Daf Ditty Rosh Hashanah 19: Megillat Ta’anit

Megillat Taanit (“The Scroll of Fasting”) is a chronicle listing 35 days on which public fasting
was prohibited in recognition of joyful events. The original Aramaic, from the 1st century
CE, contains brief outlines and appears here in boldface. Hebrew explanatory comments,
dated to the 7th century or later, are interspersed throughout in plain text. The work is
discussed several times throughout the Talmud, which records that observance of the scroll’s
holidays began to fade after the destruction of the Second Temple. Purim and Chanukah are
the only two holidays recorded in the work that are still observed today.

1
As it is taught in a baraita: These days that are written in Megillat Ta’anit are days on which
fasting is prohibited, as are both the day before them and the day after them. With regard to
Shabbatot and Festivals, fasting on them is forbidden, but on the day before them and the day
after them fasting is permitted. What is the difference between this class of days and that class
of days?

These days, Shabbatot and Festivals, are by Torah law, and Torah laws do not need
reinforcement, and therefore even if a fast day were decreed on the day before or after them, the
Festival itself would not be nullified; whereas those days mentioned in Megillat Ta’anit are by

2
rabbinic law, and rabbinic laws need reinforcement, and therefore fasting is prohibited even
on the day before and the day after.

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty: The prohibition against fasting on the second of Tishrei,
derive it from the fact that it is the day before the day that Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was
killed, and since in Temple times the fast of Gedaliah was celebrated as a festive day, fasting
should also be prohibited on the preceding day.

Rav Ashi said: The fast of Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, is derived from the texts of the tradition,
i.e., Prophets and Writings, and as the texts of the tradition are treated like Torah statements
for this purpose, they too do not need reinforcement.

Rav Tovi bar Mattana raised an objection against the opinion that Megillat Ta’anit was
nullified, from that which is written in it: On the twenty-eighth of Adar the good tidings came
to the Jews that they should not turn away from the Torah, and on that day fasting is forbidden.
And this is explained: For the wicked kingdom issued a decree against Israel that they should
not occupy themselves with Torah study, and that they should not circumcise their sons, and
that they should desecrate Shabbat. What did Yehuda ben Shammua and his colleagues do?
They went and took advice from a certain matron [matronita] whom all the prominent men
of Rome would visit regularly, thinking that she would know how to annul the decree.

3
She said to them as follows: Come and cry out [hafgginu] at night in the streets and markets.
They went and cried out at night, saying: O Heavens! Are we Jews not your brothers; are we
not children of one father; are we not children of one mother? How are we different from
every other nation and tongue that you issue such harsh decrees against us? And indeed the
decrees were annulled, and the Sages made that day a festive day. 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?

And if you say that here too it is referring to the time when the Temple was standing, there is
a difficulty, as Yehuda ben Shammua was a student of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir was after
the destruction of the Temple. And proof that Rabbi Yehuda ben Shammua was a student of Rabbi
Meir may be brought, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to glass vessels that had holes in
them, which afterward were filled in with lead, the Sages dispute whether the utensil is considered
a whole utensil, which can become ritually impure, or whether it is considered a broken utensil,
which does not. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Yehuda ben Shammua declares that it
becomes impure, in the name of Rabbi Meir;

whereas the Sages declare it pure. According to them, it is still considered a broken utensil.
Rabbi Meir himself lived after the destruction of the Second Temple. The festive day
commemorating the annulling of the decree of Rome was instituted as a result of an incident
involving his student, Rabbi Yehuda ben Shammua. From this, it is clear that Megillat Ta’anit had
not yet been nullified.

4
The Gemara answers: The question whether or not Megillat Ta’anit has been nullified is the subject
of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: These days, which are written in
Megillat Ta’anit, both when the Temple is standing and when the Temple is not standing, are
days on which fasting is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says:
When the Temple is standing, these days are prohibited for fasting because these days are a
source of joy for Israel. But when the Temple is not standing, these days are permitted for
fasting because these days are a source of mourning for them.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that these days were nullified, and the halakha is
that they were not nullified. The Gemara asks: This is difficult, as one halakha contradicts the
other halakha. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. Here, it is referring to Hanukkah and
Purim. These Festival days were never nullified, and Hanukkah is listed among the Festivals of
Megillat Ta’anit. There, the halakha is referring to the rest of the days listed in Megillat Ta’anit,
all of which were nullified.

Summary

The Gemara explains our rabbis' opinions regarding fasting days and their origins.1 They note
many contributing factors, such as

• fasting is prohibited on a Festival that was given by Torah law

• fasting is prohibited on the preceding day and the day following such a Festival

1
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/05/

5
 • Rosh Hashana and the New Moon are also considered to be Festivals by Torah law
and thus fasting is prohibited
One of their stories - explaining why the 28th of Adar is fortuitous for Jews who do not neglect
Torah study - stands out. Yehuda ben Shammua consulted with a "matron" of the Roman upper
class for advice. She was a friend to all of the prominent men of Rome. At that time the wicked
kingdom was forbidding Jews to learn Torah, to circumcise their sons, and to keep Shabbat. This
woman suggested that they cry out at night, "O Heavens! Are we not your brothers; are we not
children of one father; are we not children of one mother? How are we different from every nation
and tongue that you issue harsh decrees against us?" And the decrees were annulled.

Of interest to me:
• women could carry that much influence;
• women knew the appropriate ways of manipulating those in power;
• women with this power were sympathetic to the Jews;
• this matron was considered important enough to be quoted in the Talmud
Amud (b) takes us into the land of the Jewish calendar. This land is a foreign land to me; I find
the calendar to be confusing, layered with rules, guidelines, suggestions, and reasons for all of the
above. I found it difficult to keep track of the conversation in today's daf regarding the calendar:
why months must have certain numbers of days; what is special about the placement of Rosh
Hashana on the calendar; how and why we should adapt some months and not others. Hopefully
this will continue to become more accessible to me as I continue to learn.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

MORE ON MEGILLAS TAANIS

Rav Tovi bar Masnah asks (on the opinion that holds that Megillas Taanis was abrogated) from an
incident that occurred on the twenty-eighth of Adar in the times after the second Beis Hamikdosh
was destroyed. The Romans had decreed that the Jews could not study Torah, perform
circumcisions or keep Shabbos. Yehudah ben Shamua took advice from a Roman noblewoman
and the Jews went out into the streets at night to protest. They cried out that we are brothers (the
Jews and the Romans), and we are children from the same father and mother. Why are you (the
Romans) issuing such harsh decrees on us? The Romans listened and revoked the decree. This day
was pronounced as a festival.

The Gemora asks: If Megillas Taanis was not in effect any longer, is it logical to assume that they
would add a new festival? The Gemora suggests and rejects a possible answer: And should you
reply that this also was in the time when the Temple was still standing, this cannot be, because
Yehudah ben Shamua was the disciple of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir was after the destruction of
the Temple. We know that (Yehudah ben Shamua was R’ Meir's disciple) because it has been
taught in a braisa: If glass vessels are perforated and molten lead is poured into them, Rabban
Shimon ben Gamliel said: Yehudah ben Shamua said that Rabbi Meir declares them tamei, while

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Rosh_Hashanah_19.pdf

6
the Sages declare them tahor. [The perforated glass vessel is supported by the lead, i.e., it can be
used only through the lead; therefore, according to R’ Meir, it is a metal, which can be purified in
a mikvah, and not a glass vessel.]

The Gemora concludes that it is a Tannaic dispute if the halachos from the Megillas Taanis still
apply. This is proven from a braisa which states: These days which are mentioned in the Megillas
Taanis are prohibited (to fast upon them), whether in the period when the Temple is standing or in
the period when the Temple is not standing; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosi says:
In the period when the Temple is standing they are prohibited, because it is a time of happiness; in
the period when the Temple is not standing they are permitted, because it is a time for mourning.
The Gemora rules: The law is that Megillas Taanis is abrogated and the law is that they are not.

The Gemora asks: There is a contradiction, is there not, between these two laws? The Gemora
answers: There is no contradiction, as one ruling relates to Chanukah and Purim (where they were
not abrogated), whereas the other to the other days.

MESSENGERS FOR TISHREI

The Mishna stated that at the beginning of certain months, messengers would be sent out to notify
the Jewish communities as to which day was determined to be the first of the month. Messengers
were sent in the month of Elul on the account of Rosh Hashanah. They were sent out during Tishrei
because of the festivals (Yom Kippur and Sukkos). The Gemora questions the necessity for
sending out messengers in Tishrei since they were already sent out in Elul. The Gemora suggests
and rejects a possible answer: And should you reply that the messengers were sent out because of
the possibility that they (Beis Din) made Elul full (thirty days); that cannot be, for Rabbi Chinana
bar Kahana said in the name of Rav: From the time of Ezra and on, we never found Elul to be full!

The Gemora answers that even though, since the times of Ezra, Elul always had twenty-nine days
but the possibility existed, that if necessary, they would have to make Elul thirty days. The
messengers were sent out to notify the public if Elul had twenty-nine days like usual or thirty days.
The Gemora asks: But if they made Elul full, it would emerge that Rosh Hashanah would be
interfered with (for the people who lived far away)? The Gemora answers: It is better that Rosh
Hashanah should be interfered with (for some people) and the observance of all other festivals
would not be interfered with. Proof to this (that we were concerned about the other festivals) is
from the Mishna which states: They were sent out during Tishrei because of the festivals.

SECOND ADAR

The Mishna stated that at the beginning of certain months, messengers would be sent out to notify
the Jewish communities as to which day was determined to be the first of the month. Messengers
were sent out during Kislev because of Chanukah and during Adar because of Purim. The Gemora
notes that the Mishna does not mention that they would send messengers in the second Adar (if
there was a leap year) on account of Purim. This would be inconsistent with Rebbe who maintains
that messengers would be sent in the beginning of the second Adar on account of Purim.

7
The Gemora initially thinks that their dispute would be based on the argument regarding one who
performed the mitzvos during the first Adar which should have been done in the second Adar if he
has fulfilled his obligation or not. If one maintains that he has fulfilled the mitzvos, there is no
necessity to send messengers for the second Adar. The Gemora presents an alternative explanation.
In truth, everyone holds that mitzvos that are applicable in the second Adar are not applicable in
the first Adar (and if Purim was celebrated in the first Adar, it must be celebrated again in the
second one), and the argument is regarding the number of days that there are in the month of (the
first) Adar when they intercalated the year.

The Mishna can hold that the first Adar is always thirty days and therefore there is no necessity to
send out messengers for the second Adar. Rebbe can hold like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who
maintains that the first Adar could be twenty-nine days or thirty and therefore we would be
compelled to send messengers at the beginning of the second Adar. The Gemora cites other
opinions regarding the two months of Adar. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi testified in the name of the
Holy Assembly that was in Yerushalayim that both months of Adar are always twenty-nine days.
Rav Nachman bar Chisda said that Rabbi Simai testified in the name of the Prophets, Chagai,
Zecharya and Malachi that the two months of Adar can both consist of thirty days, twenty-nine
days or one can be thirty and one twenty-nine. It was stated in the name of Rebbe that it should
always be assumed that the first Adar will have thirty days and the second Adar will have twenty-
nine days until you hear from Eretz Yisroel explicitly that the first Adar only had twenty-nine days.

TWENTY-NINE DAYS OF ADAR

They sent to Mar Ukva that the Adar which is next to Nissan will always be twenty-nine days. Rav
Nachman asked from a Mishna on daf 21. The Mishna states that the witnesses coming to Beis
Din to offer testimony regarding Nissan and Tishrei are permitted to desecrate the Shabbos (by
traveling further than their techum boundary). Rav Nachman asks that why they were allowed to
desecrate Shabbos since even if they wouldn’t come, Beis Din will sanctify the thirtieth day as
Rosh Chodesh.

The Gemora answers that there is a mitzva for Beis Din to sanctify the new moon through
witnesses testifying that they saw the moon. Rav Kahana asked from the Mishna on daf 21 which
states that in the times of the Beis Hamikdosh, the witnesses could desecrate Shabbos in order to
testify in Beis Din by all months. This was because of the korban mussaf that needed to be offered
on Rosh Chodesh. It emerges from this Mishna that the reason to desecrate the Shabbos is not
because of the mitzva of sanctifying the new month through witnesses and yet after the Beis
Hamikdosh was destroyed, they only desecrated Shabbos for Nissan and Tishrei. If Adar always
had twenty-nine days, there would be no necessity to desecrate Shabbos. The Gemora concludes
that this is a legitimate refutation of that opinion.

A True Ruler

The Gemora (18b) relates that the Greeks had decreed that the Jews could not mention Hashem’s
name. After the Greeks were defeated by the Kingdom of the Chashmanoim, they established that
Hashem’s name should be written on all contracts. The Chachamim heard about this and stopped
this because they were concerned that when the borrower will repay the debt, the unnecessary

8
document will be thrown in the garbage. It was the third day of Tishrei when the Chachamim
abolished this enactment and they made that day into a festival. The Gemora in Shabbos which
relates the story of Chanukah refers to the Chashmanoim in the same manner as our Gemora – the
Kingdom of the Chashmanoim.

A question is asked that at that time they were not the kings yet. It was only after the victory that
the Chashmanoim assumed the throne but not before. The commentators ask on the Rashi in
Breishis. The chief cupbearer is relating to Pharaoh of an incident that transpired when he was in
prison. The verse states “And there with us was a Hebrew lad, a slave of the chief slaughterer, and
we told him, and he interpreted our dreams for us.” Rashi cites from a Medrash “A slave and in
the statutes of Egypt it is written that a slave may neither reign nor wear princely raiment.” (Judaica
Press)

What compelled the sar hamashkim to state that in the Egyptian constitution it is written that a
slave cannot ascend the throne. What made him think that by Yosef interpreting the dreams, this
would lead him to become a ruler in Egypt? The answer is that a true ruler does not have to don a
crown or wear princely raiment or sit on a throne. A ruler is one who can rule over himself,
someone who is capable of control his desires.

The Medrash states that Shlomo Hamelech was a king over seven different kingdoms but the
highest level was that he ruled over himself. The chief cupbearer recognized this in Yosef even
when he was in prison. Yosef was clearly destined for leadership and that is what compelled the
chief cupbearer to tell Pharaoh as to what was written in the Egyptian statutes.

This can be the explanation of the Gemora. It was true that the Chashmanoim did not ascend the
throne until after they were victorious over the Greeks but they were kings beforehand as well.
While some of the other Jews could not hold themselves back from joining the Greek culture and
shunned the Torah and mitzvos, the Chashmanoim were steadfast and strong. They were kings
over their desires and this was the characteristic which they possessed which ultimately led them
to victory.

9
 THE REASON TO TREAT THE SECOND DAY OF TISHREI
LIKE A YOM TOV

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Gemara asks why the Rabanan wanted to establish a day of Yom Tov on the third of Tishrei
during the times of the Beis ha'Mikdash, when there already was a Yom Tov on that day, Tzom
Gedalyah (which was a Yom Tov during the times of the Beis ha'Mikdash). The Gemara first
suggests that perhaps they established another Yom Tov on that day so that the preceding day, the
second of Tishrei, would also be treated like a Yom Tov (and be Asur b'Hesped uv'Ta'anis). The
Gemara responds that it still would be unnecessary to make a new Yom Tov for that reason,
because the second day of Tishrei is already Asur b'Hesped because it is the day which follows
Rosh Chodesh.

Why does the Gemara ask that the second day of Tishrei is already Asur b'Hesped because it
follows Rosh Chodesh? The Gemara should ask that it is Asur b'Hesped because it itself is a Yom
Tov -- it is the second day of Rosh Hashanah (or at least the second day of Rosh Chodesh).

(a) The RITVA answers that the reason why the Gemara says that the second of Tishrei is Asur
b'Hesped for it is the day after Rosh Chodesh (and after Rosh Hashanah) is because in
Yerushalayim the second of Tishrei was not observed as Rosh Hashanah or as a possible day of
Rosh Chodesh. The Gemara wants to teach that even in Yerushalayim itself nothing was gained
by establishing a new Yom Tov, because the second of Tishrei was already Asur b'Hesped even
in Yerushalayim (where there is only one day of Rosh Hashanah) because it is the day after Rosh
Chodesh.

(b) The CHESHEK SHLOMO explains that the Gemara here supports the opinion of RASHI,
who writes earlier (18a, see Insights there) that only one day of Rosh Hashanah was observed even
outside of Eretz Yisrael during the times that the Sheluchim were sent there. Therefore, the only
reason why the second of Tishrei is Asur b'Hesped is because it is the day after Rosh Chodesh and
Rosh Hashanah.

WHY THE THIRD OF TISHREI NEEDS "CHIZUK"

The Gemara concludes that the Rabanan established a new Yom Tov on the third of Tishrei even
though there was already a Yom Tov on that day (Tzom Gedalyah; see previous Insight), in order
that the second of Tishrei be treated like a Yom Tov (and be Asur b'Hesped uv'Ta'anis) by virtue
of the fact that it precedes a Yom Tov d'Rabanan. The Gemara says that even though the second
of Tishrei follows and precedes two other Yamim Tovim, as it is the day after Rosh Chodesh (and
Rosh Hashanah) and it is the day before Tzom Gedalyah, it would not have been Asur b'Hesped
without a new Yom Tov d'Rabanan because those Yamim Tovim (Rosh Chodesh/Rosh Hashanah
and Tzom Gedalyah) are Yamim Tovim mid'Oraisa and mi'Divrei Kabalah which do not need
"Chizuk," and thus there is no need to make the day before or after them Asur b'Hesped. Now that
3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/rhashanah/insites/rh-dt-019.htm

10
the Rabanan established a new Yom Tov d'Rabanan on the third of Tishrei, that Yom Tov
d'Rabanan needs Chizuk and thus the second of Tishrei is Asur b'Hesped.

The element of Chizuk in prohibiting eulogies and fasts on the day before the Yom Tov is so that
people will not be lenient with the Yom Tov which the Rabanan made. Here, though, the people
will not be lenient with the Yom Tov which the Rabanan made on the third of Tishrei, because
that day is already a Yom Tov mi'Divrei Kabalah which people are very careful to observe! Why,
then, was there a need to give that day extra Chizuk and make the preceding day Asur b'Hesped?4

The PNEI YEHOSHUA suggests that the Rabanan instituted that Hesped is prohibited on the day
before a Yom Tov d'Rabanan even when that Yom Tov was also a Yom Tov d'Oraisa because of
"Lo Plug" -- in order not to differentiate between Yamim Tovim d'Rabanan. (This answer needs
further clarification, because it implies that the Rabanan made the third of Tishrei a new Yom Tov
d'Rabanan simply to make the day before it Asur b'Hesped. If, however, the day itself (the third of
Tishrei) does not need Chizuk, then why did they establish on that day a new Yom Tov merely to
prohibit the day before?)

The reason the third of Tishrei needs Chizuk is not because of a concern that people will not
celebrate that day. Rather, it needs Chizuk so that people will remember the miracle for which the
new Yom Tov was made. Even though the observance of the Yom Tov of the third of Tishrei does
not need Chizuk because it is a Yom Tov mi'Divrei Kabalah, it nevertheless needs Chizuk so that
people will remember the miracle that happened for which the Rabanan enacted a new Yom Tov.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

Megilat Ta’anit is a little known collection of statements about minor holidays and fasts that
commemorate events which took place during the Second Temple period. On the minor holidays,
fasting and eulogies were forbidden. Most of the events that are commemorated are from the period
of the Hasmonean monarchy – a prime example being the story of Hanukkah – although there are
also events from earlier and later periods included, as well.

This work is set up chronologically, and it includes the date and a brief account of the incident
written in Aramaic, followed by a fuller description of the event in Hebrew.

It appears that this work is the oldest example of the Oral Torah being committed to writing; the
Sages of the Mishnah do not only discuss the rulings that appear in it, but also the language that
was used. (Although it is not part of the standard texts of Talmud, the Steinsaltz Talmud includes
it as an addendum to the volume that contains Masechet Ta’anit).

4
The answer cannot be that it needs Chizuk for when the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing, at which time Tzom Gedalyah is no
longer a Yom Tov but a day of fasting, because the Gemara says that after the Churban all of the Yamim Tovim d'Rabanan
mentioned in Megilas Ta'anis are annulled. Moreover, even if the Yamim Tovim in Megilas Ta'anis are not annulled after the
Churban, the Gemara should have given this as an answer if it was true.
5
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_roshhashanah1723/

11
The discussion in our Gemara (which begins on page 18b and continues onto our daf) revolves
around the question of whether the commemorative days that appear in Megillat Ta’anit are still
significant, or whether batlah Megilat Ta’anit – it has become null and void.

The Gemara concludes that this is a dispute between tanna’im. Rabbi Meir believes that Megilat
Ta’anit should still be kept and Rabbi Yossi rules that it is no longer binding, since without
the Temple, the days that commemorated events of the Temple are no longer applicable. In closing,
the Gemara states that both positions are accepted. Megilat Ta’anit no longer applies, except for
the holidays of Hanukkah and Purim.

Rav Yosef explains the uniqueness of Chanukah as stemming from the publicity attached to the
miracle, which, as Rashi clarifies, means that the mitzvot attached to the holiday had been widely
accepted as obligations and they could not be done away with. The Ran points out that Purim has
an even stronger basis, since the celebratory aspects of the holiday are clearly delineated in Megilat
Esther, part of the written Torah.

Our Daf reports that with the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, the celebrations associated with
the list of mini holidays which comprise Megilas Ta’anis was cancelled, except for the holidays
of Chanukah and Purim.6

The Rishonim note that the conclusion of our Gemara must be evaluated in light of the Gemara in
Ta’anis (18a), where Rabbi Yochanan and Shmuel dispute the status of the days before and after
the Megilas Ta’anis dates. Rabbi Yochanan rules that fasting is prohibited on the days before and
after each holiday.

Although Shmuel argues, we generally rule according to Rabbi Yochanan against Shmuel. We
must understand, therefore, why fasting is allowed on Ta’anis Esther, the day before Purim, when
our Gemara teaches that the celebrations of the holidays of Purim and Chanukah have not be
cancelled. Several answers have been given to this question.

Tosafos and Ritva explain that because we conclude that the celebrations of Megilas Ta’anis
holidays have been cancelled, except for Chanukah and Purim, we rule leniently according to
Shmuel in this one detail to allow fasting before and after these remaining observances.

Rabeinu Tam (see Rosh, Megillah 1:1) explains that Ta’anis Esther was established as a fast day
together with the original commemoration of the holiday of Purim. We fast on this day as a sign
of solidarity with those who entered into battle in a spirit of teshuvah and prayer against our
enemies at that moment of national danger.

Therefore, Ta’anis Esther is not an example of allowing a fast to be observed on the day before a
Megilas Ta’anis date. Ran writes that the thirteenth of Adar is not only the day before Purim, but
6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/RoshHaShana%20019.pdf

12
it is the calendar date of ‫( ניקנור יום‬see Ta’anis 7a), which was in Megilas Ta’anis and was therefore
prohibited in fasting.

Once the main significance of the thirteenth of Adar as Nikanor Day was nullified, and it became
permitted as a fast day due to the cancellation of Megilas Ta’anis, it no longer makes sense to re-
establish a restriction to fast on that day merely as it being ancillary to Purim.

Poskim disagree about the extent of the principle that the laws of the Prophets — ‫ — קבלה דברי‬are
like the laws of the Torah. The She’iltos (1) writes that when there is doubt related to rending one’s
garment upon the loss of a relative, a law derived from the Prophets, one must follow the strict
approach.

The reason is that the obligation for a mourner to rend his garment is derived from the Prophets,
and as such, it is treated the same as a Biblical mitzvah where the principle regarding doubt is to
follow the strict approach (‫ לחומרא דאורייתא ספק‬.(Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Aderes (2), the Rashba,
adopts a different perspective. Rashba writes that when there is a matter of doubt concerning the
reading of Megillas Esther we follow the lenient approach based on the principle of ‫לקולא דרבנן‬
‫—ספק‬one follows the lenient approach regarding matters that are Rabbinic in origin.

Rav Yosef Teomim (3), the Pri Megadim, similarly expresses doubt whether the rule “the laws of
the Prophets are like the laws of the Torah” instructs us to treat matters of doubt regarding the laws
of the Prophets like laws of the Torah, and to follow the strict approach when in doubt. Another
application of this question is relevant for the issue of whether a boy who arrives at his thirteenth
birthday is assumed to have physically matured as well. The general rule is that regarding Biblical
matters we do not rely on the assumption that thirteen-year old boys have reached physical
maturity as well, which is necessary to halachically be considered an adult, whereas regarding
Rabbinic matters we do rely on this assumption.

What is the rule concerning laws of the Prophets? If they are treated like Biblical law we would
not rely on the assumption, but if they are treated like Rabbinic laws we would rely on the
assumption. Rav Shlomo Zalman Braun (4), the Shearim HaMetzuyanim B’Halachah, follows the
strict approach on this matter and, for example, would not permit a thirteen-year-old boy to read
Megillas Esther for others, thus relying on the assumption that the boy has developed physical
signs of maturity as well.

Others (5) disagree and maintain that a thirteen-year-old boy could read the Megillah for others
under the assumption that he has produced physical signs of maturity.

13
Our daf we find that the 29th of Adar was once celebrated as a festival because anti-Jewish decrees
made by the Romans were annulled on that day. How did they come to be retracted? Rav Yehudah
ben Shamua and his friends asked advice of a matron who circulated in the upper echelons of
Roman society.

She told them to make a demonstration at night, and they followed her advice and succeeded to
overturn the decrees. Waging protest against evil was a practice embraced by our gedolim
throughout the ages.

Once, a group of “free-thinkers” decided to hold a conference in the venerable shul of the Old
Yishuv in Jerusalem, the famous Churvah of Rav Yehudah HaChassid in the Old City. As soon as
the Mahari”l Diskin, zt”l, heard about the planned desecration, he immediately ordered Rav Yosef
Chaim Sonnenfeld, zt”l, and two other great Rabbonim of the Old Yishuv to interrupt the
proceedings, alight the bimah, and wage a public and earnest protest. The three went just as they
were told, but when they got to the synagogue they saw that the group convening inside had
anticipated their arrival.

To stave them off, they had set up a group of toughs at the entrance to dissuade anyone who
planned to disrupt their conference. The other two Rabbonim who had accompanied Rav Yosef
Chaim saw the men and decided to turn back, in fear for their own safety. Rav Yosef Chaim, on
the other hand, pushed on ahead past the men and climbed straight up to the bimah. He slammed
his fist upon it loudly and strafed the crowd with his uncompromising protest. After a few minutes,
the group of bullies pulled him off the bimah and began to beat him soundly. He was fortunate to
escape the scene alive, but told no one about the beatings he had received.

It was only sometime later, while in the mikveh, that someone noticed that the Rav was literally
covered with wounds and bruises. When people asked him what had happened, he said, “These
are my badges of honor—just like a captain in the army is given his stripes when he moves up in
rank!”

14
 MEGILLAT TA'ANIT ("Scroll of Fasting")

Isidore Singer and Jacob Zallel Lauterbach write:7

A chronicle which enumerates thirty-five eventful days on which the Jewish nation either
performed glorious deeds or witnessed joyful events. These days were celebrated as feast-days.
Public mourning was forbidden on fourteen of them, and public fasting on all. In most of the

7
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10555-megillat-ta-anit

15
editions this chronicle consists of two parts, which are distinct in language and in form, namely:
(1) the text or the Megillat Ta'anit proper, written in Aramaic and containing merely brief outlines
in concise style; (2) scholia or commentaries on the text, written in Hebrew. The days are
enumerated, not in the chronological order of the events they commemorate, but in the sequence
of the calendar, the Megillat Ta'anit being divided into twelve chapters, corresponding to the
months of the year. Each chapter contains the memorial days of a single month, the first chapter
dealing with those of the first month, Nisan, and so on to the twelfth chapter, which treats of those
of the twelfth month, Adar.

Five Groups of Feasts.

The festal occasions which these days were intended to keep alive in the memory of the people
belong to different epochs; and on this basis the days may be divided into five groups, namely: (1)
pre-Maccabean; (2) Hasmonean; (3) ante-Sadducean; (4) ante-Roman; and (5) of the Diaspora, the
last-named comprising memorial days admitted after the destruction of the Temple. There are also
a few days which do not refer to any known historical event, and are, therefore, chronologically
uncertain.
These memorial days did not become festivals by being incorporated and recorded in the Megillat
Ta'anit, as J. Schmilg has attempted to prove ("Ueber die Entstehung und den Historischen Werth
des Siegeskalenders Megillat Ta'anit," pp. 11-20), but had been known and celebrated by the
people long before that time, as he himself is obliged to admit in the case of some of them; indeed,
the celebration of these festivals or semi-festivals evidently existed as early as the time of Judith
(Judith viii. 6). The compilers of the Megillat Ta'anit merely listed the memorial days and at the
same time determined that the less important should be celebrated by a mere suspension of fasting,
while public mourning was to be forbidden on the more important ones.

Authorship.

In an old baraita (Shab. 13b) the question as to the authorship of the work is answered as follows:
"Hananiah b. Hezekiah of the Garon family, together with a number of others who had assembled
for a synod at his house, compiled the Megillat Ta'anit." According to an account in the "Halakot
Gedolot, Hilkot Soferim" (ed. Vienna, p. 104; ed. Zolkiev, p. 82c), the members of this synod were
the "Ziḳne Bet Shammai" and "Ziḳne Bet Hillel," the eldest pupils of Shammai and Hillel. The
Megillat Ta'anit must have been composed, therefore, about the year 7 of the common era, when
Judea was made a Roman province to the great indignation of the Jews (comp. Schmilg, l.c. pp.
20-36). This calendar of victories was intended to fan the spark of liberty among the people and to
fill them with confidence and courage by reminding them of the victories of the Maccabees and
the divine aid vouchsafed to the Jewish nation against the heathen.
The scholium to Megillat Ta'anit, xii., end, evidently quoting an old baraita, says: "Eleazar b.
Hananiah of the family of Garon together with his followers compiled the Megillat Ta'anit." This
Eleazar is identical with the Zealot general Eleazar, who took a noteworthy part in the beginning
of the revolt against the Romans, vanquishing the garrison at Jerusalem, as well as Agrippa's
troops, and Menahem's Sicarian bands. According to this account, therefore, the Megillat Ta'anit
was composed by the Zealots after the year 66 of the common era, during the revolution (Grätz,
"Gesch." iii., note 26), although it is not necessary to correct the Talmudic account to agree with
the scholium, and to read, as does Grätz, in Shab. 13b, "Eleazar b. Hananiah," instead of

16
"Hananiah." On the other hand, the view of Schmilg (l.c.) that the scholium is incorrect is
erroneous, since there is both internal and external evidence in favor of its authenticity. The
account in the Talmud and that in the scholium may both be accepted, since not only Hananiah the
father, but also Eleazar the son, contributed to the compilation of the work. Eleazar, one of the
central figures in the war against the Romans, endeavored to strengthen the national consciousness
of his people by continuing his father's work, and increased the number of memorial days in the
collection, to remind the people how God had always helped them and had given them the victory
over external and internal enemies.

Interpolations.

Eleazar did not, however, complete the work, and several days were subsequently added to the list
which was definitely closed in Usha, as is proved by the fact that the 12th of Adar is designated as
"Trajan's Day," and the 29th of that month as "the day on which the persecutions of Hadrian
ceased" (comp. Brann in "Monatsschrift," 1876, p. 379). Furthermore, R. Simon b. Gamaliel, who
was nasi at Usha, says in the baraita Shab. 13b: "If we should turn all the days on which we have
been saved from some danger into holidays, and list them in the Megillat Ta'anit, we could not
satisfy ourselves; for we should be obliged to turn nearly every day into a festival" (comp. Rashi ad
loc.). This sentence clearly indicates that the work was definitely completed at Usha in the time of
R. Simon, in order that no further memorial days might be added.

Hebrew Commentary.

The Hebrew commentary on the Megillat Ta'anit was written much later, the author, who did not
live earlier than the seventh century, having before him the text of both the Talmudim as well as
that of Bereshit Rabbah (comp. Brann, l.c. pp. 410-418, 445-451). The commentator collected
those baraitot of the Talmud which contained comments on the Megillat Ta'anit, and jumbled them
uncritically with accounts from other, unreliable sources.

The Text and the Scholium.

The references of Schmilg's (l.c. pp. 36-41) merely prove that the scholiast endeavored to make
his work pass for a product of the tannaitic period. As a matter of fact, however, the Talmud knows
only the Aramaic text, which alone is meant by the term "Megillat Ta'anit." This text, which had
been committed to writing and was generally known ('Er. 62), was explained and interpreted in
the same way as the Bible (Yer. Ta'an. ii. 66a). The many quotations from the Megillat Ta'anit in
the Talmud are all taken from the Aramaic text and are introduced by the word "ketib" = "it is
written," as in Ḥul. 129b; Meg. 5b; Ta'an. 12a and 18b; there is not a single quotation from the
scholium. In Ta'an. 12a, the single passage, "bi-Megillat Ta'anit," from which Schmilg tries to
prove that the Talmud quotes the scholium as well as the Megillat, is a later addition (comp.
Brann, l.c. pp. 457 et seq.), and is not found in the Munich manuscript (comp. Rabbinowitz, "Ha-
Meassef," iii. 63). Although the comments found in the scholium are mentioned in the Talmud,
they are not credited to the Megillat Ta'anit, but are quoted as independent baraitot, so that the
scholium took them from the Talmud, and not vice versa.
As the text and the scholium of the Megillat Ta'anit are distinct in form and in language, so do they
differ also in value. The text is an actual historical source, whose statements may be regarded as

17
authentic, while its dates are reliable if interpreted independently of the scholium. The scholium,
on the other hand, is of very doubtful historical value and must be used with extreme caution.
Although it contains some old baraitot which are reliable, the compiler has mixed them with other,
unhistorical, accounts and legends, so that even those data whose legendary character has not been
proved can be credited only when they are confirmed by internal and external evidence.

Editions and Commentaries.

The Megillat Ta'anit is extant in many editions, and has had numerous commentaries. The best
edition of the Aramaic and Hebrew text is that by A. Neubauer, which is based on the editio
princeps and the Amsterdam edition of 1711, compared with the codex De Rossi (Parma MS. 117)
and some fragments of a manuscript in the Bodleian Library, Oxford (Neubauer, "M. J. C." ii. 3-
25, Oxford, 1895).
Of commentaries the following may be mentioned: Abraham b. Joseph ha-Levi, double
commentary (Amsterdam, 1656); Judah b. Menahem, double commentary (Dyhernfurth, 1810);
Johann Meyer, Latin translation published in his "Tractatus de Temporibus," etc. (Amsterdam,
1724). Derenbourg and Schwab have made French versions of the Aramaic text.

Bibliography:

• Grätz, Gesch. iii., notes 1, 26;

• J. Derenbourg, Hist. pp. 439-446;
• J. Schmilg, Ueber Entstehung und Historischen Werth des Siegeskalenders Megillat Ta'anit, Leipsic, 1874;
• J. Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, pp. 56-63, Greifswald, 1874;
• Joel Müller, Der Text der Fastenrolle, in Monatsschrift, 1875, pp. 43-48, 139-144;
• M. Brann, Entstehung und Werth der Megillat Ta'anit, pp. 375-384, 410-418, 445-460, ib. 1876;
• P. Cassel, Messianische Stellen des Alten Testaments, Appendix, Berlin, 1885;
• Weiss, Dor, ii. 254-257;
• B. Rattner, in Rabbinowitz, Ha-Meassef, 1902, pp. 91-105;
• M. Schwab, La Megillath Taanith, in Actes du Onzième Congrès International des Orientalistes, pp. 199-259, Paris,
1898.

18
 Megillat Ta’anit and Its Scholion (Commentary)

A Brief Introduction

Prof. Vered Noam writes:8

8
https://www.thetorah.com/article/megillat-taanit-and-its-scholion

19
Although the name Megillat Ta’anit may remind readers of Megillat Esther, unlike Esther, it is
only a list of dates, and not a narrative work. It is written in Aramaic, and dates to the end of the
Second Temple period.[1] It includes about thirty-five occasions, arranged according to the order
of the yearly calendar, with a brief mention of the event that happened on each date. The
document’s purpose is halakhic, as stated in the opening line:

These are the days on which one must not fast, and on some of them one must [also] not deliver
eulogies.[2]
The document thus forbids the community from fasting on these dates because various happy
events occurred on them.

The Scholion (Commentary)

Already in an early period, a tradition of interpretation, written in Hebrew, became attached

to Megillat Ta’anit. Scholars call this the “scholion” (the Greek word for comments or
interpretations). The scholion identifies and explains the events mentioned in the original work
(hereafter: “the megillah”). Thus, it supplements each of the dates in the megillah with various
types of stories, legends, and homilies that are directly or indirectly relevant to the holidays.

The scholion includes large sections that have parallels in the Talmud and in rabbinic literature in
general, but nearly half of it is unparalleled in other extant source. Its early form is preserved in
two main versions, which I have named[3] “O (‫ ”)א‬and “P (‫)פ‬,” as well as a hybrid version that is
an amalgamation of the two.[4] This hybrid version, which appears in most of the manuscripts
of Megillat Ta’anit as well as in the printed editions, is full of internal contradictions, discordant
wording, and awkward seams.

Megillat Ta’anit and the Scholion in the Talmuds

Nearly ten different passages in the Babylonian Talmud (Bavli), and one long discussion (and two
other brief references) in the Talmud Yerushalmi from the Land of Israel, discuss Megillat Ta’anit,

20
from various aspects and for various purposes. The discussions in the Bavli include some texts that
seem to parallel the scholion, implying that Babylonian Talmudic sages and editors of
Talmudic sugyot already had some version of the scholion.[5]

View Footnotes

1. For further details, see: Vered Noam, Megillat Ta’anit: Versions, Interpretation, History, with a Critical

Edition(Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Press, 2003). https://www.eisenbrauns.com/ECOM/_4AM0QWGV7.HTM

2. ‫ ומקצתהון דלא למספד בהון‬,‫אלין יומא דלא לאתענאה בהון‬.

3. The first is named for the Oxford manuscript (Michael 388, corresponding to Neubauer 876.2) and the latter for Parma

(Palatine Library, De Rossi 117), which preserve these respective editions in their entirety.

4. This hybrid version was apparently composed in the Mediterranean region and dates between the ninth and eleventh

centuries.

5. Versions O and P of the scholion seem to be independent parallels to the scholion used by the Babylonian Talmud. Parma

is much closer to the one used by the Talmud, though it seems most probable to assume that there were many gloss

collections on Megillat Ta’anit, and the O, P, and Bavli examples are only three samples of a larger data set.

6.

21
 The Cancellation of Megillat Ta'anit

Dr. Rabbi Zev Farber writes:9

9
https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-cancellation-of-megillat-taanit

22
As any cursory reading of Megillat Ta’anit shows, Jews once celebrated many more holidays than
now. When this list was in force there were 35-40 “national holidays” during which it was
forbidden to fast and even, on some of them, forbidden to offer eulogies during funerals.[1]

How long these national holidays remained marked as special after the destruction of the Temple
is unclear, however both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud record a debate about whether this
scroll remains authoritative, with a number of rabbis claiming, “Megillat Ta’anit has been
nullified[2] (‫)בטלה מגילת תענית‬.” This latter position reflects the reality of the modern Jewish
calendar; these holidays are no longer celebrated or marked in any way.

Why were these holidays abandoned? The Babylonian Talmud suggests that these days may
function in a similar, but reverse, way to the four fast days instituted in the wake of the First
Temple’s destruction.[3] With the rebuilding of the Second Temple, the prophet Zechariah was
asked whether the people should still fast in commemoration of the destruction of the Temple.
After all, it was now rebuilt. Zechariah offers a long response which ends with (Zech. 8:19):

‫יט ֹכּה ָאַמר ְיהָוה ְצָבאוֹת צוֹם ָה ְרִביִﬠי ְוצוֹם ַהֲחִמיִשׁי ְוצוֹם ַהְשִּׁביִﬠי ְוצוֹם ָהֲﬠִשׂי ִרי ִיְהֶיה ְלֵבית ְיהוָּדה ְלָשׂשׂוֹן וְּלִשְׂמָחה וְּלֹמֲﬠִדים‬
.‫טוִֹבים ְוָהֱאֶמת ְוַהָשּׁלוֹם ֱאָהבוּ‬

“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.”

In other words, with the rebuilding of the Temple and the reestablishment of Judah in its capital,
the days of fasting and mourning became happy days. The Talmud suggests that something similar
happened with the Megillat Ta’anit holidays. What were once happy days are now sad.[4]How can
Jews celebrate national holidays after the nation has been crushed and exiled?

23
Purim and Chanukah: The Two Holidays that Survived

Although the Megillat Ta’anit holidays were cancelled, two of them remained on the calendar to
this day: Purim and Chanukah. Why did these holidays remain while the others vanished? It is
possible to claim that this was due to their importance, but this is tautological. In dealing with the
question (about Chanukah), the Talmud (b. Rosh Hashanah 18b) writes:

‫ צאו והתענו‬:‫ ואמרו להם‬.‫ ורבי יהושע וסיפר‬,‫ וירד רבי אליעזר ורחץ‬,‫ מעשה וגזרו תענית בחנוכה בלוד‬:‫מתיב רב כהנא‬
‫ ותיבטל מצותה! אלא‬,‫ ותיבטיל איהי‬:‫ – אמר ליה אביי‬.‫ שאני חנוכה דאיכא מצוה‬:‫על מה שהתעניתם! – אמר רב יוסף‬
.‫ שאני חנוכה דמיפרסם ניסא‬:‫אמר רב יוסף‬

Rav Kahana brought an opposing account: It happened in Lod that they declared a fast on
Chanukah. Rabbi Eliezer bathed and Rabbi Yehoshua got his hair cut. They (=Rabbis Eliezer
and Yehoshua) said to them (=the people of Lod): “Go and fast over the fact that you
fasted!”[5] Rav Yosef said: “Chanukah is different since it has a mitzvah [to perform].” Abaye
said to him: “So let it be cancelled and its mitzvah along with it!” Rather, Rabbi Yosef said:
“Chanukah is different since its miracle is so prominent.”
The Talmud prefers the second answer, but the first answer offers an important insight. Judaism is
a very practice focused religion. Most of the holidays in Megillat Ta’anit are not associated with
any particular practice or behavior other than not fasting and not eulogizing. Chanukah, however,
has candle lighting. Purim also has mitzvot: the giving of charity (matanot la-evyonim), gifts to
friends (mishloach manot), the festive meal and drinking, and the reading of Megillat Esther. It
may very well be that these practices kept the holidays alive among the people after all the other
ones were abandoned or forgotten.

The truth in Rav Yosef’s second answer is apparent today in how the Chanukah story has become
a strong part of Jewish consciousness. Heroes like Mattathias and Judah Maccabee are iconic
figures. The story of how the few defeated the many, and even the (later) story of the oil lasting
eight days, have become core elements in our heritage. This goes double for Purim, probably

24
because the Purim story comes with its own biblical book. (Hanukkah has the first book of
Maccabees, which was originally in Hebrew, but that book deals with many other things and was
never canonized among Rabbinic Jews—the rabbis were deeply ambivalent at best about the
Hasmoneans.) Every year the story is read in public, children learn it in school, and it is reenacted
in plays and masquerades. A holiday with that kind of backing doesn’t disappear quickly or easily.

Whether the return of Jewish sovereignty to the land of Israel should affect the status of the now
defunct Megillat Ta’anit holidays is an interesting question, one that I hope will be discussed more
over the coming years.

View Footnotes

1. For more on this text and the commentaries that accompany it, see Vered Noam’s TABS Essay, Megillat Ta’anitand its

Scholion (Commentary). For a scholarly edition ofMegillat Ta’anit, including the traditional commentaries (scholia) on

the work and full scholarly discussion and apparatus, see: Vered Noam, Megillat Ta’anit: Versions, Interpretation,

History (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003 [Hebrew]). For an English overview of her findings, see her chapter, “The

Scroll of Fasting.”

2. j. Ta’anit 2:12, Megillah 1:4, Nedarim 8:1; b. Rosh Hashanah 18b-19a.

3. The fast days were instituted to commemorate destruction, but turn to holidays when the Temple/the country is rebuilt.

The Megillat Ta’anit days were instituted as holidays during the time of the Temple/independent Judea, but were

cancelled upon the destruction. They did not all turn to fast days however, which is where the parallel ends.

4.

‫ רבי יוחנן ורבי‬.‫ והנך נמי כי הני‬.‫ אין שלום – צום‬,‫ בזמן שיש שלום – יהיו לששון ולשמחה‬:‫” הכי קאמר‬.‫ “בטלה מגילת תענית‬:‫רב ורבי חנינא אמרי‬

.‫ אבל הנך כדקיימי קיימי‬,‫” הני הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין בית המקדש‬.‫ “לא בטלה מגילת תענית‬:‫יהושע בן לוי אמרי‬

5. The rabbis are communicating to the people of Lod that it was sinful for them to fast on a holiday.

25
 Megillat Taanit – The Scroll of Fasting
Vered Noam writes:10

10
https://web.archive.org/web/20190715202448/http://www.verednoam.com/articles/Noam%20MegillatTaanit.pdf

26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38