Daf Ditty Taanis 2: The Three Keys

Rabbi Yohanan said: Three keys remain in the Holy Blessed One’s own hand, and
have not been entrusted to any messenger, namely, the key to rain, the key to
childbirth, and the key to the revival of the dead . . .

Seizing upon this notion, the Kotzker says that at the moment when a woman
is giving birth, God is present in an intensified, heightened way—in the
Kotzker’s language, “higher holiness rests there.” He continues:

But afterwards, when the infant emerges into the atmosphere of the world,
automatically the Shekhinah and incumbent holiness withdraw. And therefore, in
this place, tumah “is born.” Because everywhere where there is a withdrawal of
holiness, tumah is born in its place, as in the tumah associated with death, which
arises for the same reason.

Ohel Torah, Parashat Tazria

1
2
MISHNA: From when, i.e., from which date, does one begin to mention the might of the rains
by inserting the phrase: He makes the wind blow and rain fall, in the second blessing of the Amida
prayer?

Rabbi Eliezer says: The phrase is inserted from the first Festival day of the festival of Sukkot.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: From the last Festival day of the festival of Sukkot.

3
Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: Since rain is nothing other than a sign of a curse during
the festival of Sukkot, as rainfall forces Jews to leave their sukkot, why should one mention the
might of rain during this period?

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I too did not say that it is proper to request rain at this time, but it is
proper only to mention the phrase: He makes the wind blow and rain fall, in its due time.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: If so, i.e., if reciting the phrase does not constitute a request for rain,
one should always mention rain, even in the summer.

4
The mishna states a general principle: One requests rain only immediately preceding the rainy
season.

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the one who passes before the ark as prayer leader on the
concluding Festival day of the festival of Sukkot, the Eighth Day of Assembly:

The last prayer leader, who leads the additional prayer, mentions rain, whereas the first prayer
leader, for the morning prayer, does not mention rain.

The opposite is the case at the conclusion of the period for mentioning rain on the first Festival
day of Passover: Here, the first prayer leader, who leads the morning prayer, mentions rain,
while the last prayer leader, who leads the additional prayer, does not mention rain.

5
§ The Gemara cites related statements concerning the idea that rainfall provides evidence of God’s
might. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There are three keys maintained in the hand of the Holy One,
Blessed be He, which were not transmitted to an intermediary, i.e., God tends to these matters
Himself. And they are: The key to rain, the key to birthing, and the key to the resurrection
of the dead.

Rabbi Yoḥanan cites verses in support of his claim. The key to rain, as it is stated:

‫אוָֹצרוֹ ַהטּוֹב‬-‫ ֶאת‬X‫יב ִיְפַתּח ְיהָוה ְל‬ 12 The LORD will open unto thee His good treasure
,‫ ְבִּﬠתּוֹ‬X‫ַא ְרְצ‬-‫ ָלֵתת ְמַטר‬,‫ַהָשַּׁמ ִים‬-‫ֶאת‬ the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season,
‫; ְוִהְל ִויָת‬X‫ַמֲﬠֵשׂה ָיֶד‬-‫ ֵאת ָכּל‬,i‫וְּלָב ֵר‬ and to bless all the work of thy hand; and thou shalt
.‫ ְוַאָתּה ל ֹא ִתְלֶוה‬,‫גּוֹ ִים ַרִבּים‬ lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow.
Deut 28:12

6
 “The Lord will open for you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain of your land
in its due time” indicates that rainfall is controlled by God Himself.

From where is it derived that the key to birthing is maintained by God? As it is written:

‫ ָרֵחל; ַו ִיְּשַׁמע ֵאֶליָה‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫כב ַו ִיְּזֹכּר ֱא|ִהים‬ 22 And God remembered Rachel, and God
.‫ ַרְחָמהּ‬-‫ ַו ִיְּפַתּח ֶאת‬,‫ֱא|ִהים‬ hearkened to her, and opened her womb.
Gen 30:22

“And God remembered Rachel and listened

to her, and He opened her womb”

From where is it derived that the key to the resurrection of the dead is maintained by God
Himself? As it is written:

-‫ ְבִּפְתִחי ֶאת‬:‫ֲא ִני ְיהָוה‬-‫ ִכּי‬,‫ יג ִויַדְﬠֶתּם‬13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have
‫ֶאְתֶכם‬ ‫וְּבַהֲﬠלוִֹתי‬ ,‫ ִקְברוֵֹתיֶכם‬opened your graves, and caused you to come up out of
.‫ַﬠִמּי‬--‫ִמִקְּברוֵֹתיֶכם‬ your graves, O My people.
Ez 37:13

“And you shall know that I am the Lord when I have opened your graves”

7
In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: The key to livelihood is also in God’s hand, as it is written:

‫ַחי‬-‫; וַּמְשִׂבּיַﬠ ְלָכל‬X‫ָיֶד‬-‫טז פּוֵֹתַח ֶאת‬ 16 Thou openest Thy hand, and satisfiest every living
.‫ָרצוֹן‬ thing with favour.
Ps 145:16

“You open Your hand and satisfy every living thing with favor” The Gemara asks: And what is
the reason that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not consider this key of livelihood in his list?

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you: Rain is the same as livelihood
in this regard, as rain is indispensable to all livelihoods.

8
Summary

Introduction1

During the rainy season during the second part of the Amidah, in the paragraph about God’s power,
we add in the words “He causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall.” In our mishnah Rabbi
Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate when we begin to say this phrase.

From when do they mention the powers of [bringing] rain? Rabbi Eliezer says: from the first
day of the Festival [of Sukkot]. Rabbi Joshua says: on the last day of the Festival [of Sukkot].

https://www.sefaria.org/Taanit.2a.1?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Taanit.1.1&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%20of%20Mishn
ah&lang3=en

9
This is the question that is debated in this mishnah when do we begin to mention that God has the
power to bring rain? Both sages agree that we begin during Sukkot they argue over whether we
begin mentioning rain on the first or on the last day of Sukkot.

Joshua said to him: Since rain on the Festival is nothing but a sign of [God’s] curse why
should he mention it?

Rain on Sukkot is considered to be a rebuke by God (see Sukkah 2:9) because it prevents one from
being able to dwell (eat and sleep) in the Sukkah. Therefore, Rabbi Joshua argues, it does not make
sense to mention God’s rain-giving powers at this time.

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I also did not say to request [rain] but to make mention, “He
causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall” in its due season.

Rabbi Eliezer agrees that rain on Sukkot is a curse. However, he responds that he was not
suggesting that we ask for rain at the beginning of Sukkot, but rather that we just mention that God
has the power to bring rain in its due season. We ask for rain in the ninth blessing of the Amidah
when we say, “And provide dew and rain (ten tal umatar).”

He replied to him: if so one should at all times make mention of it.

Rabbi Joshua responds that if all we are doing in this prayer is mentioning rain, why not mention
it all throughout the year. The fact that Rabbi Eliezer agrees that we only mention it during the
rainy season means that he too agrees that it is connected with actual rain. If so, then he should
also agree that we shouldn’t mention it until the time when we hope that the rainy season will
actually begin, that is at the end of Sukkot when we are done sitting in the sukkah. The halakhah
is according to Rabbi Joshua.

Our masechet begins with reasoning surrounding a familiar prayer said in the second blessing of
the Amidah: mashiv haruach umorid hageshem, He makes the wind to blow and the rain to
fall. The rabbis argue about whether this should be said in the winter as it is, or whether it should
be said all year with the addition of b'onato, in its own time.2

We learn about respect for the strength of the rain. Our commentary tells us that rain is related to
the concept of resurrection, as it brings what has died back to life. In Kabbala, the rain is said to
be a manifestation of G-d's tzimtzum, or G-d's contraction or withdrawal from us. Simultaneously
it is a manifestation of G-d's chesed, or loving-kindness. We are presented with multiple
interpretations of rain and its effects.

2
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/06/

10
We are told that Rabbi Yochanan describes three things that are in G-d's control alone: rainfall,
birthing, and resurrection. Proof-texts are provided, including Rachel and Leah, where G-d
"opened her womb". Thus it was G-d and not the women themselves nor an agent of G-d who
cause the fetus to gestate. In Israel ("the West") livelihood is added to this list. Rabbi Yochanan
is said to have put livelihood aside for all jobs are dependent upon rainfall, which is dependent on
our observance.

Amazing that we continue to use these same words in our daily prayers. The all-importance of
rain and its power is remote to people like me who live without fear of flooding or draught. In
fact, people like me are so disconnected from the cycles of nature that we expect our food to be
packaged and available from the grocery store regardless of the weather. And yet we pray for
wind and rain. Perhaps there is value in maintaining our ancient prayers -- we are forced to
remember the power of rain and wind.

The rabbis wonder why the prayer for rain coincides with the start of Sukkot. Is it related to other
mitzvot involving rain: the water libation? the lulav? This brings the rabbis to a discussion about
the appropriate times to pray for rain. Which day of Sukkot? Which time of day?

We end the daf with the rabbis sharing some interesting proof texts where they find references to
the letters of the word mayim, water: mem yud mem. It is beautiful to watch their connections
take shape, but I sometimes find these interpretations to be without adequate reason. Not that their
arguments make no sense, but that their arguments are somewhat self-serving and other proof-
texts could have been used to prove a completely different perspective.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3

TIME TO MENTION RAIN

The Mishna begins by asking when the time in the year is that we begin to mention the Powers of
Rain. [This is referring to the “morid hageshem” that we recite in the second brachah of Shemoneh
Esrei.] Rabbi Eliezer maintains that we begin on the first day of Sukkos and Rabbi Yehoshua holds
that we begin on the last day of Sukkos. Rabbi Yehoshua asked Rabbi Eliezer that it is not proper
to mention rain during Sukkos when rain is regarded as a curse (since there is no obligation to sit
in a sukkah during the rain). Rabbi Eliezer responded that this is why rain is only mentioned on
Sukkos, but we do not ask for rain. Rabbi Yehudah rules that we begin mentioning the Powers of
Rain on Shmini Atzeres (the last day of Sukkos). The chazzan for Shacharis does not mention it
but the chazzan for Mussaf does. We cease to mention the Powers of Rain on the first day of
Pesach. The chazzan for Shacharis does mention it but the chazzan for Mussaf does not.

3
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Taanis_2.pdf

11
POWER OF RAIN

The Gemora asks: What is the Tanna referring to when he asked “When”? The Gemora answers:
The Tanna refers to a Mishna elsewhere which teaches: The powers of rain (Gevuros geshamim)
are mentioned in the blessing of the Resurrection of the Dead (Techiyas ha-meisim), and the
request for rain in the blessing of years (Birchas ha-shanim), and havdalah (on Motzei Shabbos)
in (the fourth blessing, which is) the gracious giver of knowledge (Chonein ha’da’as). With that in
mind, the Tanna now teaches: When do we begin to make mention of the Power of Rain? The
Gemora asks: Would it not have been more appropriate to teach it there, why did he leave it until
now? The Gemora answers: Rather, it is because the Tanna had just completed learning the
Tractate of Rosh Hashanah, where we have learned in a Mishna: And on Sukkos, the world is
judged regarding water. And, as there it taught that on Sukkos, the world is judged regarding water,
therefore our Tanna teaches: When do we begin to make mention of the Power of Rain. The
Gemora asks: But why is this addition that we mention referred to as the Powers of Rain? Rabbi
Yochanan answers by citing verses that compare the Creation of the World to rain. Just like the
Creation indicates Hashem’s power, so too power is associated with rain.

[The Gemora states that rain descends by Hashem’s power. The Perishah (114) writes that the
second brachah of Shemoneh Esrei begins with the word ‘gibor,’ strength, so too it was instituted
to mention rain in this brachah with a language of strength and power.]

The Gemora asks: And from where do we know that it is mentioned in prayer (during Shemoneh
Esrei)? The Gemora answers with a braisa: To love Hashem your God and to serve Him with all
your heart. What is regarded as a service of the heart? This is prayer. And immediately afterwards
it is written: And I will provide rain for your land in its proper time, the early and the late rains.

HASHEM’S KEYS

Rabbi Yochanan states that there are three keys that Hashem does not delegate to the hands of an
agent. They are the key to rain, the key for childbirth and the key for reviving the dead. The Gemora
cites Scriptural sources which indicate that these three matters are not entrusted to a messenger but
rather are administered by Hashem Himself. In Eretz Yisroel they added that Hashem does not
give over the key for sustenance either. Rabbi Yochanan did not incorporate this in his listing
because it is included in the key for rain since rain provides basic sustenance.

WHEN TO BEGIN – BY NIGHT OR BY DAY?

Rabbi Eliezer maintains that we begin mentioning rain on the first day of Sukkos. The Gemora
inquires if we begin on the first night of Sukkos or during the daytime on the first day. This depends
on where Rabbi Eliezer learned that the time to begin mentioning rain is the first day of Sukkos.
If he derived it from the mitzvah of lulav (which begins on the first day of Sukkos), we can say
that just like the mitzvah of lulav begins by day, so too the mentioning of rain begins by day.
Perhaps he learns from the water-libation service (which begins on the first day of Sukkos), and
just like that can be performed even at night, so too the mentioning of rain begins at night. Rabbi
Avahu cites a braisa which explicitly states that Rabbi Eliezer derived the designated time for

12
mentioning rain from the mitzvah of lulav. This would indicate that we begin mentioning rain
during the daytime and not at night. Some say that Rabbi Avahu had such a tradition to that effect,
and others say that he heard a braisa like that. The Gemora cites the braisa: From when do we
mention rain? Rabbi Eliezer says: It is from the time that the lulav is taken. Rabbi Yehoshua said:
It is from the time that the lulav is put down (on Shmini Atzeres).

WHICH DAY SHOULD WE BEGIN?

The Gemora had cited a braisa which discusses several different opinions regarding the correct
date to begin mentioning rain. Rabbi Eliezer states that we begin on the first day of Sukkos and
this is derived from the mitzvah of taking the lulav. Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that we begin
mentioning rain on Shmini Atzeres, the day after we put down the lulav. The braisa continues:
Rabbi Eliezer explained his opinion by saying that just like the lulav and the other species are
taken in order to beseech from Hashem to issue a positive judgment regarding water, and just like
these four species cannot grow without water, so too the entire world cannot survive without water.
This would indicate that we should begin to mention rain on the first day of Sukkos corresponding
to the day in which we begin to take the lulav.

Rabbi Yehoshua asked Rabbi Eliezer that it is not proper to mention rain during Sukkos when rain
is regarded as a curse (since there is no obligation to sit in a sukkah during the rain). Rabbi Eliezer
responded that this is why rain is only mentioned on Sukkos, but we do not ask for rain. Rabbi
Eliezer proves that it is fitting to mention rain even prior to its appropriate season from the fact
that we constantly mention the Resurrection of the Dead even though it will only happen in its
proper time. Rebbe said: I say that where one discontinues the request for rain (which is on Pesach)
he discontinues the mentioning (of the Powers of Rain). Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseirah maintains
that we begin mentioning rain on the second day of Sukkos.

Rabbi Akiva rules that we begin on the sixth day of Sukkos. Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of
Rabbi Yehoshua that the chazzan on Shmini Atzeres – the latter one (for Mussaf), he mentions it,
but the first one (the chazzan for Shacharis) does not mention it. On the first day of Pesach, the
first one does mention it but the second one does not. The Gemora asks: Didn’t Rabbi Eliezer
respond properly to Rabbi Yehoshua?

The Gemora answers: Rabbi Yehoshua could counter that the Resurrection of the Dead can be
mentioned all year since every day can potentially be its suitable time, but the same cannot be said
regarding rain. It cannot be said that whenever it falls it is its proper time, for it was taught in a
Mishna: If the month of Nissan ended and then rain fell, it is a sign of a curse, as it is written: Is it
not the wheat harvest today?

INSIGHTS TO THE DAF HASHEM’S KEYS

13
The Gemora in the third perek (25b) cites Rabbah who said that he saw an image of the angel
Ridya who is the angel placed in charge of rain (Rashi). Tosfos in Niddah (16b) answers that the
angel Af-Bri can only accomplish his mission with the permission of Hashem. One can infer from
Tosfos that the other emissaries of Hashem do not require His permission before performing their
task. Mishna L’melech in his sefer Perashas Derochim (21) asks on Tosfos that is it possible to say
that Yurkani, the angel appointed on hail and Gavriel, the angel placed in charge of fire can
perform their mission without permission being granted from Hashem. There is nothing in this
world that can function without Hashem’s authorization.

The Peri Megadim in Mishbitzos Zahav (114:9) explains that all matters are given over to an
intermediary and Hashem’s supervision is constantly upon them. The exception is regarding rain
where Hashem did not give over this responsibility to a messenger at all. When Hashem decides
to give rain, He instructs Af-Bri to carry out His will. Sfas Emes writes that Hashem Himself opens
and closes the storehouse of rain and after they are opened, permission is granted to Af-Bri to
cause the rain. The Perashas Derachim answers based on a braisa cited later in the perek.

The braisa states that Eretz Yisroel is watered personally by Hashem, but the remainder of the
world is water by Hashem’s messenger. Our Gemora is referring to the rain in Eretz Yisroel which
is administered solely by Hashem. The angel Ridya and Af-Bri are appointed on the rainfall of all
the rest of the world. The Chidah in his sefer Pesach Einayim answers that while Hashem gives
the rain, the angels distribute it to different places. The Tosfos HaRosh in Niddah seems to say
similar to this. The Maharsha answers based on Rashi that our Gemora means that the three keys
were never given together to one messenger, but they could have been given one at a time. This
would answer a question that Tosfos asks.

Tosfos cites a Gemora in Sanhedrin (113a) where the Gemora records an incident that Eliyahu was
given over the keys for rain and for reviving the dead. According to Rashi, this is not difficult since
our Gemora means that all three keys were not given over to the same messenger at the same time.
The Raavad answers Tosfos’ question by stating that Eliyahu was not handed the keys to bring
forth rain, rather he was given the key to prevent the rain from coming.

SALTY PRAYERS

The Gemora in Taanis (2a) refers to prayer as “the Divine Service of the heart.” The laws
concerning the daily prayers are often derived from those which govern the offering of the
sacrifices in the Beis HaMikdash. If so, where do we find in our prayers a parallel to the
requirement that every sacrifice be accompanied by salt?

Rav Moshe Meir Weiss quotes a beautiful answer that he once heard from a Mr. Levinger. He
posited that our heartfelt, salty tears are intended to correspond to the sacrifices, while noting that
the Torah requires this “salt” to be brought together with every single offering!

14
 THE PRAYER FOR RAIN IN THE SHEMONEH ESREH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

The Mishnah asks, "From when do we recite the prayer of Gevuros Geshamim," and proceeds to
mention the day on which we begin to recite that prayer. The Gemara asks why the Mishnah
assumes that there is an obligation to recite such a prayer, such that it asks "from when do we
recite" it. The Gemara answers that the obligation to recite a prayer for rain is taught by the
Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah (16a) which states that on Sukos the world is judged for rain. If there
is a judgment for rain, it is obvious that a prayer of appeasement ("Hazkarah") for rain must be
recited. Therefore, the Mishnah here asks from when this prayer must be recited.

Why, though, is the judgment for rain on Sukos grounds for reciting a prayer for rain at that time?
The Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah also says that the world is judged for its crops on Pesach and for
its fruits on Shavuos, but no prayers are recited for those items on those festivals. Why is there a
greater necessity to recite a prayer of appeasement in the Shemoneh Esreh on Sukos for rain than
to recite a prayer of appeasement for crops or for fruit on Pesach or Shavuos?

(a) On Pesach and Shavuos, as well as during the rest of the year, we ask Hash-m to "bless for us
this year and all of its produce that they should be good for us and place Your blessing on the face
of the earth..." ("Barech Aleinu" in Shemoneh Esreh). In this blessing, we acknowledge that all
produce comes from Hash-m, and thus it is not necessary to mention it in a prayer of appeasement
as well.

In contrast, we refrain from asking Hash-m to send rain on (and immediately after) Sukos.
Therefore, it is necessary to mention at least a prayer of appeasement for rain on (or immediately
after) Sukos. We do not ask for rain on Sukos because rain during the festival is an ominous sign
(28b). We do not ask for rain immediately after the festival because, in the times of the Beis
ha'Mikdash, rain immediately after the festival would complicate the return home of those who
came to Yerushalayim from afar (Ta'anis 4b). Therefore, it is necessary to say a prayer of
appeasement (Hazkarah) for rain.

(b) The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (16a) explains that on each day of judgment, the Torah bids us
to perform acts of appeasement. On Pesach, the act of appeasement is the offering of the Korban
ha'Omer. On Shavuos, the act of appeasement is the bringing of Bikurim. These two acts of
appeasement are done in the Beis ha'Mikdash. On Sukos, the Torah describes two acts of
appeasement for rain.

The first act of appeasement is the Nisuch ha'Mayim, the water libation, which is performed in the
Beis ha'Mikdash. The second act of appeasement is the Mitzvah of holding the Arba'as ha'Minim,
which need large amounts of water to grow (Ta'anis 2b).

4
https://dafyomi.co.il/taanis/insites/tn-dt-002.htm

15
This act of appeasement is done not only in the Beis ha'Mikdash but by every Jew in every location.
Since every person performs an act of appeasement, it stands to reason that every person should
make a mention of appeasement for rain in his Shemoneh Esreh. On the other festivals, when the
act of appeasement is done only in the Beis ha'Mikdash, individuals do not have to make any
mention of appeasement in their Shemoneh Esreh.

Why is there no public act of appeasement done on Pesach and Shavuos, as there is on Sukos?
Perhaps rain is considered a more important commodity than crops and fruits because the crops
and fruits themselves grow only as a result of the rain. Therefore, the judgment on Sukos is the
primary judgment while the judgments on Pesach and Shavuos are secondary, and that is why a
special prayer of appeasement for rain is recited in the Shemoneh Esreh.

THE "GEVURAH" DEMONSTRATED BY RAIN

The Gemara says that the prayer for rain is called "Gevuros Geshamim" because the rains
demonstrate the Gevurah (might) of Hash-m. In what way does rain, more than anything else,
demonstrate the might of Hash-m?

(a) The MESHECH CHOCHMAH (Devarim 16:2) cites the Yerushalmi (end of Avodah Zarah
3:1) which says that although idolaters believe that their idols have power over the world, they
admit that their idols have no power over the seas. The Meshech Chochmah says that in the same
vein they admit that their idols have no power over water in general. For this reason, the Gemara
in Sanhedrin (67b) says that water has the ability to nullify the power of Keshafim (sorcery).5

Similarly, the idolaters admit that their gods have no power over rain. As the verse in Yirmeyahu
(14:22) implies, no idolater believes that his idol can bring rain. Since rain demonstrates the unique
and unparalleled power of Hash-m as acknowledged by everyone, and which no one attempts to
attribute to any other entity, the Mishnah refers to the prayer for rain as "Gevuros Geshamim."

However, several sources seem to contradict the Meshech Chochmah's assertion that the idolaters
admit that their gods have no power over the sea, water, or rain. According to the assertion of the
Meshech Chochmah, why did the shipmates of Yonah pray to their various gods to stop the storm
at sea if they knew that their gods have no power over water?

Also, the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (55a) relates that a certain idol visited people in their dreams
and told them that if they sacrifice an offering to it, it will bring rain to them. (They offered a
sacrifice and it indeed rained.) It is evident that the idolaters do believe that their idols have control
over the sea and rain.

Perhaps the Meshech Chochmah understands that while the idolaters admit that their gods have no
power over the sea and rain, they believe that sometimes their idols can persuade the true G-d to
manipulate the sea or rain. They know that their gods have no permanent or independent power
over water.

5
Similarly, the Mishnah in Kelim (17:13) says that anything which comes from the sea cannot become Tamei.

16
The Meshech Chochmah's assertion may explain why the Torah states that when the Jewish people
follow the will of Hash-m, He provides rain in ample supply and at appropriate times (Devarim
11:14), and, conversely, when the Jewish people do not follow the will of Hash-m, He withholds
the rains (Devarim 11:17). Since the rain is a clear indication of Hash-m's power, it is an
appropriate way to demonstrate the reward for following (or punishment for defying) the will of
Hash-m.

The Gemara here says that the keys to rain, childbirth, and Techiyas ha'Mesim are in the hands of
no one but Hash-m. The RA'AVAN (at the end of his commentary to Maseches Berachos, #204)
writes that childbirth and Techiyas ha'Mesim, like rain, demonstrate the power of Hash-m. For this
reason, they are also mentioned in the blessing of Hash-m's Gevurah in the Shemoneh Esreh ("Atah
Gibor..."). Following the Meshech Chochmah's approach, we may suggest that no idolater believes
that his god has power over childbirth and Techiyas ha'Mesim. Since no one else claims to have
the power of childbirth and Techiyas ha'Mesim, these things are also referred to as the Gevuros of
Hash-m.

(b) The VILNA GA'ON (Aderes Eliyahu, end of the first verse in v'Zos ha'Berachah, Mahadura
2) suggests a different approach. He explains that the "four keys" refer to acts that defy nature.
According to the laws of physics, it is impossible for the dead to be resurrected. Similarly, rainfall
(and weather in general) follows no natural physical, predictable laws. It is not like sunrise and
sunset or the motions of the planets and celestial bodies which can be predicted thousands of years
in advance. In this sense, rainfall is "supernatural" and demonstrates the presence of the Creator
more than any other event. Since it constitutes a clear demonstration of Hash-m's might, it is
referred to as "Gevuros Geshamim."

The BEN YEHOYADA here (DH Sheloshah) follows a similar approach. He adds that the
"agents" to whom all of the keys of the world are entrusted, with the exception of the keys to rain,
childbirth, and Techiyas ha'Mesim, are none other than the forces of nature.

(c) In BENAYAHU (beginning of 7a), the Ben Yehoyada suggests another approach. As the
Gemara says, rain is considered greater than the resurrection of the dead because it is beneficial
not only to the righteous but also to the wicked.

The Mishnah states, "Who is the mighty person (Gibor)? One who conquers his will" (Avos 4:1).
The only acts describable as "difficult" for the Creator, as it were, are acts through which He
conquers His will and shows generosity even when it is not deserved. This is what the Gemara in
Pesachim (118a) means when it states that providing sustenance for every person is as difficult for
Hash-m as the Splitting of the Sea.

The Splitting of the Sea was "difficult" for Hash-m because He performed the miracle even for the
sinners of the Jewish people, as the Midrash says: "The idol of Michah passed through the sea"
(Shemos Rabah 41:1). Since the evildoers were not deserving of the miracle, the act was
considered "difficult." Similarly, Hash-m provides sustenance -- through rain -- for all people
regardless of whether they deserve it or not. In this sense, it is fitting to refer to rain as the "might
of Hash-m."

17
(d) As mentioned earlier, in the passage of "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a" (Devarim 11:14-17) the Torah
teaches that there is earthly reward and punishment for the acts we perform specifically in Eretz
Yisrael. Eretz Yisrael lacks natural, self-replenishing water sources (in contrast to other places,
such as Egypt). If we fail to appreciate Hash-m's benevolence and do not follow His will, He will
remind us of our absolute reliance on Him by holding back the rains (as He did in the times of
Eliyahu and Achav).

In this respect, rain (or the lack of it) reminds us to trust in Hash-m and to turn to Him in prayer.
It also reminds us of Hash-m's constant presence and supervision by showing Divine retribution
in a direct manner of cause and effect. Since rain reminds us of Hash-m's presence and
omnipotence, it is appropriate to refer to it as the "might of Hash-m."

Although these four approaches appear to differ from each other, a deeper analysis makes it evident
that they are complementary. They reflect four perspectives of the same concept.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:6

Introduction to Masechet Ta’anit

With the exception of Yom Kippur, there is no mention of fast days in the Torah, although they are
the subject of significant discussion in the books of Nevi’im and Ketuvim. From these writings we
can glean much about the significance and purpose of fast days, both public and private, as they
were kept in ancient times. Thus, many of the principles found in Masechet Ta’anit are based on
oral traditions going back to Mount Sinai as we find them described in the prophetic writings.

The underlying theory behind a fast day is the idea that worldly occurrences are not happenstance.
Just as there is a physical, rational explanation for a given event, so there is a spiritual explanation
for it, as well. This includes a basic belief in reward and punishment as well as hashgaha peratit –
attention bestowed by God on every individual, community, and nation. Thus, a disaster or tragedy
must be seen either as a warning or as punishment (as is described in detail in Chapter
26 of Vayikra), both of which demand a response of prayer and repentance. A ta’anit is a time of
subjecting oneself to inuy, which is defined by the oral tradition as a day on which we neither eat
nor drink, and by the Sages as a time when one also refrains from other physical pleasures –
specifically abstaining from washing, anointing, wearing shoes and engaging in sexual relations.
Nevertheless, it is clear from both the Talmud and the words of the prophets (see, for example, the
description of the ideal fast day in Chapter 58 of Yeshayahu) that the physical inuy is not the end
goal of the ta’anit. Limitations on physical pleasures are merely a vehicle used to reach the true

6
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_taanit23/

18
purpose of the ta’anit, which is repentance and purification of the soul. Thus Masechet
Ta’anit does not focus merely on the technical aspects of the fast days, but also on ways to raise
the spiritual level of the participants through prayer and introspection.

In Israel, the most common natural disaster is a drought, which is the focus of a large part of this
tractate. A lack of rain is indicative of the wrath of God (see Devarim 11:17) as both punishment
and warning. More than any other calamity, when there is no rain, one has no recourse other than
to turn to God in prayer. Moreover, drought does not merely affect a single individual for a limited
amount of time; rather it is a catastrophe that can have long-tem impact on the entire land.
Thus Masechet Ta’anit describes a series of fast days that become more stringent and severe with
the passage of time. The general rule is that we view the fast days described in Masechet Ta’anit as
days of sadness bordering on mourning, whose purpose is to inspire the people to repent. As such,
included in these fast days are public gatherings that include prayer and Torah reading, as well as
a call to teshuvah, both communal and individual.

Aside from the fast days that focus on future improvement, there are also established fast days of
remembrance that commemorate tragedies of the past. Even these fasts, which focus on national
tragedies – in particular those connected with the destruction of the first and second Temples – are
intertwined with future aspirations, as remembering the past is a first step to recognizing and
looking forward to the future redemption. It should also be noted that these days take on stronger
elements of mourning. Tisha b’Av in particular is representative of all the tragedies that have
befallen the Jewish people, given the many misfortunes that we have suffered on that day.

Ta’anit 2a-b
The first Mishnah in Masechet Ta’anit opens with a discussion of the prayer for rain,
distinguishing between two different parts of the amidah prayer. Towards the beginning of
the Amidah we recite gevurot geshamim (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). In the middle of the Amidah, in the blessing of mevarekh ha-shanim (He who blesses
the years) we also add a specific request for rain. Although Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi
Yehoshua disagree whether we should begin praising God for His deliverance of rain at the
beginning of Sukkot, it becomes clear in the Gemara that all are in agreement that the request for
rain should wait until after the Sukkot holiday is over. According to Rabbi Eliezer, it is appropriate
to praise God for His works at any time, while according to Rabbi Yehoshua, since rain is not
wanted during Sukkot it would be inappropriate to mention it in any way until after the holiday.

The idea that rain during Sukkot is a siman kelalah – a curse – is explained by Rashi to refer to the
Gemara in Sukkah (28b), which teaches that a person who becomes uncomfortable in
his sukkah because of the rain is permitted to leave his sukkah. A parable is told in which a person
who is forced to leave his sukkah because of the rain is compared to a servant who pours a cup of
wine for his master and then has the wine flung in his face by the master, who clearly rejects his
service. Thus, rain on Sukkot is a siman kelalah because a Jew forced out of his sukkah by rain
experiences the rejection of his desire to serve God by means of the sukkah. The Me’iri suggests
a much simpler explanation, pointing out that simply missing out on the opportunity to perform
a mitzvah is, itself, indicative of a siman kelalah.

19
Placement of gevurot geshamim in the blessing of mechayei ha-metim is understood by
the Ritva as signifying the revival that the rainy season offers the land after a dry summer.
Moreover it is a reminder to us of God’s power and His ability to change the reality of the world
based on His establishment of a natural cycle.

Our Daf explains that mentioning of God’s causing the rain to fall is an expression of His great
might, because the ability to bring rain to the world is a feat which was not delegated in the hands
of any intermediary. Ritva notes that we highlight this trait of God in the blessing of resurrection
of the dead, because the rain revives people. In fact, in this second paragraph of the Amidah, we
mention the concept of ‫ המתים תחית‬directly four times.

What is the significance of this extraordinary emphasis?

The brachah is actually not repeating the same idea over and over. The first reference to reviving
the dead is mentioned just prior to our declaring that Hashem causes the rain to fall. We hereby
acknowledge that the rain refreshes our food supply in the world, thus sustaining life. The next
statement in this regard is in conjunction with the statement of uplifting those who fall : ‫מתים‬...‫סומך‬
‫ מחיה נופלים‬.This refers to Hashem’s kindness in saving those who are gravely ill or otherwise on
the verge of death and danger. Even at the most precarious of times, Hashem is available to assist.
The third time this phrase appears is in reference to those who have actually died, in the literal
sense: ‫ ממית מלך ישועה ומצמיח ומחיה‬.

We declare and acknowledge the incidents where individuals were brought back to life by
Hashem’s prophets, as in the cases of Eliyahu and Elisha. Finally, the fourth and final statement is
our trust that Hashem will resurrect the dead in the end of days: ‫ונאמן‬. ‫אתה להחיות מתים‬The Rishonim
discuss what should be done if one forgot to recite the phrase of ‫ הגשם ומרוד הרוח משיב‬in its proper
spot, but he realizes this omission as he finds himself later in the middle of the same brachah. Rosh
rules that wherever one finds himself, he can simply say this phrase at that point and then continue.
This is the halachah.

However, it seems from this detailed explanation of Ritva that the placement of the statement of
‫ הרוח משיב‬is not to be said anywhere in the brachah, but that it belongs specifically juxtaposed to
the declaration of ‫ אתה מתים מחיה‬and just before the comment highlighting how Hashem sustains
all life with kindness. Accordingly, if one forgot, we may suggest that Ritva would say that one
should go back and say ‫ הרוח משיב‬and continue from there in order.

20
On our daf we find that prayer is called the service of the heart. Someone once asked Rav Noach
of Lechovitz, zt”l, “Isn’t prayer what we do when we praise the King for all the great things that
He does, or ask Him to fulfill our needs? Why does the Gemara call it a service, an avodah, of
the heart?”

Rav Noach responded, “The heart is like a field. It is only after a field has been well worked that
one can plant in it and look forward to a good harvest. Before a field is worked, it is not worthy
of being called a field. It is merely a desolate plot of land. The heart is the same. Prayer works
our hearts out thoroughly and gives us the ability to connect to Hashem and feel the way a Jew
should!”

The Chasam Sofer, zt”l, answered differently. “The reason why prayer is called an avodah is that
we really don’t have the ability to do anything to serve Hashem of our own accord. The most we
can do is yearn to serve Him and beg to be worthy of doing so until we reach the level of truly
loving Hashem. We see this from the words of the book of Tehillim, especially chapter 119.

Since the only way we come to serve Hashem is through pleading with Him to be found worthy
of doing so, prayer is called service. This is also why the Gemara in Taanis 2a teaches that we
come “to love Hashem with our whole hearts” through prayer. We can do nothing else but
continuously daven to Hashem until He has mercy upon us and brings us a little closer to Him!”

Wheat Field In Rain by Vincent Van Gogh

21
 Three keys

Mark Kerzner writes:7

In the prayer, there is a place to mention the power of God to give rain, and there is also another
place to actually ask for rain. When should one say these? Rabbi Eliezer says that one should
mention rain from the beginning of Sukkot, which marks the beginning of the rainy season. Rabbi
Yehoshua asked, "A rain is bad on Sukkot, because one is trying to live in a sukkah!?" Rather, one
should begin praying for rain on the last day of Sukkot.

Rabbi Eliezer answered, "I also did not mean to pray for rain on Sukkot, just to mention God's
power to give it." Rabbi Yehoshua asked, "Then mention it all year!" Rabbi Eliezer replied,
"Actually, yes, you can." Good answer! And Rabbi Yehoshua? - he replied, "I understand why we
mention the Resurrection of the Dead, because any day is good for that. Rains, on the other hand,
are bad at harvest time, and so should not be mentioned."

Why does the teacher start this subject at all?! - Since we just learned about Rosh Hashanah, where
it is discussed when the world is judged in regards to water and rain, it is now appropriate to discuss
when to pray for it. But how do we know we should pray for rain? - Because of the phrase, "You
will serve God with your heart... and He will give you rain." What is the service with the heart? -
that is prayer.

Why does the teacher mention specifically the "power" of God to give rain? - because, as Rabbi
Yochanan said, it is related to one of the three keys that God does not give to another: rain,
conception, and the revival of the dead.

Ben Harris writes:8

Today, we begin our study of Tractate Taanit, the tenth tractate in our study of Daf Yomi. After
this, just 53 more to go.

The word taanit means “fast” (as in days you don’t eat, not the velocity of your car) and the bulk
of the tractate concerns laws relating to public fast days. These are mostly not the fast days you’re
thinking of, like Yom Kippur and Tisha B’Av, which are fixed on the calendar each year and either
declared by God or commemorate past tragedies. Rather, these are fasts called by community
leaders in response to some kind of public emergency.

As we know from the Purim story, when Esther called upon the local Jewish community to fast
for three days in advance of her petition to the king to spare the Jews (Esther 4:15–16), fasts were
7
https://talmudilluminated.com/taanit/taanit2.html
8
Myjewishlearning.com

22
used in ancient times to seek divine intercession at times of pressing need. Such fasts are largely
things of the past, though the Israeli chief rabbi did ask the public to fast for a half-day early in the
coronavirus pandemic.

That said, the tractate doesn’t start out talking about fasts at all. It actually seems to pick up more
or less where the previous tractate, Rosh Hashanah, left off, with a discussion about prayers recited
during the fall holidays. Specifically, the first mishnah on today’s daf opens with this:

From which date does one begin to mention the might of the rains by inserting the phrase: “He
makes the wind blow and rain fall,” in the second blessing of the Amidah prayer? Rabbi Eliezer
says: The phrase is inserted from the first festival day of Sukkot. Rabbi Yehoshua says: From
the last festival day of Sukkot.

The opening subject of Taanit is when one begins adding the phrase mashiv haruach umorid
hageshem (“who makes the wind blow and the rain fall”) into the daily Amidah prayer . Sukkot
marked the beginning of the rainy season in ancient Israel, a time when crops were planted that
needed rain to germinate and provide sufficient food for the coming year. The custom was
therefore to insert this phrase into daily prayers as a request for rain. Naturally, the rabbis debate
the particulars — considering, among other things, where this custom originates in the Torah and
what to do if you forget to say it. But the bigger question is: Why are we talking about rain at all
in a section of the Talmud concerned with fasts? Well, because drought was one of the chief
reasons public fasts were called in ancient times.

It will take the rabbis many pages to finally get around to this, in the course of which we encounter
all kinds of fascinating teachings. We hear about Rabbi Daniel bar Ketina, who would inspect his
garden each day to determine which beds needed water, and then the rains would come and water
only the beds he had indicated. We hear the rabbis wax eloquent about the blessings of rain,
comparing it to the resurrection of the dead and the day the Torah was received. And we see the
rabbis considering which sins cause rain to be withheld: Robbery, slanderous speech and
neglecting Torah are among the various possibilities.

Threading through all this is the belief, common among ancient peoples, that rainfall, so critical
for survival before irrigation and modern plumbing, was determined by human behavior. If the
people sinned, the rains would not come. And if the rains did not come, human action could help.

We finally start to learn about these actions on the tenth page of Taanit — nearly one-third of the
way through — and they are both specific and onerous. The mishnah outlines precisely when in
the calendar fasts begin if the rains do not come. And it cranks up the intensity and length of the
fasts as subsequent dates pass without precipitation, layering on additional prohibitions beyond
abstaining from food and drink, including doing business, holding weddings, and even greeting
people. Other customs associated with mourning were also observed, like placing ashes upon the
Holy Ark.

Fasts weren’t just held to petition for rain, though that seems like the principal reason considering
how many pages are devoted to it. They were also held for plagues of pestilence and collapsing

23
buildings. In one instance, a fast was held because wolves ate two children — though perhaps it
was simply because wolves were spotted in an inhabited area.

Taanit is full of asides that shed light on the deep rabbinic familiarity with the intricacies of the
natural world, a familiarity few of us, rabbis or otherwise, retain today. It also features the famous
story of Honi Hama’agel, the talmudic sage who drew a circle and stood inside it promising not to
leave until God brought rain.

But for now, we’ll leave you with this nugget from today’s daf:

Rabbi Yohanan said: There are three keys maintained in the hand of the Holy One, Blessed be
he, which were not transmitted to an intermediary. And they are: The key of rain, the key of
birthing and the key of the resurrection of the dead.

Three things, Rabbi Yohanan says, are done directly by God: rain, birth and resurrection. These
three are the very workings of life and death. But the Gemara says in Israel the rabbis add a fourth
item to this list: livelihood. Why did Rabbi Yohanan leave it out?

Rain is the same as livelihood in this regard, as rain is indispensable to all livelihoods.

This is far from the last paean to rain we’re going to encounter in the next 30 pages. So put on your
raincoat and get ready.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:9

In a recent talk I quoted Rabbi Sacks zt’l who observed that ‘the truth at the beating heart of
monotheism is that God is greater than religion’, and that our greatest error is ‘to mistake religion
for God’.

I mention this as a prelude to my remarks on today’s opening daf of Massechet Ta’anit (2a) where
Rav Yochanan teaches us that: ‘Three keys are in the hand of the Holy One, Blessed be He,
which are not entrusted to an agent: 1) The key to rain (which, as noted in Ta’anit 2b, is
symbolic of all forms of sustenance), 2) The key to conception and childbirth, and, 3) The key
to the revival of the dead.’

In terms of the phrase ‘not entrusted to an agent’, some commentaries understand this as referring
to angels, while others understand it as referring to nature. But whichever way we choose to explain
this phrase, what is clear is that Rav Yochanan wishes to emphasize that these three blessings are
determined not by secondary forces appointed by God, but by God Himself.

And why these three? Because, as Rabbi Yerucham Leibovitz explains (Da’at Chochmah
U’Mussar Vol. 1 p. 16), these three gifts are mercifully sought by people, and their granting

9
www.rabbbijohnnysolomon.com

24
involves a greater dose of mercy than other gifts. As such, only God alone is the one who holds
the keys of these three gifts.

Of course, for those currently begging for the door of rain and sustenance and the door of
conception and childbirth to be opened, this teaching may provide little solace. Still, even for such
people, I believe that there is value and importance in trying to make sense of this teaching by Rav
Yochanan because there are times when we are standing at the wrong door or seeking the keys
from the wrong source.

I hope it goes without saying that alongside our faith in God (‫ )בטחון‬must be our human endeavor
(‫)השתדלות‬, and so those in need must do what they can to assist themselves. Still, as I explained
above, one of our greatest errors is ‘to mistake religion for God’, and in terms of this teaching,
what this means is that there are situations when we think we are turning to God for help but we
are actually just performing religious rituals, and similarly, there are situations when we think we
are seeking God’s mercy but we are actually just approaching those who we consider to be
representatives of religion and God for help.

Having explained this, I believe Rav Yochanan’s teaching is a powerful introduction to Massechet
Ta’anit which comes to teach us that while religious rituals may help us connect with God, if we
want certain doors to be opened, we need to turn to God.

Some Opening Thoughts on Masechet Taanit

25
Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:

"Memati mazkirin gevurat geshamim, from when do we begin to mention the power of
rain?" (Ta'anit 2a). Masechet Ta'anit opens with a discussion of when we are to begin
reciting masheev haruach umoreed hageshem and v'ten tal umatar during davening. While most
of us think of fast days in the context of either Yom Kippur or the destruction of the Temple,
Masechet Ta'anit, the tractate of fasting, deals primarily with fasts due to lack of rain. In fact, of
the 34 mishnayot in the masechet, a grand total of two deal with the fast days with which we are
all familiar. And of these days, the only ones actually mentioned are the 17th of Tammuz and the
Tisha B'Av.The only mention of Yom Kippur is to tell us that "Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:
There were no greater days of joy for the Jewish people like the 15th of Av and like Yom
Hakippurim" (Mishnah 4:8). And Asara B'Tevet and Tzom Gedaliah are nowhere to be found
(Ta'anit Esther is a post-Talmudic custom).
"For the land that you are coming to possess is not as the land of Egypt that you left, where you
plant your seed and water it with your foot just like a vegetable garden. But the land which you
are crossing to inherit is a land of hills and valleys; according to rain from the heaven you shall
have water to drink" (Devarim 11:10-11). The Land of Israel is a special land, and our sustenance
there does not come naturally. While that would make life easier, it would also make it less
meaningful. As it was considered a curse for the snake to have food wherever he may slither, to
have all our needs taken care of regardless of our actions does not allow us to appreciate the
blessings we receive. Lack of rain was thus both a physical threat to the people and a spiritual
one—the lack of rain indicating G-d's displeasure with the actions of the Jewish people.
Our Sages developed an elaborate system of response if the first rains had not arrived by the 17th
day of Cheshvan. It began with the leaders of the community fasting on a Monday, Thursday, and
Monday. If no rains arrived by the 3rd of Kislev, then the entire community would fast three times,
and then three more if necessary. These latter three fasts would begin at night and the extra
prohibitions—bathing, anointing, wearing shoes, and "use of the bed"—observed on Tisha B'Av
would also apply. In addition, no work was allowed to be done. That was followed by seven more
fast days, which were to be public gatherings of prayer and repentance.
The Torah was brought to the public square, the shofar was sounded, and six blessings were added
to the Shomeneh Esrei—parts of which have been incorporated into our selichot service. Words of
inspiration were to be offered as, "the eldest amongst them would address them with words of
admonition: My brethren, it does not say by the people of Nineveh that G-d saw their sackcloth
and their fasting; rather, 'G-d saw their actions that they returned from their bad path'; and in the
Prophets, it says 'Tear your hearts, not your clothes'". If this did not bring the rain, "limits would
be placed on doing business, on building and planting, on betrothal and marriage, and on social
greetings of friends, like people under Divine displeasure" (Mishna 2:1).
Our outer response to the lack of rain was fasting, but that was meant as a means to what really
mattered, societal improvement--which our prophets understood as ridding ourselves of
corruption, ensuring integrity in all we do, and treating the disadvantaged of society with great
dignity.

26
In the third chapter, the focus shifts to fast days that were declared in response to other potential
or actual dangers; i.e., earthquakes, plagues, food-destroying locusts, wild animals on the loose.
The fourth and final chapter of the masechet details the ma'amadot, the division of the Jewish
people into 24 groups, paralleling the 24 mishmarot among which the kohanim were divided[1].
Each week, the people of the particular ma'amad would spend the week in prayer, fasting from
Monday to Thursday, gathering in their shuls to read the Creation story—the existence of the world
being linked to service of G-d. While the kohanim carried out the actual service, they did so on
behalf of the entire nation, and the entire nation had to participate.
The masechet ends describing how on the 15th of Av and on Yom Kippur, "the daughters of
Jerusalem would go out in borrowed white clothes in order not to embarrass those who do not
have...and the daughters of Jerusalem would go out and dance in the vineyards", hoping to find
marriage partners. There is no greater act of repentance than marriage—where one sensitizes
oneself to the needs of others 24/7. This is the key to personal and national redemption. Thus, the
concluding words of Mishnah: "And on the day that his heart rejoices". While the verse (Shir
Hashirim 3:11) refers to the joy of the marriage day, our Sages added a parallel layer of meaning
to the verse: "This is the building of the Temple, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, amen".

Rain, and the God of the Gaps

Jeremy Brown writes:10

Today we start to study a new tractacte, Ta’anit, which opens with a declaration of God’s awesome
power to bring rain, and the mystery of why it falls.

Over the next several pages, the rabbis cite many further examples of this power.

10
http://www.talmudology.com/

27

And according to Rabbi Tanhum, a rainy day demonstrates that “all of the Jewish people’s
transgressions have been forgiven.” It is like another Yom Kippur.

WHY IT RAINS

With science explaining more and more, the role of God seems to be rapidly shrinking. And the
rain is a perfect example. We once thought that the only explanation for rain is that it is brought
by God. We now understand that rain falls when water droplets condense onto one another within
a cloud. Eventually these droplets grow too heavy to stay suspended, and they fall to the ground
as rain. There are also larger regional effects, for example, like low pressure barometric systems
whose origins lie in the irregular way in which the sun heats the surface of the earth. And then
there is the El Nino climate pattern, which might not have done much to change the weather in the
ancient Near East, but certainly cannot be ignored. It is caused by the unusual warming of surface
waters in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. “The 1997-98 event produced drought conditions in
Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Peru experienced very heavy rains and severe flooding.
In the United States, increased winter rainfall hit California, while the Midwest experienced
record-breaking warm temperatures during a period known as “the year without a winter.” How
then, might we think about the awesome power of God to bring rain, when we know so many of
the steps that are involved?

THE GOD OF THE GAPS

The God of the Gaps, in which God is invoked to explain that which science had not yet been able
to, seems to have been first invoked by Nietzsche (1844-1900):

28
“[I]nto every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God."11

But to use God to explain that which our incomplete knowledge cannot is doomed to give the
divine an ever-shrinking place. The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was murdered
by the Nazis in 1945 understood this very well.

“For the frontiers of knowledge are inevitably being pushed back further and further,” he wrote
in his Letters from Prison, “which means that you only think of God as a stop-gap. He also is
being pushed back further and further and is in more or less continuous retreat. We should find
God in what we do know, not in what we don't know. God wants us to realize his presence, not
in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.”12

The challenge, then, for moderns, is not to view God as the source of rain because we don’t
understand why it rains. It is to understand everything about the weather, and still allow Him a
place. And that is far harder.

Rav Yair Kahn writes:13

11
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche, trans. Walter Kaufman (London: Penguin, 1988), 204)
12
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (New York: Touchstone, 1997, 311
13
https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/orach-chaim/prayer-and-blessings/seasonal-changes-shemoneh-esrei

29
"Mashiv Ha-ruach" and "Ve-ten Tal U-matar"

At the onset of the rainy season in Israel, there are a number of changes introduced into the

tefilla. From Shmini Atzeret on, we insert the phrase "Mashiv ha-ruach u-morid ha-geshem" into

the second berakha (birkat ha-gevurot). We also begin to request rain in birkat ha-shanim on the

seventh day of Cheshvan in Israel (or around December 4 in the Diaspora). At first glance, this

conforms with the general halakha of "Be-khol yom ten lo me'ein birkhotav" ("Each day give Him

the appropriate blessings"), which requires that tefilla be responsive to special occasions and

specific seasons (see Berakhot 40a). Based on this rule, we recite "al ha-nissim" on Chanuka and

Purim, and "aneinu" on fast days. However, omission of inserts based on this halakha, do not

normally disqualify the tefilla. Nevertheless, the gemara in Berakhot (29a) rules explicitly that if

one unintentionally omitted these additions, he must repeat his tefilla. [If one recited morid ha-tal

instead of mashiv ha-ruach, he needn't repeat his tefilla. See OC 114:5.] Apparently, these inserts

constitute more than merely updating one's tefilla. In order to gain a greater insight into the nature

of mashiv ha-ruach and ve-ten tal u-matar, we will examine this sugya in Berakhot.

IF ONE FAILED TO MENTION RAIN

Rav Assi rules that if one erred and neglected to mention mashiv ha-ruach, he must repeat the

entire tefilla. However, if one omitted tal u-matar, he does not have to repeat, because he can

compensate by requesting rain in the berakha of "shome'a tefilla." Furthermore, if one deleted

havdala during the tefilla of motza'ei shabbat, he needn't repeat, since havdala can be recited later

over a cup of wine. The gemara quotes a tosefta which appears to contradict Rav Assi's

ruling. According to the tosefta, if one skipped either mashiv ha-ruach or tal u-matar he must

repeat the entire tefilla. The gemara's initial suggestion is that Rav Assi is referring to a situation

30
where the tefilla was recited together with a minyan. Therefore, the omission of tal u-matar is

tolerable since it is possible to fulfill one's requirement by listening to the tefilla of the shaliach

tzibbur. The tosefta, on the other hand, refers to a case where a person prayed in

private. Therefore, the option of hearing the shaliach tzibbur doesn't exist, and the tefilla must be

repeated. The gemara proceeds to reject this explanation for technical reasons. The sugya

concludes that Rav Assi is referring to one who remembered to request rain prior to "shome'a

tefilla," while the tosefta deals with one who didn't remember until later. Nevertheless, the gemara

accepts the premise of the initial explanation that there is an option of fulfilling one's requirement

by listening to the shaliach tzibbur. [In general, we don't rely upon this. See Mishna Berura

124:40.]

However, the suggestion to limit the statement of Rav Assi to a case of tzibbur is baffling. True,

it explains why the omission of tal u-matar is ignored. However, Rav Assi also claimed that

mashiv ha-ruach is indispensable. The gemara's assumption seems to lead to the startling

conclusion that it is insufficient to have heard mashiv ha-ruach during the repetition of the shaliach

tzibbur. Furthermore, we are forced to concede that there is a discrepancy between mashiv ha-

ruach and tal u-matar regarding this issue. This distinction demands clarification.

THE TEFILLA OF THE SHALIACH TZIBBUR

Before proceeding, it is important to understand how one can fulfill his requirement by merely

listening to the shaliach tzibbur. After all, if one chooses to listen to the shaliach tzibbur instead

of personal prayer, there is an argument at the end of masekhet Rosh Hashana (34b) whether or

not he fulfills his obligation. The gemara (35a) seems to conclude that he does not unless he is

incapable of personal prayer. At first glance this gemara in Rosh Hashana seems to contradict our

sugya in Berakhot.

31
 Tosafot both in Rosh Hashana (34b s.v. Kakh), and in Berakhot (29b s.v. Ta'a), respond that

the gemara in Rosh Hashana refers to an individual who chooses not to pray. Only in such a case

does the gemara rule that the tefilla of the shaliach tzibbur is insufficient. However, in a situation

where the person prayed but erred, like the case in Berakhot, he can rely upon the prayer of the

shaliach tzibbur. Apparently, Tosafot reason that basically one can fulfill his obligation by

listening to the shaliach tzibbur. This is presumably based on the principle of "shome'a ke-oneh"

- hearing is like reciting. Therefore, even if a critical error totally disqualifies a person's tefilla, he

can fulfill his obligation by listening to every word of the tefilla of the shaliach tzibbur. If,

however, a person refuses to pray he is penalized, thereby canceling his ability to rely upon the

shaliach tzibbur. On the other hand, in a situation where a person prayed but erred, there is no

reason to apply this penalty.

According to this approach, the nature of the error is irrelevant. As long as it is an unintentional

mistake, it is possible to fulfill the obligation of prayer by listening to the shaliach tzibbur. This

conclusion corresponds with the opinion of the BaHaG (see Tosafot Berakhot) that one can

compensate for any error that normally disqualifies prayer, by listening to the tefilla of the shaliach

tzibbur from beginning to end. Moreover, this ruling is reasonable even if an entire berakha was

unintentionally omitted. Since the omission is unintended, a penalty is unwarranted, and listening

to the prayer of the shaliach tzibbur should suffice. However, Tosafot quote the opinion of R"M,

that if an entire berakha was omitted, the tefilla of the shaliach tzibbur cannot be relied upon. This

opinion suggests an alternate approach.

COMMUNAL PRAYER

The Ritva (Rosh Hashana 34b s.v. Matni) claims that shome'a ke-oneh cannot be applied to the

obligation of prayer. Tefilla, according to the Ritva, is a personal obligation, and cannot be

32
fulfilled by merely listening to somebody else's prayer. The principle which enables the shaliach

tzibbur to pray for those incapable of personal tefilla is not shome'a ke-oneh. Rather, the shaliach

tzibbur functions as a mouthpiece for the entire community. Thus, we consider anyone who is part

of the community as having actually prayed by being included in the communal tefilla of the

shaliach tzibbur. The ability of the shaliach tzibbur to pray for those in the fields (Rosh Hashana

35a), although they couldn't hear his prayer, is apparently based on this understanding.

According to Halakha, only one who didn't have the possibility of personal prayer can rely on

the communal tefilla. A person who is capable, is obligated to pray as an individual. Therefore,

the distinction suggested by Tosafot, between one who intentionally refused to pray as an

individual, and one who made an unintended error, is no longer an attractive solution. Presumably,

even a person who accidentally disqualifies his tefilla should be required to fulfill his individual

obligation and should not rely on the communal tefilla of the shaliach tzibbur. How, then, can the

sugya in Berakhot conclude that if one forgot tal u-matar, he could fulfill his obligation by listening

to the shaliach tzibbur, instead of repeating the entire tefilla?

TWO TYPES OF ERRORS

Apparently, the omission of tal u-matar does not disqualify the tefilla. Although there is a

necessity to repeat, this does not necessarily indicate that the original tefilla is invalid. One who

omits tal u-matar has fulfilled his personal obligation of prayer, but nevertheless is required to

repeat his tefilla because of his omission. A good example of this phenomenon is havdala. At the

beginning of this shiur we noted that if one omits havdala, he is not required to repeat his tefilla

since he has the opportunity of reciting the havdala over a cup of wine. It is clear that havdala is

not an integral part of tefilla, and its omission therefore cannot invalidate the tefilla. Nevertheless,

had the opportunity of havdala over wine not been available, one would presumably have to repeat

33
his tefilla. Clearly, this is not because his tefilla is invalid. Rather, it is because every person is

obligated to make havdala, and tefilla (aside from wine) is the only context within which the

havdala can be recited.

Similarly, with regard to tal u-matar, we can claim that the request of rain is not an integral part

of birkat ha-shanim. After all, Rav Assi explicitly enables the appeal for rain to be made in shome'a

tefilla. (This argument is not conclusive. See Bi'ur Halakha 117 s.v. Im. Furthermore, one could

argue that although tal u-matar is not an integral part of birkat ha-shanim, it is nevertheless intrinsic

to Shemoneh Esrei.) Rather, it is crucial for every Jew to petition to Hashem for the proper amount

of rain. The only framework available for this appeal is tefilla. Therefore, if one omitted tal u-

matar, although his tefilla is valid, he must nevertheless repeat his prayer in order to appeal for

rain. If, however, he listens to the request made by the shaliach tzibbur, this obligation is fulfilled.

If, on the other hand, one invalidates his tefilla by mistake, he cannot rely on the tefilla of the

shaliach tzibbur, since he has not fulfilled his obligation of personal prayer. Therefore, the R"M

rules that if one totally deleted a berakha, he must repeat the entire tefilla even if he is with a

tzibbur. Moreover, we can extend this ruling to any error which invalidates the tefilla. Therefore,

if one omitted a crucial component of a berakha, listening to the shaliach tzibbur is insufficient,

even though the entire berakha was not deleted.

In conclusion, there are theoretically two types of errors that demand repeating the entire

tefilla. The first is when an external but critical item is deleted. Although the tefilla is valid, one

must repeat in order to achieve mention of that item. However, in this case it is possible to rely

on the tefilla of the shaliach tzibbur since the basic prayer is valid. The second is when an integral

component of the berakha is omitted. This totally disqualifies the individual prayer, and obligates

repetition, with no option of listening to the shaliach tzibbur.

34
HAZKARA VS. SHE'EILA

The model which we developed enables us to distinguish between errors that can be corrected

by listening to the shaliach tzibbur, and those that cannot. We are, therefore, ready to return to our

sugya in Berakhot. We noted that this sugya seems to indicate that only tal u-matar can be

corrected by listening to the shaliach tzibbur, while mashiv ha-ruach cannot. We already

established that tal u-matar is not an integral part of the tefilla, and therefore its omission can be

corrected by listening to the shaliach tzibbur. If mashiv ha-ruach cannot be corrected in like

fashion, it is apparently an integral part of tefilla. Why is this so? What is the difference between

tal u-matar and mashiv ha-ruach?

Masekhet Ta'anit opens with an argument regarding the exact date to begin reciting mashiv ha-

ruach. R. Eliezer maintains that one should begin on the first day of Sukkot. R. Yehoshua argues

that rain should not be mentioned until the final day of Sukkot, since rainfall during the festival of

Sukkot is a bad omen. R. Eliezer counters that he is only referring to hazkara (mashiv ha-ruach),

which is a mere mention of rain, not she'eila (tal u-matar), which constitutes an actual appeal for

rainfall. The distinction between hazkara and she'eila presumably is accepted by R. Yehoshua as

well. After all, even he agrees that tal u-matar is not introduced simultaneously with mashiv ha-

ruach. The appeal for rain begins only when the rain is actually wanted (the beginning of

Cheshvan).

What is the difference between hazkara and she'eila? She'eila is the actual appeal for rain. We

pray to Hashem to supply a blessed amount of rain. Therefore, tal u-matar is placed in the middle

section of the tefilla, which is reserved for requests. Hazkara, on the other hand, is not an appeal

for rain. It is referred to as "gevurot geshamim" (see Ta'anit 2a). It is an expression of the power

of the Almighty specific to the rainy season. Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that during the

35
rainy season, mashiv ha-ruach is an integral part of birkat ha-gevurot, which is a blessing of praise

(shevach), not supplication, focusing upon the power of the Almighty. Hence, its omission will

invalidate this berakha, thereby disqualifying the entire tefilla. (See Or Sameach, Hilkhot Tefilla

10:8, and Shiurim le-zekher Abba Mori z"l, vol. 1 pg. 195.)

It is noteworthy that the Talmud Yerushalmi argues with the Bavli on this point. According

to the Yerushalmi, omission of mashiv ha-ruach can be corrected by inserting it into shome'a

tefilla. (See Tosafot Berakhot 29b s.v. Ha.) This would seem to indicate that the Yerushalmi does

not view mashiv ha-ruach as an integral part of birkat gevurot. (It is clear from the Bavli that

omission of mashiv ha-ruach cannot be corrected during shome'a tefilla. Nevertheless, we cannot

prove from this that mashiv ha-ruach is intrinsic to birkat ha-gevurot. Even if mashiv ha-ruach

were extrinsic, it is not necessarily suitable for shome'a tefilla since it is shevach and not bakasha.)

SUMMARY

There are many alterations in tefilla over the course of the year. Regarding additions which are

due to the halakha of "be-khol yom ten lo me'ein birkhotav," omission does not require

repetition. Omission of certain insertions, however, obligates repeating the entire tefilla. If the

phrase in question is integrated into the berakha, then its omission can invalidate the berakha, thus

disqualifying the entire tefilla. If the phrase is crucial, but nevertheless not an integral part of the

berakha, the tefilla itself is valid. However, the tefilla must be repeated to fulfill the obligation to

recite the critical phrase. One possible indication that a phrase is not integral to a berakha, is the

ability to insert the phrase elsewhere in the tefilla. According to the BaHaG, any error can be

corrected by listening attentively to the entire tefilla of the shaliach tzibbur. However, according

to R"M, an invalid tefilla cannot be corrected by listening to the shaliach tzibbur. Nevertheless,

the omission of a crucial phrase can be corrected in this fashion. We concluded that tal u-matar is

36
a crucial addition to the tefilla. Nevertheless, it is not an integral part of birkat ha-shanim. Mashiv

ha-ruach, on the other hand, is an integral part of birkat ha-gevurot according to the Bavli. The

Talmud Yerushalmi, however, seems to dispute this point.

Clouds of Chesed, Rain of Din

Now all the trees of the field were not yet upon the earth, and all the herb of the field had not
yet sprouted. Hashem Elokim had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work
the soil.

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein writes:14

Beer Mayim Chaim: How should we look at rainfall? Should we attribute it to din, the attribute of
judgment within G-d, or to chesed, to His attribute of lovingkindness?

14
https://torah.org/torah-portion/beeros-5774-bereishis/

37
We may not have to look any further than our pasuk, and its puzzling use of two of G-d’s Names:
Hashem and Elokim. The pasuk may be hinting to us that rain should be appreciated as a
combination of both attributes – of chesed and of din.

Without our pasuk, we could make the argument on behalf of either attribute. On the one hand,
rain is so vital to life, that we would place it squarely in the chesed column. We depend on what
we grow for our nutrition. The success of agricultural endeavors depends on adequate rainfall. If
life begins as chesed, rainfall sustains it.

Chazal, on the other hand, apparently link rain to din. They call the berachah in Shemonah Esrei
that speaks of precipitation gevuros geshamim;2 gevurah, of course, is practically synonymous
with din. They point to the phenomenon of rain sometimes falling with great – even destructive –
force as the reason for linking rain with din.

The Zohar3 speaks explicitly of rain originating in chesed, but handing it off, as it were, to din,
which becomes an active agent in its delivery. (Think, says the Zohar, of the way we perform
netilas yodayim. We hold the vessel in our right hand – which is associated with the primary
attribute of chesed – in order to fill it. We then pass it to the left – or din. It is the left that pours
the water, but those waters were obtained through the right!)

It seems, then, that both chesed and din are important. We can offer a simple reason why. Chesed,
as we experience it, comes about as a kind of partnership with din – a mixture we sometimes call
rachamim. The pure form of chesed is so powerful that it would overwhelm us. This world cannot
deal with the intensity of its power. In effect, pure chesed must be tempered by the limitations of
din to be available and useful to us. Rain, an offshoot of Hashem’s chesed, reaches us in a
cooperative venture between chesed and din.

This amalgam is expressed in the Name Hashem Elokim, combining both attributes. Seen this way,
our pasuk says that this combination did not result in rain falling upon the earth, because Man had
not yet been created to perform the work, the avodah, that was necessary. That avodah is Man’s
occupying himself with Torah and with prayer at all times. Hashem made His responsiveness to
the needs of the earth contingent upon Man living up to Hashem’s expectations of him.

How does Man’s spiritual output relate to this special Name: Hashem Elokim? We need look only
so far as another pasuk4 that uses this Name. “You shall know this day and take to your heart that
Hashem, He is Elokim.” The word for “your heart” is levavcha, which is a plural form. Chazal
take that plural to suggest that Man need serve His Creator with two hearts, as it were. He need
serve Hashem with the two opposing tendencies he finds in his heart: the yetzer tov, and the yetzer
hora. Now, the very existence of a yetzer hora and Man’s capacity to make poor choices are
sourced in din. Din, which limits the illumination of Hashem’s chesed, allows Man to look away
from it, or not notice it at all, and thus leaves room for finding evil attractive. Man often, however,
summons up the determination to tame and even break the powers of evil within him. He finds that
strength through joyously attaching himself to the yetzer tov, which is sourced in the goodness of
Hashe m’s chesed.

38
In other words, Man is the constant platform upon which two Names of G-d – Hashem and Elokim
– contrast with each other through their outgrowths: the yetzer tov, and the yetzer hora. By resisting
the message of pure yetzer hora, Man “sweetens” din by forcibly combining it with the chesed of
the yetzer tov.

The unusual implication of our pasuk turns out to be understandable. Our pasuk uses a full,
compound Name to relate how Hashem did not make it rain in the Garden of Eden. Why would
the Torah such a full Name to convey not what Hashem does, but what He did not do? We now
understand. The blessing of rainfall, containing aspects of both chesed and din, requires that the
two midos be merged. This could only happen through the avodah of Man.

Only Man, by virtue of the exercise of his free-will and suppressing his yetzer hora, can contribute
to the cosmic drama of producing a gentler, kinder form of din.

Sources:
1. Based on Beer Mayim Chaim, Bereishis 2:5
2. Taanis 2A
3. Zohar Terumah 154B
4. Devarim 4:39

39
Rabbi Mendel Weinbach writes:15

The keys to three of Hashem's treasure houses were not placed in the hands of any agent, states
Rabbi Yochanan. The keys to rain, childbirth and resurrection of the dead are held by Hashem
alone.

Tosefot poses the challenge that the key to rain was given to the Prophet Eliyahu (Masechta
Sanhedrin 113a) which enabled him to declare (Melachim I 17:1) "during these years there shall
be no dew or rain save upon my word." Tosefot's resolution is that this was only a temporary
transfer of power.

Rashi seems to have anticipated this challenge by explaining that all three keys have never been
placed in the hands of an agent at one time. This is a subtle reference to what the
aforementioned gemara describes as the aftermath of Eliyahu's withholding rain to punish an idol-
worshipping country and king.

Immediately after a passage describing the drying up of the nation's water supply, another passage
relates that Hashem commanded Eliyahu to go to the home of a widow in the city of Tzorfat where
he was soon faced with the challenge of resurrecting her dead child (Melachim I 17:7-22).

There is a connection, our Sages say, between these two events. When Hashem decided that the
people had suffered enough from Eliyahu's withholding of rain, He arranged for Eliyahu to be
placed in a situation of attempting resurrection. Eliyahu prayed that Hashem give him the key to
resurrection so he could restore life to the child of the widow who had shown him so much
hospitality. Hashem's response was that He alone had control of the three aforementioned keys,
and the one to rain had already been given to the prophet.

If Eliyahu were to receive the key to resurrection as well, it would result in the absurd situation of
two keys being in the hand of the servant and only one in the hand of the Master. Eliyahu was thus
compelled to return the key to rain, and the next chapter (Melachim I 18:1) begins with Hashem
restoring rain to the land.

15
https://ohr.edu/this_week/the_weekly_daf/331

40
 The Three Keys

"R' Yochanan said: Three keys the Holy One blessed be He has retained in His own hands
and not entrusted to the hand of any messenger, namely, the Key of Rain, the Key of
Childbirth, and the Key of the Revival of the Dead"

Rabbi Uzi Kalchaim zt"l wrote:16

In His Hands

"R' Yochanan said: Three keys the Holy One blessed be He has retained in His own hands and not
entrusted to the hand of any messenger, namely, the Key of Rain, the Key of Childbirth, and the
Key of the Revival of the Dead" (Taanit 2a).

The three keys mentioned here by the sages are all tied to the source of existence. Through them
God "touches" our world at three central stations in life - inception, being, and resurrection.

16
https://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/6316

41
The Key of Childbirth

The first "touch" is the Key of Childbirth. The emergence of life is one of nature's wonders. The
course of development from the inchoate stirrings of the embryo until the moment of birth is a
thrilling and amazing journey. The fetus grows from a negligible drop, multiplying in size a
millionfold before it finally emerges from the womb at just the right moment. All this demonstrates
the great wisdom of our Creator.

God asks Job (39:1): "Do you know the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth? Or can
you mark when the hinds calve?" Our sages describe most dramatically the birth of the doe and
the mountain goat, the difficult and complex conditions in which this takes place: "If it were [born]
one second too soon or too late it would be killed" (Baba Batra 16b).

The same is true of the opening of the uterus and the emergence of the embryo at just the right
moment. Birth is a kind of deliverance for the baby. This is hinted at by Isaiah the Prophet when
he says "She was delivered of a son" (Isaiah 66:7; and see Baba Kama 80a, Tosefot ad loc., s.v.
"Libi," the opinion of Rabbenu Tam).

A woman who has the privilege of giving birth radiates with the joy of creation inside her. She
becomes a partner with God in creation. By contrast, the hardship of a childless woman who
anxiously anticipates becoming pregnant is marked with veiled jealousy. She feels superfluous, as
it were, in God's world, as if she has been provided with mothering organs in vain.

In her bitterness Rachel says to Jacob, "Give me children! If not I shall die!" (Genesis 30:1). The
Midrash teaches that the key of barren women is one of the three keys God holds in His hands over
which no creature, not even angel or Seraph, has any control (Devarim Rabbah 7:6). Birth is a gift
of new life, not only for the newborn but for the mother as well.

The Key of Rain

The second "touch" is that of rainfall, the preservation of life. The purpose of rain is to bring life
to creation, to guarantee its continued existence, to provide it with life via water. Water nourishes
the plants upon which animals feed. This is the key of rain. "The Lord shall open to you his good
treasure, the heaven, to give the rain to your land in its season" (Deuteronomy 28:12). In the
language of Isaiah the Prophet, "For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, and
returns not there, but waters the earth, and makes it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to
the sower, and bread to the eater" (Isaiah 55:10).

Here, too, as in childbirth, there is a move from the veiled to the revealed, a realization of potential.

42
In the Amidah prayer's "Atah Gibor" ("You are mighty") blessing, the sages juxtapose mention of
"Gevurot Geshamim" (God's capacity to bring rain) with that of "Techiyat HaMetim" (God's
capacity to resurrect the dead), for these two qualities are declarations of praise for God; they tell
of the Creator's greatness as finds expression in His mighty actions, and they teach us that despite
the vast multiplicity of God's doings, they are all connected to one another.

The growth process is a rebirth for seeds that have decayed in the earth. It is a tiding of life for the
trees that were lifeless and locked in winter's coma. These seeds, when they sprout forth from the
earth after the rains, are like a joyful cry of life, a "tiding of resurrection" for our world. And this
brings us to the third key, the key of resurrection.

The Key of the Revival of the Dead

The third "touch" is that of resurrection, life's continuation, and aspiration. Though, outwardly,
death appears to man as a kind of end of the road, Judaism teaches us that burial is not meant to
remove a person from the world of the living; it is like planting him in preparation for a future
rebirth - "And may the men of the city flourish like grass of the earth" (Psalms 72:16, and see
Sanhedrin 90b). God keeps the dew of regeneration in his lofty treasure chest, "Dew that in the
future shall revive the dead" (Shabbat 88b). In preparation for the new era that will announce the
beginning of a new life cycle, Ezekiel the Prophet tells us, "And you shall know that I am the Lord,
when I have opened your graves" (Ezekiel 37:13).

By referring to these touches as "keys" in the hands of the Creator, the sages wish to underscore
our attachment to the Creator, our direct contact and dependence upon Him. From here we can
learn about God's providence over the world, His preserving it and sustaining it, both via fixed
laws of nature like the rising and setting of the sun, so that we may know what to expect and how
to plan accordingly, and also via "keys" that are not bound by the ordinary framework of things.

Neither rainfall nor childbirth can be determined in any definitive manner. We cannot say what
the weather will be like in a certain month on a particular day. Even in our own modern era, with
all of the elaborate and precise instruments at our disposal, with our satellites and forecasting
stations, we are yet unable to determine what the weather will be like more than four or five days
in advance. This is because it is impossible to foresee events that are not firmly embedded in
nature.

Yet, at times, even after despair has set in, rain begins to fall in great abundance, beyond all
expectations or estimations. With birth, too, it is impossible to be absolutely certain about
anything; sometimes barren women become pregnant against all odds and after all hope has been
given up. This teaches us that beneath the visible forces at work in nature there are hidden forces
that operate according to the divine touch of "the key." It is impossible to know or apprehend these
forces accept through prophetic inspiration.

43
The Jerusalem Talmud adds a fourth key, the Key of Livelihood, as it is written, "You open Your
hand and satisfy every living thing with favor" (Psalms 145:16). According to R' Yochanan there
is nothing unique about this key; its function relates to the preservation of existence and it is thus
subsumed under the Key of Rain, for rain's purpose is to sustain creation. The sages greatly
emphasized the importance of livelihood, saying, "Livelihood is more difficult that the redemption,
for the redemption is brought about through an intermediary while livelihood comes through the
Almighty Himself (Midrash Shocher Tov, Tehilim 136).

Livelihood is so important a matter that "the Almighty sits in heaven and apportions food to every
living creature" (Pesachim 118a). The general, overall maintenance of creation depends upon God
Himself; partial aspects, on the other hand, can be handed over to intermediaries. Whatever relates
to life itself, to its preservation, is livelihood. Just as life itself is bound up with and attached to the
all-embracing source of life, so life's maintenance and support is connected to the more general
key of life. This function is not divorced from the source of life, and therefore it is not given over
to an intermediary, "a messenger."

To hand something over to a messenger, then, means handing over the scepter of authority to the
fixed forces of nature, granting them the authority to act independently, yet obviously in keeping
with God's predetermined plan.

Nature works in an ordered, causal manner, by means of complex systems; the "opening" on the
other hand, is God's own personal touch, insubordinate to the fixed courses of nature. The three
keys that remained in God's hand after the establishment of the laws of nature still leave plenty of
room for the influence of human prayer. This is the secret power of the "service of the heart," and
this explains the bond between prayer and rain.

What Makes the Key Superior?

In the twenty-sixth chapter of "Messilat Yesharim," Ramchal (Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato)
informs us that after climbing all the other rungs on the ladder of character perfection, one arrives
at the attribute of holiness (Kedusha). What is the significance of this trait?

"In fine, Holiness consists in one's clinging so closely to his God that in any deed he might perform
he does not depart or move from the Blessed One, until the physical objects of which he makes
use become more elevated because of his having used them, than he descends from his communion
and from his high plane because of his having occupied himself with them."

Through this description the Ramchal seeks to provide us with a picture of holiness' lofty virtue:

44
its ability to elevate. A holy person is capable of elevating the material world; material matters do
not pull him down and drag him about. Above holiness, explains the Ramchal, lies the level of
prophetic inspiration, wherein a person's mind rises to a state beyond normal human capacity.

"It is possible for one to reach such a high degree of communion with God as to be given the key
to the revival of the dead, as it was given to Elijah and Elisha. It is this gift which reveals the
strength of one's union with the Blessed One, for since He is the source of life, the giver of life to
all living creatures, as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Ta'anith 2a), 'Three keys were not
entrusted to intermediaries: the key of the revival of the dead . . .' - since this is so, then one who
is perfectly united with the Blessed One will be able to draw even life from Him."

The secret power of the key holder, then, is that he is ennobled by the Almighty with something
like divine power.

God's Three Keys

With the abundance of storms that have everybody talking about the weather, one wonders how
much the global warming camp can convince their opponents that "we" control the weather.
Record snowfalls across the country seem to indicate to me that God, and not Hummers or
Styrofoam cups, is still in charge.

17
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2011/02/gods-three-keys.html

45
The gemara (Taanit 2a) certainly concurs with this assessment, when it states, "Rabbi Yochanan
said, 'There are three keys in the hands of God that are not entrusted to an agent. They are the key
to rain, the key to conception/childbirth, and the key to revival of the dead.'"

While it may be a stretch to include "snowstorms" in the "key of rain" that God controls, I am
willing to go out on that limb with the confidence that not too many people will object.

The Gaon of Vilna implies from a different passage in Taanit 9a, that there is no concept in Jewish
thought that is not hinted to in the Torah. For the source, or hint, to the idea of the keys God holds,
he looks at Parshat Tetzaveh, Shmot 28:36 where the Torah, in describing the creation of the Tzitz
(forehead-plate) says "…and engrave on it in the same manner as a signet ring, [the words], 'Holy
to God.'"

In Hebrew, the last four words of this verse are, "Pituchai Chotam Kodesh LaHashem" -
‫פיתוחי חתם קודש לה‬. The Vilna Gaon takes this phrase to mean, "The openings (or 'keys') of
'CH'T'M' are distinctly set aside for God." The three letters of the word "Chotam" are an acronym
for the three keys the gemara says are in God's hands.

Chet = "Chaya," the ability to conceive and give birth to a child. Taf = "T'chiya," or resurrection.
Mem = "Matar," rain.

These three powers are "kodesh la'Hashem," separate for God, and were not touched by any
stranger.

It is amazing to behold the advancement of science and technology in our world. In a certain sense,
we have given ourselves the opportunity to play God in so many aspects of our lives.

We can fertilize reproductive material in test-tubes to implant a viable embryo in a uterus, and we
can incubate fetuses, once they've developed viable organs and features, to a point that, in some
cases, they can live normal lives even if they've emerged from the womb at 24 weeks gestation.

But we cannot create the materials that create the embryo. And we cannot replicate those essential
first few months in the womb. And as much as we know about medicine, there are still children
who do not survive pregnancy, and there are still mothers who do not survive childbirth. The
numbers are certainly better than at other times in history, but they are not yet zero. We don't know
everything.

46
We can do all kinds of things to restimulate the heart, keep patients alive, revive those who have
flatlined. A machine can keep a person's organs alive for a significant amount of time (I am not
going into the hot debate of defining the end of life).

But we cannot bring back to life someone who has been dead for a few vital minutes. And, in the
rare case when doctors have given up, done all they could, and the patient "comes back"
nonetheless, it is generally noted that some things are in God's hands, as their advent is beyond
what human science can explain. And, it goes without saying that resurrection as described in some
of the Biblical stories (Elijah, Elisha) are beyond the scope of the abilities of Man.

From a religious perspective, I do believe there is nothing more arrogant than stating that humans
control the weather and climate more than God controls the weather and climate.

The Torah certainly makes the case that humans ought to take care of our world to the best of our
abilities because we can easily destroy it. And yet there is a seeming contradiction.

Bereshit 1:28 has God blessing the newly created humans, "...Be fruitful and multiply and
replenish the earth and subdue it; v’kivshu’ha - have dominion over...every living thing...." At the
same time, in Bereshit 2:15 God takes the newly created human,"... and placed him in the garden
of Eden - l’ovdah ul’shomrah - to cultivate it and to guard it."

In an article about Judaism and the environment, which originally appeared in the OU's Jewish
Action magazine and can now be found elsewhere online, Rabbi Freundel concluded his analysis
of the subject thus: "...The true meaning, then, of the Biblical command of 'subdue the world' is
not to conquer the world by ... destroying its resources. It’s true implication is found in God's other
statement to Adam about how to function in the Garden of Eden, i.e. 'to work it and to watch it.'
Responsible use mixed with sincere concern, progress with restraint, growth and technology with
conservation and preservation, is the Torah's ecological agenda.”

That refers to our responsibility.

The bottom line remains, however, that God is still in charge.

47
Rain, Mary Oliver

48