Laws of Shofar (Sukkah and Lulav) Chapter 2 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Shofar, Chapter 2 – Who is Obligated in Hearing the Sound of the Shofar

Introduction to Chapter 2

Speaker 1: A good day, my teachers and rabbis. We are learning Torah. Yes. The section of Torah that we are learning now is Laws of Shofar, Chapter 2, the second chapter of Laws of Shofar. Yes. Before we begin learning, we want to thank our esteemed sponsor of this shiur, our friend, supporter of Torah and Torah learner, Rabbi Yoel Leiby Wetzberger, and all others who support through participation and learning. Yes.

Now, in the previous chapter, the Rambam told us the essential mitzvah of blowing shofar, and afterwards he told us laws about the shofar, which type of shofar is kosher and invalid. And here he is going to tell us the details, who is obligated in shofar, and so forth, how one fulfills the obligation and how one doesn’t fulfill it. It doesn’t mean that the shofar is the object, rather that the person who blows.

Speaker 2: Right.

Speaker 1: The first chapter was everything, there were many laws about the physical shofar itself, how it should look, how big it should be, what it may be made from, the shofar of idolatry, of terumah, etc. etc. And now we can learn about laws, not laws of blowing shofar. That will be the third chapter, how one blows shevarim, teruos, shevarim, all that is Chapter 3. Chapter 2 is everything, as you say, about the person who blows shofar. Which person? Also which time. Which person? And which time. What if it’s Shabbos? All these details of when it’s Shabbos, and where one blows yes and where not, and so forth. Understood?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: It’s a good order. Yes.

Law 1: Everyone is Obligated to Hear the Sound of Shofar

Speaker 1: And the Rambam says thus: “Everyone is obligated to hear the sound of shofar,” as we have already said that the essential mitzvah is to hear the shofar, who is everyone obligated? “Kohanim, Levites and Israelites.” The reason why he says this is because in the Gemara there was a hava amina, that since we compare shofar of Rosh Hashanah to shofar of Yovel, and by Yovel there is an opinion to say that it’s not relevant for Kohanim, because Kohanim don’t have slaves, they don’t have inheritances. But the Gemara concludes that Yovel is also relevant to Kohanim, because release of debts is relevant to Kohanim. So in any case, for Kohanim, both the shofar of Yovel is relevant and, I mean, not the shofar of Yovel, both the mitzvos of Yovel are relevant to Kohanim, therefore also the shofar of Rosh Hashanah is relevant to Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites, there’s no difference whether one has an inheritance or not. So everyone is obligated in Yovel, automatically the law is that everyone is obligated in hearing the sound of shofar. “And converts and freed slaves.” Yes, this is all… Once he started saying that no one, he also counted out all types.

Speaker 2: I’m saying, it could be that this is the list of all types of Jews who are obligated in all mitzvos. More or less. He doesn’t count it out by matzah, he doesn’t count it out by each one. But this is the language…

Speaker 1: Right, the Rambam is not about the hava amina. The Rambam is because it’s the language of the Mishnah. Say now, why is the language of the Mishnah so? So the Gemara is the explanation.

Speaker 2: Yes yes.

Speaker 1: In practice, if someone wants a full list of all “everyone is obligated” always, which means except women, slaves and minors, this is the full list. One can add mamzerim and that, all types of Jews. Yes, but women and slaves who have a law like women, and minors, how long, I mean with Torah law or smaller minors who don’t yet have mitzvos of chinuch, are exempt. It’s different from certain mitzvos, for example, like by matzah there was a reason why women are obligated, but by shofar there isn’t any reason.

Discussion: Proof that “Awakens to Repentance” is Not the Essential Mitzvah

Speaker 2: So I’m just thinking, that which the Rambam says for example that shofar awakens one to repentance is not the essential mitzvah, because if yes, women would also be, women also need to do repentance.

Speaker 1: I’m saying that the repentance, the part that blowing shofar brings repentance is not any part of the essential mitzvah. Because yes, perhaps women would also be, after all they are obligated in repentance. One could say that or that shofar awakens mercy, whatever is the opinion of Rashi. And the poskim are very busy with this. The commentators on the Rambam whether a woman wants to, whether she may make a blessing, whether at all she should. There are those who say that unlike another mitzvah, that if a woman wants to be meticulous she should be meticulous, specifically shofar not. And one of the reasons is because actually there is the prohibition of music. Therefore we saw that it’s a great dispute in this chapter and the next chapter whether on Rosh Hashanah there is at all any prohibition of lest one repair a musical instrument, which was abolished. So there are some who want to say that women shouldn’t at all, because shofar is only something whoever is obligated should do it, whoever is not obligated shouldn’t do it.

But in any case, in practice yes, the custom is. I mean it’s very strong the custom that women hear the sound of shofar, because it’s a part of the holiday, it awakens the heart and so forth. But exempt, they can be exempt.

Speaker 2: It could be, I wanted to answer humorously, that you say it’s a proof that one doesn’t need to do repentance, perhaps it’s a proof that women don’t sin. Which normal woman has a chance to sin? One is busy with the children, with the mommy… Is there still time to sin as well?

Speaker 1: Or the husband needs to do repentance for her today.

Speaker 2: A second interpretation, he needs himself, he needs to effect the salvation for his family, therefore only the men will go to Uman. What, the women don’t need a good year? The answer is that the husband effects for his wife, no?

Speaker 1: It could be that the husband goes to Uman, so the wife can calmly effect a salvation in a small quiet beis medrash without commotion.

The Dispute About Blessings for Women

Speaker 1: Yes, anyway. In essence, this is the fundamental dispute regarding the blessing between the Rambam and most other Rishonim, that the Rambam wrote in Laws of Blessings Chapter 6, as the Maggid Mishneh notes here, that one who is not obligated in something cannot make a blessing. But others said that no, that if one does it, indeed one is not commanded and does, but one can make the blessing. And on this there is another dispute from the Rama whether it’s a custom, and today certainly the custom of women to blow, therefore it means like a custom that one makes a blessing on that custom.

Discussion: Who Makes the Blessing When a Man Blows Only for Women?

Speaker 2: Okay. In practice, I blow for example… It doesn’t happen that the women blow, they hear however, they hear blowing.

Speaker 1: True. Well, if there’s always a man who is fulfilling the obligation, the whole question begins.

Speaker 2: No, but the question becomes further a question, because I for example, when we finish davening in my beis medrash, we make a special, the women gather together somewhere in the afternoon, and I blow shofar. Then there is the question whether one should make the blessing. Usually for example on reading the Megillah one can make the blessing for the women who are going to hear. Here the question becomes whether the man who has already heard, he has already blown the whole shofar, he has already blown everything, whether he can now make the blessing to fulfill the obligation for the women. Well, that becomes the question, the dispute of the Acharonim.

Speaker 1: Yes, but according to our custom, by reading the Megillah women are obligated, therefore he makes the blessing for them, because he is their agent. But our custom is that women make a blessing even on mitzvos that they are not obligated in. So the Rama says that if someone blows only for women, he should indeed not make the blessing, rather they should make the blessing. Because it’s not from the law of obligation, rather from the law of custom. It’s their custom, it’s not your custom to blow for the women, it’s their custom.

Speaker 2: I don’t understand why.

Speaker 1: I can hear the distinction. It’s a mitzvah, you do it on their behalf. It’s a custom that they should hear.

Speaker 2: Yes, but it’s their mitzvah.

Speaker 1: One must think. Every time you make a blessing, when you make a blessing for a man, you make a blessing for what? For them it’s a mitzvah and doing. For me it’s not at all any mitzvah, yes? Because I was already fulfilled. The mitzvah of kindness, of making them meritorious, is their mitzvah. Like each one, again, one was already a mitzvah, now I’m not one mitzvah and doing at all, now I’m just doing something for the other.

Speaker 2: No, I don’t understand what you’re saying. When you blow shofar for a man who is obligated, you certainly make the blessing. That means, you can, if the other wants, you can also. Like each one, one can fulfill the obligation for the other, even if one has already fulfilled it oneself, you do his mitzvah. You make the mitzvah blessing for him. What is a difference? You make the woman’s blessing, that the woman is not obligated. So…

Speaker 1: I don’t understand clearly. Something the word “vetzivanu” is the problem? Because one can’t say the word “vetzivanu.”

Speaker 2: No, I mean that the reason is because one is concerned that it’s not true the law that one can make a blessing oneself. That the woman makes it herself, it’s her responsibility, she will go and go and for her. To such an extent she hasn’t left you at all.

Speaker 1: Look, Rabbeinu Meir HaCohen says, wait, “Do not take the name of Hashem your God in vain” is a Torah law, he is afraid of that Torah law. But those who say, it doesn’t accept that a doubtful blessing is a Torah law, like many opinions, that it’s certainly not any question of taking in vain. You mean to thank the Almighty for the piece of mitzvah that is here…

Speaker 2: I don’t know that, but… I don’t understand why the woman… I don’t see what is the difference that she does it herself or she does it for her. It’s the same blessing that he was obligated in both.

Speaker 1: It just seems that the poskim have accepted, as it says earlier, there is such a language to make satisfaction for women regarding semichah, right? That in truth we don’t hold that women need to blow shofar, they don’t understand the intentions, one stands with oneself. But what? If she wants to feel good, blow shofar. Okay, blow shofar, I will make a blessing for the other to feel good? Everything is confused. I’m telling you what it says in the poskim. If whoever is not disrespectful, let him make the blessing himself. But the poskim have looked at it this way, in my opinion.

Speaker 2: It could be that the Rama who says that the women should make a blessing, has to do with those who learned in the previous chapter, I mean the previous law from Laws of Pesach, that it says our women are all important. How we have become important, you yourself say that he doesn’t blow in vain.

Speaker 1: Hello? Important there means practically, they always sit on nice benches.

Speaker 2: Not the nice benches, they conduct themselves with order, they are not subservient to his. A reason fits for them, they sit reclined also just like that next to the husband, they don’t sit in subservience next to the husband.

Speaker 1: Very good.

Speaker 2: So for the same reason, why does she not sit in subservience? She also does all the mitzvos. Who do you want to tell me I’m exempt from the mitzvos? I’m also a person. Understood? It has to do with feminism.

Speaker 1: God forbid feminism. Important women.

Speaker 2: Important women is a change, it’s a change in the whole attitude. One can’t only by the mitzvah knock them down. She runs the show, she makes the money, she brings in the money to the house, she carries the husband’s burden. Suddenly one will say that on one thing they are not important? That is the matter. Important women means, if it is the reality that they are important women, the reality has changed somewhat.

Speaker 1: No, there it’s a simple law. There’s a law that important women don’t have the order. It could be that originally, I saw that it means a widow, that she is widowed, she doesn’t have a person who is the head of the household in the house. But the Ashkenazic rabbis said that by us the women are all heads of household.

Speaker 2: I don’t know what such a thing is.

Speaker 1: Okay, enough talking nonsense.

Law 1 (Continued): One Who is Half Slave and Half Free, Tumtum and Androgynous

Speaker 1: Okay, “Even though women are exempt” etc. Now comes all kinds of interesting everything from the Mishnah. “One who is half slave and half free, or a tumtum and androgynous, which is a doubt male or female, are obligated, because of the part that obligates.” It means, the person is after all half free, on that part of being free he is obligated. And on the part of male in the tumtum, or the doubtful male in the androgynous, is obligated. This is a doubt, a Torah doubt, that is actually the point. If it would go rabbinically, he would already be exempt.

Speaker 2: No, except if he is not a doubt. A tumtum and androgynous, one of them is a doubt.

Speaker 1: The Rambam will already say, we will already see, it’s going to say more further.

Speaker 2: I know, I know, but I don’t know what it says in the Mishnah.

Law: Anyone Who is Not Obligated in Something Cannot Fulfill the Obligation for One Who is Obligated

Speaker 1: Anyone who is not obligated in something, one who is not obligated in the mitzvah, cannot fulfill the obligation for one who is obligated. He cannot fulfill the obligation for one who is indeed obligated, because one must be in the same mitzvah to fulfill the obligation for the other. So there is such a rule.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: It could be like when both have the same obligation, one can be the second’s agent like it’s similar to agency. There is a question whether this fulfilling the obligation is a concept like agency, or it’s something else? How does this fulfilling the obligation for the other work?

Yes, I’m not a fan of the agency story, because fulfilling the obligation, you are a simple thing, but you must be part of the action. If you are exempt, what are you coming in here? I am participating somehow today in your mitzvah, you are not part of the thing.

The Foundation of Hearing the Sound of Shofar — A Mitzvah Blowing

Speaker 1: But here is a bit more that one must understand, because the mitzvah is hearing the sound of shofar. It’s not missing fulfilling the obligation, it’s only missing that he should do the thing that I should hear. It seems that when one who is not obligated blows, it’s not a sound of shofar, it’s not a mitzvah blowing.

This is, we’ll see later regarding intention. Certainly hearing the sound of shofar doesn’t mean hearing with a recording and one is not fulfilled. It must be from one who blows a mitzvah blowing, from an act of blowing, an action of blowing shofar.

Speaker 2: Yes, but it’s not so simple, because one who has already fulfilled the obligation, it’s simple that he is no longer obligated, because he has already fulfilled it, so he does fulfill the obligation.

Speaker 1: It’s not true, the young man says that it’s not that… It must always be a mitzvah blowing. Certainly, because he blows for you.

“Obligated in the Matter” — A Status, Not Just a Practical Obligation

Speaker 1: But obligated in the matter means you are like a bar of obligation, you are part of the people. This is like a subject of honor, like of status. The one who is part of the status…

Let’s say like this, like the Rambam said that only one for whom a Torah scroll is holy can write a Torah scroll, yes?

Speaker 2: Yes, he is not really.

Speaker 1: The laws of gittin and kiddushin, a slave, because by him it’s not a real thing. He must be in the framework, he must be in the thing.

Like in a physical analogy, one who can himself sign a signature for the bank, can he do it for the other. Let’s not say agency, not for that belief is an agent. He can also. But one who is a minor, or he is not a citizen, I know, only a citizen can do the thing for a second. Understand? It’s such a kind of level. I would think.

Precision in the Language of the Rambam: “Is Not Obligated in the Matter”

Speaker 1: So it means when the Rambam says the word is not obligated in the matter, one cannot be precise, because when one has already fulfilled the obligation he is no longer obligated in the matter. He was already obligated in the matter, he has already fulfilled it, but he has upon himself the obligation. Now he is no longer obligated, but he is a person who is obligated in the matter.

Therefore, when is it relevant in practice, a woman or minor who blew the shofar, that they blow yes shofar, so they do their important thing, but they are not obligated, they cannot fulfill the obligation for one who is indeed obligated. One who hears from them has not fulfilled the obligation. Done.

Law: Laws of Androgynous and Tumtum Regarding Fulfilling the Obligation

Androgynous — Fulfills the Obligation for His Type

English Translation

Speaker 1: What happens with androginos and tumtum? It becomes more complicated. Androginos is a law that it’s a doubt (safek). So there’s a dispute (machloket), let’s say, there’s a dispute about what an androginos is. There are those who say, it’s a dispute among the Tannaim, yes?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Three Positions on Androginos

Speaker 1: There are those who say it’s a doubt (safek). Androginos is a reality, its reality is not a reality of doubt. The reality is that an androginos has both signs. An androginos is such a type of reality that has both male signs and female signs. We don’t know which is the extra one, which is the real one, and which is just something, just a piece.

So there’s a dispute among the Tannaim, I don’t remember where, there’s a dispute among the Tannaim whether this means safek, simply we don’t know, that you say perhaps this is fake and this is real, or it’s a creation in its own right (bri’ah bifnei atzmo). There are three types, just like they say today that there are three genders. There’s male, female, androginos. This is the position of, I don’t remember who says bri’ah bifnei atzmo, they say there are three genders.

The Rambam and the Ra’avad

Speaker 1: Now then, in any case the law (halacha), the Rambam says this is the law, let’s say what the Ra’avad says. The Rambam says that the law is, androginos, since he is somewhat a third creation, let’s say the Ra’avad says this, he can fulfill the obligation (motzi) for another who is also an androginos, because whatever you are is what the other one is. On the side that you are obligated (mechuyav) the other is obligated, on the side that you are exempt (patur) the other is exempt, so it’s perfect. That one heard a shofar blown from his level, from someone who is on his level.

Tumtum — Cannot Fulfill the Obligation for His Own Kind or for Others

Speaker 1: But tumtum, tumtum is a different type of doubt. It’s not a doubt because perhaps he is this and perhaps he is that, rather we don’t know. A tumtum is someone whose nakedness there is not yet revealed or such a thing, and we don’t know what is hidden. It could be that it will turn out that he is completely a male, he is completely a female.

So one tumtum cannot fulfill the obligation for the other, because it could be that you will turn out, or I know, if we could have known we would have known that you are a female and that one is a male, so how will you be able to fulfill his obligation?

So we say inside, tumtum eino motzi lo et mino velo et she’eino mino. He cannot fulfill the obligation for another tumtum, and he cannot fulfill the obligation for a male or an androginos, or a female, anyone. I mean, female is not relevant. Shetumtum kesheyikare’a, when it will become revealed what’s going on there, efshar sheyimatzei zachar, efshar sheyimatzei nekevah. Therefore it could be that he is actually a female, and he’s fulfilling the obligation for a tumtum who is essentially a male. So a tumtum needs to hear from a complete male (zachar gamur).

Discussion: The Difference Between Androginos and Tumtum

Speaker 1: Very good, this is interesting. So it’s interesting but, so the Rambam lays it down as a doubt (safek), so androginos both times is the same doubt. A tumtum could be each one different.

The Ra’avad argues that what the Rambam says is a tumtum. That androginos can fulfill the obligation for his kind (et mino), this is only according to who holds that it’s a new creation. But whoever holds that it’s half male, there are other positions that say it’s half male half female, the Ra’avad argues that then there is no doubt. It seems that there are three positions about androginos. After learning the next one the Ra’avad will be clearer.

Law: Half Slave Half Free Person — Cannot Fulfill Even for Himself

Speaker 1: Half… ah, I need to learn the next one. This is a reality. But this is a financial problem. Half slave is someone who is a slave to two masters, we are slave to two masters (eved lishnei adonim), and one has freed him.

One cannot fulfill even for himself, he cannot fulfill at all. Why? Because he is half and half. She’ein tzad avdut shebo motzi tzad cherut shebo.

How Does the “Half and Half” Work?

Speaker 1: When he blows shofar, a half slave holds the shofar. It comes out half a shofar sound from a slave and half from a free person (ben chorin). I don’t know if exactly so, but this is the concept, that he has in himself a part where he is completely a slave and a part where he is completely a free person.

So the half where he is a free person, and it’s not divided in his body. They didn’t say the right side this way, the left side that way, his whole body is half and half. Therefore, the side where he is a free person he is properly obligated, and when he blows, there blows a half who is not obligated. Therefore he cannot, ein tzad avdut shebo motzi tzad cherut shebo, ela kedei sheyetzei yedei chovato sheyishma miben chorin sheyizkeh lo, he needs to hear from a free person.

The Ra’avad’s Argument on Androginos

Speaker 1: So the Ra’avad argues that androginos should be the same law, that androginos could be such a type of concept like a half and half (chetzyo chetzyo), therefore one androginos won’t help for the other, or even one androginos for himself, because a half who is not obligated (bar chiyuva) cannot fulfill the obligation for a half who is obligated (bar chiyuva).

Right, so it seems there are three ways that one can think about androginos. Either it could be a doubt (safek), as they say, by everything it’s the same doubt. Or he is actually half and half.

Discussion: What Does “Half and Half” Mean?

Speaker 2: Something, what does half and half mean? I don’t know. What is the difference of half? Half of his mouth blows shofar, and half of the mouth is exempt? Or perhaps it’s divided half in size, and perhaps the upper half of the body is obligated?

Speaker 1: No, it’s half spiritually (beruchniyut), half of the whole person. We learned in the laws of inheritance (hilchot yerushah), you cannot divide a living creature (ba’al chai). So it’s half and half.

Speaker 2: So, yes, not clear.

Speaker 1: There are those who say they are right. There are those who argue that many commentators on the Rambam hold that the Rambam is right, that the Rambam rules (posek) actually that androginos is a creation in its own right (bri’ah bifnei atzmo).

Speaker 2: But, yes, does the Rambam rule this way? Here it doesn’t seem so. On the contrary, is there another place?

Speaker 1: Yes.

Speaker 2: Tzad avdut, you’re saying this, not like a creation in its own right. If it’s a creation in its own right, then he can fulfill the obligation for other androginoses, because here both are androginoses. If it’s half and half, then it’s the same situation, like a half slave and half free person.

Speaker 1: So, for more information one can check the Minchat Chinuch on every other page. This is for the scholars (lamdanim), but to understand the basics…

Homiletical Teaching: “Slave to Two Masters” — A Moral Lesson

Speaker 1: I want to say a homiletical teaching (shalosh yedot Torah), will you let me?

Speaker 2: I also want to, I also have a homiletical teaching, but perhaps it will work out. Say something.

Speaker 1: Say, that it could be, we know that for every mitzvah one needs to do repentance (teshuva), as it says in holy books (sifrei kodesh). Because as we say in one of the penitential prayers (selichot), “hoy eved lishnei adonim,” a Jew who is still somewhat in the grip of his evil inclination (shruy beyad yitzro), he wants to fulfill the obligation to the Almighty, but he also wants to satisfy his evil inclination (yetzer hara). It could be because of this, each time with each mitzvah he is half a slave (chetzyo eved), and since the slave part in him cannot fulfill the free person part in him (ein chetzyo eved shebo motzi chetzyo ben chorin shebo), he needs to do teshuva.

But it says in the Mishnah that this is how it used to be, one who is half slave half free person (mi shechetzyyo eved vechetzyyo ben chorin), we force his master (kofin et rabo).

Speaker 2: Yes, it was essentially working for himself one day, for his master one day (oved et atzmo yom echad et rabo yom echad).

Speaker 1: Or since there’s no way, he cannot do any mitzvot, we force his master and make him a free person (kofin et rabo ve’osin oto ben chorin). So that’s ultimately the law. So it comes out that one who is a slave to two masters needs to be freed now.

Speaker 2: Certainly.

Homiletical Teaching: Androginos and Tumtum — A Parable

Speaker 1: No, I wanted to say that there are two types of people who cannot make a match (mishtadech). There are two androginoses, and they both have the same problem. There are such people that they both have the same problem, they can find that they both cannot make a match.

Then there are tumtumim. Tumtumim, from our perspective they are both tumtumim, but each one holds that he is different. Do you understand?

Like that one said about Rav Shach, do you know the joke? That Rav Shach fought with very many people. So why did it take so long?

Laws of Intention in Shofar Blowing – Law 2 and Law 3

Law 2: One Who is Unintentional in Shofar Blowing (Mitaseik)

Speaker 1: Why didn’t the children get together? A Brisker said something, because each one of those whom Rav Shach fought with held that on that one you actually should fight. Do you understand? This is the aspect of tumtum, and so on.

In short, I meant a third meal teaching (shalosh seudot Torah), nothing is a wine feast teaching (mishteh yayin Torah). Okay.

To be precise. The Rambam says further, now we’re going to learn the law of intention (kavanah). Kavanah. Ah, this is a… on this there are in the Sefer HaMaftei’ach entire pages. Because here we’re going to talk about the mitzvah regarding intention. There’s a well-known dispute (machloket). In the Gemara whether mitzvot require intention (mitzvot tzrichot kavanah), and earlier in the laws of matzah it looked like even without intention one fulfills (yotzei).

Let’s say what the Rambam says about shofar. Here is the Rambam in this law. One who is unintentional in shofar blowing to learn (mitaseik bitkiyat shofar lehitlamed). Someone blows shofar not at all with intention, rather he’s playing with the shofar. He’s learning how to blow, or he’s learning how to make music with a shofar. No, the Rambam doesn’t bring any example. So let’s say what the Rambam says. Lehitlamed. But he’s not now doing the mitzvah. Lo yatza yedei chovato, he has not fulfilled his obligation, because it wasn’t with intention, rather it was unintentional (mitaseik). Vechen hashomei’a min hamitaseik lo yatza, he himself is not fulfilled, he also doesn’t fulfill the other. It’s not a shofar blowing of a mitzvah.

The Rambam says, not only that, but both need to have intention to fulfill the obligation or to fulfill the obligation for others. Nitkaven hashomei’a latzet yedei chovato, the listener has intention to fulfill his obligation, velo nitkaven hatokei’a lehotzi, but the one who blows didn’t have intention. Or the opposite, the listener is unintentional (min hamitaseik), this is the great one of the God forbid you said. Right, right, you’re saying it basically over. The opposite Shabbat is now more. Okay nitkaven hatokei’a lehotzi, velo nitkaven hashomei’a latzet, the one who hears didn’t have intention to hear. The one who blows (tokei’a), he blows yes the mitzvah, but the other one comes only to hear how one does the blasts (tekiyot). It’s learning (hitlamed). Or he’s not at all, he hears some sound, he doesn’t pay attention.

Speaker 2: Okay, but you’re saying, even if we’re talking here even if we’re talking here about principles, I hold that we need to accept with details. The Rambam tells a story of unintentional to learn (mitaseik lehitlamed), and when he says the listener intended but not the blower (nitkaven shomei’a velo mashmi’a), seemingly he’s continuing from the same story of learning.

Speaker 1: Can you learn from that one? It’s not learning from hearing.

Speaker 2: Yes, because certainly there is, he wants to hear how are the laws of blowing (hilchot tekiyot). He’s learning how he blows, not now how he learns now how he learns now—

Speaker 1: I told you, if the one blowing (ba’al tokei’a) has intention to fulfill others (lehotzi), then it’s already a shofar blowing of a mitzvah. Let’s understand, it doesn’t say here… Lehotzi means to say that he does a blowing that will be of the mitzvah. Why do I learn? Because I don’t believe there’s such a thing that I intend to do a mitzvah. Let’s learn first the next one or.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Law 3: One Who Blew and Intended to Fulfill All Who Hear

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, mi shetaka venitkaven lehotzi kol hashomei’a tekiyato, someone who blows and has intention that whoever hears should also fulfill. He’s not blowing for a specific person, he’s blowing for whoever hears. Like usually a cantor (chazzan) blows this way. So he’s going to say. Veshama hashomei’a venitkaven latzet yedei chovato, yatza. Why? Af al pi she’ein hatokei’a mitkaven lezeh peloni. The blower didn’t have intention that you should fulfill, sheshama tekiyato ve’eino yode’o, he doesn’t even know, he doesn’t even know the person. But he fulfilled, because what does it mean he intended for all who hear him (nitkaven lechol mi sheyishme’enu)? He had intention that whoever hears should fulfill with this.

Vechach mi shehaya mehalech baderech hu yoshev betoch, I don’t know what this means, not only someone who is in the crowd, this is in the crowd, this is simple, that he has intention for all the people, this is simple. Because even when he doesn’t think of… He sees time, he says already knows (yode’o). Yode’o means even he knows really doesn’t know (lo yode’o). He doesn’t know at all that there’s another person hearing from the distance. Someone comes from the distance, he is sitting in his house (yoshev betoch beito), veshama tekiyot misheliach tzibur. Yatza he also fulfilled, even though he wasn’t there. Im nitkaven latzet, why? Shehare sheliach tzibur mitkaven lehotzi et harabbim yedei chovatam. The communal agent (sheliach tzibur) has intention to fulfill the obligation for the entire community (rabbim), everyone who hears. Therefore one fulfills.

Very good.

Discussion: Does One Need a Special Intention “To Fulfill Others” (Lehotzi)?

Speaker 1: So from the last law, I’m saying this, I try to make things make sense, I just want to talk about the contradictions that exist. But there are people who think that from this law one sees that besides knowing that one is now doing a shofar blowing of a mitzvah, that one is not blowing to learn but blowing in honor of the mitzvah, one also needs to have intention additionally to fulfill others (lehotzi). There are two intentions. And the novelty (chiddush) is that a communal agent blows simply, there’s a simple intention, he means everyone. But essentially it’s possible that a person, that is, it comes out that people think it’s possible that a person is the listener intended but didn’t intend to fulfill others (nitkaven shomei’a velo nitkaven lehotzi). So let’s say that someone is not a communal agent, this is the question, someone is not a communal agent, he blows for himself alone. So what is the law? Seemingly here it says that another doesn’t fulfill. But we see it as very strange, and I don’t believe it makes sense that one can have intention to do a mitzvah, but not that the other should do the mitzvah. What does that mean?

Speaker 2: So you said earlier that you don’t agree with the concept of agency (shelichut). And you’re right, because if one says that the mitzvah is to hear the sound of the shofar, agency is not needed. Hear the sound of the shofar, I hear the sound of the shofar. But others want to say that actually one needs to blow and hear the blowing. But what then? The other can do it as your agent (bishlichutcha). So according to this approach it makes sense, because if you had intention, you actually become such an agent. You grant merit (mezakeh) to the other. Let’s say not agency, but merit (zechut). You grant merit that I blow, it’s as if the other would have blown. But you’re right that the concept of agency is somewhat a novelty, which the Rambam says from the beginning… It doesn’t say here.

Speaker 1: Yes, this is the debate. It doesn’t say… This is what I want to say, the other side, what I said that seemingly it comes out this way from the laws, it’s not true that it says, and I have a principle that what doesn’t say clearly we don’t know. So, it doesn’t say… No. It doesn’t say that one who blows for himself the listener doesn’t fulfill from him (mi shetaka le’atzmo lo yatza shomei’a mimenu). There’s no such law. The Rambam knows with this law, the Rambam with the Mishnah say, the listener intended he doesn’t fulfill (hitkaven shomei’a lo yatza), words. Very good, because that one is talking about the listener intending to learn (mitkaven lehitlamed). The listener is learning. The listener or blower. But there’s never any case of someone who blows for the mitzvah for himself and not to fulfill others (tokei’a lemitzvah le’atzmo velo lehotzi acherim). I don’t see, it doesn’t say, does this case say here?

Speaker 2: No, it’s an inference (diyuk).

Speaker 1: What do you mean it’s an inference? I don’t believe in this inference. What will I do? I don’t believe there’s such a thing, there’s no such reality. On the contrary, the Mishnah says that certainly the communal agent means everyone. The communal agent is to fulfill others (lehotzi), there’s no doubt that the communal agent is not to fulfill others. It’s true that by both, by shofar and by Megillah, because the Rambam also says so, by both there’s the case of learning (lehitlamed). Which is a strange thing, why would someone blow shofar or read Megillah if not for a mitzvah? Because there’s the thing of learning. There is in the Gemara “blowing for song” (tekiyah leshir).

Three Levels of Intention

Speaker 1: So one can say this, there are three levels. There’s intention that people think for the sake of unification (leshem yichud), now I’m doing a mitzvah. This is an enhancement (hiddur). Seemingly, I don’t believe the Rambam is talking about this. Then there’s intention that what I’m doing now is shofar blowing (tekiyat shofar). And then there’s unintentional (mitaseik) that he’s not doing shofar blowing at all, and he’s playing with a shofar.

Speaker 2: Not he’s playing, he’s not doing…

Speaker 1: Very good. He’s learning, it’s the same thing. He’s practicing the mitzvah, do you understand? It’s not so different.

Shofar Blowing on Rosh Hashanah That Falls on Shabbos

Speaker 2: Okay, so you’re saying that the Rambam has two levels. He has the level of blowing shofar lehitlamed (to practice), and the other is not lehitlamed, but to fulfill the mitzvah. When one does it to fulfill the mitzvah, one is yotzei (fulfills the obligation) even if one didn’t have in mind the specific person or the intention lehotzi (to fulfill the obligation for others). But in the language of the Rambam, one can judge it like the others who say no, that there must be some din (law) of lehotzi, and because of this they need to come up with the chiddush (novel concept) of shlichus (agency), or one holds like that.

Speaker 1: Let me explain what it means.

Speaker 2: And the word lehodot (to acknowledge). What does it mean? That…

Speaker 1: Okay, we need to add here that shemias kol shofar (hearing the sound of the shofar) isn’t enough that one simply hears the sound of the shofar, rather shemias kol shofar means this: that lechatchilah (ideally) a person must blow and hear his own blowing. Or can one hear a second person blowing to make you meritorious. This is simple…

Discussion: The Matter of Shlichus (Agency) by Shofar

Speaker 1: Again, I agree that one must hear a blown thing from a shofar. It’s not something that needs to enter your mind. No, this is an added level that it’s called as if you had blown because that person is mezakeh le’adam (making another meritorious), that person is blowing for you.

Speaker 2: No, all… this is shtusim (nonsense). That is, I’ll say the same thing. There is a… one is motzi a berachah (blessing), one is motzi all things that are called motzi es rabim u’vechavto (fulfilling the obligation for the many and in their group), meaning to say that I intend that he should speak for me, not to say that I need to hear. What comes in? Why can’t I simply make a shaliach (agent) like that? Not intend, merit. It asks a question. Shlichus I don’t need to hear. If it were a shaliach, I wouldn’t need to hear. It’s not true the history of shaliach.

Speaker 1: No, it must be shomea kol shofar (hearing the sound of the shofar). Why? The one blowing must also hear his tekiah (blast). If it’s something that can be done with a shaliach, I don’t need to be there myself or I need to hear myself, right?

Speaker 2: Yes, but it’s not shayach (relevant) to make a shaliach to hear.

Speaker 1: Why not?

Speaker 2: Because he hears, you haven’t heard. Just like one can’t make a shaliach for a mitzvah shebegufo (a mitzvah performed with one’s body).

Speaker 1: Why why can one make a shaliach for blowing?

Speaker 2: Because one must hear the tekias kol shofar, one must hear one’s own tekias kol shofar, or like a second person who does it lezachoscha (for your merit). But the mitzvah shebegufo of blowing, one can make a shaliach.

Speaker 1: New chiddush. On the part of blowing. The part of the body that is missing is the hearing.

Speaker 2: Again, why? It’s not shlichus. Shlichus is a very funny category to introduce here. It’s a very simple thing, that not every thing must one do oneself. There are things that the tzibbur (community) does, one takes someone and he blows for the tzibbur.

Parable: What Does “Lo Nischavein Lehotzi” Mean?

Speaker 1: Now, there’s such a thing that someone blows not for the tzibbur, it would be very funny. Imagine, let me explain to you what “lo nischavein lehotzi” (didn’t intend to fulfill the obligation for others) means, yes? Imagine there’s a beis medrash where the people come together to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah. Now, next to the beis medrash there’s some Jew who doesn’t come to shul, he blows for himself alone. And the shul hears and says, “Ah, we’ve already heard shofar, continue on.” I know it doesn’t make sense, one must blow in public. What can one say like this? For example, if someone would make a custom that one makes a very loud shofar sound early in the morning, so that every Jew has already heard as soon as one woke up in the morning. If one intends for everyone. But he’s lying in bed, he didn’t have in mind, he heard some whistle, he heard some alarm.

Speaker 2: I want to bring out…

Speaker 1: This means, this will also mean that there’s no kavanah (intention).

Speaker 2: Okay, I just want to bring out that all these things are very simple. Because I interpret, kavanah doesn’t mean what’s in your head.

Tekias Shofar on Rosh Hashanah That Falls on Shabbos

Continuation: R’ Avraham ben HaRambam’s Distinction Between Action Mitzvos and Hearing Mitzvos

Speaker 1: You can ask him, “What happened here?” I’ll tell you the story, one Jew blew shofar here, and here sat other Jews and didn’t blow, and heard his shofar. Lehotzi means, mitzvos tzrichos kavanah (mitzvos require intention), I know, the word mitzvos tzrichos kavanah doesn’t appear here, but everyone understands that blowing shofar means that one must blow shofar here. Not everyone must blow themselves, but there must be a blowing of shofar in our shul, so one came to blow shofar. At that time this wasn’t the story.

Mah she’ein kein (unlike this), this is a chiddush. The halachah that over achorei beis haknesses (passing behind the synagogue), a shaliach tzibbur (prayer leader), is a chiddush, that a shaliach tzibbur, every shaliach tzibbur in the world, you ask him, “What are you doing?” He says, “I’m motzi the entire world.” Could you say I’m motzi my beis medrash? No, I blow for the entire world, for all Jews. Whoever wants, it’s every beis medrash, there are always people who don’t come in, they stand outside, it’s a normal thing that there are people outside. Memeilah (therefore), part of the description of his action is that he blows for the people outside. This is the chiddush of a shaliach tzibbur. Does it make sense like this?

Speaker 2: I hear, I hear.

R’ Avraham ben HaRambam’s Reasoning: Why Kavanah Is Necessary by Hearing

Speaker 1: Let’s remember again, R’ Avraham ben HaRambam tries to explain why by, for example by matzah or by lulav, he doesn’t say that he needs to have mitzvos tzrichos kavanah, and by megillah and tekias shofar yes. He says, that when the body does something, one holds something in the hands, that itself is called kavanah. Or you eat matzah, you eat matzah, it’s not some random thing.

Mah she’ein kein hearing, one hears noises all the time. If you don’t hear with kavanah, hearing is by definition teshumes lev (paying attention), putting your mind to that you’re hearing something, or you hear shofar, you hear megillah.

Critique of R’ Avraham ben HaRambam’s Reasoning

This is a weak Torah, I don’t agree with it. And as the Maharam Schiff says, lo shamanu es lechalukim (we haven’t heard of such distinctions). If one goes like it says earlier about the mitzvah of mitzvos kavanah, then there isn’t any single opinion in the Gemara that says this mitzvah yes and this mitzvah no. R’ Avraham ben HaRambam, in order to answer that the Rav, thought up a new type of level. It’s not such a nice reasoning, you say it starts to sound like it’s perhaps such a good reasoning.

And also R’ Avraham HaRambam explicitly believed that there are three levels of kavanah. So it says explicitly there, that there’s kavanah of mitzvah, and there’s kavanah leshir (intention for song), and there’s neither here nor there. So, not like me, who doesn’t believe in the concept of tekiah of mitzvah. Anyway.

Proximity of Mishnayos: The Copper Serpent and Kavanas Halev

One must know, it can certainly be, it says in the Mishnah, one must remember in the Mishnah after the Mishnah of mi she’avar al hakorah beis haknesses (one who passed behind the synagogue), it says zeh kivein libo vezeh lo kivein libo (this one directed his heart and this one didn’t direct his heart), stands the Mishnah of v’chi yadav shel Moshe osin milchamah, ela bizman sheYisrael mistaklin klapei ma’alah umeshavdin es libam (did Moshe’s hands make war, rather when Israel looked upward and subjugated their hearts).

It’s clear from the simple meaning of the Mishnah, not halachically, not otherwise, but as… the proximity of the Mishnah, it already appears in the Rishonim at that time, that the Mishnah intends to connect the topic of kavanah, the learned kavanah, with the topic that one must know what one is doing, and one must think into it. It’s not the shofar, not the blowing of shofar brings the salvation, but the kavanas halev (intention of the heart).

Distinction Between Halachic Kavanah and Kavanas Halev

Okay, there’s already another level here, there’s already another level. There’s already another level. There’s already another kavanah of mitzvah, even the kavanah of breaking the heart. There’s already another kavanah of mitzvah. There’s something of a matter that says that the davar shebalev (matter of the heart) is more than it’s not a segulah (charm).

No, I mean it’s actually a din (law) of a segulah, understand? Someone will say that the nechash hanechoshes (copper serpent) is magic that’s a segulah. No, it’s not the nechash hanechoshes that’s the segulah, it’s the teshuvah (repentance) that’s the segulah. It’s a different derasha (exposition) entirely. It’s not a level of kavanah, it’s a different thing.

Tekias Shofar Is to Awaken the Heart, Not a Segulah

No, here you demand another higher level of kavanah, the highest level of kavanah. It should be the uri yesheinim mishnaschem (awake sleepers from your sleep) things. It’s not kavanah in tekias shofar. It’s simply a chiddush that tekias shofar isn’t a segulah. It’s a, as you say, le’orer es halev (to awaken the heart). It’s somewhat the meaning of tekias shofar.

He doesn’t say that one must now during tekias shofar do teshuvah. I don’t know what it means during tekias shofar to do teshuvah, excuse me. He just says that now is the time. It’s le’orer, it’s not the teshuvah itself. It’s le’orer in order to do teshuvah later.

It’s such a matter of emunah (faith), as you should know. You shouldn’t think that whoever heard the tekias avir (blast of air), as Rabbeinu Chananel says such a clear trumpeter, he’ll have a good year. No, this has some hachnaas halev (entering of the heart), he’ll have a good year. This is somewhat the proclamation like that.

Halachah 8: Rosh Hashanah That Falls on Shabbos — We Don’t Blow Shofar

Okay. Now one can learn what happens on Rosh Hashanah when it falls on Shabbos. So comes the sugya (Talmudic topic) of Rosh Hashanah she’chal beShabbos, also a great sugya.

The Language of the Rambam

So, the Rambam says like this: Yom tov shel Rosh Hashanah she’chal liheyos beShabbos, ein tokin beshofar bechol makom (When the festival of Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos, we don’t blow shofar in any place). All other places, or he means to say nowadays, no place at all does one blow shofar. Or bechol makom means all places except Jerusalem, or means bechol makom when he speaks nowadays.

He says, af al pi shehatekiah mishum shevus (even though the blowing is only a shevus [rabbinic prohibition]).

What Is the Shevus That the Rambam Means?

Which shevus does he mean here? Here the commentators on the Rambam argue strongly about this. There are those who say that tekiah mishum shevus, as we know that one may not use any musical instrument on Shabbos because shema yesaken kli shir (lest one repair a musical instrument), so there’s also this shevus.

But many completely remove that there’s no prohibition of kli shir, because shofar isn’t a kli shir at all. It’s a vessel of mitzvah. Is someone mesaken (fixing) something, he’s going to go fix that the instrument should be nicer? Kol hakolos kesherim lekol shofar (all sounds are valid for the sound of the shofar), he doesn’t seek to fix it.

Rather even though hatekiah mishum shevus, the blowing that he’s already going to say, because of the decree shema yitelenu beyado (lest he take it in his hand), is indeed a shevus. And he means to say, seemingly the shevus should also be pushed aside because of the mitzvah of shofar.

Why Doesn’t Aseh Override the Shevus?

And about this he says, ve’im hadin hu shetok’in (and if the law were that we blow), that the shevus, whatever the shevus is, should be nullified in the face of the great mitzvah, yavo aseh shel Torah veyidcheh shevus shel divreihem (let the positive commandment of the Torah come and override the rabbinic shevus). There’s indeed a rule, aseh docheh lo sa’aseh (a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment), or kal vachomer (all the more so) just a rabbinic shevus. There’s indeed no rabbinic prohibition in the place of a Torah mitzvah.

Let’s remember very clearly, because this is my hechreich (logical conclusion), that we’re not speaking here of an external shevus. Everyone indeed learned in chapter 1 that tekias shofar doesn’t override a shevus, because yom tov is aseh velo sa’aseh (positive and negative commandment). Rather what, here we’re speaking of the shevus that says that one doesn’t blow shofar on Shabbos, the decree that says. And certainly, this shevus doesn’t make sense. It’s indeed a mitzvos aseh. Why should one simply override this?

The Decree: Shema Yitelenu Beyado Veyelech Lemi Sheyitka Lo

Rather what? Says the Rambam, velama ein tokin achshav? (and why don’t we blow now?) Why is the enactment of the Sages that we don’t blow? Says the Rambam, there’s a gezerah shema yitelenu beyado veyelech lemi sheyitka lo (decree lest he take it in his hand and go to one who will blow for him), he’ll go to the one who blows shofar for him. It means, he’ll go to carry the shofar so someone should blow for him.

Interesting, the Gemara says that a chacham (scholar) should teach him to blow shofar, but even to a chacham he should go to blow shofar for him. Does it say so?

Speaker 2: I remember well.

Speaker 1: And here is the chiddush that even when he goes directly to do the mitzvah, as he thinks it’s a machshirei mitzvah (preparation for a mitzvah), we spoke that he’ll be exempt if he does it. I just want to check if he brings it. Is it certain that he’ll be exempt if he does it? Because the one who needs to know it. But for the reisha (first part) it’s also… It’s the reisha. He says indeed yavo lo aseh sekula. What does the… It doesn’t say appropriately. veyelech litzalveki lilmod (and he’ll go to learn).

Speaker 2: Ah, it says in the Gemara.

Speaker 1: Actually interesting. Perhaps yadchaleh means the Rambam that he’s going to blow for him and teach him litbei litbei litbei to to to. It can be that the word veyavel ed a yetzer hashgalah means to say, as you say, let’s say that he’ll be exempt because he’s going to do a mitzvah, but he’ll bring it back afterward. He’ll forget that today is Shabbos, he’ll be so excited for the yom tov, he’ll be in a devekus (attachment), and he’ll still afterward bring home the shofar.

No, I don’t know. Okay. I say veyavel ed a yetzer hashgalah, perhaps the carrying itself wasn’t yet the eser hashgalah. Okay.

The Stringency of the Decree: Hakol Chayavim Ve’ein Hakol Beki’im

And here is also the emphasis, issur sekilah (prohibition punishable by stoning) is indeed very severe, it’s indeed more severe than a regular prohibition of lo sa’aseh. Even let’s say issur docheh lo sa’aseh (prohibition overrides a negative commandment), but it never overrides an issur kares (prohibition punishable by excision), it’s certainly not an issur sekilah.

He says, why indeed did Chazal hold that there’s such a great concern that one will go to miyotzei mishis ram shel ram? Why? Because hakol chayavim biteki’ah (everyone is obligated in blowing). Everyone is indeed obligated in tekias shofar, ve’ein hakol beki’im litko’a (and not everyone is expert in blowing). Memeilah it comes out that it often happens to go hear from a chacham or go learn from a chacham how to blow. Memeilah Chazal held that this is a serious concern, so they prohibited blowing shofar on Rosh Hashanah she’chal beShabbos.

Mishnah vs. Gemara: The Nature of the Decree

This is the story, one must think a lot about this, it makes sense, but this is the davar hamuskar (agreed upon matter), or as it says in the Gemara, that in the Mishnah it doesn’t say, in the Mishnah it simply says that we don’t blow, which can mean that it’s actually a prohibition. The Gemara says, no, essentially one could, but the Sages made the prohibition of blowing, and the Sages nullified a mitzvos aseh because they saw that it brings concerns.

Why Not Make a Local Decree?

And the Sages prohibited it categorically, they didn’t make any distinction between there’s an eruv in the area, there are indeed entire cities where there’s no reshus harabim (public domain). But they made it, this is the prohibition. They said that on such a day there’s no…

Speaker 2: What? Perhaps sometimes there was, perhaps there wasn’t the custom to make an eruv in every city.

Speaker 1: I’m saying, they didn’t make a local decree, they made a full one, they changed the form of Rosh Hashanah. If it falls on Shabbos it’s a different kind of Rosh Hashanah, there’s no mitzvos tekias shofar on it.

I’m saying, it can be that if the Sages had lived in a world where every city has an eruv, they wouldn’t have made it. One doesn’t see in the Gemara that this is the reality. If reshus harabim is shishim ribo bokim bo (sixty myriads pass through it), at least according to that opinion, is something like that, every city there’s… The Gemara didn’t assume so.

Speaker 2: But the Gemara says that it must be like in the desert, where there’s shishim ribo.

Speaker 1: Yes, yes, I know. But the reality is that in the Mishnah and in the Gemara one sees that regularly there’s reshus harabim, one doesn’t see that there’s almost no reshus harabim. Right? So this is, in the Rishonim, certain Rishonim made this the reality, but it’s not how the Gemara looks at it.

It can be that there are reasons according to Kabbalah. In short, one can say simply that the mitzvos Shabbos itself is great enough to accomplish whatever the shofar needs to accomplish. But this is already…

Continuation: Reshus Harabim in the Time of Chazal

Speaker 1: Yes, yes, I know. But the reality is that in the Mishnah and the Gemara one sees regularly that there’s reshus harabim. One doesn’t see that there’s almost no reshus harabim, right? So this is, in the Rishonim, certain Rishonim made this the reality, but it’s not how the Gemara looks at it.

Speaker 2: Ah, I hear. It can be that there are reasons according to Kabbalah. I mean to say, one holds in saying reasons why the mitzvah of Shabbos itself is great enough to accomplish whatever the shofar needs to accomplish, but this is already a different thing.

English Translation

Speaker 1: No, no, the point is that whenever there’s a reason, words are never truly sufficient to explain what one means. Many times one says one thing and means another thing, it’s hard to know. But what I mean to say is, it’s not simple that the Sages forbade it, because here it appears, especially with the ending, “everyone is obligated in shofar blowing,” as if there’s a 50/50 chance that if we allow shofar blowing on Shabbos, every other person will desecrate Shabbos. It doesn’t seem that this is the reality, because they also knew that there are entire cities where there is no reshus harabim or such. They forbade it because they uprooted the mitzvah of shofar when it falls on Shabbos.

Speaker 2: I think there is indeed 50/50. I don’t know how much probability the Sages had in their minds when they forbade things. But I don’t agree historically that in the time of the Sages most cities were not a reshus harabim. Most people, most cities, and most reality was full of reshus harabims. That’s how it appears from Maseches Shabbos. Just as according to the Midrash that in Jerusalem there lived, or in Israel there were thousands of cities with reshus harabim. No, no, you don’t need to come to that. The fact is that the fact that there is no reshus harabim, that is a wonderful chiddush of certain Rishonim. It’s not the reality that we see in the Gemara. You can’t say that.

Speaker 1: True, in the length of the Gemara about reshus harabim it appears that reshus harabim was the reality. It’s a part of the reality.

Halacha 2: We Don’t Prevent Children from Blowing

Speaker 1: Okay, now comes a new halacha, another piece. In the prohibition of blowing on Shabbos, or what the Sages decreed that one shouldn’t blow on Shabbos, there’s an interesting halacha. It’s an interesting thing, we’ll go back a bit again. That is, what they always forbade regarding musical instruments because of “lest one repair a musical instrument,” that doesn’t bother me. But they came up with a special prohibition specifically for Rosh Hashanah. That is, on a regular Shabbos I don’t have this concern. A new concern specifically for Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos. So the decree they made for Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos, because of that they forbade it. The regular prohibition of shema ye’avirenu has long since fallen away. But since they made a special concern for Shabbos of Rosh Hashanah, they completely forbade using a shofar on Rosh Hashanah. I don’t believe in the thing of glisha yera. It doesn’t say in any Gemara, any Rishon. A few Acharonim came up with this plan. It’s clear that this is what the Gemara means. If shofar were a real prohibition, but the prohibition of the essence, or conversely there wouldn’t be any problem, even though there would indeed be some prohibition. But specifically, the stringency was specifically enacted that one doesn’t blow shofar specifically on Rosh Hashanah, and on another Shabbos perhaps one may blow, you understand? Later we’ll see more about this on another Shabbos.

This is the section I want to learn now. The next halacha.

Language of the Rambam

Speaker 1: The Rambam says such an interesting halacha: Children who have not reached the age of chinuch (education), which we learned earlier, are exempt, children are generally exempt, and those who have reached chinuch are obligated by the Rabbis. The children who don’t yet have any obligation, we don’t prevent them from blowing on Shabbos that is not the Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah. We don’t prevent them on just any Shabbos. Just any Shabbos we don’t let children, even those who haven’t reached chinuch we don’t let them do any prohibited Shabbos activities. We stop them, yes?

Speaker 2: No, but still, that’s a problem. If we’re talking about those who haven’t reached chinuch, we don’t stop them from anything. It means those who have reached chinuch. Even that one is perhaps only at the beginning of chinuch.

Speaker 1: According to the Rambam’s interpretation that you’re talking about children who haven’t reached chinuch, it’s very difficult to understand at all what the Mishnah is saying. The Mishnah seemingly isn’t saying any chiddush at all, simply, he notices what he wants. But that’s what the Rambam says. That is, there’s a Mishnah that says we don’t prevent children from blowing. The Rambam learned that there is indeed a problem, if we’re talking about Shabbos there is indeed a prohibition. Lest one repair a musical instrument?

No, again, a regular Shabbos, shofar, yes? On a regular Shabbos one may… is a shofar muktzeh? Is a shofar something that… shema ye’avirenu is only because not everyone is obligated in blowing, and not everyone knows how to blow. But there’s no reason that on a normal Shabbos one should carry it to a sage. Why should he carry it to a sage? Because we say, therefore the children may play with it. And why does the Mishnah say specifically that one may? So that they will learn, it’s good that the children should learn, because it’s good that we should have many potential shofar blowers. It’s really not any prohibition, and it’s permitted. And why does the Mishnah bring it explicitly? Let it be, so that they will learn, it’s good that they should… usually a father’s instinct is to take away a muktzeh object from a small child, because it’s Shabbos today. But this, so that they will learn, is very strange.

Difficulty in the Rambam’s Interpretation

Speaker 1: Let me explain to you, the reason why the Rambam is strange is because there’s a Mishnah, and the Mishnah doesn’t mean what the Rambam learned in the Mishnah. But the Mishnah says, we don’t prevent the children from blowing. That’s what it says. It’s a difficult Mishnah, there’s a dispute about how to learn the Mishnah. It’s the majority of commentators, they start to struggle. What does it mean? Does it mean Shabbos? Does it mean Rosh Hashanah? Does it mean Rosh Hashanah, it’s a regular Shabbos, or can we learn the Mishnah not about Shabbos at all? Yes, the Mishnah has the word Shabbos here. During the week it’s not Yom Tov. Just Yom Tov. The question, perhaps on Yom Tov there’s a prohibition of lest one repair a musical instrument? We say that we may let the children. Please hear to say lest one repair a musical instrument, because it doesn’t say this thing anywhere. In the Acharonim, let’s say yes.

So let’s learn Mishnayos now. You’re a very important Acharon, but I believe in one of the made-up Sfas Emes, at least on your level. So I may mention people. One can’t do things, one must blow shofar on Shabbos. But we let the children blow, that’s what it says in the Mishnah. Other commentators come and say, what does that mean? One may not. They say, ah, it’s talking about children who haven’t reached chinuch. Very difficult to understand, a chiddush, who haven’t reached chinuch, and I can do what he wants. Perhaps that’s not the chiddush? Perhaps the chiddush is the next piece?

Continuation of the Rambam’s Language: And an Adult is Permitted to Engage with Them

Speaker 1: What’s the next piece? Yes, says the Rambam, and an adult is permitted to engage with them in order to teach them on Yom Tov. Yom Tov is already mentioned, when it’s another Shabbos, when it is indeed Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah, or just a Yom Tov that isn’t Shabbos, also not however he learns it. Yom Tov means Rosh Hashanah apparently. What would be the hava amina that one may not? Yom Tov, why shouldn’t one on Yom Tov? So it comes out, look, it comes out, a whole long thing. An adult is permitted to engage with them, I mean this piece also talks about Shabbos on Yom Tov. An adult is permitted to engage with them in order to teach them, when Shabbos is Shabbos on Yom Tov. On Shabbos Yom Tov one indeed may not blow, but one may play with the children’s blowing, one may let the children blow, and even the father may be busy with them. Because the prohibition is only the actual blowing, because then he will go to a sage to teach him. But here there’s no going to a sage. By a minor who has reached chinuch, by a minor who hasn’t reached chinuch, why? Even one who has reached chinuch, even a minor who has reached chinuch, why? Because the blowing is only forbidden as a shevus, the prohibition of blowing is the shevus that we learned earlier, lest he go to a sage and he teach him. But simply that the children know that today one doesn’t blow shofar because it’s Shabbos, one doesn’t go to the rabbi to have the rabbi blow for you to learn, because today it’s not relevant, it’s Shabbos. But what then? The children want to do it to learn. That the father may do, it’s not muktzeh, it’s not a prohibition. The father may let the children engage with the shofar.

Explanation: Distinction Between “Blowing for the Mitzvah” and “Blowing to Learn”

Speaker 1: So, in other words, simply, let’s think about one thing. The Mishnah says that one doesn’t blow shofar on Shabbos. So you say that Yom Tov means Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos. So there’s Rosh Hashanah, the Rambam’s commentators say that on Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos, the father isn’t blowing shofar for the mitzvah, because if he blew shofar for the mitzvah he will think, “ah, perhaps I wasn’t yotzei,” and he will run to the rabbi. But simply letting the children learn, to play… not just let, not just let. Two things, engaging with them, blowing with them. It means blowing with them. Blowing with them is also not the prohibition. Blowing in the manner of engaging.

Speaker 2: That’s what I’m saying. Blowing in the manner of learning. Because on this there isn’t the concern of the mitzvah.

Speaker 1: No, the engaging doesn’t have the concern of going to a sage, therefore he may. And not only a minor who hasn’t reached chinuch, even a minor who has reached chinuch. That is, why? Because even a minor who has reached chinuch, he’s only doing it to learn. He’s not doing it in order to do the mitzvah now. We’re teaching him now.

Question: Why May an Adult Also Not Blow to Learn?

Speaker 1: Apparently the Rambam could have truly said that an adult may use a shofar on Shabbos that falls on Rosh Hashanah also, for himself to learn. Because the prohibition is only the thing that because it’s an obligation he will go to the rabbi, because everyone is obligated and not everyone knows how. That’s basically what it says here according to this interpretation.

Continuation of the Rambam: But on Another Shabbos

Speaker 1: But, says the Rambam, but on another Shabbos, when it’s not Rosh Hashanah, when one isn’t engaged in learning, then a minor who has reached chinuch, he doesn’t say this way, then one who has reached chinuch, he won’t be allowed anymore. Why? Why won’t the father be allowed? Why not? Perhaps on a regular Shabbos it will indeed be forbidden lest one repair a musical instrument, because Yom Tov Rosh Hashanah isn’t a musical instrument, it’s a thing of a mitzvah. But why should a person use a shofar in the middle of the year, and he uses it like another instrument? We know that every instrument that one uses for music is forbidden lest one repair a musical instrument. I learned this in the laws of Shabbos. The trumpets on Shabbos that we talk about, we’re not talking about the shofar of the mitzvah.

Discussion: Is a Shofar a Musical Instrument?

Speaker 2: Regarding chinuch, regarding chinuch, regarding chinuch. A shofar is a… on Rosh Hashanah one uses it for a mitzvah. Nowadays one doesn’t use it because there are many other instruments, but look in the verses, shofar is counted.

Speaker 1: That’s not true. Yes, in the Hallelujahs, “Praise Him with harp and lyre,” “Praise Him with drum and dance,” “Praise Him with resounding cymbals,” “Praise Him with clanging cymbals.”

Speaker 2: What is machol?

Speaker 1: Dancing.

Speaker 2: Very good. What does one have to do with the other? A shofar is a wind instrument.

Speaker 1: Very good. Not every thing… not every thing… shofar… shofar… shofar… Have you noticed that it says “with the blast of the shofar,” not “with the shofar”? Why? Because shofar one blows, one doesn’t sing. That’s the end of the verse. In your verse it says the opposite of you. You said that in the verse shofar is mentioned next to that?

Speaker 2: No, it says “with the blast of the shofar.”

Interpretation A: Shofar is Forbidden as a Musical Instrument on a Regular Shabbos

Speaker 1: Let me first say my side, and let me say, because we haven’t given a chance yet to say. On just any Shabbos there’s a general prohibition on every type of instrument, including a shofar, which is also a type of instrument that one makes noise with, that one makes music with, there’s a prohibition on this. On Rosh Hashanah one may, because on Rosh Hashanah this isn’t a musical instrument. On Rosh Hashanah, one who uses a shofar on Rosh Hashanah isn’t just to make noise, but it’s to make a shofar blast of Rosh Hashanah. So, it’s not forbidden because of lest one repair a musical instrument, it’s only forbidden when there’s an obligation, because then he will go to the sage to teach him. Now, with this the Rambam’s piece fits. But if you want to learn differently…

Critique of This Interpretation

Speaker 2: Okay, you’ve thought up a whole story that doesn’t say, not in the Mishnah, not in the Gemara, not in the Rambam, not in any Rishon. Not even a single one fell into such craziness, that essentially there’s a prohibition to blow at all, there’s generally a permission to blow because one means the mitzvah. When the permission is such a great permission, that even when one prepares for the mitzvah it’s also permitted, right? To learn is also permitted, but on another Shabbos one may not. There’s no such whole story. One needs to think up a whole story that doesn’t say, I want to do that it doesn’t say. Yes, I learn a simple interpretation. Let me say the interpretation. On the contrary, here it says a permission. The thing that one blows shofar on Rosh Hashanah only means when one means the mitzvah, if one doesn’t mean the mitzvah. For example, children, what? Who haven’t reached chinuch.

Therefore, even one who has reached chinuch, but chinuch itself is to learn. You must remember, the concept of chinuch is the same concept as learning. It’s when children blow shofar, even if it would mean, it’s only learning. Therefore, one may… chinuch should play with a shofar? Certainly. Chinuch is for chinuch. Chinuch means that he should hear the sound of the shofar when one blows shofar. He should become accustomed to doing the mitzvah. Very good.

Behold it is written to teach. No, it is written to teach means when he comes to shul he hears the shofar sound. So he will become accustomed that when there’s a mitzvah of shofar he comes to shul to hear shofar. He plays with a shofar is to teach. Certainly for us. He plays.

Speaker 2: What comes in playing?

Speaker 1: I’m saying that when the child blows shofar, what it says on Yom Tov, the meaning of the Mishnah and also of the Rambam, what it says in the Mishnah that one blows shofar on Shabbos, that means to say fathers when they are fulfilling the mitzvah. As opposed to a minor. Children who even when they blow aren’t fulfilling the mitzvah, but rather what are they doing learning? Not on them was the prohibition said, and therefore the father may also blow with them so they should learn, because the father has an obligation of chinuch for his children, it’s even a mitzvah that he should teach the children to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah that doesn’t fall on Shabbos.

Now, on this there’s no mitzvah of chinuch, because there’s no mitzvah of chinuch that a person should himself be able to blow shofar, he can hear because of two. The mitzvah of chinuch is to take the children to shul so he should hear shofar blowing. He should do the mitzvah. For example, chinuch of the mitzvah of eating matzah, one should bring him the matzah.

Speaker 2: Certainly, certainly, sure. Certainly.

Speaker 1: Chinuch means… suddenly you can say what you want. On the spot made up to… wait I’m explaining simply simply. Here it says this. It says that there’s a concept that one should teach the children to blow shofar.

Speaker 2: I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Speaker 1: You know what I already said? To engage means that he may also blow for them. It’s a way that they blow shofar. All chinuch is just a way. Chinuch doesn’t mean that one is now yotzei the mitzvah, he’s yotzei the mitzvah, he’s not obligated. Rather what, he gets used to it, he learns. So chinuch is to get used to learning the learning, not on this did the Gemara make the prohibition of blowing shofar, “don’t blow on the tenth,” it’s not a real prohibition, it’s only a shevus. That is, it’s not a true prohibition, it’s only a shevus that one shouldn’t come to a Torah prohibition.

So one needs to insert another sentence that doesn’t say. I would still do. It’s a problem. The sentences they both agree that one inserts. I don’t know, if I’ll find a better interpretation I’ll find.

And this one may do. But, if you want another principle, that here is another chiddush, that on another Shabbos when one doesn’t do the mitzvah there’s no concept at all to teach the children to blow. So then, only one who hasn’t reached chinuch is no problem, but one who has reached chinuch we don’t let him blow on another Shabbos that isn’t Rosh Hashanah.

Speaker 2: Why does it need to say? Because we always let children do what they want.

Speaker 1: But I agree, it shouldn’t say that, it shouldn’t say that. It’s only because the Rambam, there were Rishonim who introduced the distinction between higiya lechinuch (reached the age of education) and lo higiya lechinuch (hasn’t reached the age of education), the Rambam wanted to include it. You should understand that a tinok shehigiya lechinuch (a child who has reached the age of education), on a normal Yom Tov one doesn’t do this, because one doesn’t blow on a non-normal Yom Tov, on a normal Shabbos, yes? On another Shabbos that isn’t Rosh Hashanah one doesn’t blow. This first piece isn’t so important.

And there’s something about this, there’s such a thing about how the Rishonim and Acharonim try to learn the Mishnah. But one can’t take away… that kind of time doesn’t mean to blow with them, it means that one may…

Speaker 2: What? What? They help.

Speaker 1: With which there is a mitzvah, but one may not help a child shehigiya lechinuch (who has reached the age of education) do a davar issur (prohibited act). He says, one may be misaseik (engage indirectly), one may let them, one may open the drawer where the shofar lies.

Speaker 2: I don’t agree.

Speaker 1: And it’s clear, that is to say, one can’t take away the basic thing, that what the Mishnah says is… there is indeed no prohibition of blowing shofar on Shabbos, that for children there is no prohibition. Somewhere there must emerge such a heter (permission). If such a heter doesn’t emerge, then it’s completely strange.

Eh, what does one do? Does it add earlier lo higiya lechinuch (hasn’t reached the age of education)? It’s not Rosh Hashanah. The word can enter that we want the child to know that Rosh Hashanah has to do with a mitzvas shofar. And Chazal had a problem that when Rosh Hashanah isn’t the chalilos on Shabbos, the child doesn’t have at all. The child is now seven. He will only remember from last year. The child doesn’t remember from very much earlier. Today is the mitzvah of shofar. We have an advice that always yom tov sheni (the second day of Yom Tov). Let the father say, this is a shofar, today is the mitzvah to blow with this, but today we’re not allowed because we’re obligated in Shabbos and one may not. Here, take it, teach yourself. As it says, kedei shelo yishkechu (so that they won’t forget), that the children shouldn’t forget toras esrog (the law of the esrog).

Halacha 8: When They Decreed Not to Blow on Shabbos — They Only Decreed in a Place Where There Is No Beis Din

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s learn further. It’s actually, the Rambam, the Mishnah is simple, the Rishonim had a problem, that one may not, they made all kinds of distinctions.

The Rambam says further, “When they decreed not to blow on Shabbos,” says the Rambam, the decree that we said earlier that there is a decree because of shevus not to blow on Shabbos, says the Rambam, they didn’t decree, they didn’t make the decree everywhere, except in a place where there is no beis din, only in a place where there is no beis din. Even bizman hazeh (in our time), right? Soon we’ll see.

Let’s read the entire halacha, so you know that there was a Beis HaMikdash. When the Beis HaMikdash existed.

Speaker 2: Who?

Speaker 1: But perhaps he means that it was bizman she’ein Beis HaMikdash kayam (when the Beis HaMikdash doesn’t exist).

Speaker 2: Who?

Speaker 1: But perhaps he means that it was bizman she’ein Beis HaMikdash kayam. Read out the entire halacha, so you know what was said about what was bizman shehaya Beis HaMikdash kayam (when the Beis HaMikdash existed), when there was indeed a Beis HaMikdash. When the Beis HaMikdash existed in Yerushalayim. Then the halacha is that everyone would blow in Yerushalayim, everyone was accustomed to blow shofar in Yerushalayim. On Shabbos, as long as the beis din is sitting, as long as there is a beis din, our Rambam will soon say why the beis din sits, not as long as there is a beis din, it’s the part of their… there is a beis din that is active, one was permitted to blow shofar in all of Yerushalayim.

Beis din yoshvin (sitting) however means that it was something on Rosh Hashanah morning the beis din indeed came together and sat and made some kind of session, I don’t know what it’s called, moshav beis din (session of the court), and later in the afternoon when they got up they were no longer permitted. Later the Rambam will say, what is the reason why when there is a beis din, why one may uphold that.

And the Rambam doesn’t say here, he expounds the word in Yerushalayim. On this there is a machlokes Rishonim (dispute among early authorities), this is the Rambam that only in the Mikdash. But the Rambam says, no, that bizman she’omed es HaMikdash kayam (when the Mikdash existed) one was permitted in all of Yerushalayim.

He says, not only in Yerushalayim, but not only the people of Yerushalayim, but all the city that is in your vicinity of Yerushalayim, the entire area around Yerushalayim. And here he says a few conditions with this, all the areas that could see Yerushalayim, an area in the areas that are near Yerushalayim, that could see Yerushalayim, not that it should be within the nachal (valley), not in the areas that are in the deep nachal, in the valley, near Yerushalayim.

And also another condition, that could hear all the teruos of Yerushalayim, the cities that could hear the teruah from Yerushalayim, not that it should be at the head of the mountain, not if it’s far away on some mountain peak that can no longer hear, even if it can see it, one can see it because it’s on the mountain peak, but it’s very far and it can’t hear it.

And that it should be possible to come to Yerushalayim, not that a river should separate between, because on Yom Tov or Shabbos one may not go through a river. So then, it’s not clear what is the problem with the river? If one may be mekabel pnei rabo (receive one’s teacher), I don’t know what they say about this, but perhaps it’s practical. Okay.

So all these, because they are close enough, they are a part of Yerushalayim regarding the mitzvah, they were also permitted to blow shofar on Shabbos of Rosh Hashanah. The people of that city would blow on Shabbos like in Yerushalayim, but in the rest of Eretz Yisrael they would not blow, only bizman sheBeis HaMikdash haya kayam (when the Beis HaMikdash existed) in Yerushalayim and its surroundings. And bizman HaBeis HaMikdash (in the time of the Beis HaMikdash) one would blow on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah shechol liheyos beShabbos (that falls on Shabbos).

But bizman hazeh shechorav HaMikdash (in our time when the Mikdash was destroyed) it’s like this, it’s only by the beis din, any place where there is a fixed beis din. There is a fixed beis din, and there is a condition in this beis din, that they should be semuchim in the land. The beis din must have semicha (ordination) from the chachmei Eretz Yisrael (sages of the Land of Israel), from the beis din of Eretz Yisrael, which makes it a legitimate beis din, regarding the halacha they blow on Shabbos.

Discussion: The Distinction Between Zman HaMikdash and Zman Hazeh

Speaker 2: So in other words, the main distinction is that… area around. That… exactly.

Speaker 1: That is to say, the churban HaMikdash (destruction of the Temple) makes it worse. I mean, bizman HaMikdash… there is no beis din. Not the beis din, the beis din in Yerushalayim. In zman HaMikdash one would blow in all of Yerushalayim and in all the cities around and so forth. As long as the beis din was sitting?

In today’s times, if there would be a beis din, today there is indeed no beis din either, but after there is no beis din, what is the beis din, one blows by the beis din, not around and around. This is the nafka mina (practical difference).

Says the Rambam, the halacha, and they don’t blow on Shabbos, which beis din? except in the beis din that sanctified the month in it. The beis din which is when I learned it I thought, he means to say a beis din that has the legitimacy, it’s a strong enough beis din to be mekadesh the chodesh (sanctify the month).

Speaker 2: He means that the beis din was mekadesh the chodesh?

Speaker 1: There is only one beis din that was mekadesh the chodesh. It’s only that one given… like Yavneh, as it says in the Mishnah. The main beis din that exists for Klal Yisrael.

Speaker 2: Why does he divide it? Why doesn’t he say it right away?

Speaker 1: Because when he says kol makom sheyeish beis din (any place where there is a beis din), there could be ten such cities.

Dispute of the Rif and the Rambam

Now, this was a machlokes Rishonim. The holy Rif said that where there is a beis din, even not semuchim and even not kidushu es hachodesh bimkomo (they sanctified the month in their place), the holy Rif himself gave permission to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah shechol beShabbos by him in beis din, velo samchu alav ledavar zeh afilu talmidav (and they didn’t rely on him for this matter even his students). Even the students of the Rif said that no, that beis din… I mean a simple interpretation, when it says in lashon haMishnah (the language of the Mishnah)? The Rambam goes according to lashon haMishnah.

When it says in lashon haMishnah, beis din means that it’s not a beis din, it means the beis din. The beis din that moved from Yerushalayim, to Yavneh, to other places, to Usha, I know where, there one blew shofar. And therefore the Rambam interprets that beis din is not like the Rif who said beis din where there will be a beis din, but beis din, the beis din that is…

But he makes it like an extra, like a new halacha, like a condition. Because it doesn’t say clearly, it’s a chiddush (novel interpretation) of the Rambam. Because usually he finds a better way how to say it, because it’s misleading. The first, kol makom sheyeish beis din (any place where there is a beis din) as if sounds like every one, and here he says only the Rambam, beis din shel kidush hachodesh (the beis din of sanctifying the month).

It’s almost always stuck with the lashon haMishnah, and very many things that aren’t clear from him, is plain because he is copying the lashon haMishnah vehaGemara, and he’s just not always careful to rewrite things and make them clear. But it’s clear, the halacha that comes out is clear, there are no doubts.

The word is because it’s dependent on the kidush hachodesh, he means to say the main beis din, the one beis din that has the authority to be mechazek the months. Why so I don’t know? Let’s see at the end, because it looks…

Speaker 2: But the rest of the batei din, but the word could be because perhaps it’s not yet Rosh Hashanah, Rosh Hashanah is indeed the first day of Tishrei.

Speaker 1: No, no, no, not about that. But the rest of the batei din don’t blow in them even though they are semuchim. Semicha doesn’t really help. Semicha only helps if it’s actually the main beis din that is also… perhaps if there is a beis din that is mekadesh hachodesh and it’s not samuach, one also wouldn’t be permitted. I don’t know if that’s possible, one must learn hilchos kidush hachodesh.

Speaker 2: Yes, no, there is such a thing…

Halacha: Blowing Before Beis Din — The Reason

Speaker 1: But here it doesn’t say so, sheyeish kedushas chodesh (that there is sanctification of the month), it’s indeed further in Yerushalayim. No, it could have been, it says explicitly in the Gemara, that it could have been that one who is samuach in Eretz Yisrael should go to be mekadesh the chodesh.

Speaker 2: Ah, yes, I remember it’s mentioned before them.

Speaker 1: It could have been, we’ll see in nechas kedushas chodesh the details of this. But it could have been such a thing.

Now says the Rambam, what he said bizman shebeis din yoshvin (when the beis din is sitting), he says, this is actually when the beis din sits and they are holding in the midst of their yeshivos beis (court sessions). And later he’ll say the reason. And they don’t blow except before the beis din alone as long as they are sitting, when they’re still sitting.

Speaker 2: Even in Eretz Yisrael?

Speaker 1: Sitting doesn’t mean specifically that they are seated, he means to say that they are still in the moshav beis din (court session), even if they’re already on their way out, but and they haven’t stood up, they haven’t yet gotten up and left, they blow before them. Here it still says something bifneihem (before them).

Speaker 2: Yes, that’s what it means. Bifnei beis din (before the beis din).

Speaker 1: No, not that when there is a beis din one may. Many times bifnei beis din means bizman sheyeish beis din (when there is a beis din).

Speaker 2: No, literally. Bifnei din (before the court).

Speaker 1: He’ll soon say the reason. But outside the beis din they don’t blow. Says the Rambam, and why do they blow before the beis din? Why indeed? Because the beis din is vigilant, the beis din is vigilant, and the blowers won’t come to carry the shofar before them in the public domain. Those who blow shofar will be warned, will be controlled by the beis din. And the beis din will make sure that one doesn’t transgress the prohibition of carrying in the public domain. Because that’s the job of beis din, that the beis din warns them and judges them.

Very good. If so you must ask as a question, but all those cities that hear, meaning that hear the tekiah from bifnei beis din?

Speaker 2: No, cities cities in Yerushalayim, that’s the law in beis din.

Speaker 1: Again, od zos Yerushalayim yeseira al Yavneh (furthermore Yerushalayim is superior to Yavneh), it says in the Mishnah. In Yerushalayim, one says this is bifnei beis din, and there is bifnei beis din.

Now he’s speaking bizman hazeh (in our time). One wanted on the beis din means bizman hazeh, it all goes on the doing of bizman hazeh. Bizman habayis (in the time of the Temple) one would blow even shelo bifnei beis din (not before the beis din), kol zman shebeis din yoshvim (as long as the beis din is sitting). Because Yerushalayim is special, he indeed says a fact, which according to the Rambam means this, it says in the Gemara in the Mikdash, but the Rambam learns that Mikdash means in Yerushalayim, one was permitted to blow in all of Yerushalayim even shelo bifnei beis din, kol zman shebeis din yoshvim, but shelo bifnei beis din. This is the halacha. What is different is only literally bifnei beis din.

Discussion: Why Must It Be a Beis Din of Semuchim?

Speaker 1: You can ask, if the beis din is more vigilant, why does it explain to us that it’s not a beis din shel kedushas Pesach chodesh?

Speaker 2: I don’t know.

Speaker 1: It’s perhaps there’s another matter, that we’re not sure that we’re concerned that perhaps it’s not Rosh Hashanah, therefore you’re just transgressing Shabbos? I don’t know.

I mean that there’s still a secret in the tekiah beis din, there are matters in this. It’s not only about the excuse. There’s something a reason. I mean to say, as we learned earlier that there is in the Mikdash a law with chatzotros (trumpets). They asked themselves last night what is the meaning of this. The tekiah truly belongs in the Beis HaMikdash, in the central place. That each one blows.

Speaker 2: Certainly.

Speaker 1: As the Ramban began that the Beis HaMikdash one does it with chatzotros, so that’s a special importance. It seems that the replacement for the Beis HaMikdash, or perhaps in the Beis HaMikdash itself there was a beis din, makes this in the central place. There is perhaps a connection of tekias shofar with beis din. Beis din is the place, the center of the Jews, there one blows shofar, and therefore there one was more lenient because it’s a greater matter to blow there. That bifnei beis din, what one blows in every shul, that’s also a mitzvah, but there is perhaps a distinction. Although halachically there is no technical distinction, but it seems that there is perhaps more importance, there is perhaps a matter that the tekiah should be in the central place.

Discussion: Dispute of the Rif and Rambam Regarding Renewing Semicha

Speaker 2: So the dispute that was over the years was according to the shita of the Rif that one can renew beis din? Because according to the Rambam it would only help the beis din shel kedushas chodesh, and also only in front of the beis din.

Speaker 1: I don’t know that over the generations there was what they said that one should begin to renew semicha so that one could blow in the entire… it was apparently when they wanted to go according to the Rif. That once there is a beis din, one should be able to blow in the entire… I don’t know about this, that one should make semicha in order to blow shofar?

Speaker 2: I haven’t heard.

Speaker 1: Could be, but could be to renew kidush hachodesh also, if one already has a beis din hagadol (great court), one can indeed do the whole thing. It doesn’t interfere. There are those who have argued that one can make in Yerushalayim bizman hazeh a beis din. Another Torah from Rabbi… and the Rambam doesn’t look like that.

Speaker 2: No, it doesn’t look like that.

Halacha: Blowing on the Two Days of Yom Tov of the Diaspora

Speaker 1: Says the Rambam further, “And bizman hazeh…” Another… okay, until here is the laws of blowing shofar shechol beShabbos (that falls on Shabbos). He says so, the Rambam concludes, you should know that in today’s times there is a new… “And bizman hazeh that they practiced to make two days in the diaspora,” outside of Eretz Yisrael one makes two days of Yom Tov, “just as they blow on the first they blow on the second.” The same halacha. In today’s times in Eretz Yisrael one also makes, as the Rambam will mention and explain further in kidush hachodesh.

Speaker 2: Very interesting.

Speaker 1: Yes, but it also has to do with the mitzvah of shnei yamim tovim (two days of Yom Tov). It stems from the shnei yamim tovim shel galuyos (two days of Yom Tov of the diaspora). Whoever says “bagaluyos (in the diaspora)” is not precise, because we make in Eretz Yisrael also.

Speaker 2: No, the “bagaluyos” goes back to “bizman hazeh”. Bizman hazeh that in the diaspora one makes two days. “And also in Eretz Yisrael they make shnei yamim tovim on Rosh Hashanah.”

Speaker 1: I don’t understand the interpretation.

Speaker 2: Do you understand the question?

Speaker 1: Just translating, we make… ah, all these are already asking… people are already asking. Not clear. In short, he doesn’t know. He already said twice “bizman hazeh”. So then what is? “Just as they blow on the first they blow on the second.” It’s actually simple things. Perhaps he means “baderech (in the way)” that one can also make shehecheyanu. It’s always would have had to say. They already learned last night the question by the laws of the order in order, that it seems that one must indeed say it, and this is the mitzvah.

Speaker 2: I don’t know.

Halacha: Rosh Hashanah That Falls on Shabbos — Blowing Only on the Second Day

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, “And if the first day falls on Shabbos, and there was no beis din in that place authorized to blow” — there was no beis din in that place authorized to blow, this is also obvious, yes? Because if it’s because of the two days of Yom Tov in the diaspora, then also, also one says a beis din.

Speaker 2: Eh no, the meforshim already ask this question, it’s a good question.

Speaker 1: “They blow on the second day only”. This too is obvious, I don’t know what he wants. Perhaps he means to say the hint that part of the leniencies has to do with the fact that it’s only one day, one does want to blow, but if one can already blow tomorrow, he blows tomorrow.

Speaker 2: Eh din now. On the contrary, the stringency is greater when there aren’t two days of Yom Tov, that one doesn’t have the mitzvah of shofar at all.

Speaker 1: That’s what I’m saying. And then perhaps they sought leniencies to blow before a beis din, and this he perhaps means to hint at. That today, when there is a second day, don’t even worry that there’s a year without shofar, because there is, there is a beis din. Sorry, there is the second day. And you’re right that the second day has some connection with the beis din. It’s their fault that there is a second day.

Speaker 2: Okay, anyways, these are the basic halachos of when one blows and who blows. Thus concludes perek beis of Hilchos Shofar.