It is a positive Torah commandment¹See Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 59), which mentions this in the reckoning of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Significantly, however, the Rambam's appreciation of this mitzvah differs in the Mishneh Torah from that in Sefer HaMitzvot. To explain: Following the verse quoted here by the Rambam as a proof-text, the Torah continues [Numbers 10:10]: "On the days of your rejoicing, on your festivals, and on your new moon [celebrations], you shall sound the trumpets for your burnt offerings and for your peace offerings."
In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam writes:We are commanded to sound the trumpets in the Temple when offering sacrifices that are offered only at appointed times.... [Also,] we are commanded to sound the trumpets at a time of distress and difficulty when we pray to Him.In Sefer HaMitzvot (and similarly in Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 384), the emphasis of the mitzvah is clearly on the sounding of the trumpets during the sacrifices. In the Mishneh Torah, when listing the 613 mitzvot at the beginning of the text, the Rambam mentions the sounding of the trumpets both for the sacrifices and in times of distress. Nevertheless, further on in the beginning of the text, when delineating the mitzvot according to subjects, he places the emphasis on crying out to God at a time of distress (seemingly, including crying out verbally and crying out with the trumpets in the same mitzvah). Significantly, in Hilchot Klei HaMikdash, Chapter 3, where the Rambam mentions the practice of sounding the trumpets in connection with the offering of the sacrifices, he does not mention it as a component of this or any other specific mitzvah.
(Note also the commentary of the Maggid Mishneh, which questions why these two different rites were included as a single mitzvah at the outset. Even in the Torah, they are included in two separate verses.) to cry out²in prayer. Our Sages (Sifre, VaEtchanan) explain that זעקה is one of the ten verbs used for prayer. and to sound³The verb להריע refers to the sounding of a series of staccato notes referred to as teru'ah. See Hilchot Shofar 3:2-4. Significantly, although in practice, both types of notes were sounded, with regard to the sounding of the trumpets at the offerings, the Torah uses the verb ותקעתם, which refers to sounding a teki'ah, a single long note. trumpets⁴In the Temple, these were made of silver (Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 3:5). Josephus describes them as being approximately a cubit long, slightly thicker than an ordinary flute, and having a bell-like end. It is questionable whether it was necessary for them to be silver outside the Temple as well.
See also the Ramban (Drashot l'Rosh HaShanah), who mentions an opinion that the shofar, and not a trumpet, should be sounded in time of communal distress. The Maggid Mishneh also notes this opinion and states that either instrument, a shofar or a trumpet, is acceptable, but that - outside of the Temple premises - only one of the two should be used in time of distress. Some support for this position can be drawn from Halachah 6. in the event of any difficulty that arises which affects the community, as [Numbers 10:9] states: "[When you go out to war... against] an enemy who attacks you and you sound the trumpets...."
[This⁵As obvious from Halachah 4, this practice was observed throughout Eretz Yisrael, and not only in the Temple. Nor is its observance dependent on the existence of the Temple, nor does the Rambam specify that it must be fulfilled only in Eretz Yisrael. (In this regard, there are differing opinions; see Mishnah Berurah 576:1) Accordingly, the Magen Avraham 576:1 questions: Why is the rite of sounding the trumpets (or shofarot) not observed at present?
The resolution of this question lies in the Rambam's words, "any difficulty that arises which affects the community." This rite should not be observed when an individual, or even a group of individuals, are in distress, but only when a "community" is affected.
Pesachim 54b explains that communal fasts are possible only within Eretz Yisrael. There is no concept of taking such a unified communal act of this nature in the diaspora. Therefore, this mitzvah was not relevant in all the generations of our people's existence in the diaspora. (See also the Drashot l'Rosh HaShanah of the Ramban.)
A question arises, however, with regard to the situation at present, with the renewal of the Jewish settlement in Eretz Yisrael. As explained in the commentary on Chapter 3, Halachah 11, there are opinions (see the gloss of the Birkei Yosef to the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 575) that maintain that at present, the concept of community also applies in Eretz Yisrael.
According to this view, without entering into the discussion regarding the halachic status of the present government, it would appear that it would be proper for this mitzvah to be observed, since its observance is not dependent on the Temple. commandment is not restricted to such a limited scope;⁶i.e., it does not apply to war alone, as might be understood from the verse. rather] the intent is: Whenever you are distressed by difficulties⁷e.g., famine, plague - Note Ta'anit 22b, which states that the trumpets should not be sounded in the case of a plague even during the week. Since a plague is a very severe matter, were the trumpets to be sounded during the week, they might also be sounded when a plague took place on the Sabbath, and thus a prohibition would be violated. The Rambam discusses this question in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Ta'anit 3:3). Similarly, in Chapter 2, Halachah 1, the Rambam rules that the trumpets are sounded when a plague occurs. - e.g., famine, plague, locusts, or the like⁸i.e., circumstances that cause distress to the community as a whole. - cry out [to God] because of them and sound the trumpets.⁹See Hilchot Teshuvah 2:6, where the Rambam gives the assurance that if the Jews cry out to God as a community, He will surely heed their prayers. This practice is one of the paths of repentance,¹Note the conclusion of Hilchot Temurah, where the Rambam writes that although all the mitzvot of the Torah are Divine decrees and thus unfathomable in nature, we should meditate upon them and, to the fullest extent of our potential, try to explain them. Similarly, with regard to the mitzvah under discussion, without claiming to be able to fathom it in its entirety, the Rambam gives a rational explanation for the practice. for when a difficulty arises, and the people cry out [to God] and sound the trumpets, everyone will realize²The very sound of the trumpets will have a startling effect, arousing the people to inspect their conduct. Similarly, in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4, the Rambam writes:Although the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah is a mitzvah, it also contains an allusion. [It is as if the shofar is saying,] "Wake up you sleepy ones.... You who forget the truth in the vanities of time... look to your souls and improve your conduct." that [the difficulty] occurred because of their evil conduct, as [Jeremiah 5:25] states: "Your sins have turned away [the rains and the harvest climate]."³See Hilchot Teshuvah 9:1, where the Rambam explains that God has instituted a cycle of causation into the world in which performing a mitzvah brings an individual - or a community - blessing and prosperity, which enable them to perform more mitzvot. Conversely, the failure to observe mitzvot brings about misfortune, which, in turn, makes it even harder to observe mitzvot. This [realization] will cause the removal of this difficulty.⁴For when the Jews turn to God in repentance, He will remove their hardships. Conversely, should the people fail to cry out [to God] and sound the trumpets, and instead say, "What has happened to us is merely a natural phenomenon and this difficulty is merely a chance occurrence,"¹Rather than seeing their difficulty as part of a Divinely structured plan to motivate their repentance. this is a cruel conception of things,²Misfortune is definitely not pleasant. Nevertheless, when one conceives of it as a message from God, intended to motivate a change in one's conduct, one can appreciate that, ultimately, its intent is mercy. In contrast, when one does not appreciate God's hand, one is left with a conception of an existential and cruel world in which there is no force working for man's benefit. which causes them to remain attached to their wicked deeds.³for they refuse to pay attention to the external cues God gives to motivate repentance. Thus, this time of distress will lead to further distresses.⁴Note the conclusion of Hilchot Tum'at Tzara'at, where the Rambam explains that when a person remains indifferent to the punishment God gives him, God brings more severe punishment upon him.
This is implied by the Torah's statement [Leviticus 26:27-28]: "If you remain indifferent to Me, I will be indifferent to you with a vengeance."⁵מקרה, the Hebrew for "chance occurrence," shares the same root as קרי, "indifferent." Thus The implication of the verse is: When I bring difficulties upon you so that you shall repent and you say it is a chance occurrence, I will add to your [punishment] an expression of vengeance for that indifference [to Divine Providence]. In addition,¹to the obligation to cry out and sound the trumpets incumbent upon us from the Torah it is a Rabbinic ordinance to fast²The Or Sameach mentions that this practice has its source in Biblical times. II Chronicles 20:3 relates that Yehoshafat called a communal fast when beset by war. whenever there is a difficulty that affects the community³These difficulties are listed in Chapter 2. until there is a manifestation of Divine mercy.⁴I.e., we are not required to fast only once when a distressing situation occurs. Instead, we are obligated to continue fasting until God shows us His mercies and eliminates the source of distress.
Ta'anit 14b quotes a Rabbinic opinion that maintains that no more than thirteen communal fasts should be ordained because of a difficulty. The Talmud, however, explains that this statement was made with regard to drought alone. With regard to other difficulties, we should continue to fast until our prayers are answered. This conclusion is alluded to by the Rambam's choice of wording in Chapter 3, Halachah 9, and is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 575:6).
On these fast days, we cry out in prayer, offer supplications, and sound the trumpets⁵blow a series of teru'ah notes only.⁶I.e., with no other instrument to accompany them. In the Temple, we sound both the trumpets and the shofar.⁷From the Mishnah (Rosh HaShanah 3:3), it would appear that two shofarot were sounded together (Minchat Chinuch). The shofar blasts should be shortened and the trumpet blasts extended,⁸I.e., the trumpet blasts should continue even after the shofar blasts have ceased. for the mitzvah of the day is with the trumpets.⁹Note the contrast to Hilchot Shofar 1:2. The trumpets are sounded together with the shofar only in the Temple, as [can be inferred from Psalms 98:6]: "Sound trumpets and shofar blasts before God, the King."¹⁰I.e., only "before God," in the Temple, where His Presence is manifest, should these two instruments be sounded together, not elsewhere. These fasts ordained for the community because of difficulties should not be consecutive,¹day after day. for²even though it would be permitted to eat at night the community would not be able to observe such a practice.³And an ordinance for the community is not instituted unless it is possible for the majority of the community to observe it (Hilchot Mamrim 2:5). Were a communal ordinance that could not be observed by the majority of the community to be instituted, the people's observance, not only of that particular ordinance, but of the Torah as a whole, would be weakened.
A communal fast should be ordained only on a Monday,⁴See the commentary on the following halachah, which deals with the question of communal fasts being instituted on days other than Monday or Thursday. on the subsequent Thursday, and on the subsequent Monday.⁵Mondays and Thursdays are days associated with significant spiritual influences. Also, in this manner, the fasts are separated from each other and from the Sabbath.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Ta'anit 2:9), the Rambam explains that communal fasts should be held first on Mondays, because were they to be held on Thursday, the shopkeepers would assume that the possibilities for famine are great - for otherwise why would a public fast be instituted before the Sabbath - and they would raise the prices of foodstuffs.
(This rationale differs slightly from Rashi's interpretation of the Mishnah. Significantly, many of the traditional commentaries on the Mishneh Torah do not mention the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah. See the Sefer HaKovetz.) This pattern⁶Monday, Thursday, Monday - should be followed until [God manifests His] mercies. - From the wording of this halachah, it would appear that the second Thursday should be skipped, and the second series of three fasts begun on the third Monday. The commentaries note that although there is justification for this position in the Jerusalem Talmud (Ta'anit 2:13), the Babylonian Talmud (Ta'anit 15b) rules that there is no need to interrupt the sequence of fasts on the second Thursday. This ruling is also borne out by the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.) and some authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. There are, however, other Rabbinic opinions - which are also supported by different manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah (see the commentary on Chapter 3, Halachah 3) - that maintain that a series of communal fasts should always begin on a Monday. - Monday, Thursday, Monday - should be followed until [God manifests His] mercies.

There are days when the entire Jewish people¹All healthy adult men and women fast²It appears that the Rambam considers these fasts to be obligatory in the present era. Based on his interpretation of Rosh HaShanah 18b in his Commentary on the Mishnah, Rosh HaShanah 1:3, the Rambam explains that in the era of the Second Temple, these fasts were of an optional nature. After the destruction of the Temple, however, every Jew is required to observe them. This obligation is also explicitly stated by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 549:1, 550:1). because of the calamities that occurred to them then,³Here, the Rambam employs the same principle he developed at the beginning of this text regarding fasts instituted because of difficulties of an immediate nature, with regard to these fasts which were instituted for these national calamities.
Fasting in and of itself is not a purpose. Fasting can, however, serve to arouse [their] hearts and initiate [them in] the paths of repentance.⁴This is the intent of the fasts, and not merely refraining from eating. For this reason, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 121:1 harshly reproves those who fast, but spend their days taking pleasure strolls and being involved in other forms of leisure activity. This will serve as a reminder of our wicked conduct and that of our ancestors, which resembles our present conduct and therefore brought these calamities upon them and upon us.⁵Although these tragedies took place in previous generations, we share the responsibility for them. The Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 1:1) states, "Every generation in which the Temple is not rebuilt should consider it as if it was destroyed in its days." By reminding ourselves of these matters, we will repent⁶The word נשוב, translated as "we will repent," literally means, "We will return." Teshuvah involves a return to one's fundamental self, becoming aware of the fundamental Divine nature one possesses.
Such a process relates to these commemorative fasts, which on the surface are associated with undesirable elements, but possess a positive core, as reflected in the Rambam's statements at the conclusion of this chapter that in the era of the Redemption, all these fast days will be transformed into days of rejoicing and celebration. and improve [our conduct], as [Leviticus 26:40] states: "And they will confess their sin and the sin of their ancestors."⁷See Hilchot Teshuvah 1:1-2, 2:2, where the Rambam associates the mitzvah of teshuvah with confession.

And at the breaks between the paragraphs one may greet due to respect and respond with a greeting to any person. And if that is the case, the mishna is no longer difficult. The Gemara remarks: This version of the dispute was also taught in a baraita: One who is reciting Shema and happens upon his teacher or one who is greater than he, at the breaks between the paragraphs he may greet him due to respect and, needless to say, he may respond. And in the middle of each paragraph, he may greet another due to fear and, needless to say, he may respond. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: In the middle of each paragraph one may greet due to fear and respond due to respect. And in the breaks between the paragraphs one may greet due to respect and respond with a greeting to any person. The proposed additions to the mishna appear in the version of the dispute cited in the baraita. Aḥai, the tanna who recited mishnayot in the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya, raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya: May one interrupt during the recitation of hallel and the reading of the Megilla, Esther, to greet someone? Do we say that it is an a fortiori inference; if in the middle of Shema, which is a biblical obligation, one may interrupt in order to greet someone, all the more so, in the middle of hallel, which is a rabbinic obligation, one may interrupt? Or, perhaps, publicizing the miracle is more significant, so one may not interrupt hallel or the Megilla at all. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: One interrupts and it is of no concern. Rabba said: On days when the individual completes the entire hallel, i.e., the days on which there is a rabbinic obligation to recite hallel, an individual may interrupt between one paragraph and another; however, one may not interrupt in the middle of the paragraph. On days where the individual does not complete the entire hallel, i.e., days on which the recitation of hallel is merely a custom, not a rabbinic obligation, one may interrupt even in the middle of the paragraph. The Gemara questions this: It that so? Didn’t Rav bar Shaba once happen to come before Ravina on one of the days when the individual does not complete the entire hallel, and Ravina did not interrupt his recitation of hallel to greet him? The Gemara responds: The case of Rav bar Shaba is different, as Rav bar Shaba was not considered important to Ravina. That is the reason that he did not interrupt his recitation of hallel to greet him. Having mentioned the dilemma raised by one of those who recite the mishnayot in the study hall, the Gemara cites that Ashyan, the tanna who recited mishnayot in the school of Rabbi Ami, raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: May one who is fasting taste the food that he is preparing to determine if it spiced properly? Did he accept upon himself to refrain from eating and drinking, and that is not eating and drinking; it is merely tasting? Or, perhaps, he accepted upon himself to refrain from deriving pleasure from food, and that is pleasure when he tastes. Rabbi Ami said to him: He tastes and it is of no concern. This was also taught in a baraita: Tasting a cooked dish does not require a blessing beforehand, and one who is fasting may taste and it is of no concern. The Gemara asks: How much may one who is fasting taste? The Gemara responds: When Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would fast, they would taste up to a quarter of a log. Rav said: Anyone who greets another person in the morning before he prayed, it is as if he built an altar for idol worship, as it is stated: “Cease you from man, in whose nostrils there is breath, for how little is he to be accounted” (Isaiah 2:22). When one’s soul is breathed in through his nostrils in the morning (ge’onim) he should turn to no one other than God. And do not read it as it is written, bameh, how; but rather, read bama, altar. And Shmuel said: The word bameh should not be taken in anything other than its literal connotation. The verse must therefore be understood: How did you consider him so significant, that you gave him priority and not God? Certainly you should have honored God first. Rav Sheshet raises an objection: We learned in our mishna that in the breaks between the paragraphs one may greet an individual due to respect, and respond to another’s greeting due to respect, despite the fact that the recitation of Shema precedes the Amida prayer. Rabbi Abba explained this: The prohibition against greeting another in the morning refers specifically to when one sets out early to greet him at his door. If one simply happens to encounter another person, he is permitted to greet him. With regard to this same verse, Rabbi Yona said that Rabbi Zeira said: Anyone who tends to his own affairs before he prays, it is as though he built an altar. They said to Rabbi Yona: Did you say that it was as if one built an altar? Rabbi Yona responded to them: No; I said simply that it is prohibited. And as Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan said: A person is prohibited to attend to his own affairs before he prays, as it is stated: “Righteousness shall go before Him, and shall make His footsteps on a path” (Psalms 85:14). One should first pray and acknowledge the righteousness of his Creator, and only then should he set out on his way. And, Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan said: Anyone who first prays and only then sets out on his way, the Holy One, Blessed be He, tends to his affairs, as it is stated: “Righteousness shall go before Him, and shall make His footsteps on a path.” God will set righteousness before him and satisfy all his wishes, when he sets out on his way. Having mentioned his name, the Gemara tangentially cites what Rabbi Yona said that Rabbi Zeira said: One who goes seven nights without a dream, is called evil, as it is stated: “He who has it will abide satisfied [save’a], he will not be visited by evil” (Proverbs 19:23). Rabbi Yona reinterprets the verse: Do not read save’a, satisfied, but sheva, seven. One who sleeps for seven nights without being visited by a dream, is called evil. Rav Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said to him: Rabbi Ḥiyya said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: Anyone who fills himself with matters of Torah and goes to sleep, they do not deliver evil tidings to him, as it is stated: “He who lies satisfied, will not be visited by evil.” We learned in the mishna: These are the breaks between the paragraphs at which one is permitted to interrupt under certain circumstances. According to the first tanna, one may interrupt between the last paragraph of Shema and the blessing that follows it, but Rabbi Yehuda prohibits this. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said that one may not interrupt between eloheikhem and emet veyatziv. Furthermore, Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion? This phrase evokes the verse as it is written:

as though a sacred object is immersed in his bowels, which he may not damage, as it is stated: “The sacred is in your midst; and I will not come into the city” (Hosea 11:9). This statement indicates that it is prohibited to take a fast upon oneself. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This first ruling, that one who fasts is sacred, is referring to a case where he is able to distress himself without causing bodily harm. That second ruling, that one may not overly burden his body, deals with a situation when he is unable to distress himself while avoiding all harm, and he proceeds to fast nevertheless. Reish Lakish said: One who fasts is called pious, as it is stated: “The pious man does good [gomel] to his own soul; but he who troubles his own flesh is cruel” (Proverbs 11:17). The verb gomel can also mean weaning, or abstaining from unnecessary pleasure. Accordingly, Reish Lakish derives from this verse that one who abstains from food is called pious. Similarly, Rav Sheshet said: This student of a Torah academy who sits in observance of a fast has let a dog eat his portion. Since his fast weakens him and prevents him from studying Torah, it is considered as though a dog ate his meal, as the student derived no benefit from it. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: There is no completely stringent communal fast in Babylonia, except for the Ninth of Av alone. All other fasts, even those which are fixed and routine for the community, are treated as individual fasts, with regard to both the customs of the fast itself and the halakhot of who is obligated to fast. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Reish Lakish said: A Torah scholar is not permitted to sit in observance of a fast, due to the fact that his fasting reduces his strength for the heavenly service of Torah study and mitzvot. § The mishna taught that during the first set of fasts they eat and drink from after dark, and begin fasting in the morning. Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Huna said: With regard to an individual who took a fast upon himself, even if he ate and drank the entire night, on the following day he prays in the Amida the prayer of a fast, which begins: Answer us on the day of our fast. If after completing his fast he slept in his fast, i.e., he continued fasting throughout the night, he does not pray the prayer of a fast the next morning. Rav Yosef said: What does Rav Huna maintain in this regard? Does he hold that one does not fast for only a few hours, i.e., that fasts that do not last from daybreak until nightfall are not considered fasts at all, and therefore these extra hours of the night are not part of his fast, or perhaps he holds that one does fast for a few hours, but one who fasts for a few hours does not pray the prayer of a fast? Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Actually, Rav Huna holds that one does fast for hours, and one who fasts for a few hours does pray the prayer of a fast. But it is different here, as there are hours of the night that he did not take upon himself at the outset. Since one must take an individual fast upon himself beforehand, if he merely continues his fast into the night, these extra hours are not part of his obligation, and therefore he does not add the special prayer for a fast, Aneinu, on the following morning. § The Gemara relates: Mar Ukva happened to come to the city of Ginzak. The inhabitants of Ginzak, among other matters, asked him three questions to which he did not know the answer: First, does one fast for hours, or does one not fast for hours? Mar Ukva did not have an answer readily available. Second, are the clay jars belonging to gentiles, which have been used for storing wine, permanently prohibited, or can they be rendered permitted? He did not have an answer readily available. Thirdly, in what garments did Moses serve all seven days of inauguration, as the acting priest when Aaron and his sons were initiated into the priesthood? Once again, he did not have an answer readily available. Mar Ukva went and asked these questions in the study hall. They said to him: The halakha is: One fasts for hours, and he even prays the prayer of a fast. And the halakha is that the jars belonging to gentiles are permitted after they have not been used at all for twelve months. Finally, in what garments did Moses serve all seven days of inauguration? He did not serve in his own clothes, nor in the regular priestly garments, but in a special white cloak. Rav Kahana taught: Moses served in a white cloak that does not have a hem. Rav Ḥisda said:

is in a case where he is sitting in a boat. The traveler must be concerned about his food supply, but he need not worry that the jostling of the road might force him to exert himself, which has a tendency to cause digestive problems. Alternatively, the practical difference is in a case where he is traveling from station [avna] to station. Here the exertion of the road might cause digestive problems, but one need not be concerned about running out of food, as he can resupply along the way. The Gemara relates that when Rav Pappa traveled, along each and every parasang he would eat one loaf of bread. Rav Pappa did so because he maintained that the prohibition was due to the bowels, and as he was healthy he was not concerned that travel by road would irritate his digestion. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who has food for himself but nevertheless starves himself in years of famine will be saved from an unusual death, as it is stated: “In famine, He will redeem you from death” (Job 5:20). This is derived from the precise wording of the verse. According to its straightforward meaning, instead of “in famine,” it should have said: From famine, as one is delivered from famine. Rather, this is what the verse is saying: As a reward for starving himself in years of famine, Job will be saved from an unusual death. Similarly, Reish Lakish said: It is prohibited for a person to have conjugal relations in years of famine, so that children not be born during these difficult years. As it is stated: “And to Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came” (Genesis 41:50). It was taught in a baraita: Nevertheless, those without children may have marital relations in years of famine, as they must strive to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Likewise, the Sages taught in a baraita: When the Jewish people is immersed in distress, and one of them separates himself from the community and does not share their suffering, the two ministering angels who accompany a person come and place their hands on his head, as though he was an offering, and say: This man, so-and-so, who has separated himself from the community, let him not see the consolation of the community. A similar idea is taught in another baraita: When the community is immersed in suffering, a person may not say: I will go to my home and I will eat and drink, and peace be upon you, my soul. And if he does so, the verse says about him: “And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine; let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die” (Isaiah 22:13). And the prophecy continues with what is written afterward, in the following verse: “And the Lord of hosts revealed Himself in my ears: Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you until you die” (Isaiah 22:14). The baraita comments: Up to this point is the attribute of middling people, who merely exclude themselves from the suffering of the community. However, with regard to the attribute of wicked people, what is written about those who hope for more of these days? “Come, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and tomorrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant” (Isaiah 56:12). And what is written afterward? “The righteous perishes, and no man lays it to heart, and godly men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come” (Isaiah 57:1). This verse teaches that righteous people suffer early death to prevent them from witnessing the harm that will befall these evil people. The baraita continues: Rather, a person should be distressed together with the community. As we found with Moses our teacher that he was distressed together with the community, as it is stated during the war with Amalek: “But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat upon it” (Exodus 17:12). But didn’t Moses have one pillow or one cushion to sit upon; why was he forced to sit on a rock? Rather, Moses said as follows: Since the Jewish people are immersed in suffering, I too will be with them in suffering, as much as I am able, although I am not participating in the fighting. The baraita adds: And anyone who is distressed together with the community will merit seeing the consolation of the community. The baraita further states: And lest a person say, I have acted in secret; who will testify against me on the Day of Judgment? The tanna explains that the stones of a person’s house and the beams of a person’s house will testify against him, as it is stated: “For a stone shall cry out from the wall, and a beam out of the timber shall answer it” (Habakkuk 2:11). In the school of Rabbi Sheila they say: The two ministering angels who accompany a person will testify against him, as it is stated: “For He will give His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways” (Psalms 91:11). Rabbi Ḥidka said: A person’s soul will testify against him, as it is stated: “Keep the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your bosom” (Micah 7:5). And some say: A man’s limbs will testify against him, as it is stated: “You are My witnesses, says the Lord” (Isaiah 43:10). The baraita cites another verse that deals with judgment. “A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, He is just and righteous” (Deuteronomy 32:4). The baraita interprets “a God of faithfulness” to mean that just as punishment is exacted from the wicked in the World-to-Come even for a light transgression that they commit, so too, punishment is exacted from the righteous in this world for a light transgression that they commit. The righteous suffer their punishment in this world to purify them so they can enjoy the World-to-Come. The baraita turns to the second section of the verse: “And without iniquity.” This teaches that just as reward is paid to the righteous in the World-to-Come even for a minor mitzva that they fulfill, so too, reward is paid to the wicked in this world for even a minor mitzva that they fulfill, to give the wicked all the reward they deserve for the performance of mitzvot in this world, and deprive them of any share in the World-to-Come. With regard to the third section of the verse: “He is just and righteous,” the Sages said: At the hour of a person’s departure to his eternal home, all his deeds are enumerated before him and are rendered visible to him once again, and the deeds themselves say to him: You did such and such, in such and such a place, on such and such a day, and he says: Yes, that is exactly what happened. And they say to him: Sign a statement that this is correct, and he signs it, as it is stated: “He makes the hand of every man sign” (Job 37:7). And not only that, but after one has been shown all his deeds, he justifies the judgment upon himself, and says to them: You have judged me well. This response serves to fulfill that which is stated: “That You may be justified when You speak and be right when You judge” (Psalms 51:6). § The Gemara returns to the primary topic of the tractate, the issue of fasts. Shmuel said: Whoever sits in observance of a fast is called a sinner, as it is inappropriate to take unnecessary suffering upon oneself. The Gemara comments: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of the following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great says: What is the meaning when the verse states, with regard to a nazirite: “And he will atone for him for that he sinned by the soul [nefesh]” (Numbers 6:11). But with what soul did this nazirite sin? Rather, the nazirite sinned by the distress he caused himself when he abstained from wine, in accordance with the terms of his vow. And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? And if this nazirite, who distressed himself by abstaining only from wine, is nevertheless called a sinner and requires atonement, then with regard to one who distresses himself by abstaining from each and every matter of food and drink when he fasts, all the more so should he be considered a sinner. Conversely, Rabbi Elazar says: One who accepts a fast upon himself is called sacred, as it is stated with regard to the nazirite: “He shall be sacred, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long” (Numbers 6:5). Here too, one can apply an a fortiori inference: And if this nazirite, who distressed himself by abstaining from only one matter, wine, is nevertheless called sacred, then with regard to one who distresses himself by abstaining from every matter, all the more so should he be considered sacred. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Shmuel, the nazirite is indeed called sacred, as stated by Rabbi Elazar. The Gemara answers: That verse is referring to the sanctity of the growth of the locks, as the nazirite’s hair does possess an element of sanctity, but it does not refer to the nazirite himself. The Gemara reverses the question: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, the nazirite is called a sinner. The Gemara answers: That verse refers specifically to a nazirite who rendered himself ritually impure by coming into contact with a dead body, an act that is prohibited for him. This particular nazirite must bring an offering to atone “for that he sinned by the soul.” The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar actually say this, that fasting is a virtuous act? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: A person should always consider himself as though a sacred object is immersed in his bowels, which he may not damage, as it is stated: “The sacred is in your midst; and I will not come into the city” (Hosea 11:9). This statement indicates that it is prohibited to take a fast upon oneself. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This first ruling, that one who fasts is sacred, is referring to a case where he is able to distress himself without causing bodily harm. That second ruling, that one may not overly burden his body, deals with a situation when he is unable to distress himself while avoiding all harm, and he proceeds to fast nevertheless. Reish Lakish said: One who fasts is called pious, as it is stated: “The pious man does good [gomel] to his own soul; but he who troubles his own flesh is cruel” (Proverbs 11:17). The verb gomel can also mean weaning, or abstaining from unnecessary pleasure. Accordingly, Reish Lakish derives from this verse that one who abstains from food is called pious. Similarly, Rav Sheshet said: This student of a Torah academy who sits in observance of a fast has let a dog eat his portion. Since his fast weakens him and prevents him from studying Torah, it is considered as though a dog ate his meal, as the student derived no benefit from it. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: There is no completely stringent communal fast in Babylonia, except for the Ninth of Av alone. All other fasts, even those which are fixed and routine for the community, are treated as individual fasts, with regard to both the customs of the fast itself and the halakhot of who is obligated to fast. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Reish Lakish said: A Torah scholar is not permitted to sit in observance of a fast, due to the fact that his fasting reduces his strength for the heavenly service of Torah study and mitzvot. § The mishna taught that during the first set of fasts they eat and drink from after dark, and begin fasting in the morning. Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Huna said: With regard to an individual who took a fast upon himself, even if he ate and drank the entire night, on the following day he prays in the Amida the prayer of a fast, which begins: Answer us on the day of our fast. If after completing his fast he slept in his fast, i.e., he continued fasting throughout the night, he does not pray the prayer of a fast the next morning. Rav Yosef said: What does Rav Huna maintain in this regard? Does he hold that one does not fast for only a few hours, i.e., that fasts that do not last from daybreak until nightfall are not considered fasts at all, and therefore these extra hours of the night are not part of his fast, or perhaps he holds that one does fast for a few hours, but one who fasts for a few hours does not pray the prayer of a fast? Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Actually, Rav Huna holds that one does fast for hours, and one who fasts for a few hours does pray the prayer of a fast. But it is different here, as there are hours of the night that he did not take upon himself at the outset. Since one must take an individual fast upon himself beforehand, if he merely continues his fast into the night, these extra hours are not part of his obligation, and therefore he does not add the special prayer for a fast, Aneinu, on the following morning. § The Gemara relates: Mar Ukva happened to come to the city of Ginzak. The inhabitants of Ginzak, among other matters, asked him three questions to which he did not know the answer: First, does one fast for hours, or does one not fast for hours? Mar Ukva did not have an answer readily available. Second, are the clay jars belonging to gentiles, which have been used for storing wine, permanently prohibited, or can they be rendered permitted? He did not have an answer readily available. Thirdly, in what garments did Moses serve all seven days of inauguration, as the acting priest when Aaron and his sons were initiated into the priesthood? Once again, he did not have an answer readily available. Mar Ukva went and asked these questions in the study hall. They said to him: The halakha is: One fasts for hours, and he even prays the prayer of a fast. And the halakha is that the jars belonging to gentiles are permitted after they have not been used at all for twelve months. Finally, in what garments did Moses serve all seven days of inauguration? He did not serve in his own clothes, nor in the regular priestly garments, but in a special white cloak. Rav Kahana taught: Moses served in a white cloak that does not have a hem. Rav Ḥisda said:

the verse therefore states: “And he shall consecrate to the Lord the days of his naziriteship, and he shall bring a lamb in its first year for a guilt-offering,” indicating: Even though he has not brought his guilt-offering he has nevertheless consecrated his days for the start of a new term of naziriteship. The opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, is as follows: The verse states: “And he shall consecrate to the Lord the days of his naziriteship, and he shall bring,” which means: When has he consecrated his days of naziriteship, i.e., when does his new term of naziriteship begin? It begins when he has already brought his guilt-offering. The Gemara poses a question: Who is the tanna who taught this that the Sages taught: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and became ritually impure, leading her to designate a bird for a sin-offering, a bird for a burnt-offering, and a sheep for a guilt-offering, and afterward her husband nullified her vow of naziriteship for her, she brings the bird sin-offering and she does not bring the bird burnt-offering? Rav Ḥisda said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, the burnt-offering is a gift, and she would bring it despite the fact that her naziriteship was nullified. According to Rabbi Yishmael, the burnt-offering is part of the atonement process, and since her naziriteship was nullified, there is no longer a need for atonement. The Gemara asks: What does he hold? If he holds that the husband uproots a vow entirely when he nullifies it, and she is considered not to have vowed at all, she should not bring the bird sin-offering, as she was never a nazirite, and she does not need atonement. Conversely, if he holds that the husband severs the vow from that point onward, but it did take effect beforehand, she should also bring the bird burnt-offering, as she requires atonement for becoming impure while she was a nazirite. The Gemara answers: Actually, he holds that the husband uproots the vow, and why is she obliged to bring a sin-offering? Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, the esteemed one, says: What is the meaning when the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “And make atonement for him, for he sinned by the soul” (Numbers 6:11)? And with which soul did this person sin by becoming a nazirite? Rather, in afflicting himself by abstaining from wine, he is considered to have sinned with his own soul, and he must bring a sin-offering for the naziriteship itself, for causing his body to suffer. And an a fortiori inference can be learned from this: Just as this person, in afflicting himself by abstaining only from wine, is nevertheless called a sinner, in the case of one who afflicts himself by abstaining from everything, through fasting or other acts of mortification, all the more so is he described as a sinner. According to this opinion, Rabbi Yishmael holds that since the woman afflicted herself by abstaining from wine she must bring a sin-offering, even though, due to her husband’s nullification, she did not actually become a nazirite. The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Elazar HaKappar’s dictum: But this verse, labeling the nazirite a sinner, is written with regard to an impure nazirite, and we are saying that even a pure nazirite is a sinner. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar holds that a pure nazirite is also a sinner. And this is the reason that the statement that a nazirite is a sinner is written in reference to an impure nazirite rather than a pure one: Since he repeated his sin, as his impurity causes him to start his naziriteship again, he thereby deprives himself for a longer period. He should have taken extra care to prevent this from happening. § The mishna taught that if one took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, left the cemetery, and then entered it again, the days he spent outside do count as part of his tally of his term of naziriteship, and he is obligated to bring the offerings of ritual impurity upon reentering the cemetery. The mishna teaches: They do count as part of his tally. The Gemara questions the meaning of this linkage: Does naziriteship take effect for him because he merely left the ritually impure place? He is still ritually impure, and he cannot begin counting his term of naziriteship until after he has undergone the purification process. Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a case where he left and received the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer on the third day, and he again received the sprinkling on the seventh day and immersed, after which he entered the cemetery a second time. Since he is now ritually pure, his naziriteship takes effect. The Gemara poses another question: According to the precise reading of the mishna, his term of naziriteship starts only if he reentered the cemetery; however, is it only if he returned and entered the cemetery that those days count as part of his tally, but if he did not enter, and remained outside the cemetery, those days do not count as part of his tally? Why should the start of the naziriteship be dependent upon his reentering the cemetery? The Gemara answers: The tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to state this halakha, that those days count as part of his tally, in the case of one who left the cemetery and began his naziriteship, but even if he entered the cemetery again immediately after his purification, those days count as part of his tally, and he will be obligated to bring the offerings of ritual impurity upon his reentry. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: What is the reason you did not explain it to us with these words of Shmuel, as explained above? He said to them: I said to myself that perhaps you do not require that explanation, as I thought it was apparent that this is the proper explanation of the mishna. § The mishna also taught an additional halakha: Rabbi Eliezer says: This halakha does not apply to one who entered the cemetery on that very day that he left it, as it is stated with regard to the halakhot of an impure nazirite: “But the first days shall be void” (Numbers 6:12), which indicates that he does not bring the offerings unless he had his “first days” of ritual purity, during which he observed his naziriteship. Ulla said: Rabbi Eliezer said this halakha, that one day of naziriteship in purity is not sufficient to obligate him to bring offerings if he becomes impure, only with regard to an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship, but a pure nazirite who became impure, even if he was only pure for one day of naziriteship, it negates that day of his tally and he must bring the offerings of an impure nazirite.