he may recite it. This was also stated by an amora; Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Although the Sages said that one requests his personal needs in the blessing: Who listens to prayer, that is with regard to one who wishes to do so as part of the Amida prayer. If he comes to add and recite additional requests after completing his Amida prayer, even if his personal requests are the equivalent of the order of the confession of Yom Kippur, he may recite them. Rav Hamnuna said: How many significant halakhot can be derived from these verses of the prayer of Hannah? As it says: “And Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved and her voice could not be heard, so Eli thought her to be drunk” (I Samuel 1:13). The Gemara elaborates: From that which is stated here: “And Hannah spoke in her heart,” the halakha that one who prays must focus his heart on his prayer is derived. And from that which is stated here: “Only her lips moved,” the halakha that one who prays must enunciate the words with his lips, not only contemplate them in his heart, is derived. From that which is written here: “And her voice could not be heard,” the halakha that one is forbidden to raise his voice in his Amida prayer as it must be recited silently. From the continuation of the verse here: “So Eli thought her to be drunk,” the halakha that a drunk person is forbidden to pray. That is why he rebuked her. On the subject of Eli’s rebuke of Hannah, as it is stated: “And Eli said to her: How long will you remain drunk? Remove your wine from yourself” (I Samuel 1:14); Rabbi Elazar said: From here the halakha that one who sees in another
לבטל את מנהג שבירת הכוס בחתונה!
הרב בן ציון מאיר חי עוזיאל, משפטי עוזיאל , אבן העזר פט (1938)
למעלת כבודו, שעורר שאלה זו של שבירת הכוס בשעת החופה שיסודו הוא להטיל טיפת אבל בכוס שמחתנו לקיים מה שנאמר: אם אשכחך ירושלים וכו׳ אם לא אעלה את ירושלים על ראש שמחתי,
ועתה נהפך מנהג יפה זה למין פולחן והתהדרות של גבורה, שהחתן דורס בכח על הכוס ומשברו לרסיסים וכל הקרואים ממלאים פיהם שחוק ואומרים סימן טוב. ובצדק העיר מעלת כבודו שדבר זה אינו נאה והוא בהיפך מעיקר התקנה. ואף אני אענה חלק ואביע מר שיחי על מנהג זה שלפי צורתו העכשוי הוא מנהג טפל ומוטב היה לבטלו לגמרי מלשנות דמותו בצורה מכוערת שנפש היפה סולדת הימנו. בכל מקרה שאני נמצא בחתונות ורואה מנהג זה מצטער אני מאד אלא שאיני מוחה משום שאני מקיים בעצמי: מצוה שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע.
ושבח אני מנהגם של קהילות הספרדים שהיו נוהגים לשבר את הכוס אתר שבע ברכות והקהל היו עונים ואומרים: אם אשכחך ירושלם וכו', אלא שבזמן האחרון התפשט בנו צורת מנהג זה. הרבה חִקּוּי עושה והרבה עם-הארצוּת עושה.
ועל כגון זה אמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה שמנהג הוא אותיות גהנם, זאת אומרת: שכל מקום שמפשיטים מהמנהג צורתו וכוונתו המקורית ועושים אותו לסגולה או פולחן, ומכל שכן להזיה טפלה וחסרת הטעם, נהפך המנהג לשערי גהינום.
הרב בן ציון מאיר חי עוזיאל, משפטי עוזיאל , אבן העזר פט (1938)
למעלת כבודו, שעורר שאלה זו של שבירת הכוס בשעת החופה שיסודו הוא להטיל טיפת אבל בכוס שמחתנו לקיים מה שנאמר: אם אשכחך ירושלים וכו׳ אם לא אעלה את ירושלים על ראש שמחתי,
ועתה נהפך מנהג יפה זה למין פולחן והתהדרות של גבורה, שהחתן דורס בכח על הכוס ומשברו לרסיסים וכל הקרואים ממלאים פיהם שחוק ואומרים סימן טוב. ובצדק העיר מעלת כבודו שדבר זה אינו נאה והוא בהיפך מעיקר התקנה. ואף אני אענה חלק ואביע מר שיחי על מנהג זה שלפי צורתו העכשוי הוא מנהג טפל ומוטב היה לבטלו לגמרי מלשנות דמותו בצורה מכוערת שנפש היפה סולדת הימנו. בכל מקרה שאני נמצא בחתונות ורואה מנהג זה מצטער אני מאד אלא שאיני מוחה משום שאני מקיים בעצמי: מצוה שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע.
ושבח אני מנהגם של קהילות הספרדים שהיו נוהגים לשבר את הכוס אתר שבע ברכות והקהל היו עונים ואומרים: אם אשכחך ירושלם וכו', אלא שבזמן האחרון התפשט בנו צורת מנהג זה. הרבה חִקּוּי עושה והרבה עם-הארצוּת עושה.
ועל כגון זה אמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה שמנהג הוא אותיות גהנם, זאת אומרת: שכל מקום שמפשיטים מהמנהג צורתו וכוונתו המקורית ועושים אותו לסגולה או פולחן, ומכל שכן להזיה טפלה וחסרת הטעם, נהפך המנהג לשערי גהינום.
הרב עוזיאל: הרב בן-ציון מאיר חי עוּזיאל (1880 – 1953) הרב הראשי הספרדי
(הראשון לציון) הראשון של מדינת ישראל ואחד הרבנים הבולטים במחצית הראשונה של המאה העשרים.
(הראשון לציון) הראשון של מדינת ישראל ואחד הרבנים הבולטים במחצית הראשונה של המאה העשרים.
לא לבטל את המנהג!
הרב עובדיה יוסף, שו"ת יביע אומר, חלק ד - אבן העזר סימן ט' (1964)
אודות מה שנהגו לשבר כוס של זכוכית בגמר שבע ברכות שבחופה, [...]
עתה אחסור דרי (חסר הדור), הן רבים עתה עַם הארץ (בורים), שבעת ששוברים הכוס כל הקרואים ממלאים פיהם שחוק בקריאות 'מזל טוב', והחתן עצמו שעושה זאת בגבורה, לסיים בזה את טכס הנישואין, ממלא פיו שחוק (על כוחו כי רב). והפכו כוונת המנהג היפה הזה שנועד לשם עגמת נפש על חורבן בית קדשינו ותפארתינו,
ולהעלות את ירושלים על ראש שמחתינו, למנהג תפל של שחוק וקלות ראש.
[כאן מזכיר ומצטט את הרב עוזיאל, שקרא לבטל את המנהג]
והנה לבטל כליל מנהג שבירת הכוס בעת הנישואין, אינו נכון בעיני. הואיל ועל כל פנים יסודתו בהררי קודש. ועיין בשו"ת 'שאל האיש' (חלק אורח חיים סמן א), שהשיב לקהלה אחת שחשבו לבטל מנהג זה, כי חס לזרע קודש לעשות כן, כי מנהג זה הוקבע זכר לחרבן בית המקדש במקום אפר מקלה שבראש חתנים וכו'. ומי יערב אל לבו לבטלו, וחיובא רמיא (וחיוב מוטל) לשבור הכוס באין פוטר אותם.
ואם יש מקומות שהפכו ללענה משפט, הרי בכמה מקומות עדיין עושים זאת בחרדת קודש.
כי לא אלמן ישראל תלי"ת (תודה לאל יתברך). ולפע"ד (ולפי עניות דעתי) אפשר לתקן הדבר, ולהחזיר עטרה ליושנה בכל אתר ואתר, ע"י שהרב המסדר קידושין, ייתן הוראה לחתן לפני שברו הכוס שיאמר אחריו בקול רם:
'אם אשכחך ירושלים תשכח ימיני'. (וכמו שעושים לפני עריכת ברית מילה שאבי הבן אומר זאת בקול רם).
ואז לאט לאט יבינו הקהל הרקע לשבירת הכוס, ולא יעשו מזה מהתלה חוכא ואטלולא, והכל על מקומו יבוא בשלום.
הרב עובדיה יוסף: 1920- 2013. מן הרבנים המשפיעים ביותר במדינת ישראל.
היה הרב הספרדי הראשי (הראשון לציון), חתן פרס ישראל לספרות תורנית.
הרב עובדיה יוסף, שו"ת יביע אומר, חלק ד - אבן העזר סימן ט' (1964)
אודות מה שנהגו לשבר כוס של זכוכית בגמר שבע ברכות שבחופה, [...]
עתה אחסור דרי (חסר הדור), הן רבים עתה עַם הארץ (בורים), שבעת ששוברים הכוס כל הקרואים ממלאים פיהם שחוק בקריאות 'מזל טוב', והחתן עצמו שעושה זאת בגבורה, לסיים בזה את טכס הנישואין, ממלא פיו שחוק (על כוחו כי רב). והפכו כוונת המנהג היפה הזה שנועד לשם עגמת נפש על חורבן בית קדשינו ותפארתינו,
ולהעלות את ירושלים על ראש שמחתינו, למנהג תפל של שחוק וקלות ראש.
[כאן מזכיר ומצטט את הרב עוזיאל, שקרא לבטל את המנהג]
והנה לבטל כליל מנהג שבירת הכוס בעת הנישואין, אינו נכון בעיני. הואיל ועל כל פנים יסודתו בהררי קודש. ועיין בשו"ת 'שאל האיש' (חלק אורח חיים סמן א), שהשיב לקהלה אחת שחשבו לבטל מנהג זה, כי חס לזרע קודש לעשות כן, כי מנהג זה הוקבע זכר לחרבן בית המקדש במקום אפר מקלה שבראש חתנים וכו'. ומי יערב אל לבו לבטלו, וחיובא רמיא (וחיוב מוטל) לשבור הכוס באין פוטר אותם.
ואם יש מקומות שהפכו ללענה משפט, הרי בכמה מקומות עדיין עושים זאת בחרדת קודש.
כי לא אלמן ישראל תלי"ת (תודה לאל יתברך). ולפע"ד (ולפי עניות דעתי) אפשר לתקן הדבר, ולהחזיר עטרה ליושנה בכל אתר ואתר, ע"י שהרב המסדר קידושין, ייתן הוראה לחתן לפני שברו הכוס שיאמר אחריו בקול רם:
'אם אשכחך ירושלים תשכח ימיני'. (וכמו שעושים לפני עריכת ברית מילה שאבי הבן אומר זאת בקול רם).
ואז לאט לאט יבינו הקהל הרקע לשבירת הכוס, ולא יעשו מזה מהתלה חוכא ואטלולא, והכל על מקומו יבוא בשלום.
הרב עובדיה יוסף: 1920- 2013. מן הרבנים המשפיעים ביותר במדינת ישראל.
היה הרב הספרדי הראשי (הראשון לציון), חתן פרס ישראל לספרות תורנית.
התמלאות המנהג בימינו
ליאונרד ברנשטיין, סימפוניה מס' 1 "ירמיה" (1944).
הפרק השלישי הוא הלחנה של פתיחת מגילת "איכה" (מדקה 14:06).
הפרק השלישי הוא הלחנה של פתיחת מגילת "איכה" (מדקה 14:06).
מנחם צור (1942 - ) - איכה, קנטטה לזמרת אלט ולתזמורת (1982)
היסטוריה של הפרט
דליה רביקוביץ
ליצחק לבני
תֵּשַׁע מִילִים אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ
אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ כָּכָה וְכָכָה
אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ: יֵשׁ לָךְ יֶלֶד
יֵשׁ לָךְ זְמָן ויֵשׁ לָךְ שִׁירָה.
סוֹרְגֵי הַחַלּוֹן נֶחְרְתוּ בְּעוֹרִי
לֹא תַאֲמִין שֶׁעָבַרְתִּי אֶת זֶה.
מַמָּשׁ לֹא הָיִיתִי חַיֶבֶת
לַעֲמוֹד בְּזֶה בְּמוּבָן אֶנוֹשִׁי.
בְּי' בְּטֵבֵת הוּטַל הַמָּצוֹר
בְּי"ז תַּמּוּז הָבְקְעָה הָעִיר
בְּט' בְּאָב נֶחְרַב הַבַּיִת.
בְּכָל אֵלֶּה הָיִיתִי לְבָד.
דליה רביקוביץ
ליצחק לבני
תֵּשַׁע מִילִים אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ
אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ כָּכָה וְכָכָה
אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ: יֵשׁ לָךְ יֶלֶד
יֵשׁ לָךְ זְמָן ויֵשׁ לָךְ שִׁירָה.
סוֹרְגֵי הַחַלּוֹן נֶחְרְתוּ בְּעוֹרִי
לֹא תַאֲמִין שֶׁעָבַרְתִּי אֶת זֶה.
מַמָּשׁ לֹא הָיִיתִי חַיֶבֶת
לַעֲמוֹד בְּזֶה בְּמוּבָן אֶנוֹשִׁי.
בְּי' בְּטֵבֵת הוּטַל הַמָּצוֹר
בְּי"ז תַּמּוּז הָבְקְעָה הָעִיר
בְּט' בְּאָב נֶחְרַב הַבַּיִת.
בְּכָל אֵלֶּה הָיִיתִי לְבָד.
