25 Taanit 14a

But he omitted any mention of the ark and the halakha that during the last seven fast days the ark was brought into the streets of the city. The Gemara rejects this argument: If the omission is due to the ark, that is not a real omission. The reason is that the tanna teaches only matters that are performed in private, whereas he does not teach matters that are performed in public [parhesya]. Rav Ashi said: The wording of the mishna is also precise, according to this explanation, as it teaches: How are these seven fast days more stringent than the first ones? Rather, the difference is that on these days, in addition to all the earlier stringencies, they sound the alarm and they lock the stores. However, in 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: How are these more stringent, an expression that indicates that the mishna states the only difference. The Gemara asks: And how can you understand the phrase: How are these, specifically, as indicating that there is only one difference between the cases? But he omitted the ark. The Gemara responds: If the omission is due to the ark, that is not a real omission, because the tanna includes it in another chapter (15a). The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this solution, a similar answer can be applied to the earlier difficulties. The matter of the twenty-four blessings is also not an omission, as he teaches this halakha in another chapter, also on 15a, where the mishna provides further details of the blessings. Here, however, the tanna lists only those matters that are not discussed later. Since no decisive proof was offered in support of any of the opinions as to where an individual inserts the Aneinu prayer, the Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rabbi Shmuel bar Sasretai said, and similarly Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One inserts it between the seventh blessing of the Amida: Who redeems, and the eighth blessing: Who heals. And Rav Ashi said in the name of Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael: One inserts it in the blessing: Who listens to prayer. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that one includes it in the blessing: Who listens to prayer. § It is taught in one baraita: Pregnant and nursing women fast with the community on the first fasts, but they do not fast on the last fasts. And it was taught in another baraita: Pregnant and nursing women fast on the last set of fasts but they do not fast on the first set of fasts. And it was taught in yet another baraita: They do not fast either on the first fast days or on the last fast days. Rav Ashi said: Take the mention of the middle fasts in your hand as the decisive matter, as this resolves all three baraitot. The halakha is that pregnant and nursing women fast only on the middle fasts, as they are stricter than the first fasts but less taxing than the last seven fasts. Consequently, when the first baraita is referring to the first fasts, it in fact means the middle set, which is the first of the last two sets. Similarly, when the second baraita mentions the last fasts, it means the middle set, which is the last of the two sets. In the third baraita, the first and last fasts are literally the first three and last seven fasts, respectively. In this manner all three baraitot follow the same halakha. § The mishna teaches: How are these seven fast days more stringent than the first ones? Rather, the difference is that on these days, in addition to all the earlier stringencies, they sound the alarm and they lock the stores. The Gemara asks: With what do they sound the alarm? Rav Yehuda said: With shofarot. And Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: With the Aneinu prayer. The Gemara analyzes the dispute: It might enter our mind to say that the one who said that the community sounds the alarm by reciting Aneinu, i.e., Rav, did not say that they cry out with shofarot, and likewise the one who said that they do cry out with shofarot, Rav Yehuda, did not say that they sound the alarm by reciting Aneinu. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The court does not decree fewer than seven fasts on the community, which include eighteen acts of sounding the alarm. And a mnemonic for this matter is Jericho. And as there were many episodes of sounding the shofarot in Jericho, this is a conclusive refutation of the one who said that according to the opinion of Rav they sound the alarm only by reciting Aneinu. Rather, the Gemara explains that the dispute must be understood differently: With regard to shofarot, everyone, i.e., Rav and Rav Yehuda, agrees that the mishna calls this: Sounding the alarm. When they disagree, it is with regard to the Aneinu prayer. One Sage, Rav, holds that this too is called sounding the alarm, and one Sage, Rav Yehuda, holds that reciting Aneinu is not called sounding the alarm. The Gemara comments: If so, then it follows that according to the one who said that they sound the alarm by reciting Aneinu, all the more so they can do so with shofarot, but according to the one who said that they sound the alarm with shofarot, this is the way they sound the alarm; however, they may not do so with Aneinu, i.e., the community does not sound the alarm by reciting this prayer. This indicates that the Aneinu prayer is recited only in extreme cases, as it is a greater form of petitioning to God than blowing the shofar. The Gemara raises a difficulty against this conclusion. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: And with regard to all other types of calamities than drought that break out, for example scabs, plagues of locusts, flies, or hornets, or mosquitoes, or infestations of snakes or scorpions, they would not sound the alarm, but they would cry out. From the fact that crying out is, according to all opinions, a prayer recited with one’s mouth, it follows that sounding an alarm must be with shofarot. This baraita indicates that sounding the alarm with shofarot is the response to a serious situation, whereas the Aneinu prayer is recited on less worrisome occasions. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna: For the following calamities they sound the alarm even on Shabbat: For a city that is surrounded by an enemy army or in danger of being flooded by a river, or for a ship tossed about at sea. Rabbi Yosei said: An alarm may be sounded on Shabbat to summon help, but it may not be sounded for crying out to God. The Gemara clarifies this case. With what do they sound the alarm? If we say with shofarot, is the sounding of shofarot permitted on Shabbat? Even when Rosh HaShana occurs on Shabbat, one must refrain from sounding the shofar on that day. Rather, is it not the case that this is referring to the recitation of the Aneinu prayer, and yet the mishna calls this recitation: Sounding the alarm. Conclude from this that there is a tanna who maintains that sounding of the alarm is in fact performed by prayer, as claimed by Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat. § The Gemara relates: During the years of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia there was a trouble that afflicted the community.