Daf Ditty Taanis 3: The Four Winds

Aristotle’s Wind Rose

Shir Hamaccabiah

1
2
The Gemara asks: However, with regard to winds, from where do we derive that it is not
withheld but perpetually blows? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the verse states:

-‫ ְנֻאם‬--‫ ְונֻסוּ ֵמֶא ֶרץ ָצפוֹן‬,‫ י הוֹי הוֹי‬10 Ho, ho, flee then from the land of the north, saith the
,‫שַּׁמ ִים‬ָ ‫ ִכּי ְכַּא ְרַבּע רוּחוֹת ַה‬:‫ ְיהָוה‬LORD; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds
.‫ ְיהָוה‬-‫ ְנֻאם‬--‫ֵפּ ַרְשִׂתּי ֶאְתֶכם‬ of the heaven, saith the LORD.
Zech 2:10

“For I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, says the Lord”

He clarifies: What is God saying to them? If we say that this is what the Holy One, Blessed be
He, is saying to the Jewish people: I have scattered you to the four winds of the world; if so,
why did He say, “as the four winds”? He should have said: To the four winds. Rather, this is
what God is saying: Just as the world cannot exist without winds, so too, the world cannot
exist without the Jewish people. This interpretation of the verse is based on the claim that the
winds never cease.

3
Rabbi Ḥanina said: Therefore, since wind and dew are always present, if during the summer
one recited: He makes the wind blow, we do not require him to return and repeat the blessing
since the wind blows during the summer as well. However, if one recited during the summer: He
makes the rain fall, we require him to return and repeat the blessing, because rain in the summer
is a curse.

Conversely, in the rainy season, if one did not recite: He makes the wind blow, we do not
require him to return to the beginning, because the wind blows regardless. If one did not recite:
He makes the rain fall, we require him to return and repeat the blessing. And not only that,
but even if one mistakenly recited: He removes the wind and lifts the dew, i.e., that there should
be no wind or dew, we do not require him to return and repeat the blessing, because wind and
dew are always present.

It was taught in a similar baraita: With regard to clouds and with regard to wind, the Sages did
not obligate one to mention them, but if one wishes to mention them, he may mention them.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers, as above: Because clouds and winds
are constant and are not withheld.

4
The Gemara asks: And are they not withheld? But didn’t Rav Yosef teach in a baraita that the
verse:

-‫ ְוָﬠַצר ֶאת‬,‫ ְיהָוה ָבֶּכם‬-‫יז ְוָחָרה ַאף‬
‫ ל ֹא ִתֵתּן‬,‫ ְוָהֲאָדָמה‬,‫ ִיְהֶיה ָמָטר‬-‫ַהָשַּׁמ ִים ְול ֹא‬
‫ ֵמַﬠל ָהָאֶרץ‬,‫ ְיבוָּלהּ; ַוֲאַבְדֶתּם ְמֵהָרה‬-‫ֶאת‬
.‫ ֹנֵתן ָלֶכם‬,‫ ֲאֶשׁר ְיהָוה‬,‫ַהֹטָּבה‬
17 and the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and
He shut up the heaven, so that there shall be no rain, and
the ground shall not yield her fruit; and ye perish quickly
from off the good land which the LORD giveth you.
Deut 11:17

“And He will close up the heavens” means that God will stop up the heavens from the clouds
and from the winds? Do you say that “close up the heavens” means from the clouds and from
the winds, or perhaps it is only referring to the absence of rainfall? When the same verse says:
“So that there will be no rain,” rain is already mentioned explicitly. How then do I uphold the

5
meaning of the verse: “And He will close up the heavens”? This must mean from the clouds and
from the winds.

The Gemara summarizes its question: This is difficult due to the contradiction between the
statement about wind in the first baraita and the statement about wind in the second baraita, and
is similarly difficult due to the contradiction between the statement about clouds in the first
baraita and the statement about clouds in the second baraita. The Gemara answers: The
contradiction between one statement about clouds and the other statement about clouds is not
difficult, as this first baraita is referring to early clouds that precede the rain, which come whether
or not rain actually falls, whereas this second baraita is referring to late clouds, which materialize
after rainfall. These late clouds are sometimes withheld by God as a punishment.

6
Likewise, the contradiction between the first statement about wind and the second statement about
wind is not difficult, as this first baraita is referring to a typical wind, which is never withheld,
while this second baraita is referring to an atypical wind, which may be withheld. The Gemara
asks: An atypical wind is fit for winnowing grain on the threshing floor. Since this wind is also
a necessity, one should pray for it as well. The Gemara answers: Since it is possible to winnow
grain with sieves when there is no wind, there is no great need for these winds.

7
§ It was taught in a baraita: Clouds and winds are so significant that, in terms of their benefit,
they are secondary only to rain. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which this
claim is correct? Ulla, and some say Rav Yehuda, said: The baraita is referring to the clouds
and winds that come after rainfall. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that clouds and winds that
come after rain are beneficial? But isn’t it written in the chapter of the curses:

‫ ָאָבק‬,q‫ְמַטר ַא ְרְצ‬-‫ כד ִיֵתּן ְיהָוה ֶאת‬24 The LORD will make the rain of thy land powder and
‫ ַﬠד‬,q‫ַהָשַּׁמ ִים ֵיֵרד ָﬠֶלי‬-‫ ִמן‬:‫ ְוָﬠָפר‬dust; from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou
.t‫ִהָשְּׁמָד‬ be destroyed.
Deut 28:24

8
 “The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust” and Ulla, and some say Rav
Yehuda, said: This curse is referring to winds that come after rain, as they raise up powder and
dust?

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, since this first statement of Ulla is referring to
beneficial wind that comes gently, whereas this second statement of Ulla is referring to harmful
wind that comes forcefully [razya], raises up powder and dust, and reduces the effectiveness of
the rain. And if you wish, say instead: This, Ulla’s second statement, is referring to wind that
raises dust; whereas this, Ulla’s first statement, is referring to wind that does not raise dust.

And on a related topic, Rav Yehuda said: Wind that blows after rain is as beneficial to the earth
as rain itself. Clouds that appear after rain are as beneficial as rain, while sunlight that follows
after rain is as beneficial as two rainfalls. The Gemara asks: If wind, clouds, and sun are all
beneficial after rainfall, what does Rav Yehuda’s statement serve to exclude? The Gemara
answers: He comes to exclude the glow of the evening and the sun that shines between the
clouds, appearing only in patches. These phenomena are harmful after rain.

9
Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

WATER-LIBATIONS

Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseirah maintains that we begin mentioning rain on the second day of
Sukkos. The Gemora cites a Scriptural allusion indicating that the water-libation services began
on the second day of Sukkos and therefore that is the time designated to begin mentioning morid
hageshem.

It is written regarding the tamid brought on the second day of Sukkos: v’nischeihem – and their
libations (with an extra letter ‘mem’), and on the sixth day, it is written: un’sache’ha – and its
libations (with an extra letter ‘yud’), and on the seventh day, it is written (regarding the karban
Mussaf): k’mishpatam – according to their laws (with an extra letter ‘mem’). Behold, we have a

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Taanis_3.pdf

10
‘mem,’ ‘yud’ and ‘mem,’ which spells out ‘mayim’ – water. This is the Scriptural allusion
indicating that there is a water-libation service on Sukkos.

The Gemora asks: But why was the second day (of Sukkos) designated as the day (for the
beginning of the mention of Powers of Rain)? The Gemora answers: Since it was alluded to in
connection to the second day of Sukkos, we begin mentioning it (the Powers of Rain) on the second
day. Rabbi Akiva rules that we begin mentioning morid hageshem on the sixth day of Sukkos. The
Gemora cites a Scriptural verse allusion indicating that the water-libation services began on the
sixth day of Sukkos and therefore that is the time designated to begin mentioning morid hageshem.
It is written regarding the tamid brought on the sixth day of Sukkos: un’sache’ha – and its libations
(in the plural form). This connotes two libations: One, a libation of water, and the other, a libation
of wine (which comes with the korbanos).

The Gemora asks: perhaps they both are referring to wine? The Gemora answers: He agrees with
the exposition of Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseirah who said that water is alluded to in the verses. The
Gemora asks: If he holds like Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseirah, then let him say like him (and the
mentioning of the Powers of Rain should begin on the second day)? The Gemora answers: Rabbi
Akiva holds that the extra libation is alluded to in the sixth day (and therefore, then is when the
mentioning begins).

WATER LIBATION

The Gemora cites a braisa in which Rabbi Nassan learns the requirement for a water libation from
hasech nesech, the repetitive phrase in the verse about the daily tamid's libation. Since the verse
didn't use the same word, we learn that the two libations are from different liquids (including
water), and not both wine.

The Gemora asks: Who is the author of the Mishna which states that the water libation was for
seven days of Sukkos? The Gemora assumes that the water libation begins on the same day we
begin mentioning rain. Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that we start on the 7th day, should
say that water libation is just on that day; Rabbi Akiva, who says that we start on the 6th day,
should say that the water libation is just for the last 2 days, and Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseirah, who
says that we start on the 2nd day, should say that it should just be for 6 days. The Gemora suggests
that the author is Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseirah. Although he says that the libation starts on the
second day, he also agrees with Rabbi Yehudah who says that it was also done on the 8 th day,
giving a total of seven days.

The Gemora rejects this, since Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseirah's reason for excluding the first day is
the fact that the source for water libation starts in the verse about the second day's sacrifice. By the
same reasoning, he should say that the water libation ends on the 7th day, since the source ends in
the verse about the 7th day's sacrifice. Therefore the Gemora answers that the author can even be
Rabbi Yehoshua since he learns the details of water libations from an orally transmitted halachah
from Moshe.

The Gemora supports this from a statement of Rabbi Ami in the name of Rabbi Yochanan citing
Rabbi Nechunia from the valley of Bais Choron that the permission to plow a field with ten

11
saplings until Shemittah the use of aravah on Sukkos in the Bais Hamikdash, and water libations
are all halachos transmitted orally to Moshe at Mt. Sinai.

STARTING FROM MUSSAF

The Gemora returns to discuss the statement of Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua
cited in the braisa. He said that we start mentioning rain at mussaf of the 8th day of Sukkos, and
stop mentioning it at mussaf of the first day of Pesach. The Gemora says that this is inconsistent
with the Mishna's version of Rabbi Yehoshua, which is the 8th day, which is presumably at the
start of the day, and it is also inconsistent with the braisa's version, which is the 7th day, when the
lulav is put down.

Furthermore, the Gemora cites another version of the braisa in which Rabbi Yehudah cites the
same opinion in the name of Ben Beseirah, which is inconsistent with the earlier braisa's version
of Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseirah, which is the second day. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says that
Rabbi Yehudah is quoting Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beseirah, who was called Ben Beseirah before he
had full authority to rule, and Rabbi Yehoshua afterwards

DEW AND WIND

The Gemora cites a braisa which says that the Sages didn't require one to mention dew or wind,
but one may mention them. Rabbi Chanina explains that this is because they are always present,
so there is no need to mention them. The Gemora proves that dew is never removed from the story
of Eliyahu's promise that there would be no rain. When he proclaimed it, he said that there wouldn't
be any rain or dew, but when Hashem restored the rain, it just says that rain will return, implying
that dew never stopped.

Eliyahu nonetheless promised that their dew would stop, since he was referring to dew of blessing,
which is not always present. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi proves that wind is always present from
the verse in which Hashem says that He has spread the Jewish people like the four winds (i.e.,
directions) of the heavens. If the verse means that Hashem has spread them in all directions, it
should have said to four winds. Rather, the phrase like the wind teaches us that just as the world
always needs the Jewish people, so too it always needs winds.

Rabbi Chanina concludes that in the summer, one must repeat Shemoneh Esrei if one mentioned
rain, but not if one mentioned wind, while in the winter, one must repeat it if one omitted mention
of rain, but not if one omitted mention of wind. Furthermore, even if he said that Hashem removes
the wind and diffuses the dew, he need not repeat it.

CLOUDS AND WIND

The Gemora cites a braisa which says that the Sages didn't require one to mention clouds or wind,
but one may mention them. The Gemora explains that this is because they too are always present.
The Gemora challenges this from Rav Yosef who taught that the verse which warns that Hashem
will stop the sky means that he will stop clouds and wind, since the continuation of the verse
explicitly mentions the stopping of rain.

12
The Gemora answers that Rav Yosef was referring to later clouds, which sometimes stop, but early
clouds are always present, and Rav Yosef was referring to uncommonly strong winds, which
sometimes stop, but common winds are always present. Although strong winds are helpful for
winnowing, that can be done by sifting. The Gemora cites a braisa which says that clouds and
winds are almost as beneficial as rain. Ulla explains that this refers to those that occur after the
rain. The Gemora challenges this from Ulla (or Rav Yehudah) who says that the curse that Hashem
will make the rain of your land into dust refers to wind after the rain. The Gemora answers that
strong winds after rain kicks up dust which covers the plants, which is harmful, but a soft wind
after the rain is beneficial.

BENEFICIAL WEATHER

Rav Yehudah says that wind after rain is like the rain, clouds after rain is like the rain, and sun
after rain is like double the rain. The Gemora explains that this is in contrast to night lightning and
sun which appears through the clouds, which are not like the rain even when they come after it.
Rava says that snow is as beneficial to mountains like five rainfalls on the ground, as the verse
says that Hashem says to the snow to [fall on] the ground, and geshem – rain (1) matar – rain (1)
and geshem - rain (1) matros - rains (2) of His strength, referring to five instances of rain.

Rava says that snow is beneficial for mountains, heavy rain is beneficial for trees, soft rain is
beneficial for grain, while urfila - light rain is even beneficial for the seeds in the ground. The
Gemora explains that it is called urfila since it calls “Wake up (uru), seeds in the cracks (fili).”

DEW, WIND AND CLOUDS VARIOUS CUSTOMS

The Gemora cites a braisa which rules that it is not compulsory to mention dew and winds in
Shemoneh Esrei since the world cannot exist without them. If one desires to mention them, he may
do so. The Gemora cites Scriptural verses that dew and wind are never withheld. There are several
different customs regarding the saying of tal during Shemoneh Esrei. It can be implied from Tosfos
that in the winter season, they would say mashiv haruach u’morid hageshem u’morid hatal. The
Ran writes that they would not say morid hatal in the winter.

The Rambam in Hilchos Tefillah (2:15) rules that morid hatal is not recited during the winter
season. In regard to the summer season, the Tur (114) and the Rama write that it is the Ashkenazi
custom not to mention tal at all. The Rambam cites the minhag Sfard that tal is mentioned during
the summer months.

The Gr”A states that this viewpoint can be found in the Yerushalmi. The Bach explains the opinion
of the Tur to mean that they would recite mashiv haruach u’morid hatal. The Beis Yosef disagrees
and maintains that they would only say morid hatal.

The Magen Avraham seemingly states like the Bach; however the Machtzis Hashekel claims that
there was a printer’s mistake in the Magen Avraham and in truth, he holds like the Beis Yosef that
mashiv haruach is not said in the summertime. There are different customs regarding the request

13
for dew. Some have the custom to ask for dew during the summer season and during the winter. It
has become our custom to request dew only in the winter.

It is noteworthy that there are different customs regarding dew, wind and clouds even though the
Gemora states by all three that one is not obligated to mention them but if one desires to mention
them,he may do so. Why is it that we find different customs for each one? The Ran answers that
dew is something that is always desired. It is beneficial in the summer season and during the winter.
It is for this reason that dew is mentioned throughout the year.

This is in contrast to wind which is only preferred in the rainy season when it is required to dry the
soil and that is why mashiv haruach is only mentioned during the winter and not in the summer.
Clouds are not mentioned at all since the benefit received from them is not recognizable to the
world. [The Ritva has a different approach in answering these questions.] The following insight is
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim

MORID HA'GESHEM" OR "MORID HA'GASHEM"?

In the wintertime Shemoneh Esreh, we mention the praise of Hash-m Who brings rain -- "Morid
ha'Geshem" -- in the blessing of Gevuros ("Atah Gibor...").

The custom among Sefardic Jews (Edot ha'Mizrach), as well as those who pray according to
Nusach Sefard (such as Chasidim), is to mention "Morid ha'Tal" in the summertime in the blessing
of Gevuros. This is also the custom in Eretz Yisrael, based on the practice of the Vilna Ga'on and
the Ba'al ha'Tanya.

Most other Ashkenazic communities (outside of Eretz Yisrael) do not make this addition in the
Shemoneh Esreh in the summertime.

Many Sidurim vowelize the word "Morid ha'*Geshem*" with a Segol (the "eh" sound) and not
"Morid ha'Gashem" with a Kamatz (the "aw" or "ah" sound). This seems grammatically correct,
because only at the end of a sentence (or at the semi-sentence break marked by an Esnachta) is the
Segol under the Gimel replaced by a Kamatz.

The words "Morid ha'Geshem" are in the middle of a sentence in the Shemoneh Esreh, and thus
the word "ha'Geshem" should retain its Segol. The fact that the word "ha'Geshem" does not mark
the end or pause in a sentence is evident from the words of the TUR (OC 114).

The Tur writes that the reason why we recite "Morid ha'Geshem" immediately before the words
"Mechalkel Chayim" (and not at another point in the blessing) is because rain is also a form of
Kalkalah (sustenance) and Parnasah (livelihood). Hence, the mention of rain is the beginning of
the passage which mentions Kalkalah, and it is not the end of the previous passage ("Atah
Gibor...").

However, there is an apparent inconsistency in the Sidurim. In most Sidurim which include the
text "Morid ha'Tal" (for the summertime), the word "Tal" is spelled with a Kamatz (pronounced

14
"ha'Tawl" in the Ashkenazic pronunciation) and not with a Patach ("ha'Tahl"). According to the
rules of grammar, the word should have a Patach and not a Kamatz since it comes in the middle
of a sentence and not at the end.

When the word "Tal" appears in the Torah, the letter "Tes" usually is vowelized with a Patach,
which changes to a Kamatz only when it is at the end of a sentence or at a pause marked by an
Esnachta (see, for example, Shemos 11:9, Devarim 32:2). Since "Morid ha'Tal" is recited in place
of "Morid ha'Geshem" and is in the middle of a sentence, why is the word "Tal" spelled with a
Kamatz and not a Patach? If the Sidurim consider "Morid ha'Tal" (with a Kamatz") to be the end
of the sentence, why do they not spell "Morid ha'Gashem" with a Kamatz as well?

(a) RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN zt'l (IGROS MOSHE OC 4:40) writes that the Kamatz of "Tal" is
correct because this phrase is indeed at the end of the sentence (as many Sidurim place a period
after "Morid ha'Tal"). Accordingly, it is proper to say "Morid ha'Gashem" with a Kamatz as well,
in contrast to the spelling in many Sidurim. Such an opinion is cited by the LIKUTEI
MAHARICH. This is the way the word is punctuated ("ha'Gashem") in the authoritative
Redelheim Sidur.

(b) Others, however, point out that the text of "ha'Geshem" (with a Segol) appears in all early
Sidurim, of all Jewish communities, as well as most current Sidurim (except for those based on
the Redelheim Sidur). Moreover, as mentioned above, the logical flow of the sentence clearly
indicates that "Morid ha'Geshem" is not the end of the sentence (regardless of whether or not the
printer placed a period there). According to SEFER MECHALKEL CHAYIM, Rav Moshe
Feinstein himself retracted his opinion. Why, then, do most Sidurim spell "ha'Tal" with a Kamatz
and not a Patach?

The author of SEFER SHA'AR HA'KOLEL, printed in the back of the SHULCHAN ARUCH
HA'RAV (who explains the Nusach of the Sidur of the Ba'al ha'Tanya) suggests that the word
"Tal" is spelled with a Kamatz because it is not part of the regular text of the Shemoneh Esreh as
established by the Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah (as indicated by the fact that many Ashkenazic
communities do not say it, and the Gemara says that it is not obligatory). Rather, it was added to
the text of the Shemoneh Esreh by the Mekubalim. As such, it is a separate insertion that stands
by itself and is not part of the phrase that follows, and therefore it has a Kamatz and not a Patach.

(c) RAV YAKOV KAMINETZKY zt'l (IYUNIM B'MIKRA, p. 26) suggests that "Morid
ha'Geshem" is part of the sentence which continues with "Mechalkel Chayim," as the TUR says,
because rain brings Kalkalah and Parnasah. In contrast, the words "Morid ha'Tal" do not refer to
the Parnasah-providing elements of dew. Rather, they refer to the Tal of Techiyas ha'Mesim, the
Tal which will resurrect the dead. It is mentioned at this point because it follows the phrase
"*Mechayeh Mesim* Atah Rav l'Hoshi'a."

As such, it is actually a continuation of the previous sentence and it does not flow into the following
sentence. Therefore, it is appropriate to pause after "Morid ha'Tal" before the phrase "Mechalkel
Chayim," which discusses a different topic. Accordingly, "Morid ha'Tal" is the end of the previous
sentence which discusses Techiyas ha'Mesim, while "Morid ha'Geshem" flows into the following

15
sentence which discusses Parnasah! (Even though the verse in Tehilim 68:10 refers to "*Geshem*
Techiyah" (see Targum there), that is not the Geshem to which we refer in the Shemoneh Esreh.)

(d) Grammarians (sic) point out that this may not be an inconsistency at all. Although the Segol of
"Geshem" becomes a Kamatz only when the word completes a sentence or a clause (either at the
end of a verse or at an Esnachta pause), the Patach of "Tal" is different. It becomes a Kamatz even
at a "semi-stop," such as when the word "Tal" has the cantillation "ZakefKatan" (see, for example,
Shemos 16:13 and Devarim 33:13). (It is easier to turn a Patach into a Kamatz than a Segol into a
Kamatz.) Since a slight pause (a "comma") follows the words "Morid ha'Tal" in the blessing, even
though it is not a full stop the word "Tal" acquires a Kamatz. (It is also possible that the
pronunciation of the word in rabbinical texts may differ slightly from the Biblical pronunciation.
Perhaps in the times of the Mishnah, the word "Tal" was commonly pronounced with a Kamatz,
like "Par" or "Har," unless it was associated with the word that followed it, such as "Tal
ha'Shamayim" or "Tal Techiyah.")

DEW

The Gemora says that one may or may not mention dew and wind, since they are always present.
Rabbi Chanina concludes that in the winter, one must return if he didn't mention rain, but not if he
mentioned dew, while in the summer, one must return if he mentioned rain, but not if he omitted
dew. The Yerushalmi (cited by Tosfos, the Rif, the Rosh, and others) states that if one mentioned
rain in the summer or omitted it in the winter, he must return. However, if he mentioned dew in
the winter, even if he omitted rain, he need not return.

The Yerushalmi explains that this mention of something is sufficient, but the mention of rain in
the summer is incorrect since rain is a curse then. The Raavad says that since the Bavli does not
include the ruling about mentioning dew in the winter, it does not rule that way, and one therefore
must return if he omits rain. The other Rishonim assume that the Bavli does not disagree with the
Yerushalmi, and therefore rule like the Yerushalmi.

The Shulchan Aruch (OH 114:5) rules like the Yerushalmi. The Bais Yosef explains that the
custom among Sefardim is to mention dew throughout the summer, so that even if one forgets to
mention rain in the winter, he will not need to return, since he mentioned dew, as he was
accustomed to during the summer. The Rama (3) states that the custom of Ashkenazim is
nonetheless to never mention dew.

WHEN TO MENTION "RU'ACH" AND "TAL" IN THE SHEMONEH

ESREH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

2
https://dafyomi.co.il/taanis/insites/tn-dt-003.htm

16
The Gemara says that there is no need to mention Tal (dew), Avim (clouds), and Ru'ach (wind) in
the Shemoneh Esreh. Since they are things that are always present and do not stop, there is no need
to make a special request for them. The Gemara adds that although there is no obligation to
mention them, one is permitted to mention them. The Gemara implies that these three things were
not mentioned in the Shemoneh Esreh in the times of the Gemara.

The common practice today, however, seems problematic.

1. Today, a common practice is to mention Tal in the summertime ("Morid ha'Tal") in the blessing
of Gevuros ("Atah Gibor...") at the beginning of the Shemoneh Esreh, but not in the wintertime.
In addition, the widespread practice is to mention Tal in the wintertime in the blessing of Birkas
ha'Shanim ("v'Sen Tal u'Matar"). Sefardic Jews mention Tal in that blessing throughout the year
("... Talelei Verachah").

Why do we mention Tal at all when there is no obligation to do so? If we mention it because we
are permitted to do so, why do we mention it only during specific times of the year?

2. We mention Ru'ach in the wintertime ("Mashiv ha'Ru'ach u'Morid ha'Geshem") in the beginning
of the Shemoneh Esreh, but not in the summertime. Why?

3. We do not mention Avim at all. Why do we not mention Avim if we do mention Tal and Ru'ach,
the mention of which is also optional?

(a) The RITVA offers an approach to explain the common practice based on the rule that anything
which provides irreplaceable benefit to the world, even if it is not essential for the world's survival,
is worthy of mention in the Shemoneh Esreh.

1. He explains that Tal is mentioned in the summertime merely because without its mention the
blessing of "Atah Gibor" would seem to be lacking. Since we cannot mention Geshem in the
summertime, we mention Tal.

In Birkas ha'Shanim (She'eilah), we mention Tal as a request to Hash-m to send dew of blessing
("v'Sen Tal... l'Verachah"). The Tal of blessing does not always come and therefore it is
appropriate to ask for it in the Shemoneh Esreh. In the wintertime, no mention of Tal is made in
the Hazkarah of Geshamim because the Gevurah of Hash-m is not recognizable in Tal, for both
types of Tal (Tal of blessing and Tal which is not of blessing) look exactly the same. (The element
of blessing in Tal is spiritual.)

2. No mention of (Hazkarah) or request for (She'eilah) Ru'ach is made in the summertime because
the main benefit of the Ru'ach is when it accompanies the rain. Since no mention or request is
made for rain in the summertime, no mention or request for Ru'ach is made either.

The reason why we mention Ru'ach in the winter, even though Ru'ach is something that does not
stop, is because a specific type of Ru'ach -- a "Ru'ach she'Einah Metzuyah," a strong type of wind,
is needed for the winnowing of the grains. This type of wind is uncommon. Although the Gemara

17
says that we do not have to mention it in the Shemoneh Esreh since it is not absolutely necessary
(for other instruments can be used for the winnowing of the grains), we still mention it because it
is beneficial in two ways. First, such wind brings the rains (see also Rashi to 3a, DH l'Fi she'Einan).
Second, such wind causes the grass and vegetation to grow. Therefore, even though we are not
obligated to mention something which is not essential to the world, we mention something which
is beneficial and which has no substitute. We mention Ru'ach only in the wintertime because only
then do we benefit from it in these two ways.

3. Clouds are beneficial only when they accompany rain (as the Gemara says at the end of the Daf
when it describes the clouds that follow rain). Therefore, we do not mention clouds in the
summertime when we do not ask for rain. Why, though, do we not mention clouds in the
wintertime, if clouds are beneficial when they accompany the rain?

The Ritva explains that clouds enhance the rain only when the rain is a poor, weak rain. If the rain
is heavy and strong, the clouds do not enhance it at all. (The Gemara later continues and says that
after a heavy rain, "sun that follows the rain is beneficial....") Since we pray for heavy rains, we
do not ask for clouds. The type of rain which the clouds benefit is not the type of rain for which
we pray.

(b) The RAN suggests a different approach. He says that the general principle is that we pray for
anything which provides benefit to the world, even though there is no obligation to pray for it.

1. We mention Tal in the summertime in Hazkarah and in wintertime in She'eilah. We do not

mention Tal in Hazkarah in the wintertime only because of the necessity to emphasize the mention
of and request for rain, which is something for which we are obligated to pray.

2. We mention Ru'ach in the wintertime in Hazkarah because, as mentioned above, we pray for
whatever is beneficial to the world. We omit it from She'eilah in order to give emphasis to the
request for rain.

Why do we not mention Ru'ach in the summertime at all? The Ran answers that Ru'ach is
something which we do not need at all in the summer. It is beneficial only in the winter when it is
needed to dry the soil.

3. We do not mention clouds at all, even though they are beneficial in the wintertime when they
accompany rain, because most people do not recognize the benefit of clouds and thus mention of
clouds in the Shemoneh Esreh will appear out of place.

"MORID HA'GESHEM" OR "MORID HA'GASHEM"?

In the wintertime Shemoneh Esreh, we mention the praise of Hash-m Who brings rain -- "Morid
ha'Geshem" -- in the blessing of Gevuros ("Atah Gibor..."). The custom among Sefardic Jews
(Edot ha'Mizrach), as well as those who pray according to Nusach Sefard (such as Chasidim), is
to mention "Morid ha'Tal" in the summertime in the blessing of Gevuros (see previous Insight).
This is also the custom in Eretz Yisrael, based on the practice of the Vilna Ga'on and the Ba'al

18
ha'Tanya. Most other Ashkenazic communities (outside of Eretz Yisrael) do not make this addition
in the Shemoneh Esreh in the summertime.

Many Sidurim vowelize the word "Morid ha'*Geshem*" with a Segol (the "eh" sound) and not
"Morid ha'Gashem" with a Kamatz (the "aw" or "ah" sound). This seems grammatically correct,
because only at the end of a sentence (or at the semi-sentence break marked by an Esnachta) is the
Segol under the Gimel replaced by a Kamatz. The words "Morid ha'Geshem" are in the middle of
a sentence in the Shemoneh Esreh, and thus the word "ha'Geshem" should retain its Segol. The
fact that the word "ha'Geshem" does not mark the end or pause in a sentence is evident from the
words of the TUR (OC 114). The Tur writes that the reason why we recite "Morid ha'Geshem"
immediately before the words "Mechalkel Chayim" (and not at another point in the blessing) is
because rain is also a form of Kalkalah (sustenance) and Parnasah (livelihood). Hence, the mention
of rain is the beginning of the passage which mentions Kalkalah, and it is not the end of the
previous passage ("Atah Gibor...").

However, there is an apparent inconsistency in the Sidurim. In most Sidurim which include the
text "Morid ha'Tal" (for the summertime), the word "Tal" is spelled with a Kamatz (pronounced
"ha'Tawl" in the Ashkenazic pronunciation) and not with a Patach ("ha'Tahl"). According to the
rules of grammar, the word should have a Patach and not a Kamatz since it comes in the middle
of a sentence and not at the end. When the word "Tal" appears in the Torah, the letter "Tes" usually
is vowelized with a Patach, which changes to a Kamatz only when it is at the end of a sentence or
at a pause marked by an Esnachta (see, for example, Shemos 11:9, Devarim 32:2). Since "Morid
ha'Tal" is recited in place of "Morid ha'Geshem" and is in the middle of a sentence, why is the
word "Tal" spelled with a Kamatz and not a Patach? If the Sidurim consider "Morid ha'Tal" (with
a Kamatz") to be the end of the sentence, why do they not spell "Morid ha'Gashem" with a Kamatz
as well?

(a) RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN zt'l (IGROS MOSHE OC 4:40) writes that the Kamatz of "Tal"
is correct because this phrase is indeed at the end of the sentence (as many Sidurim place a period
after "Morid ha'Tal"). Accordingly, it is proper to say "Morid ha'Gashem" with a Kamatz as well,
in contrast to the spelling in many Sidurim. Such an opinion is cited by the LIKUTEI
MAHARICH. This is the way the word is punctuated ("ha'Gashem") in the authoritative
Redelheim Sidur.

(b) Others, however, point out that the text of "ha'Geshem" (with a Segol) appears in all early
Sidurim, of all Jewish communities, as well as most current Sidurim (except for those based on
the Redelheim Sidur). Moreover, as mentioned above, the logical flow of the sentence clearly
indicates that "Morid ha'Geshem" is not the end of the sentence (regardless of whether or not the
printer placed a period there). According to SEFER MECHALKEL CHAYIM, Rav Moshe
Feinstein himself retracted his opinion. Why, then, do most Sidurim spell "ha'Tal" with a Kamatz
and not a Patach?

The author of SEFER SHA'AR HA'KOLEL, printed in the back of the SHULCHAN ARUCH
HA'RAV (who explains the Nusach of the Sidur of the Ba'al ha'Tanya) suggests that the word
"Tal" is spelled with a Kamatz because it is not part of the regular text of the Shemoneh Esreh as
established by the Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah (as indicated by the fact that many Ashkenazic

19
communities do not say it, and the Gemara says that it is not obligatory). Rather, it was added to
the text of the Shemoneh Esreh by the Mekubalim. As such, it is a separate insertion that stands
by itself and is not part of the phrase that follows, and therefore it has a Kamatz and not a Patach.

(c) RAV YAKOV KAMINETZKY zt'l (IYUNIM B'MIKRA, p. 26) suggests that "Morid
ha'Geshem" is part of the sentence which continues with "Mechalkel Chayim," as the TUR says,
because rain brings Kalkalah and Parnasah. In contrast, the words "Morid ha'Tal" do not refer to
the Parnasah-providing elements of dew. Rather, they refer to the Tal of Techiyas ha'Mesim, the
Tal which will resurrect the dead. It is mentioned at this point because it follows the phrase
"Mechayeh Mesim Atah Rav l'Hoshi'a." As such, it is actually a continuation of the previous
sentence and it does not flow into the following sentence. Therefore, it is appropriate to pause after
"Morid ha'Tal" before the phrase "Mechalkel Chayim," which discusses a different topic.
Accordingly, "Morid ha'Tal" is the end of the previous sentence which discusses Techiyas
ha'Mesim, while "Morid ha'Geshem" flows into the following sentence which discusses Parnasah!
(Even though the verse in Tehilim 68:10 refers to "Geshem Techiyah" (see Targum there), that is
not the Geshem to which we refer in the Shemoneh Esreh.)

(d) Grammarians point out that this may not be an inconsistency at all. Although the Segol of
"Geshem" becomes a Kamatz only when the word completes a sentence or a clause (either at the
end of a verse or at an Esnachta pause), the Patach of "Tal" is different. It becomes a Kamatz even
at a "semi-stop," such as when the word "Tal" has the cantillation "Zakef-Katan" (see, for example,
Shemos 16:13 and Devarim 33:13). (It is easier to turn a Patach into a Kamatz than a Segol into a
Kamatz.) Since a slight pause (a "comma") follows the words "Morid ha'Tal" in the blessing, even
though it is not a full stop the word "Tal" acquires a Kamatz.

(It is also possible that the pronunciation of the word in rabbinical texts may differ slightly from
the Biblical pronunciation. Perhaps in the times of the Mishnah, the word "Tal" was commonly
pronounced with a Kamatz, like "Par" or "Har," unless it was associated with the word that
followed it, such as "Tal ha'Shamayim" or "Tal Techiyah.")

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

Although asserting God’s greatness based on gevurot geshamim – i.e. stating mashiv ha-rua’h
u’morid ha-geshem (He who makes the winds blow and brings down the rain) in the blessing
of mehayye ha-metim (He who revives the dead) – is an essential part of our Amidah prayer,
the baraita on our daf teaches that it is not essential to relate similarly to the falling of dew or the
blowing of wind. Rabbi Chanina explains that this is because dew falls continuously throughout
the year.

Dew is created by condensation of moisture in the air. Most objects – including plants – radiate
(and lose) more heat than the air surrounding them, and thus become colder than the air. At that
point atmospheric moisture condenses at a rate greater than that at which it can evaporate, forming

3
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_taanit23/

20
water droplets. Although there are specific conditions that may limit the development of dew (e.g.
low clouds, strong winds, etc.), since dew is created locally and is not connected with the larger
water system, there is almost always some dew created.

The amount of dew that falls differs with climate and region; there are places in Israel where the
amount of dew is almost equal to the amount of rainfall in a given year. In such places, it is only
because of the dew that agriculture can be maintained.

Although an overabundance of dew can occasionally cause damage to produce at certain times of
the year, generally speaking dew is seen as valuable – both in the summer when it acts as a water
source, and in the winter when it protects the ground from frost.

Winds are created by a variety of different factors. Differences in temperature between the ground
and the air, between the sea and the land, and between the Arctic Circle and the Equator all play a
role in the creation of wind. Although the systems that create winds that carry rain are complicated,
the agents involved in creating wind are constant; there is always some movement of air and never
a total cessation of wind.

Rashi explains that the ruling of the baraita that one is not obligated to mention dew or winds
refers to the winter. The Ritva, however, understands that it is a reference to the summer,
when gevurot geshamim is not recited, and the ruling is that even in places where the custom is to
mention these natural phenomena, it is not essential to do so. In fact, there are different traditions
regarding this question. Sephardim and Chasidim do insert morid ha-tal in their Amidah, while
the traditional Ashkenazi position is to leave it out. In Israel the custom is for everyone to include
it in their prayers (see Shulchan Arukh Orach Chaim 114:7).

21
 View on the Seine: Harp of the Winds by Homer Dodge Martin

The four corners of the world

Mark Kerzner writes:4

Rabbi Yehudah adds a human aspect to the previous discussion. Even though by right we should
start mentioning the rain on the last of of Sukkot - when the rainy season begins and when the
people can safely travel home, even in the presence of rain - still, we should avoid confusion. If
we start in the evening - why, many people miss the evening prayer and won't be aware of the
addition. And if we say it in the morning, they might mistakenly think that the prayer for rain
started already yesterday evening, and will therefore make a mistake next year. So, for everybody
to know what's right, the prayer leader should not mention rain in the morning prayer, but then he
should attract attention to himself saying it in the additional morning prayer (Mussaf), and then
everybody will know.

However, if one wants to mention that God gives dew and winds, he can do it any time he wants -
because these never stop. And how do we know this about winds? - From the phrase (Zech 2:10)
"Just as the four directions (winds) of the world - so I have spread Israel, says God." This means
that just as the world cannot be without winds, so it cannot be without Israel, who is spread out in
the world to sustain it.

Our Daf notes that our obligation in the second berachah of the Amidah is specifically to mention
rain— ‫מוריד הגשם‬.5

Rain is seasonal, and there are many months when it does not fall. When the winter arrives and
rain again begins to fall, we are overwhelmed with Hashem’s might, and we note that this
phenomenon is not to be taken for granted. The wind and dew, however, do not stop at any time
of the year ‫ נעצרין אינן‬.

Therefore, our sages did not require that we mention ‫ הרוח משיב‬,not in the summer nor in the winter
(see ‫ ) ה”תד בטל‬and there is also no requirement to mention the fact that Hashem provides dew.

4
https://talmudilluminated.com/taanit/taanit3.html
5
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Taanis%20003.pdf

22
The conclusion of the Gemara is that there are two types of dew, and there are also two types of
wind. Standard dew never stops.

The fact that we see it daily is therefore not an expression of Hashem’s might. There is, however,
a special “ ‫– טל דברכה‬a dew of blessing” which does not always fall. Normal wind (‫ )מצויה רוח‬blows
throughout the year. However, gusty wind (‫ )מצויה שאינה רוח‬is not always found.

Ritva asks why our sages did not establish a reference to the emergence of dew and wind, having
in mind the special dew of blessing which is essential for some plants (see Rashi 3b, ‫ )אפילו ה”ד‬and
gusty winds, which are also necessary for the world. And although strong winds are not essential
for winnowing, for this can be replaced with man-made winds (using a bellows), there are two
other great benefits of strong winds which cannot be replicated by man. These are bringing of rain
clouds (see later, 24a), and the spread of moisture and humidity (see Yerushalmi, Rosh HaShanah
1:3).

Why, then, do we not include a reference to dew of blessing and strong winds? Ritva explains that
the gusty winds are not indispensable. These winds are most essential is distributing moisture when
the rain falls inadequately.

However, if the rain falls properly, the strong winds are not critical. Our sages only established an
addition to the Amidah regarding a resource which is absolutely essential. As far as the dew of
blessing is concerned, here too we do not mention it because it appears as regular dew, and a
superficial observer would not notice Hashem’s great might in providing it for us.

R’ Chanina said: Therefore, if during the summer one said, “He makes rain fall,” he must
return (to the beginning of the berachah and recite it correctly.)

The reason why one who added ‫ הגשם מוריד‬must repeat the berachah is that rain during the
summertime is considered a curse and thus he has prayed improperly and must repeat the berachah
correctly (1).

The Mishnah (2) later writes that in Eretz Yisroel we begin to ask for rain on the seventh of
Marcheshvan. The reason we wait to begin to ask for rain until that date is to allow the people who
came to the Beis HaMikdash on Sukkos to return home.

Rabbeinu Nissim (3) notes that following the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash this reason no
longer seems relevant and in Eretz Yisroel they should begin to ask for rain immediately after
Shemini Atzeres. Nonetheless, since even after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash there are
people who travel to Yerushalayim for Yom Tov the practice of beginning to ask for rain on the
seventh of Marcheshvan remains in place (4).

23
What would the halachah be if one added a request for rain after Shemini Atzeres, before the
seventh of Marcheshvan? At first glance it would seem that since this is not the time to add the
request for rain the prayer was improper and must be repeated.

Rav Ovadiah Yosef (5), however, suggests that in this case the berachah should not be repeated.
The reason the berachah is repeated if one adds a request for rain in the summer is that rain during
the summer is considered a curse. After Shemini Atzeres, rain is not a curse, but it is rather
beneficial and appropriate. The only reason we do not begin to request rain is to allow the people
who came to Yerushalayim to return. One cannot assert that the prayer is inappropriate thus
requiring a repetition of the berachah.

The Ben Ish Chai, zt”l, once told a story to explain the meaning of the statement on our daf, “Just
as the world cannot exist without wind, so too can the world not exist without the Jewish people.”

Once there was a man who would always purchase exclusive rights from the royal crown to fish
in a certain area. Since he made a comfortable living, he renewed his lease yearly for a number of
years.

One year, the king consigned the lease for this business to another of his subjects. When the man
heard this he was shocked to the core, and ran to petition his case before the king. “Is this fair?”
he cried. “Is this just? How could his majesty take away my livlihood without even informing
me?”

The king agreed that it was unfair but could not repeal a decree that he had already written. Instead,
he offered to grant the former lessee another man’s rights to a different vocation. The lessee
objected. “This would mean that I am stealing another man’s livelihood!” he claimed. He said to
the king, “You are the absolute ruler here. I want you to lease me the wind for ten thousand gold
coins instead.”

24
The king and his advisors thought that the man was mad, but the king granted his novel request.
The owner of all rights to the wind went to all the different smiths in his town and all the ship
captains and forced them to pay for using their sails and bellows that harness the wind. He also
charged a fee of anyone who opened his window to catch a passing breeze.

Finally, he charged everyone for the right to breathe! He made a fortune in the year that he was
allowed these rights to the wind! This is why the Jewish people are compared to the wind.
Everyone needs the wind of their breath—no one can survive without it. So too, everyone is
dependent on the Jewish people to live since the whole world exists in the merit of the Jewish
people!

Rabbi Elliot Goldberg writes:6

As we discussed yesterday, Tractate Taanit is primarily concerned with fasts that are designed to
seek God’s intervention in the case of a communal catastrophe — especially a drought. But before
diving deep into the best response for the worst-case scenarios, Taanit opens with a discussion
about preventing them in the first place. Namely, when and how should we pray for favorable
weather: the dews, winds and rains that ensure a healthy crop and fed bellies.

We start with rain. In the land of Israel, a rainy winter was critical to ensure a bumper crop the
following summer and fall. The Gemara tells us that one makes mention of “the might of the
rains” in the daily Amidah during the rainy season, between Sukkot and Passover . Praise God the
rainmaker only in the season of rain, the rabbis counseled, and refrain from doing so when rains
will not come. Conversely, asking for rain during the dry summer season is inappropriate at best,
and an affront to God at worst. Since we need God to bring the rains in their season, let’s not be
noodges for the rest of the year!

Other natural occurrences that play a role in agriculture, like dew and wind, are not seasonal. So
does this mean they should be mentioned in the Amidah year-round?

It is taught: With regard to dew and with regard to wind, the sages did not obligate one to
mention them by reciting “God makes the wind blow and the dew fall,” in the second blessing
of the Amidah, but if one seeks to mention them, one may mention them.

Because wind and dew are year-round phenomena, the rabbis permit us to include them in our
prayers, but they do not require us to do so. Why not?

Rabbi Hanina said: Because winds and dew are consistent and not withheld.

We can’t rely on rain but, Rabbi Hanina explains, since wind and dew are reliably “not withheld,”
we are not required to mention them in our prayers. It’s like praying for the sun to rise — you
could do it, but you can rely on the sun to come up each morning whether you pray for it or not.

6
Myjewishlearning.com

25
On the other hand, dew and wind are very important for the agricultural process. And not praying
for them seems counter to something that we learned on Berakhot 35a:

The sages taught: One is forbidden to derive benefit from this world without reciting a blessing
beforehand.

According to this teaching, deriving benefit from wind or dew obligates us to say a blessing over
them. So wouldn’t it follow that we are required to mention these phenomena in the Amidah as
well?

The differences between these two sources don’t truly reflect a conflict. Rather, they highlight a
difference between two main Jewish modes of prayer.

Blessings — like those we make over food, lighting Shabbat candles, studying
Torah and discovering rainbows — are an expression of gratitude for things that we appreciate in
the world. Because wind and dew reliably provide us with benefit, it’s appropriate for us to say a
blessing — as it is for any and all things that we enjoy.

The Amidah, however, has a different purpose; it’s our liturgical vehicle to make requests of God.
And while we could theoretically ask for anything, the rabbis counsel that we should be more
circumspect. Specifically, they suggest that we refrain from requesting things that we know will
not come to be, like a summertime rain shower in Israel. Nor would they have us ask for things
that will surely come to be, like tomorrow’s sunrise or the morning dew. Prayer, in the rabbis’
view, is for things that we depend upon but, as Rabbi Hanina says, may be withheld. Things like
seasonal rains, our health or peace.

It’s not wrong for someone to mention the dew and the wind in their Amidah; they are both part
of the world in which we live. But since we can count on them, we don’t need to pray for them.
Better, say the rabbis, to focus our attention, and maybe even God’s, on things that we depend
upon whose arrival is not guaranteed.

In our day, the additional prayers for the rainy season, added to the Amidah between Sukkot and
Passover, go beyond the minimum requirement, identifying God as the source of rain and the one
who causes the wind to blow. Further, contra Rabbi Hanina, many communities insert a phrase
naming God as the bringer of dew during the dry season. Given that the Talmud gives us this
option, why not do so? Who knows — a little extra praise might just do us some good.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

Our daf (Ta’anit 3b) records one of the many deeply insightful aggadic teachings of Rabbi
Yehoshua ben Levi who, having referenced Zechariah 2:10 which states how God spread the
Jewish people ‫ ִכּי ְכַּא ְרַבּע רוּחוֹת ַהָשַּׁמ ִים‬- ‘like the four winds’, explains that: ‫כשם שאי אפשר לעולם בלא‬

7
www.Rabbijohnnysolomon.com

26
‫‘ – הרוחות‬just as it is impossible for the world to be without the winds’, ‫כך אי אפשר לעולם בלא ישראל‬
– ‘so too, it is impossible for the world to be without the Jewish people.’
In terms of the basic meaning of this teaching, it speaks of the existence of the Jewish people
which, according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, is as necessary to creation as the winds. But beyond
this, I believe that there are numerous additional meanings to this teaching which are certainly
worthy of consideration.

As we know, wind transports moisture and temperature from one area to another, often doing so
in a way that cannot be seen or immediately heard. As William Blake writes, ‘for the gentle wind
doth move, silently invisibly’. Similarly, the Jewish people have brought the teachings of God and
the message of morality to people and places around the globe ‘sometimes’, as Cecil Roth writes,
‘as intermediaries, sometimes as pioneers, and more often as participants’ (Jewish Contribution to
Civilisation p. 321).

Yet the Jewish people are not merely experts in transporting ideas. Instead, like the wind that is an
agent of change which whips up the air to thereby impact the atmosphere in that place, the Jewish
people have often been at the forefront of moral, scientific and technological developments that
have challenged many of the assumed attitudes of the time. How true it is that the Jewish people
are ‫ ִכּי ְכַּא ְרַבּע רוּחוֹת ַהָשַּׁמ ִים‬- ‘like the four winds’!

Beyond this, it should be noted that the Gemara draws a comparison between the Jewish people
who have been scattered to the ‫ ַא ְרַבּע ַכּ ְנפוֹת ָהָאֶרץ‬- the ‘four corners of the earth’, and the ‫ַא ְרַבּע רוּחוֹת‬
‫ – ַהָשַּׁמ ִים‬the ‘four winds’. This is because the Jewish people suffered exile and dispersion, and
many found themselves in many far away locations, oftentimes without support and services. And
it is in this spirit that I wish to acknowledge and celebrate the work of all those who work tirelessly
to make a difference around the world, as well as make special reference to the work of Chabad,
whose Shlichim & Shluchot (emissaries) are comparable to ‫ ְכַּא ְרַבּע רוּחוֹת ַהָשַּׁמ ִים‬in terms of bringing
warmth to those in communities both near and very far.

Ultimately, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi may have spoken about the existence of the Jewish
people, I believe that embedded in his words is a profound message about the spirit and the mission
of the Jewish people. We can – and should – share our teachings to the world. We can – and we
should – challenge many of the assumed attitudes of the time. And we can – and we should – do
what we can in terms of making a difference to the lives of those in locations across the globe
(which, for those unable to move, can be achieved at least in part with today’s gifts of technology,
many of which were themselves created by Jews) - while also remembering that our ultimate goal
must include not only bringing what we can to Jews in the four corners of the earth, but also helping
them in their physical and spiritual journey of finding their way back home.

27
Rav David Brofsky writes:8

Introduction

We will address whether one who omits Ve-ten Tal must repeat Shemoneh Esrei, and we
will analyze its relationship to the tefilla as a whole. Furthermore, we will address other relevant
questions regarding the request for rain between Sukkot and Pesach.

One Who Mistakenly Inserts or Omits the Petition for Rain:

Regarding one who mistakenly INSERTS prayers for rain during the summer, the
Talmud (Ta'anit 3b) teaches:

Rabbi Chanina said: “Therefore, in the SUMMER, if one inserts [the two words] 'Mashiv
ha-ruach,' he should not go back, but if he says 'Morid ha-geshem,' he should go back."

The Tur and the Shulchan Arukh (OC 117:3) rule that just as one who inserts the phrase
"Morid ha-geshem" during the summer must go back, similarly one who inserts Ve-ten Tal during
the summer should repeat the berakha. Furthermore, one who finishes Shemoneh Esrei and
realizes that he has said Ve-ten Tal should repeat the entire Shemoneh Esrei!

Regarding one who mistakenly OMITS Ve-ten Tal during the winter, the
Gemara (Berakhot 26b) teaches that one must go back if one forgot it, just as with Mashiv Ha-
ruach. As we saw regarding Mashiv Ha-ruach, one who omits Ve-ten Tal and remembers
BEFORE reciting the Shema Koleinu blessing, the final request, should insert Ve-ten Tal in Shema
Koleinu. One who remembers AFTER concluding that blessing, but BEFORE beginning the next
(“Retze,” “Be pleased,” often referred to as Avoda because it speaks of the service in the Temple)
should say Ve-ten Tal and then continue with Retze. One who has already began Retze but not
finished Shemoneh Esrei should return to the ninth blessing, Birkat Ha-shanim. However, one
who has concluded Shemoneh Esrei and retreated three steps should go back to the very
beginning (OC 117:5).

One might ask the following question: why must one who mistakenly omits Ve-ten Tal and
concludes one's tefilla return to the beginning of Shemoneh Esrei? On the one hand, one might
suggest that certain insertions become such an integral part of Shemoneh Esrei, that when they are
omitted, one does not even fulfill one’s obligation of tefilla! On the other hand, one might propose
that while the obligation of tefilla has been discharged, one may only fulfill the requirement to
recite the phrase within the context of a specific berakha within the framework of Shemoneh
Esrei. In other words, one may have fulfilled tefilla, yet one may still need to repeat Shemoneh
Esrei in order to insert a given petition!

8
https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/orach-chaim/prayer-and-blessings/insertions-and-shemoneh-esrei-3

28
 One sees this very question debated regarding the addition of “Ya'aleh Ve-yavo,” “May it
ascend and arrive,”the paragraph for all of the special days in the calendar enumerated in the
Torah. The Gemara (Shabbat 24a) teaches:

On days during which the Musaf (additional) offering is to be brought — such as Rosh
Chodesh and Chol Ha-mo'ed — evening, morning, and afternoon one recites Shemoneh Esrei and
mentions the special occasion in the blessing of Avoda. If one omits it, we send him back.

The Gemara rules that one who mistakenly omits Ya'aleh Ve-yavo must return to the
beginning of the berakha, and if he has already completed Shemoneh Esrei, he must repeat the
silent prayer in its entirety.

The Rishonim grapple with a fascinating question, related to a topic we dealt with
extensively last year. We have already learned (http://vbm-torah.org/archive/tefila/67-
23tefila.htm) that one who inadvertently misses a prayer may recite the silent prayer of the
next tefilla twice: once for the current obligation and once as tashlumin, compensation for the lost
prayer.

What if one omits Ya'aleh Ve-yavo during the final service of Rosh Chodesh? Does one
need to recite Shemoneh Esrei of Arvit, the evening service, twice? On the one hand, it seems
that Ya'aleh Ve-yavo serves no purpose at night, as it is no longer Rosh Chodesh. On the other
hand, if we regard one who omits Ya'aleh Ve-yavo on Rosh Chodesh as one who has not prayed at
all, perhaps he should recite the Shemoneh Esrei of Arvit twice, once for the current prayer and
once for the missed Mincha (afternoon) prayer!

Tosafot (Berakhot 26b, s.v. Ta'a) report:

In other words, Rabbeinu Yehuda, as cited by Tosafot, clearly believes that one fulfills
one’s obligation of prayer even without saying Ya'aleh Ve-yavo. Apparently, however, on Rosh
Chodesh, one must repeat Shemoneh Esrei in its entirety, if necessary, in order to “mention the
special occasion,” as Ya'aleh Ve-yavo may only be recited as part of Shemoneh Esrei.

The students of Rabbeinu Yona (Berakhot 18a), however, cite the sages of Provence, who
insist that one who omits Ya'aleh Ve-yavo during Mincha MUST recite Tefillat Arvit twice, as one
who forgets Rosh Chodesh has invalidated his prayer.

The Shulchan Arukh (OC 108:11) rules that one who omits Ya'aleh Ve-
yavo during Mincha should recite the silent prayer of Arvit twice, having in mind that if
the halakha is in accordance with Tosafot, then his extra Shemoneh Esrei should be a tefillat
nedava (voluntary prayer).

29
 Regarding the petition for rain, one might ask a similar question: if one mistakenly
omits Ve-ten Tal on Friday afternoon, should one recite the silent prayer of Arvit twice, being
that Birkat Ha-shanim, like all other requests, is omitted on Shabbat? In other words, should one
repeat Shemoneh Esrei when the missing element will in any case not be included in the
next tefilla? Should we suggest that the debate regarding Ya'aleh Ve-yavo should apply to Ve-ten
Tal?

Interestingly, Rabbi Chayyim Soloveitchik, in his Chiddushim al Ha-Shas (Ch. 1),

suggests that ALL would agree that omitting Ve-ten Tal from the ninth blessing of Shemoneh
Esrei invalidates the very berakha itself, and therefore tashlumin must be recited at night. Others
(see Har Tzevi 1:58 and Ketzot Ha-shulchan 28:7) disagree.

Interestingly, “the Steipler,” Rabbi Ya'akov Yisra'el Kanievsky (1899–1985), author

of Kehillot Ya'akov, also discusses this issue. A number of the points he cites may relate to our
discussion.

For example, he discusses a case where one who has omitted Ya'aleh Ve-
yavo repeats Shemoneh Esrei as tashlumin, but during the second prayer, he forgets to insert Ve-
ten Tal! On the one hand, as he has already inserted Ve-ten Tal into his first tefilla and has fulfilled
the obligation to request rain, we might suggest that the second tefilla recited WITHOUT Ve-ten
Tal is sufficient. Alternatively, we might say that a tefilla recited without Ve-ten Tal is simply
invalid and would not count for a person's tashlumin. Seemingly, the same question we raised
regarding the relationship between Ya'aleh Ve-yavo and Shemoneh Esrei should apply here.

Laws of the Traveler:

How should one pray if he travels, between 7 Marcheshvan and 5 December, from Eretz
Yisra'el to the Diaspora, or vice versa?

Regarding a resident of Eretz Yisra'el who travels to the Diaspora, the Ba'er
Heitev (OC 117:4) cites a debate among the “greats of the Acharonim.” Rabbi Ya'akov ben
Avraham Castro, author of the Sefer Moharikash: Erekh Lechem, insists that even one who does
NOT intend on returning to Eretz Yisra'el during the winter, if he has left behind a spouse and
children there, should insert Ve-ten Tal as a ben Eretz Yisra'el (Israeli resident).

Others disagree. The Peri Chadash, for example, maintains that only one who intends to
return during that year should insert Ve-ten Tal like a resident of Eretz Yisra'el. Alternatively, the
Birkkei Yosef, as well as the Devar Shemu'el and Yad Avraham, opine that one should pray in
accordance with the custom of the place in which he currently finds himself.

Practically, one who leaves Israel BEFORE 7 Marcheshvan should insert Ve-ten
Tal into Shema Koleinu and continue to recite Birkat Ha-shanim as if it were
summertime. However, one who travels AFTER 7 Marcheshvan and has already begun to

30
insert Ve-ten Tal should not change his practice. Nevertheless, if one travels with one’s entire
family for an extended period of time, one should adopt the custom of his or her Diaspora
community and begin inserting Ve-ten Tal from 5 December.

Similarly, the authorities disagree regarding one who travels from the Diaspora to Eretz
Yisra'el between 7 Marcheshvan and 5 December. While one who intends to stay in Eretz
Yisra'el should most certainly pray according to the custom of the land, one who intends to return
BEFORE 5 December faces a more serious question. Some suggest that he insert Ve-ten
Tal into Shema Koleinu (see Ishei Yisra'el 23:37), while others suggest praying in accordance with
the custom and needs of Eretz Yisra'el.

It seems that due to the extensive debate regarding these questions, one who prays in
accordance with any of the opinions cited above, even by mistake, need not repeat Shemoneh
Esrei. See the halakhic compendium Ishei Tefilla, 23:37-9, for a summary of these laws.

Maharal on Tal

Rabbi Shaya Karlinsky writes:9

On the first day of Pesach, as the winter ends and we stop asking for rain, we recite “T’filat Tal”
– the prayer for dew.

When we pray for rain at the end of Sukkot, it is always accompanied by great emotion and fervor.
Rain, especially in Eretz Yisrael, is an essential element for our existence. Our dependence on the
rains, at the proper time and in the proper proportion, is in actuality a dependence for our
sustenance – for our daily bread. It is therefore, of utmost importance to us that the rains are
“gishmei bracha” rain of blessing, and “g’shamim b’itam,” rain which is timely

But what about ‘tal’ – dew? What are we praying for when we pray for dew? What is the unique
importance of dew? Why do we pray for it on Pesach? What is the difference between dew and
rain?

To compare dew and rain would be, perhaps, to compare the digestive or respiratory system in the
human body to the body’s reproductive system. The former is a system which sustains the body
by absorbing the food or oxygen that it needs and eliminating what is not needed. We don’t have
to remind ourselves to breathe or to digest our food, nor do we have to tell our heart to beat at
regular intervals. This system is set up to work on its own – a constant system that maintains the
body. It is something we take for granted. Such is the do – it falls every day, in a regular pattern at
a regular time, it is dependable, reliable – the dew is there to maintain in the world, to provide a
minimum of moisture to keep the world going.

Rain, on the other hand, could be compared to the reproductive system, in the sense that the
reproductive system is not a passive system. There is a creative force which must come to play,

9
https://torah.org/learning/maharal-pesach1/

31
and the results are far from dependable or predictable. Many things can occur on the way to
fertilization. And fertilization can come in abundance, overabundance or not at all. There is the
unknown and the mysterious that surrounds this system.

And such is the rain: Accompanied by dramatic winds, lightning and thunder, it is the creative
force in the world – providing the source for our very sustenance, but also being unpredictable, a
wild card. Will this year be a year of abundant rains or will there be a drought? Will there be
abundance or the flooding of OVER abundance? And on what does it depend on?

The rains are dependent on our own behavior, what is called in the Kabbalah “itaruta d’letata” –
an awakening and a consciousness initiated by man in the material world on earth. Our deeds and
actions are one of the controlling elements in whether or not Hashem will send us rain, and our
prayers can influence G-d’s decision. We are bound together in an intimate relationship – the
amount of rain we receive is commensurate with the way we behave. That puts an enormous
responsibility on us.

When the shepherds of Lot quarreled with the shepherds of Avram over pastureland, it was decided
to separate and have each man go his own way. Lot chose the easy way out- he chose the well-
watered Jordan plains with their natural irrigation. Avram chose the land of Cana’an, which was
dependent on rainfall. This choice was a decision to be forever linked to Hashem, settling in the
land whose sustenance depended on moral and ethical behavior.

Tal, dew, on the other hand, is not dependent on our behavior. Of tal it is said “Ayno m’atzer
l’olam” (Taanit 3)- it is a never-ending element, unable to be withheld. Whether we are worthy or
not, the dew will fall. Even when Eliahu HaNavi , because of immoral behavior in the days of
Achav, decrees a drought upon the land, announcing that there will be neither rain nor dew, he is
able to prevent the rains from coming, but he is unable to prevent the dew. Dew is a given, a “free
lunch,” with no “payment” from man. We could say that dew is Chessed – a constant bestowing
of kindness, as opposed to rain which is Din – conditional on judgment.

If dew, as we said, is a constant, never ending and independent of our worthiness, then why do we
pray for it? We are going to get it anyway! We understand why we pray for rain, but why do we
have a prayer for dew?

In a world of abundance, plenty, glitz and mass media, we are constantly confronted and
bombarded by noise, flashy colors and drama – we have to learn to appreciate the gentle blessing
of dew. We need to pause and appreciate the things that we are could be allowed to take for granted.
We don’t have to tell our heart to beat , nor remind ourselves to exhale and inhale. We take these
things for granted. The lesson of tal is that these very things we take for granted require a special
appreciation. G-d’s constant chessed with us is not something to be taken lightly.

When Yitzchak blesses his sons, he intends to give Esav the blessing of tal (Bereishit 27). Even
though Yitzchak did not consider Esav an evil person, he knew that he was no great “tzaddik”
either. He decides to give Esav a blessing that he will merit no matter what he does, no matter how
he behaves, independent of ‘itaruta d’letata’. That was the beracha of tal – “V’yitein l’cha Elokim
mital hashamayim…” To Yaakov he would give a bracha commensurate with his deeds. (How

32
lucky we are to have also received the bracha of tal – the bracha of constant chessed, a bracha to
appreciate!)

An additional element of “tal,” requiring a more in-depth forum is that hidden within the dew is
the power of resurrection – T’chiat Hamaytim. At Mt. Sinai, after witnessing the intensity and
drama of the first commandment, the nation fainted – “their souls left them” – and Hashem revived
them with “tal shel “tchiya,” dew of resurrection. We are taught that in the world to come Hashem
will resurrect the dead with dew.

What is the connection between dew and Pesach? If dew comes all year round, why is tefilat tal
said specifically on Pesach?

Pesach is the holiday of Chessed. With very little intervention on our part we were delivered from
Egypt. Having sunk to the 49th level of impurity, Hashem bestowed upon us the benevolent
kindness of redemption, taking us out of Egypt with an abundance of miracles. We pray for rain
after Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, only after we have been brought to judgment, examined our
deeds, and (hopefully!) become worthy of rain. Tefilat Tal is said at the time of natural chessed –
Pesach. In Hoshea 6, Israel asks G-d to come to them like the rain , but G-d answers them –
“Eheyeh k’tal l’yisrael” I will be like dew to Israel. The rains, though dramatic and potentially
beneficial, can also be destructive if they aren’t given in exactly the right amounts and in precisely
the right time. “Din” is powerful, but also dangerous. A greater blessing is to have G-d appear as
tal – a dependable, constant — and gentle — chessed.

When dew falls, it falls only on things that are in the open. If there is a covering or an obstruction,
the dew won’t reach that spot. A person must be a ‘kli kikbul’ , an open vessel to receive this
blessing of chessed. On Pesach, we rid ourselves of chametz, all the vanity, the inflated ego, the
sins of our hearts. On Pesach we must remove all the false exteriors, we must be free of
obstructions, and open ourselves to receive G-d’s blessing of Tal.

Let the tal fall on our open hearts, and on Pesach, the time of redemption, let us merit a chessed
that is constant and never ending.10

The four directions in ancient Hebrew

Wind is frequently used in the Bible as a metaphor for some spiritual truth (e.g., Psalm
78:39 and Jeremiah 22:22). This holds true when the Bible refers to the “four winds.” The
phrase “four winds” is used principally to describe the whole of the earth or heaven. The
“four winds” encompass all directions or the “four corners of the earth”: north, south, east,
and west (Jer 49:36).

10
The class is taught by Rabbi Shaya Karlinsky, Dean of Darche Noam Institutions, Yeshivat Darche Noam/Shapell’s and
Midreshet Rachel for Women.

33
Different translations give different renderings. For example, in Zechariah 6:5, the ESV
gives “the four winds of heaven,” but the NIV translates it as “the four spirits of heaven.”
The discrepancy is understandable since the Hebrew word for “wind” can also mean
“spirit.”.

It should be noted, when the phrase “four winds” is mentioned in the Bible, it’s usually in
reference to some remarkable, unusual, or devastating event. These events are being
reported by some of the Lord’s prophets, most often in the form of a vision (Ezekiel
37:9; Daniel 7:2; Zechariah 2:6).

Tuvia Pollack writes:11

In Genesis 28:14, God gave Jacob a promise: “You will spread out to the west and to the east and
to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth
be blessed.”

The Hebrew expressions used for the different directions here are “yama, qedma, tsfona, negba.”
The “a” in the end of the words is a grammatical suffix indicating direction, i.e. “to the west, to
the east,” etc. Without the suffixes, the names of the directions would be “yam, qedem, tsafon,
negev.”

In Modern Hebrew, we would rather say “ma’arav, mizrach, tsafon, darom.” You might notice
that tsafon is the only direction that stayed the same. Why did the others change?

Well, they didn’t really change. Truth is, the Biblical Hebrew has a number of synonyms for each
direction, and the ones we use in Modern Hebrew all appear in the Bible too. Here’s a full list of
the different synonyms for each direction:

• East: Qedem, Mizrach, Motsa

• West: Yam, Ma’arav, Achor
• South: Negev, Darom, Teman, Yamin
• North: Tsafon, Smol

In Deutronomy 3:27, another instance of the four directions are given, with a slightly different
choice of the above synonyms. Note that we again add the “a” suffix for direction:
“Go up to the top of Pisgah and lift up your eyes to the west and north and south and east, and see
it with your eyes, for you shall not cross over this Jordan.”

The Hebrew here says “yama, tsfona, temana, mizracha.”

11
https://biblesocietyinisrael.com/the-four-directions-in-ancient-hebrew/

34
Let’s examine these directions, one by one:

East: Qedem, Mizrach, Motsa.

Qedem means “forward” which shows us that people in ancient times would face the rising sun as
the default direction, but it also means “ancient.” The question here is what came first – the chicken
or the egg. Did qedem first mean “forward,” then applied to the east because of the default
direction, and then, because of the ancient kingdoms, Babylon’s tower, Sumeria, etc, it also
received the meaning of “ancient”? Or did it initially mean “ancient” and became a name given to
a number of ancient kingdoms which were all in the east, then qedem came to mean east, and since
people would see the east as the default direction, it became synonymous with “forward”?
There is a third interesting option – maybe Qedem was the name of a very ancient kingdom east
of Israel, whose ancient glory spurred myths and stories. This in turn could have tied the word
“qedem” both to antiquity and to the direction east. Job 1:3 says that Job was “the greatest of all
men of Qedem.” Does that mean “of the east”? Does it mean “of ancient times”? Or does it mean
“of the Qedem kingdom”?

The Dead Sea is called the “qadmoni” sea, i.e. the eastern sea (or “the ancient sea”…?) in a few
cases. Ezekiel 47:18, Joel 2:20, Zecharia 14:8 are examples of this.

The word we use in Modern Hebrew is “Mizrach” which comes from the Hebrew word for sunrise.
The two synonyms often appear together in the Bible, and when they do, the translations often
translate “qedem” as “east” and “mizrach” as “towards the sunrise.”

“To the east towards the sunrise” (Joshua 19:12)

“On the east side towards the sunrise” (Numbers 2:3)

The word “motsa” is less common. It means “coming out of” and implies that this is where the sun
comes forth, or comes out of. We can see that word being used in Psalm 75:6.
It was a common practice in ancient times that temples, including the temple in Jerusalem, would
face east, towards the sunrise. This custom was also adopted by churches. When a church or
ancient temple in the Roman Empire faced the correct direction, it was correctly “oriented,” a word
that came from the Latin word for east, “orient.”

West: Yam, Ma’arav, Achor

If the default orientation is facing the east, then the west is behind you. And indeed, “achor,” which
means behind, is used in the Bible as a synonym to west.

35
“The Arameans on the east and the Philistines on the west” (Isaiah 9:12) actually says qedem and
achor, which could also be translated as the Arameans in front of you and the Philistines behind
you. The Mediterranean is also named “acharon,” the last sea, or the sea that is behind. We see
that in Deutronomy 11:24 and 34:2.

In both verses above from Genesis and Deutronomy, the direction of west is “yam,” the sea, an
Israel-centric expression.

Numbers 3:23 says that they camped “behind the tabernacle westward,” it actually says “achor the
tabernacle, yama.”

Numbers 34:6 says, “As for the western border, you shall have the Great Sea.” The original here
says “As for the yam border, you shall have the Great Yam.”

The word we use in Modern Hebrew, ma’arav, comes from the word from evening, and is again
related to the sun’s position. Whenever it is used in the Bible, it is often in contrast with mizrach,
east. That is, the rising vrs the setting place of the sun.

“Do not fear, for I am with you. I will bring your offspring from the mizrach, and gather you from
the ma’arav.” (Isaiah 43:5)

“So they will fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun.”
(Isaiah 59:19). Here again, it says ma’arav (the evening direction) and mizrach (the rising of the
sun).

Maybe the most beautiful example of east vrs west being used together like this is in Psalm 103:12:

“As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.” It was not
by chance that King David used the words mizrach and ma’arav. As far as the rising of the sun is
from the setting of the sun. That’s the furthest distance imaginable to anyone in ancient times.
They never saw anyone travel as far as the sun did every single day.

We know today that if we walk to the north, we will eventually start walking south, and vice versa.
North and south have meeting points, at the poles. But if you walk to the west, you never start
walking east. East and west never meets – that’s how far he has removed our transgressions from
us!

South: Negev, Darom, Teman, Yamin

36
When you are in Israel “towards the Great Sea” will always be to the west, and similarly “towards
the Negev” will always be to the south (unless you are in Eilat). The Negev desert takes up two
thirds of modern day Israel, but has very sparse population. The word “negev” originally means
“parched,” an obvious name for a dry desert.

In Modern Hebrew, we usually say “darom,” a word which means south and is often used in the
Bible, with an unclear origin. One theory is that it comes from “dar,” which implies “to live” or
“situated” and “rom” which means “high up.” This would be another reference to the sun. The
south is the direction in which the sun is the highest in the sky.

Another word for south which is very common in the Bible is teman, as in Deutronomy 3:27,
“yama, tsfona, temana, mizracha.” Teman is derived from “yamin” which means right side. This
is again based on the default position of facing the east. In Modern Hebrew, Teman is the name of
the country Yemen (based on the theory that the name Yemen comes from the Old South Arabian
equivalent “ymn”).

It is used so often in Hebrew about a southern land, it is often hard for the translators to know
whether it’s a specific country which was named Teman by the Israelites, or whether it was just a
direction. You may recall we had a similar question about qedem. It could be equivalent to the
actual Yemen, but could also be any other southern country. All three expressions are used in one
single verse in Ezekiel:

“Son of man, set your face towards Teman, and speak out against the Darom and prophecy against
the forest land of the Negev.” (Ezekiel 20:46)

In the verse “The north and the south, you have created them.” (Psalm 89:12) the Hebrew says
yamin and tsafon – “right side and north.” A clear indication that yamin is here used as “south.”

It’s a bit harder to know in Isaiah 54:3, “you will spread abroad to the right and to the left” – did
they mean right and left, or did they mean south and north? We can’t really know, but since the
passage is about possessing nations and resettle cities, it is tempting to interpret it as north and
south. We saw in the psalm that yamin was definitely used as “south,” and as we shall see soon,
the Hebrew word for left is sometimes used as “north.”

North: Tsafon, Smol

In the promise to Jacob, the north, tsafon, is the only direction whose name corresponds to the
Modern Hebrew word. Tsafon means “hidden” as it is the direction in which you will never see
the sun. (The authors of the Bible were northern-hemisphere-centric.)

37
Smol means “left” and is again based on the default direction or being oriented towards the orient
(see what I did there?) The Arabic word for north, shamal, comes from the same root. We see
“left” used in the sense “north” in Genesis 14:15 – “He pursued them as far as Hobah which is
smol of Damascus.”

“…and to the valley of Iphtael northward (tsfona) … then it proceeded on north (smol) to Cabul.”
Joshua 19:27.

As we said before, this also calls into question every time people speak of “right and left” in the
Bible. Do they always mean right and left, or do they sometimes mean south and north? Genesis
13:9 and 24:49 are two examples of where the translation is ambiguous.

To sum it up, we see three different ways of perceiving the four directions. One is by geographic
landmarks based on the land of Israel – yam for west and negev for south. The other is based on
“forward, backward, left and right” assuming that you are facing the sunrise. Qedem, achor, smol,
teman/yamin. The final one, and this is the only one used in modern Hebrew, is based on where
the sun rises, goes in the evening, is high in the sky, or is hidden. Mizrach, ma’arav, darom, tsafon.
Often, the Bible will use a mix of these.

In Genesis, the four directions were stated by God to Jacob as “Yama, qedma, tsfona, negba,” and
in Deutronomy by God to Moses as “Yama, tsfona, temana, mizracha.” Job uses slightly different
language in Job 23:8-9:

“Behold I go qedem but he is not there, and achor but I cannot perceive him. When he acts in the
smol, I cannot behold him. He turns on the yamin, I cannot see him.”

Tower of The Winds: The World’s First Weather Station

Kaushik Patowary writes:12

The Tower of the Winds, or the Horologion of Andronikos Kyrrhestes, is an elegant octagonal
marble tower in the Roman Agora in Athens. It is considered to be the world’s first meteorological
station. More than 2,000 years old, the tower has eight sides corresponding to the eight principal
winds, a sundial to tell time, a wind vane to show the direction of wind and an interior water clock
that in antiquity could be read even in darkness.

12
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2018/07/tower-of-winds-worlds-first-weather.html

38
Each of the building’s eight sides face a point of the compass and is decorated with a frieze of
figures in relief representing the winds that blow from that direction.

Tower of the Winds

The ancient Greeks believed that winds blew from twelve different directions, and these directions
eventually became a way of figuring out one’s geographic orientation just like the four cardinal
directions we use today. It’s not known when or why people started using wind as cardinal
directions, but it probably began with the farming population. These ancient observant farmers
recognized that the quality of winds differed depending on where the wind was blowing from.
Some winds were humid, some were dry, some hot and some cold. Sailors too relied heavily on
wind directions and could also recognize a particular wind by its qualities.

The ancient Greeks originally maintained distinct and separate systems of points and winds. The
four Greek cardinal points (arctos, anatole, mesembria and dusis) were based on celestial bodies
and used for orientation, while the four Greek winds (Boreas, Notos, Eurus, Zephyrus) were
confined to meteorology. Eventually, both systems were merged, and wind names gradually came
to denote cardinal directions as well.

39
 Aristotle’s wind rose

The Greek philosopher Aristotle identified ten distinct winds—two north-south winds (Aparctias,
Notos) and four sets of east-west winds blowing from different latitudes—the Arctic circle (Meses,
Thrascias), the summer solstice horizon (Caecias, Argestes), the equinox (Apeliotes, Zephyrus)
and the winter solstice (Eurus, Lips). Aristotle explained that each wind had different
meteorological properties. For instance, winds on the NW-SE axis are generally dry, while the
NE-SW winds are wet. N and NNE winds bring snow, while those from the whole northwestern
sector (NW, NNW, N) bring hurricanes.

However, Aristotle's system was asymmetric. To restore balance, Timosthenes, a Greek navigator
and geographer, added two more winds to produce the classical 12-wind rose. But another Greek
geographer, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, realizing that many winds presented only slight variations,
reduced the twelve winds down to eight principal winds, marking a significant step towards the
evolution of the 8-point compass rose that’s still used in almost all navigation systems, including
nautical charts, maps, compass and even GPS.

40
 An 8-wind compass rose

The Tower of the Winds was based on Eratosthenes’s eight-wind system, with each side of the
octagonal tower facing a wind direction. On the sides facing the sun, are the lines of a sundial. In
antiquity, the tower was surmounted by a weathervane in the form of a bronze Triton and contained
a water clock to record the time when the sun was not shining. Located in the Roman Agora
(marketplace), the tower was of great value for the merchants who used it to read the weather and
predict when their goods would arrive by sea.

The tower is said to have been built by Andronicus of Cyrrhus (c. 50 BCE) but according to other
sources, it might have been constructed in the 2nd century BC. Its use as a weather station,
however, was short lived. During the Roman times the tower was vandalized and the mechanism
looted. Then, the building became a clock tower for an Eastern Orthodox church. Under Ottoman
rule, the monument was also used as a place of worship by Sufi Muslim Whirling Dervishes.

The monument was largely closed to the public since the Dervishes left in 1828. It was only in
2016 that the tower was restored and opened to the public after nearly two hundred years of neglect.

41
 In the octagonal Tower of the Winds in Athens (second century B.C.) the four cardinal
direction are depicted by winds as are the four in-between directions (northeast, southwest,
etc.). Certain myths and symbols are attached with each one. The puffy cheeked faces of
blowing winds that we see on many old maps dates back to the Greeks. All the Greek winds
had names and after time these names became synonymous with the direction from which
they came. This set the precedent as to why we determine direction from where it comes from
rather than where it goes.

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Unlike the east wind of the Bible which is a distinctly powerful, dry and hot wind, the winds from
the other three directions do not appear to have any particular attributes. In fact, the west wind
finds a mention just once, in connection with the plague of the locusts, in which it was used to
send the locusts away from Egypt (Exodus 10:19).

The north wind is said to bring rain (Proverbs 25:23), and there is an instance of a windstorm
coming out of the north, accompanied by brilliant flashes of lightning (Ezekiel 1:4). The north and
south winds appear to go round and round in an unending course (Ecclesiastes 1:6). The north and
south winds are welcome winds; when they blow on the garden, its fragrance is spread abroad
(Song of Solomon 4:16).

The four individual winds blowing from the east, west, north and south directions are described in
the Bible in the same way as a human observer would describe, even today. We get an idea of the
strength of these winds, the weather phenomena associated with them, and their effects. However,
the phrases ‘four winds’, ‘four winds of the earth’ or ‘four winds of heaven’ are used in the Bible
in a very different manner. The four winds are referred to in the context of extraordinary events or
situations as foreseen by prophets, made known to select persons by God in the form of visions.

The four winds are sometimes associated with the four corners of the earth or the four quarters of
heaven. This should not be considered as being suggestive of an image of a flat earth having four
corners, but should be taken to mean the whole earth. Likewise, the four winds should be construed
not as winds blowing literally in only four directions, but as winds blowing in all directions. Such
an interpretation is indeed justified, because a wind having any speed or direction can be regarded
as a combination of two north-south and east-west components.

A look at the weather charts used by today’s meteorologists would tell that the earth’s atmosphere
at any given time is made up of high and low pressure areas in different regions. Winds blow out
of and around an area of high pressure or anticyclone, and they would randomly scatter whatever

49
that came in their way. On the other hand, over an area of low pressure or cyclone, intense winds
would blow around and into it from all directions, and thus gather instead of scatter.

The power of the four winds of the Bible is tremendous, both figuratively and practically. It can
churn the great sea, it can uproot and scatter powerful empires (Daniel 7:2, 8:8, 11:4, Zechariah
2:6). The combined power of the four winds of heaven was to be deployed against the nation
of Elam, to scatter the people in all directions (Jeremiah 49:36).

On the contrary, in another situation of a positive nature, the four winds were called upon to gather
together and breathe life into the slain so that they may live (Ezekiel 37:9).

•••

The History of Wind Vanes

Emily Beach writes:13

Prior to the introduction of modern technologies, early man had few ways to determine which
way the wind blew. For centuries, wind vanes served as a simple means of detecting wind speed
and direction, making them a critical tool for shipping, travel, agriculture and weather prediction.

13
https://sciencing.com/history-wind-vanes-4298.html

50
Today these wind vanes serve a largely decorative function, evoking a rich sense of history while
still acting as a practical tool for those who need to track the wind.

Wind Vane Overview

The weathervane should be positioned at the highest point on a building and should be situated
as far as possible from nearby structures that could interfere with its operation. These devices
consist of a rotating horizontal arrow or other structure mounted on a stationary vertical rod. As
the wind blows, the horizontal member rotates to indicate both the direction and the speed of the
wind. The lightest and smallest portion of the horizontal member, such as the arrowhead, points
into the wind.

Earliest Wind Vanes

Greek astronomer Andronicus created the first recorded weathervane around 48 B.C. It sat atop
the Tower of the Winds in Athens and was designed as a tribute to Triton.

Built from bronze, the weathervane featured the head and torso of a man and the tail of a fish. A
wand held in Triton's hand indicated wind direction. During this period, wealthy Greek and
Romans adorned their homes with wind vanes in the shape of the ancient Gods.

9th Century Weathervane and Wind Vanes

Starting in the ninth century, Scandinavians began to use wind vanes on ships and church roofs.
Scandinavian units were shaped like a quarter-circle, and rotated around a vertical axis. They
were often positioned at the front of Viking ships, and many were adorned with animals or other
designs.

The ninth century also brought about the use of the rooster-shaped weathervane found on many
historic churches. According to Smithsonian Magazine, Pope Nicholas I decreed that every
church should be topped with a cock-shaped wind vane as a reminder of the biblical prophecy
referencing Peter's betrayal of Jesus.

Medieval Europe

During the Middle Ages, public buildings in Europe were typically adorned with weathervanes
that took the shape of an arrow or pennant. The word vane comes from "fane," a term that means
"flag." During this period, archers used fabric flags to help gauge wind speed and direction from
the weathervane. These flags helped to inspire weathervane designs for many years.

51
American Designs

The grasshopper weathervane atop Faneuil Hall in Boston is a famous example

of our American weathervane heritage. It was made in 1742 of gilded copper
with glass eyes, by Shem Drowne. Peter Faneuil built the brick building at his
own expense and donated it to the town for the new central marketplace with a
second-story town meeting hall. Faneuil selected the grasshopper because at
that time it had become the trade emblem for a merchant exchange. The
grasshoper was a copy of the vane on the Royal Exchange in London, founded
by Sir Thomas Gresham whose family crest was the grasshopper because the
name "Gresham" meant "grass cricket."

52
The first maker of weathervane and wind vanes in North America was Shem Drowned, who
manufactured weathervanes during the early 1700s. He designed the famous grasshopper vane
that once sat atop Boston's Faneuil Hall in 1742, along with many other well-known vanes of
the period.

To commemorate the Revolutionary War, George Washington commissioned a dove of peace

weathervane to sit atop his home. By the 1800s, patriotic wind vane designs were quite common,
and many were mass-produced. The late 19th century ushered in a Victorian style of design, and
weathervanes became much more ornate and grand.

By the 20th century, these units took on a largely decorative function, with many inspired by
sports or nature.

World's Largest Wind Vanes

The world's largest functional wind vane can be found in Montague, Michigan. It measures 14.6
meters (48 feet) tall with an arrow measuring 7.9 meters (26 feet) long. It features a traditional
arrow shape with a decorative ship on top.

53
A less traditional plus-sized wind vane can be found at Whitehorse in the Yukon. It's made from
a retired CF-CPY airplane that's so perfectly balanced; it takes a wind speed of just 2.6 meters
per second (5 knots) to rotate the plane. The nose of this plane points into the direction of the
wind, just like smaller, more traditional wind vanes.

Returning to the notion that the world cannot exist without Israel, the following aggadah makes
use of the verse from Zechariah as a prooftext that has deadly consequences for our
understanding of Israel’s election as well as the price we pay for the claim.

Cutting a Peace: The Story of Ketiah bar Shalom

Shlomo Zuckier writes:14

Avodah Zarah 10b features a fascinating story about an obscure figure, Ketiah bar Shalom,
situated in Caesar’s court. More than just a story about Roman-Jewish relations, we will see that

14
https://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/cutting-a-peace-the-story-of-ketiah-bar-shalom/

54
it represents a rabbinic meditation on the nature of the part and the whole, on belonging and
representation.

What is the story of Ketiah bar Shalom? There was a certain Caesar who hated the Jews. He
said to the notables of his Empire: “One who has a strand [of desiccated flesh] on his leg – does
he amputate it and live or leave it and remain in pain?” They said to him: “Let him amputate it
and live.”

Ketiah bar Shalom said to them: “Firstly, you will be unable to [overcome] all of [the Jews], as
it is written (Zech. 2:10): ‘For I have spread them [out] like the four winds of heaven.’ What [is
the verse] saying? If it is saying that He scattered them to the four winds, this [phrase] ‘ke-arba’
ruhot [like the four winds] should be ‘le-arba’ ruhot [to the four winds]! Rather, just as the
world cannot exist without winds, so too the world cannot exist without Israel. Furthermore, [if
you kill all the Jews] they will call you ‘a cut-off Empire.’”

[Caesar] said to [Ketiah]: “You have spoken well. Nevertheless, whoever bests the Emperor,
they throw him into a furnace full of dirt [and he suffocates].”

When they had seized [Ketiah] and were going, a certain lady said to him: “Woe to the ship that
sails without [paying] the tax!” [Ketiah] fell on the tip of his foreskin, and cut it off. He said: “I
have paid my tax. I will pass.”

When they were throwing him [into the furnace], he said: “All my possessions [are bequeathed]
to R. Akiva and his colleagues.” R. Akiva went out and interpreted: “(Ex. 29:28): ‘and it shall
be to Aaron and his sons’ – half to Aaron and half to his sons.”

A Heavenly voice went out and said: “Ketiah bar Shalom is invited to the life of the World to
Come.” Rabbi wept and said: “There are those who acquire their world in one instant, and there
are those who acquire their world over a number of years.”

This story depicts a Caesar planning to exterminate the Jews in his kingdom, only to be convinced
otherwise by one Ketiah bar Shalom, the figure for whom the story is named. Despite his successful
arguments, Ketiah is nevertheless seized and taken out to be killed. Prior to his demise, he is
convinced by a certain noblewoman to self-circumcise, and bequeaths his estate to Rabbi Akiva
and his colleagues, as he earns a share in the World to Come.

55
This fascinating story is wide-ranging, as it vacillates between a genocide averted, a righteous
courtier’s untimely demise, and the determination of his legacy.

However, upon closer inspection, one common theme – or, rather, one common tension – holds
this story together, and it is contained in the name of its protagonist, for whom the story itself is
named. Ketiah bar Shalom literally means “the cut one, son of peace.” Now, the name bespeaks
an internal contradiction, as cutting and peace are hardly natural friends. Moreover, the
word shalom is related to the term shalem, or “whole,” the polar opposite of something that is cut.
Indeed, this creative tension between being whole and being divided is the central theme of this
story that brings its overall cohesiveness into focus.

The Caesar, hating the Jews, wishes to excise them. The metaphor used to describe the Jews in his
rhetorical question is instructive: “One who has a strand [of desiccated flesh] on his leg – does he
amputate it and live or leave it and remain in pain?” The term used for “amputates” is yikta’enah,
built on the same root as that of our protagonist Ketiah! What is at stake is the possible removal of
Israel from the empire, purportedly to eradicate this irritant and preserve Rome’s structural
integrity.

Caesar’s council recommends amputation, until the peacemaker Ketiah bar Shalom enters the
scene. He offers two possible arguments against the plan of “cutting off” the Jews: Citing a verse
from Zechariah 2:10, he compares Israel to the four corners of the earth, in the sense that “the
world cannot exist without Israel.” While it might be possible to amputate a limb, Israel is a vital
organ. His second argument is that, if Caesar does somehow “amputate” Israel, his will be known
as a “cut off empire,” recognizably deficient absent its Jews. Both arguments – whether based on
the unworkability of the procedure or the undesirability of its outcome – militate for the
inseparability of Israel from the nations, or at least from this nation. Rather than cutting Israel off
from Rome (keti’ah), Caesar settles on keeping the empire whole (shalom).

While Ketiah’s arguments win the day, he falls victim to the rule that anyone who bests the king
is placed in a furnace packed with dirt (as explained by Rashi), presumably a form of burial alive
and attendant asphyxiation. One cannot help but note the fitting result that one asserting Israel’s
inseparability from the four corners of the earth is now himself to be united, fatally, with that same
earth.

As he is being sent to his demise, a Roman matron mourns the fact that “the ship is sail[ing] without
[paying] the tax.” As the story makes clear, Ketiah’s uncircumcised foreskin stands to prevent him
from participating in Israel’s inheritance in the World to Come. [It is not clear throughout this
story whether Ketiah is Jewish or not, possibly an intentional ambiguity contributing to the
question of Israel’s status among the nations. We will assume that he is not Jewish since his
Jewishness is never asserted.] This matron is mourning the fact that, despite his successfully
argued defenses on behalf of Israel, he will not inherit along with them. Although Ketiah succeeds
in convincing Caesar of Israel’s integrity within the Roman Empire, which should rightfully earn
him a connection to Israel, his lack of circumcision serves to block this naturalization process.
Ketiah’s immediate response is to fall upon his foreskin and cut it off, with the word “cut”

56
represented as kate’ah, our leitmotif for the story. [The root k.t.a appears in the story a total of
seven times, appropriately a typological number.]

Circumcision plays an important thematic role in this story. In one sense, a circumcision is a sort
of amputation, albeit of a relatively minor organ, and thus it relates to the metaphoric amputation
of Israel situated at the outset of the story. However, while that proposed process
would separate Israel from Rome, the cutting off of a foreskin is precisely what serves
to integrate an individual into the nation of Israel, both for born Jews and converts. In fact, this
concept of integration by excision is a central theme (and pun!) of the biblical discussion of
circumcision. As Genesis 17:14 puts it:

‫וערל זכר אשר לא ימול את בשר ערלתו ונכרתה הנפש ההוא מעמיה את בריתי הפר‬

Any uncircumcised male, who will not circumcise his flesh, will be cut off from his people; he
has broken my covenant.

An uncircumcised male, who does not cut off his foreskin, is himself cut off (k.r.t)! Retention of
the foreskin entail a rejection of the covenant; to circumcise means to join the covenant. As Israel’s
founding covenant, Abraham’s “Treaty between the Pieces,” implies (Gen. 15:7-21), covenants
are set, or, more literally, cut (k.r.t), by splitting an animal into two and walking between the
pieces, joining the two parties over the split animal. The inversion of this Biblical verse, then, is
the amputation of Ketiah’s foreskin, the elimination of that vestigial organ, which earns him
membership in Israel and its corresponding reward. In this case, the amputation serves not to break
up an integrated whole but to shed a superfluous appendage in the interests of a larger unity. The
Heavenly voice calls out that Ketiah is invited to the World to Come. A cutting (keti’ah) for the
sake of integrity (shalom).

But Ketiah’s name signifies more than that. The Roman Empire’s centuries-long dominant reign
was known, from as early as 55 CE, as the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace, as wars were
purportedly eradicated due to the Empire’s overwhelming power. The Jewish people, by contrast,
are signified symbolically by circumcision, possibly more than through any other mark; the term
“circumcised” is used throughout rabbinic literature as a synonym for “Jew.” (See, e.g., mNed
3:11.) The transition from notable of the Roman Empire to Jew can thus be properly described as
a shift whereby a son of the Pax Romana (=bar Shalom) becomes a Jew who is circumcised, or
cut (=keti’ah).

While Ketiah has done his part to deserve an otherworldly inheritance, the question of who will
receive his this-worldly estate remains to be determined. As Ketiah has entered the Jewish
covenant, he wishes that his assets be kept within Israel, and he thus bequeaths his monies to the
great rabbinic court of the generation, to “Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues.” But this Talmudic
meditation on the whole and its parts would hardly allow this ambiguous line to stand unprobed.

57
Does this bequest mean that Rabbi Akiva and his students are each to receive a proportional share
of the pie? Or does it mean that half of the estate is destined for Rabbi Akiva, with the other half
to be split among his students?

Do we first split the estate in two or do we divide it as one whole entity? Rabbi Akiva, the great
Torah scholar, resolves this issue himself. Like the Heavenly voice that “went out and said” what
Ketiah’s fate in the next world would be, Rabbi Akiva also “went out and interpreted” the law,
determining the fate of his material possessions in this world through biblical exegesis. Referring
to one of the priestly entitlements, the verse reads “And it shall be for Aaron and his sons,” (Ex.
29:28) understood in rabbinic tradition (tKip 1:5, yYom 1:2, bYom 17b, bBB 143a) as meaning
“half for Aaron and half for his sons.”

Death portends the demise of the holistic individual, and inheritance, the distribution of the
deceased’s personal effects among inheritors, reflects this dissolution. Rabbinic tradition implies
that, in cases where two groups are named in a will, it is first split in half and then divided among
relevant parties. Of all biblical characters to be associated with this splitting in half, it is Aaron,
known in the Talmud as the great splitter (botzea; see bSan 6b), not to mention the great
peacemaker (mAv 1:12). Who better than Aaron to teach about splitting Ketiah’s inheritance! It
might be intriguing to consider how this relates to Aaron’s grandson Pinhas, who has his own
experiences with keti’ah and shalom (see bKidd 66b and my analysis here) and excising in order
to make whole.

There is also an economic question at play here, relating to inheritance and empire. As history has
made clear, the cleaving of an empire into multiple parts after the death of its sovereign holds great
risk. Empires split in such a manner run the risk of rapidly losing influence. The way to preserve
an empire’s, or an estate’s, power and integrity (sheleimut) is primogeniture, which ensures that
all or most of the empire is given to one heir, preserving the large mass to maintain its great
influence. Bestowing the estate primarily to one individual ensures that Ketiah bar Shalom’s estate
remains largely held by a single party, no less than the great Rabbi Akiva, a veritable “Caesar of
the Jews.” Although the estate is split (keti’ah), it remains largely whole (shalom).

As we have seen, this story includes more than one metaphor – Israel is an infected limb, Ketiah’s
death represents a boat’s passing through a toll port. I suggest that another metaphor, although
unstated, presents itself in this story’s structure. With apologies to the man, it is possible to view
Ketiah as representing a foreskin undergoing the process of circumcision. He is cast out of Caesar’s
council, to his death, but it is only through this removal of Ketiah that a greater integrity can be
achieved, between the Roman Empire and Israel. If a foreskin can be understood as an offering of
sorts, a small sacrifice to preserve a greater integrity and peace, Ketiah is similarly cast off from
the Romans, an individual sacrificed for the cause of maintaining Roman-Jewish integrity.
Ironically, while this self-sacrifice separates him from the Roman people, it ensconces him in Israel
and its reward for all eternity.

Rabbi is moved by this story, exclaiming: “Some earn their place in the World to Come in a single
moment, while for others it takes many years”! Ketiah manages, in this final act, to earn eternal
life, bypassing the usual, more extensive process of living a life of virtue. Here again, the part

58
stands for the whole, with one action, a single moment, fatefully sealing Ketiah’s fate for all time,
determining the reward on behalf of his entire life. The importance of the minor part – Ketiah – a
single council member, in one moment of his life, can have ramifications for his entire legacy, as
for all of Israel, for eternity. For Ketiah, whose single voice won the day in saving Israel, a single
moment was sufficient to seal his own fate. In this case, the part (keti’ah) determines the fate of
the whole (shalom).

A final note: one wonders about the context of this rabbinic meditation on part and whole. As
several studies have made clear, the Jews (or Judeans) held a liminal position within the Roman
Empire – were they comparable to other inhabitants or citizens of the Roman Empire, or was there
something distinct about them? It is in this context that the rabbis consider not only questions of
part and whole but also Israel’s place among the Romans: Are they a festering limb awaiting
amputation or an intrinsic part of the Roman empire? Additionally, how might one shift from
Roman to Jewish status, as Ketiah did? In this story primarily about Romans, the rabbis find an
opportunity to express some core questions facing the Jews: Part and Whole, Israel and the
Nations, sacrificing for the greater good, and earning the World to Come.

As this story teaches, whether a cut yields a peace or mere pieces is no simple matter and depends
on complex questions of identity, belonging, and integrity. Our protagonist stands at the crossroads
of all these issues; he offers his piece, rests in peace, and shows that the “cut Jew” can coexist with
the “Rome of Peace.” In so many ways, this is fittingly called the story of Ketiah bar Shalom.

59