Taanit

Because it is never withheld. But if it is never withheld, why did Elijah take an oath on it? — This is what he conveyed to him [Ahab]. THe dew of blessing also would not fall. Then the dew of blessing should also have been restored? — Because the difference would not have been discernable. How do we know that winds are not withheld? R. Joshua b. Levi said: Scripture says, For I have spread you abroad as the four winds of heaven, saith the Lord.1 What does the prophet desire to convey? Shall we say that the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke thus to Israel, ‘I have scattered you to the four corners of the world’. If so, Scripture should have said not ‘as the four’ but ‘to the four’. But this is what he meant: ‘As the world cannot endure without winds, so too the world cannot exist without Israel’. R. Hanina said: Therefore, if in the summer one inserted [in the Tefillah the words], ‘He causeth the wind to blow’, he is not compelled to repeat [the Tefillah]; if, however, he said, ‘He causeth the rain to fall’, he is compelled to repeat [it]. Similarly, if in winter one did not insert, ‘He causeth the wind to blow’, he is not compelled to repeat; if, however, he did not say, ‘He causeth the rain to fall’, he is compelled to repeat. And furthermore, even if he said, ‘He causeth the wind to pass and the dew to disappear’,2 he is not compelled to repeat. A Tanna taught: The Sages did not make it obligatory to make mention of clouds and winds, but if one desires to make mention he may do so. What is the reason? Is it because they are never withheld? But are they never withheld? Did not R. Joseph learn, ‘And He will shut up the heaven,3 means, in respect of clouds and winds. You say that this verse is in respect of clouds and winds, perhaps it is not so but means in respect of rain? When Scripture adds, So that there shall be no rain, rain is thus already referred to. What then is the force of [the words], And He will shut up the heaven? [It must mean] in respect of clouds and winds’. There will then be a contradiction between ‘winds and winds’ and between ‘clouds and clouds’? — There is really no contradiction between clouds and clouds’. In the one case [the reference is] to early clouds4 and in the other to late clouds.5 Between winds and winds’ too there is no contradiction; in the one case they are normal winds and in the other extraordinary winds.6 But are not extraordinary winds suitable for7 [winnowing] in the barn? — This can be done with sieves [independently of the wind]. A Tanna taught: The clouds and the winds are secondary to rain.8 Which are they? ‘Ulla said, or as some say, R.9 Judah said: Those that come after the rain. Can we then say that these are beneficial? Is it not written, The Lord will make the rain of thy land powder and dust,10 and on this ‘Ulla, or as some say, R. Judah commented, [This refers to] the wind following the rain?11 — There is no contradiction; in the one case [it speaks] of when the rain comes down gently and in the other when it comes down with vehemence.12 In the latter it throws up dust, and in the former it does not. Rab Judah further said: Wind after rain is as beneficial as rain, clouds after rain as beneficial as rain, sunshine after rain as beneficial as twofold rain. What does this exclude? — The glow after sunset and sunshine between clouds. Raba said: Snow is beneficial to the mountains as fivefold rain to the earth, as it is said, For he saith to the snow, ‘Fall thou on the earth’; likewise to the shower of rain and to the showers of His mighty rain.13 Raba further said: Snow is beneficial to the mountain, heavy rain to the trees, gentle rain to the fruits of the field, withheld, no mention need be made of them.]