Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Since the moon is always low on the horizon at the beginning of the month, it is possible that the individuals dwelling in a valley will not be able to see it. For the horizon that appears to them is always higher in the sky than the actual horizon.

At the beginning of the month, the moon will always be sighted in the west, for it will have completed most of its daily circuit before nightfall, and will set within a few hours of the setting of the sun.

I.e., on the night between the twenty-ninth and thirtieth days of the month, as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4.

Chapter 1, Halachah 6.

Ibid.

Since there are slightly more than twenty-nine and one half days in a lunar month, after an entire year the conjunction of the moon would fall approximately five and one sixth days earlier than the previous year.

I.e., although the court would declare the beginning of a new month, they would not follow the practice of sanctifying the new month described in Chapter 2, Halachah 8.

I.e., on the night between the twenty-ninth and thirtieth days of the month.

These figures apply in the era when the moon is sanctified according to the testimony of witnesses. According to the fixed calendar we follow at present, there are never more than seven, nor fewer than five, full months.

Halachah 7.

E.g., Rosh HaShanah 20a.

That year was a leap year, and Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi decided that it would be preferable for the additional month to be lacking rather than full (Arichin 9b).

Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit.

Note the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh on Chapter 3, Halachah 15, which offers a different interpretation of that passage.

See Chapters 6-10.

As one moves westward, the sun sets earlier, granting more time for the moon to be seen.

In this instance, our translation follows the version of the Mishneh Torah found in authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The standard printed text differs slightly.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 8; Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

Rosh HaShanah 23b, cited in Chapter 2, Halachah 4.

In our previous notes, we explained that the constellations from Capricorn to Gemini were northerly inclined. There is no contradiction between those statements and the statements above; the difference is in the definition of the word “inclined.” In the present context, the Rambam is using the word “inclined” to refer to the position of the ecliptic as it passes through these constellations: Is it located above or below the equator, and what is the extent of its variance from the equator?
Previously, we had used the word “inclined” to refer to the direction of the path of movement of the stars in the sky. In the constellations from Capricorn to Gemini, as the constellations move in their orbit, they will be moving northward. Conversely, in the constellations from Cancer to Sagittarius, as the constellations move in their orbit, they will be moving southward.
The inclination of the constellations can be observed by a careful observer with a field compass. In the spring and in the fall, the sun rises due east and sets due west. In the summer (i.e., when the sun is located in the constellations from Taurus to Virgo), it rises in the northeast and sets in the northwest. In the winter (i.e., when the sun is located in the constellations from Scorpio to Pisces), it rises in the southeast and sets in the southwest. Throughout the year, these constellations rise and set in the place where the sun rises and sets when it is in these constellations.

I.e., at the vernal [spring] and autumnal equinoxes.

I.e., the beginning of the constellation of Cancer. In these ninety degrees, we will have passed through three constellations, Aries, Taurus, and Gemini.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 7, and Chapter 15, Halachah 7.

See Chapter 16, Halachah 13.

I.e., 110° has the same degree of inclination as 70°. For the angle of inclination proceeds in an even-balanced arc with 90 degrees as its center.

I.e., the southerly inclination beginning from the constellation of Libra parallels exactly the northerly inclination beginning from Aries.

Producing the inverse of the figures mentioned in the previous quadrant.

E.g., if they are both northerly, the moon’s latitude will cause it to appear further north than the constellation in which its true position is located.

I.e., if the moon’s true position is located in a northerly position and its latitude is southerly, the latitude should be subtracted from the angular distance of its true position.

Actually, the true figure is a few minutes larger.

Actually, the true figure is a few minutes less.

The variance of two or three degrees will not produce a difference that is of consequence.

With this halachah, the Rambam explains one of his motives for the inclusion of this section in the Mishneh Torah: so that a serious student would not have to resort to other texts, particularly those of the gentile scientific community, to obtain this knowledge. In this manner, he affirms one of the purposes for the Mishneh Torah stated in its introduction, to provide a text that includes every dimension of Jewish law.

See Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 59), which mentions this in the reckoning of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Significantly, however, the Rambam’s appreciation of this mitzvah differs in the Mishneh Torah from that in Sefer HaMitzvot. To explain: Following the verse quoted here by the Rambam as a proof-text, the Torah continues [Numbers 10:10]: “On the days of your rejoicing, on your festivals, and on your new moon [celebrations], you shall sound the trumpets for your burnt offerings and for your peace offerings.”
In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam writes:
We are commanded to sound the trumpets in the Temple when offering sacrifices that are offered only at appointed times .... [Also,] we are commanded to sound the trumpets at a time of distress and difficulty when we pray to Him.
In Sefer HaMitzvot (and similarly in Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 384), the emphasis of the mitzvah is clearly on the sounding of the trumpets during the sacrifices. In the Mishneh Torah, when listing the 613 mitzvot at the beginning of the text, the Rambam mentions the sounding of the trumpets both f or the sacrifices and in times of distress. Nevertheless, further on in the beginning of the text, when delineating the mitzvot according to subjects, he places the emphasis on crying out to God at a time of distress (seemingly, including crying out verbally and crying out with the trumpets in the same mitzvah). Significantly, in Hilchot Klei HaMikdash, Chapter 3, where the Rambam mentions the practice of sounding the trumpets in connection with the offering of the sacrifices, he does not mention it as a component of this or any other specific mitzvah.
(Note also the commentary of the Maggid Mishneh, which questions why these two different rites were included as a single mitzvah at the outset. Even in the Torah, they are included in two separate verses.)

In prayer. Our Sages (Sifri, VaEtchanan) explain that זְעָקָה is one of the ten verbs used for prayer.

The verb להריע refers to the sounding of a series of staccato notes referred to as teru’ah. See Hilchot Shofar 3:2-4. Significantly, although in practice, both types of notes were sounded, with regard to the sounding of the trumpets at the offerings, the Torah uses the verb ותקעתם, which refers to sounding a teki’ah, a single long note.

In the Temple, these were made of silver (Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 3:5). Josephus describes them as being approximately a cubit long, slightly thicker than an ordinary flute, and having a bell-like end. lt is questionable whether it was necessary for them to be silver outside the Temple as well.
See also the Ramban (Drashot l’Rosh HaShanah), who mentions an opinion that the shofar, and not a trumpet, should be sounded in time of communal distress. The Maggid Mishneh also notes this opinion and states that either instrument, a shofar or a trumpet, is acceptable, but that—outside of the Temple premises—only one of the two should be used in time of distress. Some support for this position can be drawn from Halachah 6.

As obvious from Halachah 4, this practice was observed throughout Eretz Yisrael, and not only in the Temple. Nor is its observance dependent on the existence of the Temple, nor does the Rambam specify that it must be fulfilled only in Eretz Yisrael. (ln this regard, there are differing opinions; see Mishnah Berurah 576:1) Accordingly, the Magen Avraham 576:1 questions: Why is the rite of sounding the trumpets (or shofarot) not observed at present?
The resolution of this question lies in the Rambam’s words, “any difficulty that arises which affects the community.” This rite should not be observed when an individual, or even a group of individuals, are in distress, but only when a “community” is affected.
Pesachim 54b explains that communal fasts are possible only within Eretz Yisrael. There is no concept of taking such a unified communal act of this nature in the diaspora. Therefore, this mitzvah was not relevant in all the generations ofour people’s existence in the diaspora. (See also the Drashot l’Rosh HaShanah of the Ramban.)
A question arises, however, with regard to the situation at present, with the renewal of the Jewish settlement in Eretz Yisrael. As explained in the commentary on Chapter 3, Halachah 11, there are opinions (see the gloss of the Birkei Yosef to the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 575) that maintain that at present, the concept of community also applies in Eretz Yisrael.
According to this view, without entering into the discussion regarding the halachic status of the present govemment, it would appear that it would be proper for this mitzvah to be observed, since its observance is not dependent on the Temple.

i.e., it does not apply to war alone, as might be understood from the verse.

Note Ta’anit 22b, which states that the trumpets should not be sounded in the case of a plague even during the week. Since a plague is a very severe matter, were the trumpets to be sounded during the week, they might also be sounded when a plague took place on the Sabbath, and thus a prohibition would be violated. The Rambam discusses this question in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Ta’anit 3:3). Similarly, in Chapter 2, Halachah 1, the Rambam rules that the trumpets are sounded when a plague occurs.

I.e., circumstances that cause distress to the community as a whole.

See Hilchot Teshuvah 2:6, where the Rambam gives the assurance that if the Jews cry out to God as a community, He will surely heed their prayers.

Note the conclusion of Hilchot Temurah, where the Rambam writes that although all the mitzvot of the Torah are Divine decrees and thus unfathomable in nature, we should meditate upon them and, to the fullest extent ofour potential, try to explain them. Similarly, with regard to the mitzvah under discussion, without claiming to be able to fathom it in its entirety, the Rambam gives a rational explanation for the practice.

The very sound of the trumpets will have a startling effect, arousing the people to inspect their conduct. Similarly, in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4, the Rambam writes:
Although the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah is a mitzvah, it also contains an allusion. [lt is as if the shofar is saying,] “Wake up you sleepy ones. ... You who forget the truth in the vanities of time... look to your souls and improve your conduct.”

See Hilchot Teshuvah 9: 1, where the Rambam explains that God has instituted a cycle of causation into the world in which performing a mitzvah brings an individual—or a community—blessing and prosperity, which enable them to perform more mitzvot. Conversely, the failure to observe mitzvot brings about misfortune, which, in turn, makes it even harder to observe mitzvot.

For when the Jews turn to God in repentance, He will remove their hardships.

Rather than seeing their difficulty as part of a Divinely structured plan to motivate their repentance.

Misfortune is definitely not pleasant. Nevertheless, when one conceives of it as a message from God, intended to motivate a change in one’s conduct, one can appreciate that, ultimately, its intent is mercy. In contrast, when one does not appreciate God’s hand, one is left with a conception of an existential and cruel world in which there is no force working for man’s benefit.

for they refuse to pay attention to the external cues God gives to motivate repentance.

Note the conclusion of Hilchot Tum’at Tzara’at, where the Rambam explains that when a person remains indifferent to the punishment God gives him, God brings more severe punishment upon him.

מִקְרֶה, the Hebrew for “chance occurrence,” shares the same root as קֶרִי, “indifferent.”

To the obligation to cry out and sound the trumpets incumbent upon us from the Torah.

The Or Sameach mentions that this practice has its source in Biblical times. 11 Chronicles 20:3 relates that Yehoshafat called a communal fast when beset by war.

These difficulties are listed in Chapter 2.

I.e., we are not required to fast only once when a distressing situation occurs. lnstead, we are obligated to continue fasting until God shows us His mercies and eliminates the source of distress.
Ta’anit 14b quotes a Rabbinic opinion that maintains that no more than thirteen communal fasts should be ordained because of a difficulty. The Talmud, however, explains that this statement was made with regard to drought alone. With regard to other difficulties, we should continue to fast until our prayers are answered. This conclusion is alluded to by the Rambam’s choice of wording in Chapter 3, Halachah 9, and is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 575:6).

blow a series of teru’ah notes

I.e., with no other instrument to accompany them.

From the Mishnah (Rosh HaShanah 3:3), it would appear that two shofarot were sounded together (Minchat Chinuch).

I.e., the trumpet blasts should continue even after the shofar blasts have ceased.

Note the contrast to Hilchot Shofar 1:2.

I.e., only “before God,” in the Temple, where His Presence is manifest, should these two instruments be sounded together, not elsewhere.

Day after day.

even though it would be permitted to eat at night

And an ordinance for the community is not instituted unless it is possible for the majority of the community to observe it (Hilchot Mamrim 2:5). Were a communal ordinance that could not be observed by the majority of the community to be instituted, the people’s observance, not only of that particular ordinance, but of the Torah as a whole, would be weakened.

See the commentary on the following halachah, which deals with the question of communal fasts being instituted on days other than Monday or Thursday.

Mondays and Thursdays are days associated with significant spiritual influences. Also, in this manner, the fasts are separated from each other and from the Sabbath.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Ta’anit 2:9), the Rambam explains that communal fasts should be held first on Mondays, because were they to be held on Thursday, the shopkeepers would assume that the possibilities for famine are great- for otherwise why would a public fast be instituted before the Sabbath—and they would raise the prices of foodstuffs.
(This rationale differs slightly from Rashi’s interpretation of the Mishnah. Significantly, many of the traditional commentaries on the Mishneh Torah do not mention the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah. See the Sefer HaKovetz.)

From the wording of this halachah, it would appear that the second Thursday should be skipped, and the second series of three fasts begun on the third Monday. The commentaries note that although there is justification for this position in the Jerusalem Talmud (Ta’anit 2:13), the Babylonian Talmud (Ta’anit 15b) rules that there is no need to interrupt the sequence of fasts on the second Thursday. This ruling is also borne out by the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.) and. some authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. There are, however, other Rabbinic opinions—which are also supported by different manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah (see the commentary on Chapter 3, Halachah 3)—that maintain that a series of communal fasts should always begin on a Monday.

The Merkevat HaMishneh (authored by R. Aharon Alifandri) raises a question regarding this statement. From the previous halachah, it would appear that a communal fast is ordained only on Mondays and Thursdays, and from this halachah one might assume that, since it is necessary to exclude the Sabbath, such a fast might be ordained for other days.
In resolution, it is explained that the previous halachah refers only to the thirteen communal fasts instituted when the rains fail to descend. When a difficulty of another nature arises, a fast may be instituted on a day other than Monday or Thursday. Alternatively, it can be explained that if the difficulty is not a matter of immediate emergency, the fast is put off for a Monday, as mentioned above. In the case of an immediate emergency, however, a fast may be held on any day other than those mentioned in this and the following halachah.

Because of the atmosphere of rest and pleasure that permeates the Sabbath, it is improper to make requests about matters that are not immediate necessities. See Hilchot Shabbat 30:12.

See also Chapter 2, Halachah 2, which states that we should cry out in prayer, even on the Sabbath, if our source of sustenance is threatened.

For these are situations where human life is in immediate danger.

I.e., he loses control of his behavior and may harm himself (Rashi, Ta’anit 22b).

This phrase is set off by parentheses in most contemporary editions of the Mishneh Torah, because it is not included in the quotation of this halachah in the Tur ( Orach Chayim 576). In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo brings support for the omission of this phrase, noting that in Hilchot Shabbat 2:24 and 30: 12, where the Rambam discusses praying to God in the event of such imminent disasters on the Sabbath, he does not mention fasting. Hence, when mentioning appealing to God with regard to these difficulties on the Sabbath in the Shulchan Aruch (288:9, 576:12), Rav Yosef Karo omits the mention of fasting.

Ta’anit 14a states that this refers to the addition of the prayer Anenu. According to the authorities who maintain that we may fast on the Sabbath (and even according to some who forbid fasting), this refers to the blessing Anenu added to the Shemoneh Esreh ). According to the other opinions, it ref ers to the seven blessings mentioned in Chapter 4 that begin “May He who answered ... answer you” (Maggid Mishneh).

Sounding a trumpet is not one of the forbidden Sabbath labors; it is, nevertheless, forbidden because of a Rabbinical decree (see Hilchot Shofar 2:7).

as an expression of prayer to arouse God’s mercies.

For the Sabbath laws may be violated for the sake of saving lives (Maggid Mishneh).

Rashi (Ta’anit 15b) cites Numbers 10:10 as an indication that Rosh Chodesh is described as “a festival.” As such, it is inappropriate for a fast to be held on such a day.

Tosafot, Ta’anit 18b, note that Esther 9:22 describes Purim as “days of celebration and joy.” Thus, fasting is inappropriate.,

Although.it is a logical addition, it must be noted that Chol HaMo’ed is not mentioned in the source for this halachah, Ta’anit 2:10, nor is it mentioned in the Tur ( Orach Chayim 572). The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 572:2) quotes the Rambam’s ruling.

Although the Mishnah (ibid.) states that the fast should be interrupted before nightfall because of the positive nature of these days, Ta’anit 18b quotes a majority opinion that maintains that the fast should be completed.

lest their fetus or child be endangered by the lack of nourishment.

The Magen Avraham 576:10 questions the mention of children in this halachah, for it is accepted that children are never obligated to fast. He explains that, in this instance, the term refers to children past the age of majority. Males are not obligated to observe fasts of this nature until they are 18, nor females until they are 15.
The B’nei Binyamin offers another explanation, noting that on Yom Kippur children should be trained to fast by withholding food from them for several hours (Hilchot Sh’vitat Asor 2:10). This practice need not be observed on these fast days.

Nevertheless, as mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 5, they should not indulge in food and drink for the sake of pleasure.

In contrast, these women are required to fast on the seven fasts observed for a lack of rain (ibid ).

In Chapter 3, Halachot 3 and 5.

Ta’anit 12b emphasizes that this refers to a sound sleep. If one merely dozes off briefly, one may eat.

even if he wakes up before dawn.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 564: 1) state that if, before going to sleep, a person stipulates that he desires to rise before dawn and eat, he is allowed to eat, and yet his fast is still considered to be a fast.

The Maggid Mishneh interprets this as an obligation. Not only is fasting advisable for a person as a means to secure Divine favor, it is an obligation incumbent upon him.

The B’nei Binyamin cites the example of King David, who fasted when the first son born to him by Batsheva fell ill (II Samuel 12:15-16).

Significantly, the Rambam mentions fasting on behalfof another person. Surely, one should fast for one’s own sake if that is possible. In many situations, however, were a person who confronts distress to fast, he would lack the strength to cope with the crisis he is facing. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 571:3.)
Nevertheless, Ta’anit 8b gives advice regarding such a situation as well, counselling one to vow to fast in the future. This will be considered as if the person fasted already, as implied by Daniel 10:12, “From the day on which you first considered ... fasting before your Lord, your words were heeded.”

See Hilchot Tefillah 2:14.

the blessing Siiome’ a Tefillah in

The Maggid Mishneh interprets this as a prohibition. Although a community may observe a fast on some of these days, as stated in Halachah 7, an individual may not. (See also Halachah 12.)
Note the Lechem Mishneh, which raises questions about this decision, citing Hilchot Nedarim 3:9, where the Rambam states:
If a person vowed to fast for several days, and those days included Chanukah
and Purim, his vow is nullified and he should not fast. [The celebration of] these
days was instituted by the Rabbis, and hence, it should be reinforced.
One might infer that on the other __ days that should be celebrated because of the Torah’s decree, a vow to fast takes precedence. Some commentaries, however, differentiate between a vow to fast and a commitment to fast made in the afternoon service of the preceding day, as mentioned in the following halachah. In practice, the Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 578: 1) rules that one should not fast on these days.

Ta’anit 12a describes a person who fasts without having made such a commitment to be “a bellows full of air”—i.e., he receives no reward for refraining from eating. Note the Lechem Mishneh, who questions why such a person does not receive at least the reward of an hourly fast, as mentioned in Halachah 13.
He explains that since the person desired his fast to be considered as a full day fast, it is impossible for him to receive the merit of an hourly fast. (See also Mishnah Berurah 562:42.)

i.e., after reciting the verse, Yih’yu l’ratzon, but before concluding one’s prayers entirely.
Significantly, the Maggid Mishneh notes that some texts of the Mishneh Torah state that one should make this commitment in the blessing Shome’a Tefillah, reciting the prayer Anenu. Although the Kessef Mishneh and others take issue with this concept, its authenticity is borne out by two responsa ascribed to the Rambam.
In practice, the Shulchan Aruch 562:6 mentions both possibilities, while the Ramah states that it is preferable to make this statement after the Shemoneh Esreh. Interestingly, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 127:2 fuses together both options, stating that one should make a mental resolve while reciting the blessing Shome’a Tefillah, and a verbal statement after reciting the verse, Yih’yu l’ratzon.

From the Rambam’s statements, it appears that a mental resolve is not sufficient. This is borne out by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 563:1). Note the ruling of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) and the Mishnah Berurah 563:3, which state that, after the fact, it is sufficient to have made a mental resolve for one’s commitment to fast to be binding.

In contrast to what might be inferred from the Rambam’s statements and the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (ibid ), the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) and the Mishnah Berurah (ibid.) also mention that, after the fact, it is not necessary for the commitment to be made in the afternoon service. As long as it was made during the previous day, whether before the service (according to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch only) or afterwards (according to both sources ), it is binding.

provided that in the daylight hours one refrains from eating.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 562:8) questions whether this applies only when one intends to fast on several consecutive days. If, however, one intends to fast on several non-consecutive days—e.g., on a Monday, on the following Thursday, and on the following Monday—perhaps one is required to make a separate commitment for each day.
With regard to the fasts of B’hav (the Monday-Thursday-Monday sequence of fasts which follow the festivals ), the authorities agree that a single statement of intent is sufficient. In other instances, however, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 127:1 and others require a separate commitment.
The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 127:3 mentions another leniency in this instance. Were a person to desire to retract his commitment to fast on the subsequent days, he is allowed, since he did not make an explicit statement to the effect that he would fast.
This view is not, however, accepted by all authorities. The Mishnah Berurah 162:39 cites opinions that require him to honor his commitment on the subsequent days as well.

Note the comments of the Lechem Mishneh cited in the commentary on the previous halachah with regard to whether the person receives the rewards of an hourly fast.

This halachah, quoted from Ta’anit 11 b, illustrates clearly the principles stated in the previous halachah.

i.e., the Rambam sees this as an obligation. Other authorities differ, as mentioned in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 127:18.

As the Rambam mentioned at the beginning of this text, the purpose of fasting is not the fast itself, but the repentance evoked by the fast.

Berachot 31b states that a person who fasts on the Sabbath will cause a decree of seventy years standing against him to be rent.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 288:3 explains that such a person is allowed to fast on the Sabbath, because the disturbing nature of his dream will prevent him from appreciating the Sabbath pleasures. lt is fasting and not indulgence that will bring such a person satisfaction.
Note that the Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 288:5) explains that at present, it is customary to fast on the Sabbath only for certain disturbing dreams, since we are not as aware of the proper interpretation of dreams as were the Sages of the previous generations.

During the week, this passage should be recited in the blessing Shome’a Tefillah as usual. On the Sabbath, one should recite Anenu in the passage E-lohai Netzor (Maggid Mishneh).

This is the only exception to the rule mentioned in Halachah 10. The positive influences aroused by fasting are most effective immediately after the disturbing dream (Ta’anit 12b ).

i.e., indulging in the Sabbath meals. Although one is obligated ( or at least advised) to fast on the Sabbath, one is not absolved from the mitzvah of Sabbath pleasure. Hence, one must fast again in atonement.

i.e., although a person did not undertake a full day fast, the fact that he refrains from eating for several hours can be considered to be a fast. Although his merit is less than that of a person who undertakes and completes a full day fast, he still receives reward for his conduct.

This phrase has its source in Ta’anit 12a and serves as a point of difference between the Rambam and other authorities (among them, the Ra’avad and the Maggid Mishneh). The others maintain that it should be rendered “provided he has not eaten anything the entire day.” Based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 8:1), the Rambam maintains that even if a person has eaten, if he does not eat for the remainder of the day, he receives merit for fasting.

Although the person actually fasted for the entire day, it is considered only an hourly fast, since he did not make a commitment on the previous day.

and he is given merit for having fasted

in the afternoon service

Hence, the fact that he refrains from eating is considered significant.

As mentioned above, this is a point of difference between the Rambam and other commentaries. In his responsa (Vol. 1, Responsum 6), the Rashba writes that the Rambam altered his opinion in his later years and accepted the majority view. The majority opinion is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 562:10).
Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch also mentions a more stringent view (that of Rabbenu Asher ). According to this opinion, even an hourly fast has to be accepted on the previous day. Thus, an hourly fast refers to an instance when a person previously made a commitment to fast for half a day, and then decided to extend the fast for the entire day.
lt must be noted that at present, when individuals find fasting difficult, it is customary for a community to declare an hourly fast. ln these instances, the members of the community make a commitment not to eat until the afternoon. They recite the afternoon service early, and each individual recites Anenu (Ramah, Orach Chayim 562: 1; Mishnah Berurah 562:6). This passage is not, however, recited in the repetition of the Shemoneh Esreh by the chazan (Ramah, Orach Chayim 562: 1 ).

Here again, the Rambam reemphasizes the theme stated at the beginning of the text, that the purpose of fasting is to motivate a person to sincere repentance. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 568:12.) The Chesed L’Avraham states that on such days a person should make a special effort to refrain from becoming angry and should try to carry out all his dealings with his colleagues in a pleasant manner.

But no more. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 567:1-2.) A revi’it is 66.4 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc according to the Chazon lsh. The Ramah writes that it is customary not to take this leniency on a communal fast day.

Note the contrast to Hilchot Berachot 1:2 (D’var Torah).

This discussion applies when he eats a k’zayit of f ood (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 568: 1 ). Other authorities mention slightly larger amounts.

The Ra’avad states that this applies only when the person made a commitment to fast on that specific day. If he made a commitment ‘to fast for one day without specifying the day, he is required to fast another full day afterwards. The Maggid Mishneh notes that this interpretation is borne out by the Rambam’s own statements, Hilchot Nedarim 4:16. This is the ruling quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.).
The Ramah adds that even when a person ate despite making a commitment to fast on a specific day, he is required to fast on another day as well. (See Mishnah Berurah 568:8.)
See also the Mishnah Berurah 568:3, which states that on a communal fast, such a person may recite Anenu in the afternoon service. On an individual fast, however, he may not add this passage.

Note the contrast to a communal fast mentioned in the following halachah.
The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 569: 1) states that if the person had accepted several fasts upon himself, he is obligated to complete them all, even when the distressing situation passes after he completes the first fast. If, however, the distressing situation passes before he has begun to fast, he need not fast (loc. cit. :2).

Rashi (Ta’anit 10b) explains that in this instance, we follow the principle that the person is obligated to observe the stringencies applicable to the city which he left and those of the city to which he goes.
The Lechem Mishneh questions whether the Rambam ‘Obligates the person to complete all the fast days accepted by the town he left, or if it is sufficient for him to complete the one fast alone.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 574:1) states that he is obligated to complete these fasts only when he intends to return to his original city. The Mishnah Berurah 574: 1 states that this applies only when he did not explicitly accept these fasts. If he accepted the fasts himself, he is obligated to observe his commitment.

Since he did not accept the fast previously himself, he has no obligation to fast. Nevertheless, while he is in the city, he must join together with them. The Tur (Orach Chayim 574) quotes an opinion which states that even within the city he is not obligated to fast, if he can find a private place to eat. Nevertheless, neither the Rambam nor the Shulchan Aruch accept this leniency.

The intent is that one should not show that one is enjoying comfort while others are in distress. Ta’anit 10b derives this principle from Jacob’s instructions to his children (Genesis 42:1) to avoid contact with Esau’s and Ishmael’s descendants. At that time, Jacob and his family had grain, but the others did not, and Jacob did not want to arouse ill-feeling.
The Talmud (ibid. 11 a) concludes its discussion of this issue with the following principle: Whoever separates himself from the community will not witness their being comforted. In contrast, one who joins in their distress will merit to join in their being comforted.

This teaching, quoted from the Mishnah (Ta’anit 3:9), conveys an important lesson. We must always be ready to praise God for His mercies and to do so with joy.

The term Hallel means “songs of praise.” Generally, Hallel refers to the passages from Psalm 113 to Psalm 118. The Great Hallel, in contrast, refers to Psalm 136 (Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 8:10).

Hence, we do not recite these verses of praise until we have eaten.

i.e., in separation from material concerns

From this explicit teaching regarding rain, the Rambam infers that

in contrast to an individual, as mentioned in the previous halachah

The Mishnah Berurah 569:5 quotes a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether the leniency to be mentioned applies if the prayers of the community were not answered, but the reason for which they are fasting ceases to become relevant. For example, the people were fasting for the recovery of a sick person and he died.

The Ra’avad objects to this decision, explaining that the leniency of stopping a communal fast applies only with regard to the fasts associated with rain. In other instances, it is impossible to be certain that the distressing situation has entirely passed before noon.
The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that although the Ra’avad’s rationale is generally applicable, if—in fact—the distressing situation passes bef ore noon, the fast may be halted.
The Maggid Mishneh also states two reasons for the difference between an individual fast and a communal fast:
a) Leniency was granted to the community because of the greater scale of the difficulty involved in such a f ast;
b) When the court called the communal fast, it had in mind that were the community’s prayers to be answered, the fast could be terminated.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 569:1) rules that if the Torah scholars and the majority of the members of the community desire to continue the fast, all the members of the community are obligated to abide by their decision.

There are opinions which rule that if the community receives word after noon that the difficulty for which they are fasting was averted before noon, they need not continue their fast.

This continues the theme developed by the Rambam at the beginning of the text, that the difficulties God brings upon a community should motivate them to repentance.
Significantly, the Rambam does not mention reading the Torah in the morning service. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 566:2) mentions that the Torah should be read in the morning, as on other communal fasts, and mentions that the reading Vay’chal, which is usually read on a communal fast day, should be read on such an occasion as well.

This refers to the portion of Bechukotai (Leviticus, Chapter 26), and not the blessings and curses in the book of Deuteronomy (Rashi, Megillah 31a). (See also Hilchot Tefillah 13:18.)
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) states that at present, the custom is to read the portion Vay’chal as on other public fast days. (See also the Maggid Mishneh.)

Significantly, Ta’anit 12b, the source for the division of the day in this manner, quotes a different proof-text, “And they read from the Torah scroll of their Lord” (Nechemiah 9:3). The verse cited by the Rambam is mentioned by Megillah 31b in another context.
This reflects a pattern common within the Mishneh Torah. Frequently, the Rambam cites verses independently of the manner in which they appear in the previous works of our Sages.

At present, the custom is to recite the haftarah, Dirshu, as is done on other public fasts. lt must be noted that Rav Kapach maintains that the Rambam’s intent is not that these passages from the Torah and the Prophets should be read communally with blessings recited beforehand and afterwards, as is our present custom. Instead, the intent is that they should be read merely to motivate repentance in a manner similar to the recitation of Eichah on Tish’ah B’Av. These statements are based on Hilchot Tefillah 13:18.