תענית 17 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and on the [Day of Atonement of] the Jubilee year and in the time of war. THE FIRST HE CONCLUDES WITH, HE WHO ANSWERED ABRAHAM etc.: A Tanna taught: Some reverse the order of the words and attribute ‘crying’ to Elijah and ‘praying’ to Samuel. True, of Samuel Scripture uses the words ‘praying’ and ‘crying’. but of Elijah Scripture uses only [the word] ‘praying’ but never ‘crying’. [When Elijah says], Hear me, O Lord, hear me; that is an expression of ‘crying’. THE SIXTH HE CONCLUDES WITH, HE WHO ANSWERED JONAH etc.; THE SEVENTH HE CONCLUDES WITH, HE WHO ANSWERED DAVID etc. Let us see, Did not Jonah live after David and Solomon, why then is he placed first? — Because it was desired to conclude [the prayers] with, Blessed art Thou, O Lord who hast mercy upon the earth. A Tanna taught: It was reported in the name of Symmachos, [that the prayers were concluded] with, Blessed art Thou who humblest the proud. ON THE FIRST THREE [RAIN] FASTS THE MEN OF THE MISHNAH FAST BUT DO NOT COMPLETE THEIR FAST etc. Our Rabbis have taught: Why have the Sages ruled that the Men of the Mishmar are permitted to drink wine by night and not by day, lest the work weigh too heavily on the men of the Beth-ab and then they will be called upon to help them; why have the Sages ruled that the men of the Beth-ab are forbidden [to drink] both by day and by night because they are continuously at work [in the Temple]. Hence the Sages have declared that any priest who can identify his Mishmar and his particular Beth-ab and who also knows definitely that the members of his Beth-ab were participating in the service of the Temple is forbidden to drink wine on the whole of that day. If, however, he can identify only his Mishmar but not his particular Beth-ab and yet he knows definitely that the members of his Beth-ab were participating in the service of the Temple, he is forbidden to drink wine the whole of that week. If he cannot identify his Mishmar nor his particular Beth-ab, but he knows definitely that the members of his Beth-ab were participating in the service of the Temple, he is forbidden to drink wine all the year round. Rabbi says: I declare [priests] should not at any time drink wine, but what can I do seeing that his misfortune turned out to be an advantage to him. Abaye said: According to whose opinion do priests drink wine? According to that of Rabbi. BOTH THE MEN OF THE MISHMAR AND THE MEN OF THE MA'AMAD MAY NOT CUT THEIR HAIR NOR WASH THEIR CLOTHES, BUT ON A THURSDAY THEY MAY OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE SABBATH. What is the reason? — Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: In order that they should not enter on their week of duty in an unkempt state. Our Rabbis have taught: A king cuts his hair every day, a high priest on the eve of every Sabbath, all ordinary priest once in thirty days. Why has a king to cut his hair every day? — R. Abba b. Zabda said: Scripture says, Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty. Why has a high priest [to cut his hair] on the eve of every Sabbath? — R. Samuel b. Isaac said: Because the Mishmar changes every week. Whence can it be adduced that an ordinary priest [must cut his hair] once in thirty days? — It is to be adduced from the analogous use of the word pera’ in connection with the Nazirite [and the priests]. Of the priests [it is written], Neither shall they shave their heads, ‘nor suffer their locks [pera’] to grow long; and of the Nazirite it is written, He shall be holy. he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long [pera’]; as in the case of the Nazirite the period of growing his hair is thirty days so too must it be in the case of the ordinary priest. But whence do we know this to be the requirement of the Nazirite himself? R. Mattena said: A Nazirite's unspecified [term of] vow is thirty days. Whence is this to be adduced? — Scripture uses the word yihyeh the numerical value of which is thirty. R. Papa said to Abaye: Perhaps Scripture means [that the priests] should not let their hair grow at all? — The latter replied: Had Scripture written, ‘nor suffer to grow long their locks’, it might be as you suggest, but since Scripture has written, ‘Nor suffer their locks to grow long,’ this implies, they may grow their hair but they may not suffer their locks to grow long. If that is so, this restriction should be valid even at the present time! — [This restriction is] on the same lines as that of the drinking of wine; just as the restriction of drinking wine applied only to the time when they might enter [the Temple] to do service, so too with regard to the restriction of letting the locks grow long. But has it not been taught: Rabbi says, I declare that [a priest] should not at any time drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune turned out to be an advantage to him. And on this Abaye commented: At the present time according to whom do priests drink wine? According to Rabbi.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ

^ᵃnote:.
^ᵇnote:1 Sam. VII, 5; VIII, 6: XV, 11.
^ᶜnote:I Kings XVIII, 37.
^ᵈnote:Earth, in the first instance refers to the land of Israel. David and Solomon were the founders of the Jewish kingdom and prayed for its welfare.
^ᵉnote:[There were many of the priestly families who had been disqualified from the priesthood.]
^ᶠnote:[On the particular day on which his Beth Ab was in service, as the Temple might be rebuilt and they might be called upon to serve.]
^ᵍnote:[The particular week on which the Mishmar to which he belonged was in service.]
^ʰnote:The destruction of the Temple with the consequent cessation of priestly duties enables the priests to drink wine at any time.
^ⁱnote:Isa. XXXIII, 17.
^ʲnote:Ezek. XLIV, 20.
^ᵏnote:Num. VI, 5.
^ˡnote:vhvh taken numerically, 10 + 5 + 10 + 5 + 30.
^ᵐnote:I.e., so long as the Temple was in being.

²From this may be inferred that the Rabbis forbid [priests to drink wine], why? Perhaps the Temple may speedily be rebuilt and the need will arise for priests to do service therein and there will be none available; and so here too [in the case of letting the hair grow long] the Temple may speedily be rebuilt and the need will arise for priests fit for service and there will be none available]? — [This difficulty cannot arise] here [in this latter case] since it is always possible for a priest to cut his hair and then enter [the Temple]. If that is so, then priests who are intoxicated could first sleep a little and then enter [the Temple],in accordance with the statement of Rami b. Abba who said: A mile walk or a little sleep drives away the effects of drink? — Has it not been stated in connection with this [statement]: This only holds good where a man has drunk a quarter of a log, but where he has drunk more than a quarter of a log walking renders him all the more tired, and sleep all the more drunk. R. Ashi replied: The Rabbis have decreed against those who are drunk because they profane [thereby] the service, but against those who perform the service with their hair long they did not decree because they do not [thereby] profane the service. An objection was raised against this: The following [priests] incur the penalty of death,those who are intoxicated with wine and those whose hair has grown long. With regard to those who are intoxicated with wine, it is expressly stated, Drink no wine nor strong drink, but whence do we adduce that this also applies to those who grow their hair long? For it is written, Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long, and the next verse states, Neither shall any priest drink wine when they enter into the inner court; thus, those who grow their hair long are likened to those who are drunk with wine, just as those who are drunk with wine incur the penalty of death so too those who grow their locks long. Now can we not carry the comparison even further [and say] that just as those who are drunk with wine profane the service, so too should those who grow their hair long profane the service? — (No; [the two] are likened only with regard to the penalty of death but not with regard to the rendering of the service profane). Rabina asked R. Ashi: Who taught it before Ezekiel's time? — He replied: And according to your reasoning how will you explain the statement of R. Hisda, who said: The rule forbidding an uncircumcised priest to do service we have learnt not from the Law of Moses but from the prophets [where it is written], No alien uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary. But who stated it? It must therefore [be assumed] that it was a tradition and then Ezekiel came and gave it a Scriptural basis. Here too [of long hair profaning the service] there was a tradition and then Ezekiel came and gave it a Scriptural basis. (The tradition was with regard to the death penalty only but not with regard to the profaning of the service). THE RESTRICTION AGAINST MOURNING ON THE DAYS ENUMERATED IN THE SCROLL OF FASTS APPLIES TO THE PRECEDING DAY BUT NOT TO THE DAY FOLLOWING. Our Rabbis have taught: These are the days on which fasting is not permissible, and on some of them mourning also is forbidden. From the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth of the month mourning is not permissible because the Daily offering was established; from the eighth day of the same month until the end of the festival [of Passover] mourning is not permissible since the date of the observance of the Feast of Weeks was then definitely fixed. The Master said: From the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth of the month mourning is not permissible because the Daily offering was established. Why does it state, ‘from the New Moon’? Let it state from the second of Nisan and as New Moon itself is a festive day mourning is in any case forbidden thereon! — Rab replied: This is necessary in order to extend the restriction to the preceding day. But should not the restriction in any case apply to it seeing that it is the day before New Moon? — New Moon is a biblical ordinance, and a biblical ordinance needs no [additional] strengthening. For it has been taught: Mourning is forbidden before and after the days enumerated in the Megillath Ta'anith; as for Sabbaths and Festivals mourning is forbidden on the day before their incidence but not after their incidence. Why this differentiation between the two? The latter are biblical ordinances and need no [additional] strengthening, but the former are ordinances of the Soferim and ordinances of the Soferim need [additional] strengthening. The Master said: ‘From the eighth of the same month until the end of the festival [Passover] mourning is not permissible since the date of the observance of the Feast of Weeks was then definitely fixed.’ Why does it state, ‘until the end of the festival’? Let it state ‘until the festival’ and the festival itself being a holiday will ipso facto be a forbidden period for mourning? — R. Papa replied: [The answer is] as Rab who said: This was necessary^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ

^ⁿnote:Lev. X, 9.
^ᵒnote:Ezek. XLIV, 20.
^ᵖnote:This is in opposition to R. Ashi who holds that priests with long hair do not profane the service.
^ᵠnote:[The bracketed words, which appear in brackets also in the original, stand in contradiction to the parallel passage in Sanh. 22b and are omitted in MS.M.; v. Sanh., Sonc., ed., pp. 127-8 and notes.]
^ʳnote:[MS.M.: ‘said R. Ashi to Rabina’ on which reading what follows is R. Ashi's reply to the objection cited against him; v. p. 84, n. 1.]
^ˢnote:That those who perform service with long hair are punishable by death.
^ᵗnote:Cf. Zeb. 18b.
^ᵘnote:Ezek. XLIV, 9.
^ᵛnote:[These bracketed words, bracketed also in the original, are omitted in MS.M. and are difficult to explain in this context. Accepting, however, the reading of MS.M. cited supra p. 83, n. 5, these words conclude R. Ashi's argument which runs thus: Since Ezekiel merely provides here a basis for laws that are essentially based on tradition, there is no warrant for the suggested analogy between intoxicated priests and those with long hair. While the former do profane the service, there is no tradition for this to apply to the latter.]
^ʷnote:V. Megillath Ta'anith.
^ˣnote:A dispute lasting from the first to the eighth day of Nisan took place between the Pharisees and the Sadducees with regard to the Daily offering (Num. XXVIII, 3). The Pharisees were of the opinion that it could be brought only out of public funds (i.e., from the Temple treasury) and the Sadducees maintained it might also be defrayed by private funds. The Pharisees gained the day. V. Megillath Ta'anith, ch. 1; Men. 65a.
^ʸnote:There was also a dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees with regard to the fixing of the date of Pentecost. The dispute turned on the interpretation of the words ,cav ,rjnn (Lev. XXIII, 15). The Pharisees took the view that the ‘Omer had to be brought on the second day of Passover, while the Sadducees maintained that these words meant the morrow of the first Sabbath of the Passover week and from that day forty-nine days had to be counted to Pentecost. V. Megillath Ta'anith, ch. 1; Men. 65a.