אֵין הַבּוֹגֶרֶת רַשָּׁאָה לְנַוֵּול אֶת עַצְמָהּ בִּימֵי אֵבֶל אָבִיהָ. הָא נַעֲרָה רַשָּׁאָה.

A grown woman, i.e., a girl over twelve and a half, who is old enough to be married, is not permitted to render herself unattractive during the days of mourning for her father, as this would adversely affect her chances of marriage. The Gemara infers that this halakha applies only to a grown woman, whereas a young woman, a girl between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half, who is not yet old enough to be married, is permitted to render herself unattractive.

מַאי לָאו בִּרְחִיצָה? וּבְמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּחַמִּין, אֵין הַבּוֹגֶרֶת רַשָּׁאָה? וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אָבֵל אָסוּר לְהוֹשִׁיט אֶצְבָּעוֹ בְּחַמִּין! אֶלָּא לָאו בְּצוֹנֵן? לָא. אַכִּיחוּל וּפִירְכּוּס.

The Gemara analyzes this halakha : What, is it not referring to the prohibition against bathing? And in what kind of water may a grown woman bathe? If we say that the baraita is referring to hot water, is a grown woman not permitted to render herself unattractive by refraining from washing in hot water? But didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: It is prohibited for a mourner to insert even his finger into hot water for the purpose of washing. Rather, is it not the case that it is permitted for a grown woman to bathe in cold water, from which it may be inferred that it is not permitted for a young woman to bathe even in cold water. The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is not speaking of bathing at all. Rather it is referring to painting the eyes and dyeing [ pirkus ] one’s hair, which it is permitted for a grown woman to do during mourning.

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא הַכֹּהֵן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן: מַעֲשֶׂה וּמֵתוּ בָּנָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, וְרָחַץ בְּצוֹנֵן כָּל שִׁבְעָה!

The Gemara proposes: Let say that the aforementioned baraita supports Rava’s ruling. As Rabbi Abba the priest said in the name of Rabbi Yosei the priest: An incident occurred in which the sons of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, died, and he bathed in cold water all seven days of mourning. This ruling apparently indicates that a mourner is permitted to bathe in cold water.

אָמְרִי: הָתָם בְּשֶׁתְּכָפוּהוּ אֲבָלָיו זֶה אַחַר זֶה. דְּתַנְיָא: תְּכָפוּהוּ אֲבָלָיו בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, הִכְבִּיד שְׂעָרוֹ, מֵיקֵל בְּתַעַר, וּמְכַבֵּס כְּסוּתוֹ בְּמַיִם. אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּתַעַר, אֲבָל לֹא בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם. בְּמַיִם, וְלֹא בְּנֶתֶר וְלֹא בְּחוֹל וְלֹא בְּאָהָל.

The Gemara responds: This is not a proof, as they say: There it is referring to a case where his mourning periods came immediately one after the other, as it is taught in a baraita : If one’s mourning periods came immediately one after the other and his hair grew heavy, he may lighten it with a razor, and he may wash his garment in water. And Rav Ḥisda said: He may trim his hair with a razor, but not with scissors. Likewise, he may wash his garment in water, but not with natron, nor with sand, and nor with iceplant.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אָמַר רָבָא: אָבֵל אָסוּר בְּצוֹנֵן כָּל שִׁבְעָה. מַאי שְׁנָא מִבָּשָׂר וְיַיִן? הָתָם לְפַכּוּחֵי פַּחְדֵּיהּ הוּא דְּעָבֵיד.

The foregoing is one version of Rava’s opinion and the ensuing discussion. Some say a different version of this debate. Rava said: It is prohibited for a mourner to bathe in cold water all seven days of mourning. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from eating meat and drinking wine, which a mourner is permitted to do? The Gemara responds: There, he acts to relieve his anxieties. Since a mourner is typically distressed over the death of a close relative, the Sages permitted him to fortify himself with strong food and drink.

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: אֵין הַבּוֹגֶרֶת רַשָּׁאָה לְנַוֵּול עַצְמָהּ. הָא נַעֲרָה רַשָּׁאָה. בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּחַמִּין, אֵין הַבּוֹגֶרֶת רַשָּׁאָה? וְהָאֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אָבֵל אָסוּר לְהוֹשִׁיט אֶצְבָּעוֹ בְּחַמִּין! אֶלָּא לָאו בְּצוֹנֵן? לָא. אַכִּיחוּל וּפִירְכּוּס.

The Gemara proposes: Let say that the following baraita supports Rava’s ruling. A grown woman is not permitted to render herself unattractive during the days of mourning for her father. As above, the Gemara infers that this halakha applies only to a grown woman, but a young woman is permitted to render herself unattractive. In what kind of water may a grown woman bathe? If we say that this is referring to hot water, is a grown woman not permitted to refrain from washing in hot water? But didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: It is prohibited for a mourner to insert his finger into hot water for the purpose of washing. Rather, is it not the case that the baraita is referring to bathing in cold water? The Gemara answers: No; the baraita is speaking of painting the eyes and dyeing the hair.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: אָבֵל אָסוּר בְּתִכְבּוֹסֶת כָּל שִׁבְעָה. וְהִלְכְתָא: אָבֵל אָסוּר לִרְחוֹץ כָּל גּוּפוֹ בֵּין בְּחַמִּין וּבֵין בְּצוֹנֵן כָּל שִׁבְעָה. אֲבָל פָּנָיו, יָדָיו, וְרַגְלָיו בְּחַמִּין אָסוּר, בְּצוֹנֵן מוּתָּר. אֲבָל לָסוּךְ, אֲפִילּוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר. וְאִם לְעַבֵּר אֶת הַזּוּהֲמָא, מוּתָּר.

Rav Ḥisda said: That is to say, i.e., as the baraita states that it is permitted for a grown woman who observes successive periods of mourning to paint and dye her hair, the same halakha evidently applies to laundry, from which it may be inferred that in an unexceptional case it is prohibited for a mourner to wash laundry all seven days of mourning. And the practical halakha is: It is prohibited for a mourner to bathe his entire body both in hot water and in cold water all seven days of mourning. However, with regard to his face, his hands, and his feet, although it is prohibited to bathe them in hot water, in cold water it is permitted. However, with regard to smearing with oil, even any minimal amount of smearing is prohibited. But if one does so to remove the dirt, it is permitted.

צְלוֹתָא דְּתַעֲנִיתָא הֵיכִי מַדְכַּרִינַן? אַדְבְּרֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לְרַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ, וְדָרַשׁ: יָחִיד שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו תַּעֲנִית מִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁל תַּעֲנִית. וְהֵיכָן אוֹמְרָהּ? בֵּין גּוֹאֵל לְרוֹפֵא.

§ The Gemara returns to the discussion of the Aneinu prayer, recited on fast days. The prayer of a fast, how does one mention it? Rav Yehuda granted his son Rav Yitzḥak general permission to expound publicly, while instructing him in the substance of what he should say, and Rav Yitzḥak taught: An individual who took a fast upon himself prays the prayer of a fast. And where in the Amida does he recite this additional prayer? Between the seventh blessing of the Amida : Who redeems, and the eighth blessing: Who heals.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב יִצְחָק: וְכִי יָחִיד קוֹבֵעַ בְּרָכָה לְעַצְמוֹ? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק: בְּשׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִלָּה. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בְּשׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִלָּה.

Rav Yitzḥak strongly objects to this: But may an individual establish a blessing for himself, in addition to the fixed blessings of the Amida ? Rather, Rav Yitzḥak said: One mentions his fast in the blessing: Who listens to prayer, in accordance with the general principle that an individual may insert private requests into this general plea for the acceptance of prayers, including matters outside the scope of the established blessings. And similarly, Rav Sheshet said: One recites the prayer for a fast day in the blessing: Who listens to prayer.

מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין בֵּין יָחִיד לְצִבּוּר אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה מִתְפַּלֵּל שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה וְזֶה מִתְפַּלֵּל תְּשַׁע עֶשְׂרֵה. מַאי יָחִיד וּמַאי צִבּוּר? אִילֵימָא: יָחִיד מַמָּשׁ, וְצִבּוּר שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר, הָנֵי תְּשַׁע עֶשְׂרֵה? עֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבַּע הָווּ!

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita : The only halakhic difference between an individual and a community is that this one, an individual, prays eighteen blessings Amida , and that one, a community, prays nineteen blessings. The Gemara analyzes this statement: What is an individual and what is a community in this context? If we say that an individual means an actual individual, and community is referring to the communal prayer leader, are there really only nineteen blessings in the communal Amida of a fast? There are twenty-four blessings. As will be explained, six additional blessings are added on communal fast days.

אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין בֵּין יָחִיד דְּקִבֵּל עָלָיו תַּעֲנִית יָחִיד לְיָחִיד שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו תַּעֲנִית צִבּוּר, אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה מִתְפַּלֵּל שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה וְזֶה מִתְפַּלֵּל תְּשַׁע עֶשְׂרֵה. שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: יָחִיד קוֹבֵעַ בְּרָכָה לְעַצְמוֹ!

Rather, is it not the case that this is what the baraita is saying: The only halakhic difference between an individual who took an individual fast upon himself and an individual who took a communal fast upon himself, is only that this one prays eighteen blessings, as he mentions his fast in the blessing: Who listens to prayer, and that one prays nineteen blessings. Learn from this statement that an individual may establish an individual blessing for himself.

לָא. לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר. וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר עֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבַּע מַצְלֵי, בְּשָׁלֹשׁ תַּעֲנִיּוֹת רִאשׁוֹנוֹת דְּלֵיכָּא עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע.

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, actually I could say to you that this mention of a community is referring to the prayer leader. And with regard to what poses a difficultly for you, that the prayer leader prays twenty-four blessings, the baraita is referring to the first three fasts, in which there are not twenty-four blessings, but only the usual eighteen blessings, plus one additional blessing for fast days.

וְלָא? וְהָא אֵין בֵּין קָתָנֵי: אֵין בֵּין שָׁלֹשׁ רִאשׁוֹנוֹת לְשָׁלֹשׁ אֶמְצָעִיּוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּאֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין בַּעֲשִׂיַּית מְלָאכָה וּבְאֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין בַּעֲשִׂיַּית מְלָאכָה. הָא לְעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע, זֶה וְזֶה שָׁוִין!

The Gemara questions this resolution: And are the six additional blessings not recited on the first series of communal fasts? But with regard to this issue, a baraita taught the instructive phrase: The only difference between them, as follows: The difference between the first three fasts and the middle three fasts is only that on these first fasts it is permitted to perform work, and on these middle fasts it is prohibited to perform work. This indicates that with regard to reciting all twenty-four blessings, both this and that are identical.

תָּנָא וְשִׁיֵּיר. מַאי שִׁיֵּיר דְּהַאי שִׁיֵּיר? וְתוּ, וְהָא אֵין בֵּין קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא, תַּנָּא בְּאִיסּוּרֵי קָא מַיְירֵי, בִּתְפִלּוֹת לֹא מַיְירֵי. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּאֶמְצָעִיָיתָא נַמִי לָא מְצַלֵּי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע.

The Gemara rejects this argument: The tanna taught some of the differences between the fasts, and omitted some of them. The Gemara asks: What else did the tanna omit that you can justifiably claim that he omitted this case? In other words, it is possible for the tanna to have omitted a few examples, but he would not have omitted a single case. And furthermore, the baraita does not merely offer a list of differences, as it teaches: The difference between them is only. This phrase indicates that this is the only difference. Rather, the tanna is speaking of the various prohibitions of fast days, but he is not speaking of other differences, such as those that involve the details of prayers. And if you wish, say instead that on the middle three fasts too, the prayer leader does not pray twenty-four blessings, as the six additional blessings are recited only during the last series of fasts.

וְלָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין בֵּין שָׁלֹשׁ שְׁנִיּוֹת לְשֶׁבַע אַחֲרוֹנוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּאֵלּוּ מַתְרִיעִין וְנוֹעֲלִין אֶת הַחֲנוּיּוֹת. הָא לְכָל דִּבְרֵיהֶן, זֶה וְזֶה שָׁוִין! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכָא נַמִי תָּנָא וְשִׁיֵּיר, וְהָא אֵין בֵּין קָתָנֵי!

The Gemara expresses surprise at this: And does the prayer leader not recite all twenty-four blessings during the middle three fasts? But isn’t it taught in a baraita : The difference between the second set of three fasts and the last seven fasts is only that in these they sound the alarm and lock the stores. This indicates that with regard to all their other matters, both this and that are identical. And if you say that here, too, he taught and omitted, but it teaches: The difference between them is only indicating that there is no other difference.

וְתִסְבְּרָא אֵין בֵּין דַּוְקָא?

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand it that way? Does the phrase: The difference between them is only, specifically mean that there is only a single difference between the cases?