Laws of Shofar (Sukkah and Lulav) Chapter 1 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav: Introduction and Laws of Shofar — Chapter 1, Law 1

Introduction: Structure of Laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav

Speaker 1: Nu, rabbosai (gentlemen), we’re beginning a new halacha, which is called Hilchos Shofar Sukkah V’Lulav (Laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav). The Rambam puts together all the mitzvos of chodesh hashevi’i (the seventh month). Just as we see right at the beginning of Hilchos Shofar that the seventh month is similar in that it has a certain… all the mitzvos of this month have something in common. Okay, this is all derash (homiletical interpretation). But the Rambam simply put them together because they are “neighbors,” they are approximately the same few yamim tovim (holidays), and they are short halachos, each one of them isn’t long enough to make into a separate thing. The Rambam has a custom many times to put things together in this manner.

Speaker 2: What else? Which other halachos does he put together, several types?

Speaker 1: Here in Hilchos Chanukah U’Megillah (Laws of Chanukah and Megillah). Chanukah and Megillah, okay. Probably there are others in other sections of the… okay, this is right here nearby. Eruvin he also made eruv chatzeiros (courtyard eruv) and eruv techumin (Sabbath boundary eruv).

Speaker 2: Yes, but the Gemara already did that. That’s not two mitzvos.

Speaker 1: Ah, ah. Um, yes. Okay.

So this is Hilchos Shofar, the mitzvah of shofar on Rosh Hashanah, and then the two mitzvos of Sukkos, which are sukkah and lulav.

Speaker 2: Yes, but it’s not all the mitzvos of the seventh month, because there’s Yom Kippur, which already had separate halachos of Shvisas Asor (the rest of the tenth day).

Speaker 1: Ah, that’s correct, because he made Shabbos first, and then with Shabbos it fit well to have Shvisas Asor, which is a type of Shabbos. And now we go to the more specific mitzvos. That is, also in Hilchos Yom Tov the laws of shevisa (rest) of Rosh Hashanah and of Sukkos are already stated. Here he says the specific mitzvos of Rosh Hashanah and Sukkos.

The Rambam’s Introduction: Three Positive Commandments

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, “yesh bichlelan” (included in them), among the three are three other mitzvos, but among the three that I’ve put together here, among the three are shalosh mitzvos aseh (three positive commandments). That is, each one of them has essentially one mitzvah, a mitzvas aseh (positive commandment), there are no mitzvos lo sa’aseh (negative commandments). “V’zehu peratan” (and this is their detail): Shofar is “lishmo’a kol shofar b’echad b’Tishrei” (to hear the sound of the shofar on the first of Tishrei), to hear the sound of the shofar, as the Rambam said that the mitzvah is the hearing. The mitzvah of sukkah is “leisheiv basukkah shiv’as yemei hechag” (to dwell in the sukkah seven days of the festival). And “litol lulav” (to take the lulav), to shake, to grasp the lulav “bamikdash kol shiv’as yemei hechag” (in the Temple all seven days of the festival). The Rambam brings here the mitzvah that is in the Temple. And certainly later we’ll see that not in the Temple it’s the first day, yes?

Speaker 2: Yes, so why does it say only in the Temple?

Speaker 1: We’ll soon find out. When we get to chapter… whatever chapter it is. And the mitzvos can be learned already, says the holy Rambam, chapter 1. No, it holds… chapter 1. So, if one remembers the structure, but just, I don’t have an index here. Chapter 1, and how many chapters are there on Hilchos Shofar?

Speaker 2: Chapters 1 and 2?

Speaker 1: He says certainly, it’s always 2, yes. No, 1, 2 and 3. 1, 2 and 3 are shofar.

Speaker 2: Yes, and then, ah, and then 4 is already lulav.

Speaker 1: 4 is already lulav. 4 is already lulav, yes. 4 and 5 are already lulav. And it’s all 5, 6 is lulav, sorry, and 7, 8 is lulav, yes? Okay, that’s approximately the order. Okay, yes. So three chapters on Hilchos Shofar, or also it’s Rosh Hashanah, but it’s all connected with the shofar. Yes.

Chapter 1, Law 1: The Positive Commandment to Hear the Teruah of the Shofar

Speaker 1: Says the holy Rambam, mitzvas aseh (positive commandment). Wonderful! Elul is coming soon, it’s a very appropriate time. Says the holy Rambam, mitzvas aseh shel Torah lishmo’a teru’as hashofar (it is a positive Torah commandment to hear the teruah of the shofar), the blowing of the shofar, b’Rosh Hashanah (on Rosh Hashanah). Interesting, by us the language is always tekias shofar (blowing of the shofar), but the Rambam speaks the language of Scripture, teru’as hashofar on Rosh Hashanah, shene’emar “yom teruah yihyeh lachem” (as it says “it shall be a day of teruah for you”). Teruah and tekiah seem not to be the same word. Toke’in I think is a practical thing of inserting something, inserting toke’a befiv (inserting in his mouth), and sticking it in the mouth and blowing, no? Teruah is the sound that one hears.

Teruah vs. Tekiah — The Language of Scripture

Speaker 1: And the reason that we spoke about this at length at another time, whoever wants to search in the old shiurim will perhaps find it, the simple drama is that in the Torah it never says tekiah, it doesn’t say yom tekiah. So the meaning, therefore the Rambam says that the mitzvah is lishmo’a teruah (to hear the teruah). Later we’ll see that there is… but here, Rosh Hashanah says yom teruah. Yes, soon we’ll see that there is teruah and tekiah according to halacha we call the other sounds, but this in a general way from the source of the mitzvah everything is called teruah. That is apparently the simple meaning. Yes?

Speaker 2: Right. Correct? It could be. I think last time we learned that when we speak about the action we say toke’in, and the sound of the shofar is called kol teruah, like yom teruah. But there’s also meri’in. Perhaps one can’t say meri’in tekiah, I don’t know why.

Speaker 1: Simply the simple meaning is… further…

U’shofar Shetoke’in Bo — Keren Hakevashim Hakafuf

Speaker 1: Says the Rambam, the mitzvah is already, until here, I know that this is the mitzvah. Take yom teruah yihyeh lachem. Let’s go learn which shofar to use. What do we use? With what do we make the teruah? Says the Rambam, but actually, he also wants to bring a proof from the Torah. That is, let’s say, soon one will learn more details about which shofar is kosher. Here all the halachos are already stated, but there’s a question here. That is, it says in the Torah teruah, we don’t yet know that we blow a shofar. We don’t even know that we blow at all, by the way, we know that we make a teruah. Go know what teruah means. Making noise, ra’u laShem kol ha’aretz (shout to God all the earth), which doesn’t necessarily mean with a shofar, perhaps with chatzotros (trumpets), perhaps not. Therefore immediately the Rambam brings, what is the shofar? He says the halacha, and he brings the source for it. Right? How do we know that the teruah is with a shofar? First he says, what is the shofar? He says, u’shofar shetoke’in bo (and the shofar that we blow)… the shofar that we blow. He says teru’os hashofar, he now throws it in. Which shofar? There are apparently several types of shofars, other animals that have horns. Which is good for Rosh Hashanah, and here the Rambam throws in both Rosh Hashanah and yovel (Jubilee year). We’ll see why he brings yovel here, because the teaching for Rosh Hashanah we learn from yovel. Hu keren hakevashim hakafuf (it is the horn of sheep that is bent), the horn of sheep, of young animals that is bent. Sheep have here… little sheep, yes?

Speaker 2: Not related to how young it is.

Speaker 1: No, there are those who say that kevashim means all types of small animals. There’s much dispute among the Rishonim about exactly which type of shofar. There are those who learn simply in the Rama that it means specifically a sheep, and there are those who learn the Rama means kevashim v’domeihem (sheep and similar animals), young ones, to exclude a cow, but a goat, a sheep, a… ah, ah, ah, so, what the Rambam says kevashim is like the opinion of… there’s a dispute in the Gemara, in the Mishnah, and the Rambam rules according to the opinion that it’s keren hakevashim hakafuf.

Two Mishnayos — Dispute Among the Rishonim

Speaker 1: The basic story is that in the Mishnah it says that specifically… two Mishnayos, it’s called shofar, not keren (horn). No, a cow is called… there are two Mishnayos. In one Mishnah it says that all shofars are kosher except for a cow, which is called keren but not shofar. In the second Mishnah it says, and there’s another Mishnah, there’s a dispute in that Mishnah, what is there? In any case, another Mishnah that says, shofar shel yovel (the shofar of the Jubilee)… the Tanna Kamma, the main opinion of that Mishnah is that the shofar of Rosh Hashanah of the Jubilee is straight, not bent. On Rosh Hashanah we don’t blow with a bent one, but a straight one. On the contrary, if it’s with a… how does it say in the second Mishnah? He doesn’t bring here normally the Mishnah, this is different. In the second Mishnah it says that a shofar of Rosh Hashanah is… of the Jubilee is straight, and then it says, this is the opinion of the Mishnah, and then it says in the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, that on Rosh Hashanah toke’in b’shel zecharim (we blow with that of males). The Gemara says, if I remember, that… the Gemara brings out that in practice one should do it with a bent one, mitzvah b’chefufim (the mitzvah is with bent ones).

So the Rambam ruled this, and the Rambam holds that this is me’akev (indispensable), that this is the essential shofar of Rosh Hashanah, that is, of sheep that are bent. Although apparently in the other Mishnah it says that all shofars are kosher except for a cow. The Rambam didn’t say that. If the Gemara says mitzvah b’chefufim. There are Rishonim, the Rosh says that we rule that all are kosher, and the Gemara only says that a mitzvah min hamuvchar (the optimal way to perform the mitzvah) is with a bent one. The Rambam rules that it must be specifically keren hakevashim that is bent. In this itself there’s also a dispute whether when the Rambam says that kafuf (bent) means among the horns of sheep one must seek the bent one, or a dispute in reality? The Maggid Mishneh brings this at length, whether the Rambam means to say that all sheep are bent, or one must search among the horns of sheep for the one that is bent. It’s a whole sugya (Talmudic discussion), and he didn’t see that such a thing should be stated.

This is the main thing. The main thing is that there are two Mishnayos. One Mishnah apparently says that there’s a dispute, some who say that even a straight one is perhaps kosher, in any case. The main, the main, the main thing, if we distinguish that it’s indeed a mitzvah, but it’s not me’akev. So in other words, because all this comes from here, two Mishnayos. There’s one Mishnah that says a dispute that all are kosher. And then there’s another Mishnah from the Mishnah that says a distinction between Rosh Hashanah and yovel, a dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yose. The ruling comes out in the Gemara that both should be done with keren kevashim hakafuf. But the Rambam ruled according to the second Mishnah. So most others already, the Raavad and the Rosh all held that the second Mishnah is only a nice thing. It’s not me’akev, with this there’s no contradiction between the two Mishnayos. The Rambam held that it’s a dispute between the two Mishnayos. And if it says in the Gemara that one must do keren hakafuf, it’s simple that we don’t rule like the Mishnah that all shofars are kosher except for that of a cow. This is apparently the meaning of the Rambam.

V’chol Hashofros Chutz Mikeren Hakevesh Pesulim — A Question on the Rambam

Speaker 1: Then you say here something that someone wanted here. Look, “v’chol hashofros chutz mikeren hakevesh pesulim” (and all shofars except the horn of the sheep are invalid). He says, clearly, he doesn’t say the word again “hakafuf.” So the Kesef Mishneh says that the Rambam doesn’t say it again, because all horns of sheep are bent. Bent is a sign, it’s as if he says, which horn of the sheep? The bent one. So the others who learned into this Rambam that among the horns of sheep one must seek the bent one, and then they struggled. Why when he says afterward “v’chol hashofros chutz mikeren hakevesh pesulim,” why doesn’t he say again “hakafuf”? But I think it makes us over the Maggid. By a yael (ibex) you say it’s like something similar to a sheep. It’s not a sheep, it’s a type, it’s a larger sheep, it’s a type, no? The embarrassment is that we can’t know the animals so well. One must go to the shepherds for a few months, like Rav, and one will understand and know what is a sheep and what is a yael. A yael is a larger one. It’s the… what do you call that in Yiddish? Is that the same animal? It’s just a part in age? I don’t want to… it’s a different type.

A kevesh is a young cow. What? A kevesh is a sheep. A kevesh is a sheep. A young cow is nothing, a cow. A calf. A kevesh is a sheep. A cow doesn’t have any… I think it has horns. There are cows that have horns. A kevesh is a little sheep. There are goats. A yael is a large goat, such a type of thing. It’s not a sheep.

Law 1 (Continued) — The Source That Teruah Must Be With a Shofar

Speaker 1: Anyway, the Rambam’s opinion is that it must be this. But let’s go back further to the Rambam, because the Rambam wants to bring a proof that one needs a shofar at all. These are two things that connect here. He said “yom teruah,” he didn’t say which type of teruah.

Says the Rambam, “af Yisrael nitztuvu baTorah teruah b’shofar b’Rosh Hashanah” (also Israel was commanded in the Torah that the teruah should be specifically with a shofar). From where do we know? He says like this, “harei hu omer bayovel, ‘v’ha’avarta shofar teruah’” (behold it says regarding the Jubilee, “and you shall sound the shofar of teruah”), it says yes “shofar teruah.” In another verse it says “v’ha’avarta shofar” about the Jubilee. U’mipi hashemu’ah lamadnu (and from oral tradition we learned), Chazal transmitted to us mipi hashemu’ah, a halacha l’Moshe miSinai (a law given to Moses at Sinai), that we compare the mitzvah of the Jubilee to the mitzvah of Rosh Hashanah. All the mitzvos of the seventh month have similar laws, u’mah teru’as yovel b’shofar, af teru’as Rosh Hashanah b’shofar (and just as the teruah of the Jubilee is with a shofar, so too the teruah of Rosh Hashanah is with a shofar). From here we know that Rosh Hashanah must be specifically with a shofar. And particularly in this there is the law about which shofar specifically regarding the kashrus.

It’s interesting, it’s like another thing, it’s interesting that the Rambam put in everything at once, but it becomes two different things, which it’s certain that one who holds that a yael is kosher and so forth also agrees that it must be a shofar. This is more a detail in this. If the Rambam wrote it backward, perhaps the Rambam held that ultimately only this is called a shofar? I don’t know.

Law 2 — Shofar and Chatzotros in the Temple

Speaker 1: And in the Beis HaMikdash (Temple) there was a different custom. It’s interesting, what’s the simple meaning of this? Just different, it didn’t matter, because a shofar is a shofar. The main mitzvah is shofar. But there’s a secondary law that in the Temple they didn’t only blow with a shofar. The main thing was the shofar, but on the side there were chatzotros.

Says the Rambam, bamikdash hayu toke’in b’Rosh Hashanah (in the Temple they would blow on Rosh Hashanah), they would blow with one shofar u’shtei chatzotros min hatzedadin (and two trumpets from the sides). But since the shofar is the main thing, they made the shofar ma’arich (prolonged), they made the longer tekiah with the shofar, v’chatzotros mekatzrin (and the trumpets shortened).

Discussion: What Does “Shofar Ma’arich V’chatzotros Mekatzrin” Mean?

Speaker 1: So probably the tekiah was with the shofar, and the teruah was with the chatzotros. Or at once it was, they blew a little with the chatzotros, but they began and ended with the shofar. They heard the shofar more than the chatzotros. Not began and ended, ended I mean.

I don’t know, does ma’arich mean earlier also? No, I think ma’arich means… they made it longer, each thing, as I always thought, I don’t know, that… I would have understood that each sound, the ba’al toke’a said, let’s say it was by the makri (the one who calls out), I don’t know, he said “tekiah,” they began to blow a shofar with two chatzotros, but after two seconds the chatzotros stopped, and the shofar continued further alone.

Isn’t it possible that the simple meaning is that the tekiah which is long was done with the shofar, and the teruah which is short was done with the chatzotros? No, it’s not long, we’ll have to see soon, it’s the same length perhaps.

The Reason for “Shofar Ma’arich”

Speaker 1: Okay, he says, why indeed did they make it more prolonged with the shofar? Shemitzvas hayom b’shofar (because the mitzvah of the day is with the shofar), so that one should hear the main thing. It’s always important to hear the main thing. Yes. It’s not because one won’t be able to hear, it’s more because, yes, one must know… the main thing is the main thing, yes. It’s just like a sign, that’s what I say. It’s not… one can hear, as the Gemara says. It’s not a problem that one won’t be able to hear. It’s not a practical thing. On the contrary, it’s not a practical thing. It’s just so that it should be noticeable, such a thing. Since it’s the mitzvah, one makes the mitzvah longer. Just as one ends with matzah, the taste of matzah should remain, the taste of shofar should remain.

Law 3 — The Source for Chatzotros in the Temple

Translation

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, if the main mitzvah is with the shofar, then why do they bring chatzotzrot (trumpets) at all? Because sometimes they would blow with chatzotzrot in the Mikdash. He says, there’s a special law in the Mikdash, and in the Mikdash it says in the verse “b’chatzotzrot v’kol shofar hariu lifnei HaMelech Hashem”, that when you make a teruah, when you make “hariu lifnei HaMelech Hashem”, meaning in Beit Hashem in the Mikdash, you do it “b’chatzotzrot v’kol shofar”, and this law is only “lifnei HaMelech”, but in other places there is no law of “lifnei HaMelech”, “one only blows on Rosh Hashanah with a shofar alone”.

Discussion: Why Chatzotzrot in the Mikdash at All?

Speaker 1: It’s interesting, if it’s not a mitzvah at all, why do they do it? I mean there’s something of a sort that I didn’t have. Perhaps the tekiah in the Mikdash is a different kind of tekiah? In the Mikdash there presumably isn’t what the Rambam says later that it awakens the world. It’s more a matter of kavod shamayim, like “b’chatzotzrot… hariu lifnei HaMelech Hashem”. It’s not a different type of tekiot shofar at all.

And why should the Rambam make the chatzotzrot also be there? I mean if already… afterwards, so they come to blow tekiot with shofar. I’m saying, with the Rambam’s reasoning you can’t understand it. The shofar is a broken sound, it’s a sound that awakens, it’s a sound that arouses. And chatzotzrah is more musical, it’s more a beautiful sound that they blew in the Mikdash. I don’t know. But specifically, because when there’s a time of trouble they do blow chatzotzrah.

Something very basic is missing here, you understand? He doesn’t say everything. Why? No one explains. It’s all in the Mishnah. But why? There’s a mitzvah to blow shofar, you go blow chatzotzrot. Something very strange.

Ah, because it’s missing. The verse is the mitzvah of kol shofar comes with chatzotzrot. It’s true that the simple meaning of the verse includes all kinds of nevel etc., but no one would think that you need to have a nevel etc. with the shofar. Not in the same verse. In some other verse, what do you remember? Yes, what doesn’t it say? Yes, okay. Ah, and you’re talking about the… but here it only says with chatzotzrot.

In short, something is missing, it’s very strange. It only says “lifnei”, and what’s going on? And every time when you pray isn’t it lifnei Hashem? Okay, truly, the Beit HaMikdash, you understand that something, there’s some secret here? One must ask, I don’t know who knows this secret. Maybe they’ll ask me another time, I want some law of chatzotzrot.

Generally in Beit HaMikdash, yes? They blew chatzotzrot when they offered korbanot. Okay, yes. But that has nothing to do with the tekiah of Rosh Hashanah, does it have to do? I don’t know. But you see, something in the Mikdash was a matter of chatzotzrot, and also by tekiat shofar they also used the same chatzotzrot. I don’t know, you catch that it’s something weird, some secret. Okay.

Halacha 4 — Shofar of Avodah Zarah

Speaker 1: So until now we’ve learned that there’s a mitzvah to blow the shofar, and now the rest of this chapter will write, we hope the rest of the chapter, he’ll write what kind of shofar, which shofar is kosher, which types of prohibitions that are used, what is rather not proper. Other things, laws of the body of the shofar you can say of the shofar. The rest of the chapter, all the details of what we’ve now learned that it must be a shofar, except in the Mikdash there are chatzotzrot, leave it to the side, because no one knows what the explanation is. And now one can learn what kind of shofar can be used, and so on.

The Rambam says, shofar shel avodah zarah, a shofar of avodah zarah, it already belonged to the avodah zarah, or it was used for the avodah zarah, not that the shofar itself was avodah zarah, one should not blow it lechatchilah, one may not blow it lechatchilah, either because it’s a disgusting thing, or because there is a mitzvah “abed te’abdun”, so why should you blow with this shofar and thereby fulfill the mitzvah “abed te’abdun”? Do first the first mitzvah that you have with it. But if one blew it, yatza, if one did blow it, yatza, one was yotzei.

As the Rambam will say, later on the next thing, the Rambam will say that doing a mitzvah doesn’t mean having benefit from something. One may not have benefit from tashmishei avodah zarah, but doing a mitzvah doesn’t mean having benefit. For example, with matzah one couldn’t say it, because it’s eating. But here we’re talking when it’s a pure mitzvah that has no physical benefit, it’s only a mitzvah.

Shofar of Ir HaNidachat

Speaker 1: The Rambam says certainly, but shofar of ir hanidachat, a shofar of ir hanidachat is harsher than a shofar that belonged to avodah zarah. And what’s the law there? If one blew it, lo yatza, one was not yotzei. Why? Because regarding ir hanidachat we learned in Hilchot Avodah Zarah, there’s a mitzvah to gather all the possessions of ir hanidachat and burn it in its town square. So one may not have benefit from it, it’s a mitzvah that one may not have benefit from. So it has no shiur. Not having benefit is not a problem.

The Rambam Doesn’t State the Reason by Avodah Zarah

Speaker 1: But the Rambam doesn’t state the reason here at all. He doesn’t say clearly why by avodah zarah one is yotzei. The next piece, as we’ll learn later, a shofar must have a certain shiur. If there’s just a matter that one may not use it, it doesn’t disturb. Yes, the Rambam doesn’t state the reason here, interesting. He doesn’t state the reason. The next piece he’ll state a reason regarding the shofar of olah or shofar hagazul, there he states the reason. But regarding shofar of avodah zarah the Rambam doesn’t say that the reason is using for using for using. Well, there are perhaps commentators who think so, but the Rambam doesn’t state the general reason at all. He didn’t hold that one needs a reason. What this is indeed forbidden, so it’s forbidden, one may not use it, one shouldn’t use it lechatchilah, but there’s no deficiency in being yotzei.

The Distinction Between Avodah Zarah and Ir HaNidachat

Speaker 1: But that one, the deficiency is obligated in burning. Any thing that is obligated in burning, and soon we’ll see a shofar needs a shiur, not here, but we’ll see it soon. It says in the Gemara, that a thing that is obligated in burning, is like broken pottery, has no shiur. One must indeed burn it, but there’s a way of not burning it if the non-Jew nullifies it. Since there’s a way to avoid burning, we don’t say about this like broken pottery, so say the commentators. But everybody, it’s not a thing that is obligated in burning necessarily, we’re going to burn it. There’s a way out from burning, if there is through nullification. What’s not so in this, there’s no such thing as nullification. That’s the prohibition of avodah zarah and its like.

Halacha 4 (Continued) — Shofar HaGazul

Speaker 1: What happens with a shofar whose prohibition is that it’s stolen, it was stolen, if one blew it, yatza yedei chovato. Why indeed?

Halacha: Shofar of Theft (Continued) — Why One is Yotzei

The Rambam’s Reason: She’ein HaMitzvah Ela B’Shmiat HaKol

Speaker 1: Why here yes? The Rambam says, she’ein hamitzvah ela b’shmiat hakol. The mitzvah of shofar is only hearing the sound. So, af al pi shelo naga bo v’lo higbiah hashomea, even if he didn’t touch it, even if he didn’t lift it up, he was still yotzei.

And hearing the sound of a stolen thing is not a prohibition. Meaning, taking someone else’s thing, touching someone else’s thing, lifting up someone else’s thing is a prohibition. But hearing is not.

So, v’ein b’chol din gezel. It will turn out that although he did lift it up, it won’t be that the person didn’t lift it up, but the sin he didn’t do with the lifting. It’s not a mitzvah haba’ah ba’aveirah, it’s not the mitzvah happened through the sin, because the mitzvah is hearing the kol shofar, and that it happens to be that it was previously lifted up is not the main matter, is not the main…

The Ra’avad’s Disagreement

Speaker 1: Yes, the Ra’avad says that he doesn’t agree with this reason, there are verses of interpretation, “yom teruah yihyeh lachem” everywhere.

Interesting, he wasn’t happy with the Torah that it’s not benefit, what, the sound is not benefit?

Explanation: Kol Ein Bo Mamash

Speaker 2: The same thing is by… not the same thing, but the same law is by shofar of olah, and the Rambam gives a different reason for that. Yes? Right.

I mean the word v’ein b’chol din gezel has to do with the law that’s everywhere that kol ein bo mamash, it’s not like a tangible thing. One can’t say that a sound was stolen. Sound is not a physical thing that can be stolen, rather what was stolen is the vessel with which one makes a sound.

When you take a lulav, you have the body of the lulav which was stolen, but here, the kol shofar has nothing to do with stolen.

If someone makes a noise and he says you’re not disturbing, there’s no such thing. That’s the point. You hear the sound of that shofar.

Discussion: May One Lechatchilah Hear Someone Else’s Sound?

Speaker 1: Okay, may I hear the sound of someone else’s shofar from now until tomorrow? May I blow lechatchilah in someone else’s shofar?

Speaker 2: No. Presumably that’s… but the point is there’s a lomdut. The part of putting your mouth on someone else’s shofar, there’s the problem. But that a sound comes out is not…

If I don’t put my mouth, I have a way of blowing into someone else’s shofar without touching at all, may I? Can the other one block me?

Speaker 1: I don’t know.

Speaker 2: It’s certain that one may not. The question is only here lomdut, whether after you took the sound you were yotzei with a mitzvah, or the sound is a piece of stolen sound. It’s not, it’s a sound. Sound can’t be stolen. But simply one may not, because you may not make use of someone else’s thing. It has nothing to do with the…

Speaker 1: Good, so why isn’t it the same thing here?

Speaker 2: Further, it must be that it entered… don’t know, a person will ask that you may not go under the shade of my tree?

Speaker 1: I don’t know.

Speaker 2: So what is such a kind of thing? It’s such shade? I ask you, from where will you take someone else’s shofar and blow it? As much as I want? A person can say that you can already have benefit from the shade that my tree makes?

Speaker 1: I don’t know. Where is your tree?

Speaker 2: You can already enter someone else’s domain, but let’s say that the other… I’m asking now about the shofar. Why a tree shade?

Speaker 1: Another knows.

Speaker 2: One may not blow someone else’s shofar. Because you may not put your mouth on someone else’s thing. But if… if… if… I want to take a heychi timtza. Why may one not put my mouth on someone else’s thing? By you may not touch someone else’s thing? You may touch. It could be that one may not touch it.

On what can a person say that he doesn’t want one to use it? Can he say that one may not hear his sound? I ask you, can he say yes?

Speaker 1: No, he can’t. If I sing a tune and I say no one should listen, only when I allow. And…

Speaker 2: He can’t say truly. But today’s people will say that there’s… what’s it called? Copyrights.

Speaker 1: Because listening is not a prohibition.

Speaker 2: But I mean that one must always come here to the lomdut, that certainly he may not do that on Beit HaMikdash, and he is yotzei the mitzvah whether he is yotzei with a theft or not.

—

Halacha: Shofar of Olah

The Rambam’s Words

Speaker 2: Okay, the Rambam says, v’chen. Similar law shofar of olah, from an olah one may not have any benefit, an olah is entirely for Heaven, it’s kodesh, one may not have benefit from it, there is a law of meilah in this. So lo yitken, one may not blow lechatchilah because it’s kodesh.

But v’im taka yatza, the same reason as by shofar, she’ein b’chol din meilah, there is no law of meilah, just as there is no law of gezel.

The Rambam’s Question and Answer

Speaker 2: V’im tomar, he asks, but halo neheneh b’shmiat hakol. I can hear that kol ein bo mamash, but you did have benefit, and there should be a law of meilah on the benefit. One may not have benefit from hekdesh. Having benefit from hekdesh is indeed more severe, one can be punished for it, one doesn’t use up the hekdesh.

Speaker 1: Yes, but what was it? If kol doesn’t have meilah, then the meaning is that one may. Can you ask on the law? There’s a question on the law that ein kol bnei meilah is benefit? What does it mean?

Speaker 2: No, ein kol din meilah is the same thing as ein kol din gezel, because it’s ein bo mamash, nothing was done. But by a hekdesh there is indeed an extra law, but you may not have benefit from hekdesh.

By a gezel there’s no law, you may not be under the shade of someone else’s for example. But by a hekdesh there is indeed, but you may not… it says so clearly, one may indeed not go under the shade of something of hekdesh. I don’t know with this doesn’t speak of having benefit from hekdesh. May one hear the sound of a shofar of olah, or may one not.

Speaker 1: It says lo yitken.

Speaker 2: Because he uses a thing from a gutsh. Let him use, because they spoke to him, one also may not blow with someone else’s shofar. That’s not a shofar that one must write.

Discussion: Why is There a Question “Halo Neheneh”?

Speaker 2: The question of tov eli neheneh sounds like there’s something new, it’s very hard to understand. And the answer is, mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu, so, it doesn’t disturb. Shsh nitzlslau lo nitnenu. So he may, it’s not a problem of meilah.

The two steps are very unclear why he says. Again, when mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu one can also say when one actually used the thing. Let’s say a stolen lulav, one can also say mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu, but it wouldn’t be the thing of ein bo kol din meilah wouldn’t help in such a case. Kol ein bo mamash. That’s one step. Let’s not on the word one is there.

Okay. But since there is indeed an extra matter that one may not have benefit, even when you didn’t do… I ask a good question, may one hear the sound of a… let’s say it’s not a mitzvah, may one hear the sound? May one, asks the Rav, from the law of meilah? I’m going now before the laws of meilah. May one hear the sound of a…

Speaker 1: No, because you have benefit. It’s a beautiful sound that you had benefit from. You may not?

Speaker 2: Perhaps they said… when it says kol… a distinction, if it’s musical and it’s beautiful, it’s something that you have benefit, you may not have benefit from it. So one may not hear the sound, because benefit doesn’t help the ein bo mamash. Benefit is forbidden.

Speaker 1: That’s not true. I don’t think that that’s true. It doesn’t make sense to me. One may not hear the sound. That’s the law that the sound doesn’t have meilah, that one may indeed hear it, because it doesn’t have… as you say, one can’t steal it. I don’t understand. How can it be?

Speaker 2: He says that in Hilchot Meilah it says that miderabanan one may not.

Speaker 1: What’s going on? What’s miderabanan? We’re talking whether one is yotzei.

Speaker 2: It does matter to me, because later it says that one may not with any prohibitions miderabanan also not hear kol shofar blow.

Speaker 1: No, no, it’s another thing. It’s not all not one is yotzei. Now we’re talking whether one is yotzei. It’s not the same thing. You understand so? It’s not the same thing. Certainly, one may not do any prohibition in order to do the thing, but lechatchilah, it’s only problems, one may not. But the Rambam says in Hilchot Meilah Chapter 1 Halacha 6, that there’s a thing that one is not obligated in meilah, but it’s forbidden to benefit.

Source Reference: Hilchot Meilah Chapter 1 Halacha 6

Speaker 1: It doesn’t say that he’s talking about kol here, so someone here decided. So the word kol doesn’t appear here. He says, yesh devarim, perhaps this is what he means? Yesh devarim it says in hineh v’lo meilah, but that’s all miderabanan.

I don’t see why it should come in here, that the miderabanan should mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu help for the miderabanan. Something is strange to me, tzarich iyun.

Speaker 2: What do you mean you should ask? If it’s enough mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu, you can say the answer immediately. What’s the problem?

Explanation: What Does “V’im Tomar Halo Neheneh” Mean?

Continued Discussion on Shofar Laws

Speaker 1: No pleasure means to say, seemingly it makes sense to ask a question: how is it permitted? He has pleasure from it. Let’s say he fulfills the obligation, because of “in all cases of me’ilah,” but how is it permitted? It shouldn’t be permitted, we just said “lo yitka” (he should not blow). What does it mean it’s permitted?

Rather, it means to ask a question: because he has pleasure, it would be me’ilah, it would further be a prohibition, and something like a mitzvah haba’ah ba’aveirah (a mitzvah that comes through a transgression). Well, he just said that it’s not. I don’t understand. There isn’t anyone else who understands. It seems to me that no one else understands either. You’ll say all kinds of things, but it’s not clear.

—

Law: One Who Vowed Not to Derive Benefit from a Shofar

The Rambam’s Words

Speaker 1: And immediately let’s learn the next law, yes? Therefore, one who vowed not to derive benefit from a shofar, someone who made a vow that he will not derive benefit from a shofar, indeed may not blow it just like that, as a voluntary act, but he is permitted to blow it for the blowing of a mitzvah, for the same reason, that we don’t view a mitzvah as pleasure. It doesn’t mean like you heard some nice music, it means like you heard the sound of the shofar, which is a thing unto itself, it’s a mitzvah. A mitzvah doesn’t mean pleasure.

So you see clearly that “mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu” (mitzvot were not given for pleasure) is a genuine permission, it even helps for one who vowed not to derive benefit.

Discussion: The Connection Between “Ein Bo Mamash” and “Mitzvot Lav Lehanot Nitnu”

Speaker 2: I think the two things are also connected. For example, one wouldn’t say regarding eating matzah that “mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu,” therefore it doesn’t mean that you had pleasure, because your body became full. But because it’s “ein bo mamash” (there’s no substance to it), it’s not a tangible thing, it’s just that you hear a nice sound, about that one can say “mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu.”

Regarding theft, it has to come to this, because when he eats, he’s stealing. Not just the prohibition of benefit, it’s a mitzvah haba’ah ba’aveirah.

Speaker 1: Right, it makes more sense. The mitzvah happens as a result of this, it doesn’t happen at the same time, it doesn’t happen as such an outcome.

Discussion: Why Doesn’t “Mitzvot Lav Lehanot Nitnu” Help with Matzah?

Speaker 2: One who vowed not to derive benefit from matzah indeed may not eat it.

Speaker 1: That’s a different… I know that. But why shouldn’t we say “mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu”?

Speaker 2: I think it’s something… we don’t know. I mean really. Why indeed? Why is it different? Why is it that if he vowed not to eat

Continued Discussion: Mitzvot Lav Lehanot Nitnu Regarding Matzah and Shofar

Speaker 1: One who vowed not to derive benefit from matzah indeed may not eat it, that’s a different… I know that. But why shouldn’t we say “mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu”? I think it’s something… I don’t know.

Speaker 2: Why indeed? Why should it be different? Why if he vowed he won’t eat a piece of matzah, may he not eat that matzah? Don’t you say “mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu”? You say because it’s genuine pleasure. So, “mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu” is a genuine law. Why shouldn’t it work on genuine pleasure? His body actually had pleasure. That’s not a tangible thing, it’s just “mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu.” It’s not a genuine law, it’s just “mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu.” Okay, I don’t know. I don’t know. Do you understand what I’m asking you?

So he does have pleasure, so he is transgressing yes pleasure. Do you understand what I’m saying to you? If there’s a mitzvah that is very tasty… shofar is something not a mitzvah that’s tasty, but “lav lehanot nitnu,” it wasn’t given for that. That’s not the essence of it. So therefore it doesn’t mean a mitzvah haba’ah ba’aveirah, because the mitzvah isn’t the pleasure from it. The pleasure is an external thing. You did indeed do a transgression by withholding benefit from that thing, but that wasn’t the mitzvah. The mitzvah and the prohibition were two different things. Which is not so regarding eating, I don’t know. Does eating have pleasure?

Speaker 1: Not clear. You see, many commentators say about some rabbinic prohibition of deriving benefit, about this the Rambam needs to say these two things. It’s very strange, because… I’m not saying that’s what it means, it doesn’t make sense. “And he didn’t have pleasure” means to say that there’s a rabbinic prohibition? What he says, because the Divine Presence is there, he shouldn’t be. Very well, it could be that… What you’re talking about regarding the one who vowed not to derive benefit, in the act of blowing I don’t know what… Not clear. The laws are very different, and I don’t believe it’s so relevant in practice. It’s more relevant to understand precisely where is the prohibition and where… You understand, how can there be one action where there’s the mitzvah, there’s the transgression, and the mitzvah is however not the same thing as the transgression, you understand? All these things one may not do.

Discussion on Stolen Shofar — Initially or After the Fact?

I mean, except for a stolen shofar, it’s very interesting, why did the Rambam write regarding a stolen shofar “lo yitka bo” (one should not blow with it)? Obviously one may not initially, right? He wouldn’t have written “lo yitka bo” if he doesn’t have another shofar, he should yes blow with it. Because just the whole shofar… That’s what the Ra’avad says, “yom teru’ah” (a day of blowing) in any case. Interesting. There’s no bread by the shofar, so to speak. It’s not… For example, when it says regarding a shofar of idolatry “ein tokin bo lechatchilah” (one doesn’t blow with it initially), what does that word “lechatchilah” mean? If he has another shofar, or does “lechatchilah” mean not at all? He should otherwise not hear shofar blowing. Yes, a shofar of idolatry “ein tokin bo lechatchilah.” Does it mean, otherwise go wash the vessels, or that Rosh Hashanah you won’t hear shofar blowing. I don’t know.

Discussion on One Who Vowed Not to Derive Benefit — Blowing Shofar Oneself

He brings a very strange thing also indeed, that the one who vowed not to derive benefit himself shouldn’t blow. Why? That there are people who have pleasure when they blow themselves. Hearing the blasts isn’t tasty, but to blow oneself… Because the pleasure from blowing is that they hear their own blowing, or that he’s the ba’al toke’a (shofar blower). It’s not some physical pleasure from placing the shofar on the mouth. No one has that pleasure. It seems like a bodily pleasure from placing the shofar on the mouth. That’s not it. Indeed strange. But presumably, let’s understand, when it’s not a mitzvah one indeed may not. Okay. Do you agree? Simply one who vowed not to derive benefit from a shofar, and not a blowing of a mitzvah. Everyone agrees that one may not. Why? Why does it mean yes? Because you have pleasure from hearing some nice sound. It’s perhaps a musical instrument, yes. But when it’s doing a mitzvah it’s not… You don’t go. Yes. Okay.

Continued Discussion: Stolen Shofar and Shofar of Idolatry

Better is one should take his own shofar. He was aroused about this for Rabbeinu to write as if “lechatchilah.” Here here, the last piece, someone said a stolen shofar, it’s implied “lechatchilah.” In short, two Jews, two argue, I with you need to be like always, I with you argue. But this is also very interesting to me, whether what stands “ein tokin bo lechatchilah” means “lechatchilah lechatchilah,” when he can have a better one. “Lechatchilah” means he shouldn’t blow shofar that year if he only has a shofar of idolatry. I don’t know. It’s hard to believe, because that would be opposed to the next prohibition. If he fulfills the obligation, he fulfills it. It’s a mitzvah. It should be such a positive biblical commandment type of thing. It’s biblical, but it’s a mitzvah. Such a thought that the mitzvah should be greater than the transgression. No, “lechatchilah” can mean like we translate, that this is better. But I believe that regarding shofar it also goes like this, “lechatchilah,” you have a non-stolen one, obviously it should… I don’t know. Interesting.

Law: The Shofar of Rosh Hashanah — One Does Not Desecrate Yom Tov for It

Okay, we’re going to learn another law that stands in this Rambam in the Mishnah, whether one may do a transgression in order to blow shofar.

Says the Rambam: The shofar of Rosh Hashanah, one does not desecrate Yom Tov for it, one may not desecrate Yom Tov, even with something that’s a shevut (rabbinic prohibition). Not only a biblical prohibition may one not do on Yom Tov, even not a rabbinic prohibition may one not do on Yom Tov.

Discussion: Is Blowing Shofar Itself a Prohibition of Musical Instruments?

It’s interesting, because the very act of blowing with a musical instrument is a rabbinic prohibition. Okay, that’s not relevant, that’s the mitzvah of the day. It’s not clear that a shofar is called a musical instrument that’s forbidden. I spoke about this once. I remember that I once looked into this. There are those who say that if it’s… Meaning Shabbat when one may not blow. Shabbat, a musical instrument is strings, meaning things that have strings, where there it’s often that one needs to often fix it. Which is not so a hole, a thing, a flute, making sound. It’s not clear that shofar is forbidden, because… What’s the discussion? Shabbat, the Sages say, they had to make an extra prohibition, as we’ll soon see, “lest he go to an expert.” Right, “lest he carry it.” And it comes out that on Yom Tov one may. You’ll say that there’s a special, there are later authorities. What is there, later authorities who want to say that for example one has already fulfilled the mitzvah, one may not blow more, because there’s a concern of making sound, but it’s never implied like that.

It makes sense what you say that the regular musical instruments that one always needs to fix, are all these strings one always needs to fix. It’s not a scriptural decree. Well, if you see, someone who uses a guitar, always one is busy fixing the guitar. It’s a delicate instrument, but a shofar, a flute, a horn, all these are simply an instrument that has a hole in the wood. But even making sound, it could be that it also used to. They forbade all kinds of musical instruments, but… Right, I think it’s forbidden making sound even without an instrument. Right, that can have to do with musical instruments, just like for example medicine on Shabbat they forbade every medicine even when one doesn’t need to break anything that has a connection with grinding ingredients.

But it’s certain that… When the Torah says, blow shofar, did the Torah know that there’s a prohibition of musical instruments? No, the Torah didn’t know, the Rabbis made that afterwards. The Rabbis made it, and they didn’t go… They didn’t forbid. There are indeed poskim who say that although on a regular Shabbat, for example, one may not blow a musical instrument, even a shofar one may not blow on a regular Shabbat, but on Rosh Hashanah one may yes. There stands a Mishnah that one teaches children to blow, even if it’s Shabbat. We’ll want to see the law, I think. Perhaps there stands the sugya. I remember that there’s somewhere a dispute. But in any case, here when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbat there will be the prohibition “lest he carry it,” not the prohibition “lest he fix a musical instrument,” because the “lest he fix a musical instrument” has already been nullified by the mitzvah of Rosh Hashanah. But that’s never there, one needs to know.

The Plain Meaning of the Rambam: How So?

But here stands another law, that one may not do another shevut. Not the shevut of blowing shofar, the shevut of blowing shofar. Yes, says the Rambam, one may not do the shevut of blowing shofar.

How so? If the shofar was at the top of a tree, and on Shabbat one may not go to the top of a tree because lest one will tear off on Yom Tov, one will tear off a piece of a branch. Or from the river, about which the Sages said that one is afraid of fixing a barrel, of fixing a boat to cross over, and he has no shofar except this one, this is his only shofar, he does not climb the tree, one may not do the rabbinic prohibition, and he does not float on the water to bring it.

Simply one will be able to through a non-Jew, because just as we learned a shevut d’shevut in a place of mitzvah one will be able to. Very good. Seemingly, he doesn’t tell me here anyone here on the end. It’s not just that, one can simply so many times a shevut itself in a place of mitzvah the Sages permit, or in a place of great need. That they didn’t permit. Do you remember that we should have a rule that the Sages permit many times in their wealth when it’s very lacking, but the mitzvah of blowing shofar doesn’t lack.

And needless to say one doesn’t cut it and one doesn’t do work with it, one may not cut the shofar and do labors with the shofar. Cutting means cutting off from the animal, that will be biblical, no? Yes, he says… complete labor. Cutting it doesn’t mean cutting an already cut shofar. That will perhaps only be rabbinic, fixing, some strong fixing. Fixing a vessel which is only rabbinic. He meant tearing off from the animal. That’s called kotzer. Kotzer. Tolesh, yes. Clear.

Explanation: Why May One Not Desecrate Yom Tov?

And one doesn’t do work with it. One may not do any work with the shofar. Because blowing shofar is a positive commandment, and Yom Tov is a positive and negative commandment. Therefore one may not. If one will do it yes, the shofar won’t be nullified. It won’t be a mitzvah haba’ah ba’aveirah, because the transgression was done as a preparation, not while doing the mitzvah. But one may not do it, one may not do the preparation for the mitzvah of blowing shofar.

By the way, someone will say that it’s a positive commandment that overrides a negative commandment, and they wouldn’t have said the distinction that they need to do yesterday, that’s only a preparation. No, the answer is, even so, even when it was yes, there’s a Yom Tov positive and negative commandment. And perhaps because of this, also the Sages didn’t permit their shevutim, because their shevutim are to protect the positive and negative commandment of Yom Tov. So it’s not more important, the shofar isn’t more important. What one wants to effect salvations with the shofar, one can effect with the mitzvah of Yom Tov. So one must say, that’s already different.

Law: One Puts Water or Wine or Vinegar Into It

Says the Rambam further, he now said what one may not do, one may not fix the shofar when it’s a labor. But things that aren’t labor, that perhaps one wouldn’t be permitted to do on Shabbat, just like that, I know, perhaps a shofar would be muktzeh, but one may, one puts water or wine or vinegar into it on Yom Tov in order to clean it, to clean the shofar. That one may yes. What’s the novelty with this? I don’t know.

Law: Urine in a Shofar

But one should never put urine into it, because of respect, so that mitzvot should not be despised by him.

One should never put urine into the shofar. Because of respect, it’s not respectful, so that mitzvot should not be despised by him.

Because of respect means to say, what does “because of respect” mean? Is the respect from the Almighty? From the shofar?

No, respect means so that mitzvot should not be despised by him, that a person should relate to important things with respect, as an education for himself that the mitzvah should be more important to him.

Yes, but seemingly, the Almighty isn’t offended.

It says in the ketoret (incense) one says one doesn’t put urine because of respect, right? That means, although urine they say is a sharp thing, one used to use it to clean, but a shofar is a… Although there’s no holiness at all in the shofar, true? It’s tashmishei mitzvah (accessories of a mitzvah), it’s not tashmishei kedushah (accessories of holiness). Right?

But it’s like “so that mitzvot should not be despised by him.” But that’s like the Gemara says regarding blood, yes? So that mitzvot should not be despised by him. That one shouldn’t cover with the foot. It says, covering the blood, although there’s no holiness at all in the blood, but it’s a mitzvah, a mitzvah one needs to honor. It should be a shofar one needs to honor.

Yes.

Law: The Measure of the Shofar

Okay, now we’re going to learn that the shofar indeed has a measure. You already saw a minute ago that the shofar has a measure, but from this you in the indeed is invalid. Now we’re going to learn what is indeed the measure.

Yes.

Says the Rambam, what is the measure of the shofar?

Yes.

The Rambam always, the measure he calculates in the first chapter, many times even earlier, or like a kezayit (olive’s volume).

The measure of the shofar is that he should hold it in his hand and it should be visible on both sides — he should hold it in his hands and it should still stick out from both sides.

An interesting measure. Why did the Sages say this measure? One needs to be able to see the shofar. A shofar is a matter of seeing. It’s a great matter. One only needs to hear the sound from it. It shouldn’t look like he’s blowing out of his hand, like he’s making the sound with his hand. Just as it says in the Mishnah, I don’t know.

Discussion: Why This Measure?

Are you asking a question?

I mean, okay, every thing has its measure. Everything that has to do with eating is usually a gerogeret or an egg. But for example shofar, lulav, have other kinds of measures of size.

Lulav also has a similar measure, one should be able to see it, you’re exactly right. It seems that a shofar, I think it’s not just the truth that the mitzvah is the hearing, but there’s a certain respect. Just as we saw earlier, regarding “with the sound of the shofar” he brings a nice blower, or you blow with something disgusting, you see that there are laws to the shofar with respect, right? It needs to be a nice shofar, one shouldn’t use any disrespectful thing to clean it, or perhaps there’s some matter of “zeh E-li ve’anveihu” (This is my God and I will glorify Him) and the shofar should be a nice shofar.

Because they’ll see that if you cover it, there’s a problem that it’s on the sound, but actually there is such a concept, someone would think to be metzapeh [looking at it], why? Because it’s a shofar, it’s part of the ceremony.

In any case, it has a shiur [measure]. The Rambam doesn’t say what the shiur is. He brings that in the Gemara it says that the shiur is a tefach [handbreadth]. But the Rambam doesn’t write… he doesn’t say clearly, but simply, I want to see Rebbi Yehuda, doesn’t mean just that a person can also grab the shofar with two fingers, the whole hand still needs to stick out. It comes out to about a tefach plus.

Law: Nisdak Le’arko — Invalid

The law says this: Nisdak le’arko, pasul [if it cracked lengthwise, it’s invalid].

Because you don’t hear the sound properly? Or is it such a law?

It seems so. Or because it’s not a shofar.

Nisdak le’arko means it’s open. A shofar is something that has space for a sound to pass through. If it’s nisdak [cracked], yes.

The Rambam doesn’t say nisdak kulo [cracked entirely] or rubo [most of it], nisdak le’arko sounds like kulo perhaps.

I don’t know.

Law: Nisdak Le’rochbo

Le’rochbo [widthwise], if there was a crack in the width of the shofar, you can calculate that the shofar begins after the crack. It shouldn’t be a problem. So if nisht’yeir bo kashiur [there remains the proper measure] from after the crack it’s kosher, ke’ilu nichnas mimakom hasedek — we calculate that the shofar begins from after the crack.

It seems that there’s no problem of chatzitzah [interposition] that it needs to touch at his mouth at the kosher place.

Ah, you mean if it’s on the other side?

Yes, that’s what we’re talking about. Le’arko we’re talking about this. Le’arko, everywhere there’s a crack. There where you put your mouth there’s a crack.

But the Kesef Mishneh says specifically that this only applies if there was a shiur letzad hapeh [measure on the side of the mouth].

What, because he holds that it’s a problem of chatzitzah?

As you say, it is, it is a problem.

Why should we say it’s a problem of chatzitzah? As long as it produces a sound, the main thing is the kol shofar [sound of the shofar].

I agree with you, but you clearly didn’t hold like yourself.

Well, we’ll see later, because tzipuy [coating] is yes… tzipuy bemakom hanachat hapeh [coating at the place where the mouth is placed]. It could be that it’s something else, not a contradiction.

I’m just asking, but why le’arko, why can’t we say the same thing, it doesn’t matter the shiur, it’s kosher?

Because everywhere on the shofar there’s a crack, because it’s le’arko.

Le’arko means the entire length?

Yes, le’arko. That’s the meaning?

Yes. As we see in the next law, that if nisdak the shofar is finished. If a little shofar remains, that’s the point.

Ah, it makes a noise?

Who knows.

Law: Nikav Usatmo

Nikav [if it was punctured], if satmo shelo bemino [he sealed it not with its own kind], pasul.

Why? Because you’ll hear not a kol shofar, but a sound from something else. It’s already not a shofar, there’s something else there.

No? Why shouldn’t we say that it’s a mi’ut [minority], it becomes batel [nullified]?

Seemingly it becomes batel. It’s like any vessel that you have, a piece gets stuck in, it becomes part of the vessel. Why shouldn’t we say that it becomes batel to the shofar, which is the majority?

Very good. The Rambam has ruled a great chumra [stringency], that it needs to be either bemino [of its kind], and also not me’akev et hateki’ah [doesn’t prevent the blowing], and also rubo shalem [most of it is whole]. There are other commentators who say the opposite, that it needs to be all three al derech v’ [in the manner of “and”]. This is the shitat haRambam [the Rambam’s position], that even when it doesn’t change the sound, it seems that there’s a mitzvah that you need to blow with a shofar, and not with a shofar plus silly putty, I don’t know what you put in the…

It could be that it would perhaps change the sound somewhat.

But no, the Rambam says clearly, look at the next thing, you’ll see, it’s not me’akev et hateki’ah. Even if it’s only a mi’ut, and even if it’s not me’akev et hateki’ah.

But if satmo bemino, he covered it with ground up pieces of shofar, I don’t know exactly what is a mi’ut. So if nisht’yeir rubo shalem, if most of the shofar is whole, uvo akvu hanekavim shenesatmu et hateki’ah [and in it the holes that were sealed don’t prevent the blowing]. The Rambam doesn’t write hateki’ah, harei zeh kosher [it is kosher].

That means, there are three things: it needs to be either bemino, either rubo shalem, and either lo me’akevet et hateki’ah. That means, even when it’s very much bemino, it still lacks the two conditions for it to be kosher. If it lacks one of the two conditions, according to the Rambam it’s pasul. It’s a great chumra.

Yes.

Others have indeed argued, others have said what? That as long as it’s not me’akev et hateki’ah, or as long as it’s not the majority. On the contrary, that you need all… This is the holy Ra’avad, he argues already. As soon as one of them is good, it’s already fine. If bemino for example, says the Ra’avad, for example, lo bemino, what does it matter that it makes a different sound? It’s a sound from the type of shofar.

Yes.

Or on the contrary, lo bemino, it only lacks the kol shofar, what does it matter that it has a closure?

Yes.

Law: Kadcho Bizchuruto — Kosher

Already, further the Rambam says, but we’re very stringent in the laws of shofar. I don’t know, it’s already the second great chumra that he has against everyone.

Yes.

Kadcho bizchuruto [if he drilled through its core]. Someone had to, he drilled a hole through. Zechurut means that a shofar has… it’s filled inside with still a… there’s like a bone, it grows on a bone. Usually you take it out and the outside remains. What is the… someone didn’t insert into the bone, and the sound now runs through not in the hollow, that which we call the shofar, but the sound goes through. The hole, the chalal [hollow] is in the bone that fills the shofar.

It’s kosher.

Why? It’s true, you’re not actually blowing into what’s called the shofar, you’re blowing into the thing called zechurut, but it’s bemino, and so we learned, min bemino eino chotzetz [its own kind doesn’t interpose]. It’s not because here it is, yes, le’rubo, it’s le’arko lechol arko [lengthwise for its entire length].

Different from satmo bemino.

No, I say satmo bemino needs to be the three conditions. This is different from satmo bemino.

No, this is still a normal shofar. Satmo bemino is something else. He brought from a foreign piece of shofar, another shofar, I don’t know from where.

Law: Dibek Shivrei Shofarot — Invalid

Dibek shofarot [if he glued together broken pieces of shofarot], he glued together several pieces from shofarot, ad sheshleimu le’echad [until together they are one], until together they are a whole shiur of a shofar. It’s also pasul, it can’t be better than satmo bemino, without all these pieces it wouldn’t have been kosher. And now, with the glue, with the putting together…

It’s too small, each individual one is less than the shiur.

We don’t look at it now as one new shofar. A shofar is when it’s natural, when it looks like one whole shofar.

Law: Hosif Alav Kol Shehu — Invalid

Now we can learn, until now we learned it regarding holes or regarding calculating a shofar. Now we can learn when he adds simply parts to a shofar, somehow. Right.

Hosif alav kol shehu [if he added anything to it], he adds to the shofar, bein bemino bein shelo bemino pasul [whether of its kind or not of its kind, it’s invalid].

Discussion: Why is Bemino Invalid?

Did you ask why bemino? Bemino doesn’t interpose. Why then when hosif alav is it pasul?

I don’t know. He added a piece. I’m not clear why.

It needs to be one shofar and not two shofarot? Is there such a thing?

Like the previous laws, it must be one shofar. Earlier we learned a broken shofar, it doesn’t have a shiur from the outset. Here we learn that it’s a whole shofar and he adds a piece, still, it needs to be one shofar and not two shofarot. There’s such a formulation I think.

No, do you have a better explanation?

It’s still difficult for me, because earlier he said by mino it doesn’t interpose.

Chotzetz is a different thing. You already have a shofar, and you’re making a continuation of the shofar, and you’re not making the shofar. It’s shofar plus.

Okay.

Ah, chatzitzah is not the issue. You’re not saying that you have a chatzitzah. There are those who say that we’re talking about when there wasn’t a shiur before. Then it’s the same law as dibek shivrei shofarot.

I don’t know what the difference is. It’s literally twice the same thing.

Dibek shivrei shofarot means to say when there isn’t one majority. It’s a bunch of pieces. Here you might have been able to say that the majority is kosher, you added from the same kind, and because it’s not chotzetz it will also be able to make.

Law: Natan Shofar Betoch Shofar

He says, no, it can’t make the shiur. That’s a good explanation. With this explanation it fits, that without the addition there wouldn’t have been a shiur. We don’t count the addition as if it became part of the same shofar. Very good.

If one covered the shofar with gold, it occurred to him a great mitzvah mibifnim [from inside], meaning the sound now goes through the gold. If at makom hanachat hapeh [the place where the mouth is placed] at both places it’s pasul, because his sound goes through, you won’t hear a kol shofar, you’ll hear a kol zahav [sound of gold]. But tzipahu mibachutz [if he coated it from outside], then it depends nisht’aneh kolo mik’mot sheha’yah [if its sound changed from what it was], if it became, this makes the sound different, then it’s the same thing pasul because you don’t hear kol shofar. Ve’im lo nisht’aneh [and if it didn’t change], the chatzitzah isn’t there, what’s outside is kosher.

Already, for the same reason, for the matter of chatzitzah, there’s another law: Natan shofar betoch shofar [if he placed a shofar inside a shofar]. He placed one shofar inside the other also, a pious person. He thought that the more the better.

So, im kol penimi shama yatza [if he heard the inner sound he fulfilled his obligation], because the sound went through one shofar. It doesn’t matter to me that around there’s something else. It means like tzipahu mibachutz. But im kol chitzoni shama lo yatza [if he heard the outer sound he didn’t fulfill his obligation], because his sound didn’t go through. There was already a chatzitzah between where the sound entered.

There’s such a rule, that you’re not allowed to blow with two shofarot. One shofar is enough. You only hear one, only kol chitzoni shama [he heard the outer sound].

Question: Why is This a Chatzitzah? It’s Min Bemino!

But he asks you, what does it matter? It’s a chatzitzah? Like the gold that he placed, it’s not from its kind. It’s from its kind, it’s a shofar. It’s a shofar, it’s not another thing, not a foreign thing. What’s wrong with placing a piece bemino?

It’s not a normal person, right? Why are you blowing with two shofarot? If you’re blowing a problem with the person, the teki’ah should have been, okay. I’m talking, it’s a strange teki’ah. If you blow with the innermost one, there’s outside another piece, it doesn’t matter to me. But if you blow from the outside, there’s something, an action, it’s not made that way.

Law: Hafach Et HaShofar — Blowing from the Wrong Side

Another craziness that can occur to a person, yes, a shofar has two sides, such as “min hametzar [from the narrow]” and “min hamarchav [from the wide]”. It has a narrow side and another side. He decided that he wants to make Purim, he wants to widen the short side and shorten the wide side. He wants to change the order of the world.

It’s pasul. Why? Also something like this, it’s nisht’aneh mibri’ato [changed from its creation], it’s not the normal way. Ah, he brings, it says “veha’avarta shofar teru’ah [and you shall sound the shofar blast]”, it says “derech ha’avarato [in the manner of its passing]”. In short, there’s another verse to say what I said.

Changes That Are Kosher

Now we can learn things that are indeed kosher. That means, until now we learned changes that are me’akev [invalidating]. Now we learned changes that don’t prevent.

The changes that don’t prevent, the rule is: everything where what remains is the essence of the shofar, and only removed. The change happened on the outside.

He says, “hayah aruch ukitzro [if it was long and he shortened it]”, a long shofar he cut off, made shorter, it’s kosher. What does it matter, as long as a shiur remains, and so on.

“Gerado [if he scraped it]”, he scraped it out. The worms also ate parts of the shofar, bein mibifnim bein mibachutz [whether from inside or outside], even “amda al gildo [if it stood on its skin]”, only a thin layer remained, it’s kosher. It’s still from a shofar.

Law: Kol HaKolot Kesheirin BaShofar

Already. Now the Rambam says things that don’t bother me. If the shofar makes “weird” sounds, it makes a kol aveh [thick sound], a deeper sound than usual, or dak [thin], or tzarud [hoarse], a hoarse sound, kosher. Why? “Shekol hakolot kesheirin bashofar [because all sounds are kosher with a shofar]”.

Shofar is not about hearing some beautiful sound, but that one should hear the kol shofar, no difference. As long as it’s a kosher shofar, that has all the laws from before. If it’s not a kosher shofar, if you add something foreign and it changes the sound, it becomes more tzarud, you understand, then there is indeed a problem, because then it’s like nisht’aneh kolo [its sound changed], he means that now you hear the sound from the piece of gold or whatever. But as long as it’s a kosher shofar, it doesn’t matter to me if it makes a big sound.

Digression: Rabbeinu Bachaye — The Main Thing is to Break the Heart

There’s a beautiful Rabbeinu Bachaye that I read elsewhere here. Yes, he goes on a rant against those who seek beautiful ba’alei teki’ot [shofar blowers] with good shofarot, because the main thing is to break the heart. There were indeed rebbes who barely blew in, but it was, the heart was there. It doesn’t come out.

Although, there is presumably “zeh Eli ve’anvehu [this is my God and I will glorify Him]”, it’s hard to say that there’s no concept that it should be a beautiful sound. Yes, there’s a… Galician Jews would have had pleasure from such a… the Dzikover Rebbe would have had pleasure from such a piece. Kol hakolot kesheirin [all sounds are kosher], the main thing is you blow with a broken heart.

Law: Taka Betoch HaBor O HaMe’arah — Kol Shofar Versus Kol HaBrarah

Already. Now we’re going to learn another important law. This is no longer a law of the shofar itself, it’s more a law of the kol shofar, but it’s a continuation of what we just learned that all sounds are kosher.

No, on the contrary, that you need to blow the shofar, if you hear another sound, or even if there go two sounds at once which is not the sound of a shofar. When it’s a pure kol shofar, kol hakolot kesheirin, but it’s when kol shofar with some fringe, yes.

Already the Rambam said, specifically betoch habor o betoch hame’arah [in a pit or in a cave]. So, otam ha’omdim betoch habor vehame’arah yatz’u [those standing in the pit and cave fulfilled their obligation], because what they heard was a pure kol shofar. That’s never a problem.

But ha’omdim bachutz [those standing outside], those standing outside, it now depends. Im kol shofar sham’u [if they heard the kol shofar], if they heard a kol shofar, yatz’u. Why? Because they heard further a kol shofar.

But im kol habrarah sham’u [if they heard the sound of the echo], when you hear something coming out from a deep place, you also hear an echo. You need to check, if they heard the kol shofar it’s yatz’u, but im kol habrarah sham’u, they only heard the echo, they only heard how the sound hits the walls and comes out, and they didn’t hear that it wasn’t a true kol shofar, it’s lo yatz’u [they didn’t fulfill their obligation].

It’s an interesting thing, because the kol habrarah also happened through the shofar, but this is not directly hearing the sound from the shofar.

Vechen [and likewise], the same thing is taka letoch chavit gedolah vechayotza bo [if he blew into a large barrel and the like], it’s the same sort of thing. Im kol shofar sham’u yatz’u, im kol habrarah sham’u lo yatz’u.

A bat kol [echo], an echo is not good enough for shofar. You need to actually understand the technicality that you’re asking.

Discussion: What is the Difference Between Kol Shofar and Kol HaBrarah?

In practice it’s the same sound, but it’s not called the kol hashofar. How is there a shul that has very nice acoustics that makes the shofar work better? You understand, here there’s such an investigation to investigate. When is it called already a kol habrarah and not shofar? Not clear.

It hits the walls and comes back. It’s always the same thing as the bor and the… right, you can just ask a question like that. Every time you hear a sound it’s habrarah. Habrarah is simply that it hits and travels back. But what does it matter to me that it traveled back?

There’s a difference. The Chachamim saw that this is not called the shofar, but… okay, until here chapter 1 of the laws of shofar.