Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 7, 2021 | 讙壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讘

Masechet Rosh Hashanah is dedicated anonymously in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by the Hadran Women of Minneapolis in memory of Monica Howell z"l.

This month's shiurim are also dedicated in memory of Dr. Chaya R. Gorsetman, Chaya bat Esriel V鈥橬aomi z鈥檒 during the period of shloshim by her husband, children, and grandchildren.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Rosh Hashanah 29

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Natalie Taylor in loving memory of Harav Professor Yaakov Ross who passed away this past week, on the 26th of Cheshvan.聽

Today’s daf is also sponsored by Emma Rinberg in loving memory of her dear friend Helen Taylor鈥檚 stone setting. 鈥淗elen is missed by her husband, children , grandchildren and sisters. Also by her close friends – we think of her often and miss her very much. May her memory be blessed.鈥

Does the shofar blower need to intend for who he is blowing the shofar? Is there a difference between one blowing for the community or for an individual? Related to the issue of intent, the Mishna brings two incidents that happened in the desert where the Jewish people were saved only when they turned their minds and their hearts to believe in God 鈥 the war with Amalek and the copper serpent that saved the people from the snakes that God sent to punish them. Who is obligated in shofar blowing? Only one who is obligated can blow the shofar for others who are obligated. Which blessings can one make on behalf of others even if one has already fulfilled one鈥檚 obligation? In the Temple, they would blow the shofar on Shabbat. After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai institutes that the shofar is blown wherever there is a court. There is a debate regarding whether this was in Yavne only or anywhere where there was a court. Why don鈥檛 we blow shofar on Shabbat? Is it derived from the Torah? Rabbi Levi ben Lachma says it is, but Rava questions him as in the Temple they blew shofar on Shabbat and also because blowing the shofar is not a melacha. Rava holds as Raba that since everyone needs to hear the shofar blown, but not everyone knows how to, they may carry a shofar four cubits in the public domain to find someone to teach them how to blow, and therefore, the rabbis forbade shofar blowing on Shabbat. A story is told of a debate between Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and Bnei Beteira about whether the shofar should be blown on Shabbat in Yavne. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai prevails and the shofar is blown. What are the opinions brought in the Mishna regarding the extent to which Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai permitted blowing the shofar on Shabbat? Only the court in Yavne, any established court, or even in one that was not established?

讗讬讻讜讜谉 讜转拽注 诇讬 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 诪砖诪讬注 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛

Have intent to sound the shofar on my behalf and sound it for me. The Gemara infers: Apparently, Rabbi Zeira maintains that he who sounds the shofar for others is required to have intent to discharge the hearer鈥檚 obligation.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 注讜讘专 讗讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘讬转讜 住诪讜讱 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜砖诪注 拽讜诇 砖讜驻专 讗讜 拽讜诇 诪讙讬诇讛 讗诐 讻讜讜谉 诇讘讜 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讻讬 讻讜讜谉 诇讘讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讬讗讱 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗讚注转讗 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara raises an objection from the mishna: If one was passing behind a synagogue, or his house was adjacent to the synagogue, and he heard the sound of the shofar or the sound of the Scroll of Esther being read, if he focused his heart to fulfill his obligation, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. It may be asked: And, according to Rabbi Zeira, even if the hearer focused his heart, what of it? The other one, i.e., the one sounding the shofar, did not focus his intent to sound the shofar with him in mind? If indeed the intent of the one sounding the shofar is required, how does the passerby fulfill his obligation?

讛讻讗 讘砖诇讬讞 爪讬讘讜专 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讚注转讬讛 讗讻讜诇讬讛 注诇诪讗

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with the representative of the community, i.e., one who sounds the shofar for the entire congregation and has everyone in mind. He does not sound it for a specific individual, but rather on behalf of the entire community, and therefore anyone who hears him sound the shofar fulfills his obligation.

转讗 砖诪注 谞转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 讜诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诪砖诪讬注 谞转讻讜讜谉 诪砖诪讬注 讜诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 诇讗 讬爪讗 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 讜诪砖诪讬注 拽转谞讬 诪砖诪讬注 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讜诪注 诪讛 砖讜诪注 砖讜诪注 诇注爪诪讜 讗祝 诪砖诪讬注 诪砖诪讬注 诇注爪诪讜 讜拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬爪讗

The Gemara raises another objection: Come and hear that which was taught in a baraita: If the hearer of the shofar had intent, but the sounder of the shofar did not have intent, or if the sounder of the shofar had intent, but the hearer did not have intent, he has not fulfilled his obligation, until both the hearer and the sounder have intent. The baraita teaches the halakha governing the sounder of the shofar in similar fashion to the halakha governing the hearer. From this it may be inferred that just as the hearer hears for himself, having intent to fulfill his own obligation, so too, the sounder sounds for himself, having intent to fulfill his own obligation, and not that of others. And the baraita teaches that if the sounder did not have this intent, the hearer has not fulfilled his obligation. But this indicates that if the sounder had intent to sound the shofar for himself, he need not have intent to sound it for others, therefore contradicting Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 opinion.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜诪注 砖讜诪注 诇注爪诪讜 讜诪砖诪讬注 诪砖诪讬注 诇驻讬 讚专讻讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 讗讘诇 讘讬讞讬讚 诇讗 讬爪讗 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讬谉 砖讜诪注 讜诪砖诪讬注

The Gemara answers: This is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The hearer hears for himself, and the sounder sounds the shofar in his usual way, i.e., he need not intend to sound it for the sake of the hearer. Rabbi Yosei said: In what case is this statement said? It was said in the case of a representative of the community. But in the case of an ordinary individual, the hearer does not fulfill his obligation until both the hearer and the sounder have intent to discharge the hearer鈥檚 obligation, as argued by Rabbi Zeira.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讛讬讛 讻讗砖专 讬专讬诐 诪砖讛 讬讚讜 讜讙讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮 讜讻讬 讬讚讬讜 砖诇 诪砖讛 注讜砖讜转 诪诇讞诪讛 讗讜 砖讜讘专讜转 诪诇讞诪讛 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪住转讻诇讬谉 讻诇驻讬 诪注诇讛 讜诪砖注讘讚讬谉 讗转 诇讘诐 诇讗讘讬讛诐 砖讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讜 诪转讙讘专讬诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛讬讜 谞讜驻诇讬诐

MISHNA: Incidental to the discussion of the required intent when sounding the shofar, the mishna cites the verse: 鈥淎nd it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed鈥 (Exodus 17:11). It may be asked: Did the hands of Moses make war when he raised them or break war when he lowered them? Rather, the verse comes to tell you that as long as the Jewish people turned their eyes upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they prevailed, but if not, they fell.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 注砖讛 诇讱 砖专祝 讜砖讬诐 讗讜转讜 注诇 谞住 讜讛讬讛 讻诇 讛谞砖讜讱 讜专讗讛 讗讜转讜 讜讞讬 讜讻讬 谞讞砖 诪诪讬转 讗讜 谞讞砖 诪讞讬讛 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖专讗诇 诪住转讻诇讬谉 讻诇驻讬 诪注诇讛 讜诪砖注讘讚讬谉 讗转 诇讘诐 诇讗讘讬讛诐 砖讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讜 诪转专驻讗讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛讬讜 谞讬诪讜拽讬诐

Similarly, you can say: The verse states: 鈥淢ake for yourself a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he sees it, he shall live鈥 (Numbers 21:8). Once again it may be asked: Did the serpent kill, or did the serpent preserve life? Rather, when the Jewish people turned their eyes upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were healed, but if not, they rotted from their snakebites.

讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛专讘讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜讬讬讘 讘讚讘专 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛专讘讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉

Returning to its halakhic discussion, the mishna continues: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor who sounds the shofar cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of the community. This is the principle with regard to similar matters: Whoever is not obligated to do a certain matter cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of the community.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讙专讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 诪砖讜讞专专讬诐 讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught the following baraita: All are obligated to sound the shofar: Priests, Levites, and ordinary Israelites; converts; freed slaves; a tumtum, i.e., one whose sexual organs from birth are concealed or are so undeveloped that it is impossible to determine whether the individual is male or female; a hermaphrodite [androginos], i.e., one with both male and female reproductive organs; and a half-slave, half-freeman.

讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诇讗 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜诇讗 讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诇讗 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜诇讗 讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜

A tumtum who sounds the shofar cannot discharge the obligation of one of his kind, i.e., a fellow tumtum, since men are bound by the obligation, whereas women are not, and it is possible that the sounder is female and the hearer is male, nor can he discharge the obligation of one who is not of his kind, an ordinary man or woman. A hermaphrodite can discharge the obligation of one of his kind, a fellow hermaphrodite, since if the sounder is treated as a female, the hearer is also considered a female, but he cannot discharge the obligation of one who is not of his kind. One who is half-slave and half-freeman cannot discharge the obligation of one of his kind, as the slave component of the sounder cannot discharge the obligation of the free component of the hearer, and he certainly cannot discharge the obligation of one who is not of his kind, i.e., a completely free individual.

讗诪专 诪专 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬 讛谞讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬 诪讗谉 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬

The Master said above in the baraita: All are obligated to sound the shofar: Priests, Levites, and ordinary Israelites. The Gemara asks in astonishment: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? If these people are not obligated to perform the mitzva, who then is obligated to perform it?

讻讛谞讬诐 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讬讜诐 转专讜注讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诪讗谉 讚诇讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 讘转拽讬注讛 讚讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 讘转拽讬注讜转 讚讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜转拽注转诐 讘讞爪讜爪专讜转 注诇 注讜诇讜转讬讻诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It was necessary to say that priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva, for it may enter your mind to say as follows: Since it is written: 鈥淚t is a day of sounding the shofar to you鈥 (Numbers 29:1), you might have said that with regard to one who is obligated to sound only one day, he is obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana. But with regard to these priests, since they are obligated to sound all year long, because they sound trumpets when they offer the sacrifices in the Temple, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt-offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings鈥 (Numbers 10:10), you might say that they are not obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana. Therefore, the baraita comes to teach us that this is not true, and that even priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讞爪讜爪专讜转 讜讛讻讗 砖讜驻专 讗诇讗 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转谞谉 砖讜讛 讛讬讜讘诇 诇专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇转拽讬注讛 讜诇讘专讻讜转 诪讗谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜转 讛讬讜讘诇 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜讛 讚专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘诪爪讜讛 讚讬讜讘诇 讚转谞谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讜讙讜讗诇讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 讘诪爪讜讛 讚专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Are these things comparable? There, the priests sound trumpets, and here, we are dealing with the sounding of a shofar. Rather, it was necessary to say that priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva for a different reason, for it may enter your mind to say as follows: Since we learned in a mishna: Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year is the same as Rosh HaShana, with regard to both the shofar blasts and the additional blessings that are recited in the Amida prayer, I might have said: One who is fully included in the mitzva of the Jubilee is also included in the mitzva of Rosh HaShana. But these priests, since they are not fully included in the mitzva of the Jubilee, as we learned in a mishna: Priests and Levites may sell their fields forever and they may also redeem their lands forever, and they are not bound by the halakhot of the Jubilee Year, I might say that they should also not be obligated to fulfill the mitzva of Rosh HaShana. Therefore, the baraita comes to teach us that this is not so, and that even priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva.

诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诇讗 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜诇讗 讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇注爪诪讜 诪讜爪讬讗

搂 It was taught in the same baraita: A half-slave, half-freeman cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of one of his kind, and he certainly cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of one who is not of his kind. Rav Huna said: Even though he cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of others, he can discharge the obligation on behalf of himself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讗讞专讬诐 讚诇讗 讚诇讗 讗转讬 爪讚 注讘讚讜转 讜诪驻讬拽 爪讚 讞讬专讜转 诇注爪诪讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗转讬 爪讚 注讘讚讜转 讚讬讚讬讛 讜诪驻讬拽 爪讚 讞讬专讜转 讚讬讚讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Huna: What is the difference whereby he may discharge the obligation on behalf of himself but not on behalf of others? Because his slave component cannot come and discharge the obligation on behalf of the free component of the other. If so, with regard to himself as well, his slave component should not be able to come and discharge the obligation on behalf of his free component.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗祝 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗

Rather, Rav Na岣an said: Even on behalf of himself he cannot discharge the obligation. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: A half-slave, half-freeman cannot discharge the obligation even for himself.

转谞讬 讗讛讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 讛讘专讻讜转 讻讜诇谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬爪讗 诪讜爪讬讗 讞讜抓 诪讘专讻转 讛诇讞诐 讜讘专讻转 讛讬讬谉 砖讗诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪讜爪讬讗 讜讗诐 讬爪讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗

Continuing the discussion of performing an obligation on behalf of others, Ahava, son of Rabbi Zeira, taught the following ba-raita: With regard to all the blessings, even if one already recited a blessing for himself and has consequently fulfilled his own obligation, he can still recite a blessing for others and thereby discharge their obligation, as all Jews are responsible for one another. This is true with regard to all blessings except for the blessing recited over bread and the blessing recited over wine, both before and after their consumption. With regard to these blessings, if he has not yet fulfilled his own obligation, he can discharge the obligation of others as well, but if he already fulfilled his own obligation, he cannot discharge the obligation of others, as these blessings are recited in appreciation of physical enjoyment, and can only be recited by one who is actually deriving pleasure at the time.

讘注讬 专讘讗

Rava raised a dilemma:

讘专讻转 讛诇讞诐 砖诇 诪爪讛 讜讘专讻转 讛讬讬谉 砖诇 拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讜讘讛 讛讜讗 诪驻讬拽 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘专讻讛 诇讗讜 讞讜讘讛 讛讬讗

With regard to the blessing over bread that is recited before eating matza at the Passover seder and the blessing over wine recited as part of the sanctification of the day of Shabbat or a Festival, what is the halakha? The Gemara analyzes the question: Do we say that since there is an obligation to recite these blessings due to the mitzva involved, therefore one can discharge the obligation for others, even if he himself has already fulfilled his obligation? Or perhaps we say that the blessing itself is not an obligation, but rather the obligation lies in the eating and drinking, and the blessing is recited over one鈥檚 physical enjoyment; therefore, if he already fulfilled his own obligation, he cannot recite the blessing for others, as he derives no pleasure at this time.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 驻驻讬 讛讜讛 诪拽讚砖 诇谉 讜讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讬 讗专讬住讬讛 诪讚讘专讗 讛讜讛 诪拽讚砖 诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: Come and hear an answer to this question from what Rav Ashi said: When we were studying in the school of Rav Pappi, he would recite kiddush for us, and when his tenants would arrive from the field he would recite kiddush once again on their behalf. Therefore, it is clear that one may recite kiddush on behalf of others, including the blessing that is recited over the wine, even if he himself has already fulfilled his own obligation.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬驻专讜住 讗讚诐 驻专讜住讛 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讗讜讻诇 注诪讛诐 讗讘诇 驻讜专住 讛讜讗 诇讘谞讬讜 讜诇讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讻讚讬 诇讞谞讻谉 讘诪爪讜转 讜讘讛诇诇 讜讘诪讙讬诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬爪讗 诪讜爪讬讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: One should not break bread and recite a blessing for guests unless he is eating with them, so that he is obligated to recite a blessing for himself. But he may break bread for his children and for the other members of his household and recite the blessing, in order to educate them to perform the mitzvot, so that they know how to recite a blessing. And with regard to hallel and the Scroll of Esther, the halakha is that even if he already fulfilled his obligation, he can still discharge the obligation of others.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 专讗讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讘诪拽讚砖 讛讬讜 转讜拽注讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讚讬谞讛 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讜 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗诇讗 讘讬讘谞讛 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讞讚 讬讘谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉

MISHNA: With regard to the Festival day of Rosh HaShana that occurs on Shabbat, in the Temple they would sound the shofar as usual. However, they would not sound it in the rest of the country outside the Temple. After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the people should sound the shofar on Shabbat in every place where there is a court of twenty-three judges. Rabbi Elazar said: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted this practice only in Yavne, where the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges resided in his time, but nowhere else. They said to him: He instituted the practice both in Yavne and in any place where there is a court.

讜注讜讚 讝讗转 讛讬转讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讬讘谞讛 砖讻诇 注讬专 砖讛讬讗 专讜讗讛 讜砖讜诪注转 讜拽专讜讘讛 讜讬讻讜诇讛 诇讘讜讗 转讜拽注讬谉 讜讘讬讘谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 转讜拽注讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘诇讘讚

The mishna adds: And Jerusalem in earlier times had this additional superiority over Yavne after Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted this practice, for in any city whose residents could see Jerusalem and hear the sounding of the shofar from there, and which was near to Jerusalem and people could come to Jerusalem from there, they would sound the shofar there as well, as it was considered part of Jerusalem. But in Yavne they would sound the shofar only in the court itself, not in the surrounding cities.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 讘专 诇讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖讘转讜谉 讝讻专讜谉 转专讜注讛 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 转专讜注讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘讞讜诇

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters; from where is it derived that the shofar is not sounded on Shabbat? Rabbi Levi bar La岣a said that Rabbi 岣ma bar 岣nina said: One verse says, with regard to Rosh HaShana: 鈥淎 solemn rest, a memorial of blasts鈥 (Leviticus 23:24), which indicates that one should merely remember the shofar without actually sounding it. And another verse says: 鈥淚t is a day of blowing for you鈥 (Numbers 29:1), i.e., a day on which one must actually sound the shofar. This apparent contradiction is not difficult: Here, the verse in which the shofar is only being remembered but not sounded, is referring to a Festival that occurs on Shabbat; there, the verse in which the shofar is actually sounded, is referring to a Festival that occurs on a weekday.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讘诪拽讚砖 讛讬讻讬 转拽注讬谞谉 讜注讜讚 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讬讗 讚讗爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬

Rava said: This explanation is difficult, for if the distinction between Shabbat and the rest of the week applies by Torah law, how does one sound the shofar on Shabbat in the Temple? If it is prohibited to sound the shofar on Shabbat, it should be prohibited everywhere. And furthermore, there is an additional problem with this explanation: Although the Sages prohibited sounding a shofar and playing other musical instruments on Shabbat, by Torah law sounding a shofar is not a prohibited labor on Shabbat such that a verse is necessary to exclude it when Rosh HaShana occurs on Shabbat.

讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪诇讗讻转 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 讬爪转讛 转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讜专讚讬讬转 讛驻转 砖讛讬讗 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪诇讗讻讛

The Gemara cites a proof for this last claim: As a Sage of the school of Shmuel taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse that prohibits performing prohibited labor on Festivals: 鈥淎ny prohibited labor of work you shall not perform鈥 (Numbers 29:1). This comes to exclude from the category of prohibited labors the sounding of the shofar and the removal of bread from the oven, each of which is a skill and not a labor, and therefore they are not included in the category of prohibited labor. Apparently, sounding the shofar is not prohibited by Torah law.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝讜专 讘讬讛 讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诇谞讜 讘讬讚讜 讜讬诇讱 讗爪诇 讛讘拽讬 诇诇诪讜讚 讜讬注讘讬专谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Rather, Rava said: By Torah law one is permitted to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana even on Shabbat, and it was the Sages who decreed that it is prohibited. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba said: All are obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana, but not all are experts in sounding the shofar. Therefore, the Sages instituted a decree that the shofar should not be sounded on Shabbat, lest one take the shofar in his hand and go to an expert to learn how to sound it or to have him sound it for him, and due to his preoccupation he might carry it four cubits in the public domain, which is a desecration of Shabbat.

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讜诇讘 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪讙讬诇讛

The Gemara comments: And this is also the reason for the rabbinical decree that the palm branch [lulav] may not be taken on Shabbat, and this is likewise the reason for the decree that the Megilla of Esther may not be read on Shabbat. The Sages were concerned that one might carry the lulav or the Megilla four cubits in the public domain to take it to an expert who will teach him the proper manner to perform these mitzvot.

诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻注诐 讗讞转 讞诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讜讛讬讜 讻诇 讛注专讬诐 诪转讻谞住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 诇讘谞讬 讘转讬专讛 谞转拽注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讚讜谉

搂 The mishna taught: After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the people should sound the shofar even on Shabbat in every place where there is a court of twenty-three judges. The background to this decree is related in greater detail in a baraita, as the Sages taught: Once Rosh HaShana occurred on Shabbat, and all the cities gathered at the Great Sanhedrin in Yavne for the Festival prayers. Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said to the sons of Beteira, who were the leading halakhic authorities of the generation: Let us sound the shofar, as in the Temple. They said to him: Let us discuss whether or not this is permitted.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 谞转拽注 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讚讜谉 诇讗讞专 砖转拽注讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讚讜谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻讘专 谞砖诪注讛 拽专谉 讘讬讘谞讛 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪注砖讛

He said to them: First let us sound it, and afterward, when there is time, let us discuss the matter. After they sounded the shofar, the sons of Beteira said to Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai: Let us now discuss the issue. He said to them: The horn has already been heard in Yavne, and one does not refute a ruling after action has already been taken. There is no point in discussing the matter, as it would be inappropriate to say that the community acted erroneously after the fact.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗诇讗 讘讬讘谞讛 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讞讚 讬讘谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗

搂 The mishna further stated that Rabbi Elazar said: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted this practice only in Yavne. They said to him: He instituted the practice both in Yavne and in any place where there is a court. The Gemara asks: This last statement of the Rabbis: They said to him, etc.; is the same as the opinion of the first tanna of the mishna. Why did the mishna repeat this opinion?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚讗拽专讗讬

The Gemara answers: The practical difference between the opinion of the first tanna and the opinion of the Rabbis who issued that last statement is with regard to a temporary court, i.e., one that is not fixed in a certain place. According to the opinion of the first tanna, the shofar is sounded there as well, whereas according to the opinion of the Rabbis who responded to Rabbi Elazar, the shofar is sounded only in a place where there is a permanent court, similar to that in Yavne.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讞讚 讬讘谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

搂 The mishna taught that they said to him: He instituted the practice both in Yavne and in any place where there is a court. Rav Huna said:

Masechet Rosh Hashana 聽is dedicated anonymously in honor of聽Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by聽the Hadran Women of Minneapolis in memory of Monica Howell z"l.

And in memory of Dr. Chaya R. Gorsetman, Chaya bat Esriel V鈥橬aomi z鈥檒 during the period of shloshim by her husband, children and grandchildren.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Rosh Hashanah: 25-29 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

The Gemara describes different testimonies given before the court. It describes seeming contradictions and explains how they could be true....
alon shvut women

Rosh Hashana on Shabbat

Rosh Hashanah Daf 29 (scroll down for video shiur) Rosh Hashana on Shabbat - Thoughts By Susan Suna The fourth...

Rosh Hashanah 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Rosh Hashanah 29

讗讬讻讜讜谉 讜转拽注 诇讬 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 诪砖诪讬注 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛

Have intent to sound the shofar on my behalf and sound it for me. The Gemara infers: Apparently, Rabbi Zeira maintains that he who sounds the shofar for others is required to have intent to discharge the hearer鈥檚 obligation.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 注讜讘专 讗讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘讬转讜 住诪讜讱 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜砖诪注 拽讜诇 砖讜驻专 讗讜 拽讜诇 诪讙讬诇讛 讗诐 讻讜讜谉 诇讘讜 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讻讬 讻讜讜谉 诇讘讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讬讗讱 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗讚注转讗 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara raises an objection from the mishna: If one was passing behind a synagogue, or his house was adjacent to the synagogue, and he heard the sound of the shofar or the sound of the Scroll of Esther being read, if he focused his heart to fulfill his obligation, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. It may be asked: And, according to Rabbi Zeira, even if the hearer focused his heart, what of it? The other one, i.e., the one sounding the shofar, did not focus his intent to sound the shofar with him in mind? If indeed the intent of the one sounding the shofar is required, how does the passerby fulfill his obligation?

讛讻讗 讘砖诇讬讞 爪讬讘讜专 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讚注转讬讛 讗讻讜诇讬讛 注诇诪讗

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with the representative of the community, i.e., one who sounds the shofar for the entire congregation and has everyone in mind. He does not sound it for a specific individual, but rather on behalf of the entire community, and therefore anyone who hears him sound the shofar fulfills his obligation.

转讗 砖诪注 谞转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 讜诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诪砖诪讬注 谞转讻讜讜谉 诪砖诪讬注 讜诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 诇讗 讬爪讗 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 讜诪砖诪讬注 拽转谞讬 诪砖诪讬注 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讜诪注 诪讛 砖讜诪注 砖讜诪注 诇注爪诪讜 讗祝 诪砖诪讬注 诪砖诪讬注 诇注爪诪讜 讜拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬爪讗

The Gemara raises another objection: Come and hear that which was taught in a baraita: If the hearer of the shofar had intent, but the sounder of the shofar did not have intent, or if the sounder of the shofar had intent, but the hearer did not have intent, he has not fulfilled his obligation, until both the hearer and the sounder have intent. The baraita teaches the halakha governing the sounder of the shofar in similar fashion to the halakha governing the hearer. From this it may be inferred that just as the hearer hears for himself, having intent to fulfill his own obligation, so too, the sounder sounds for himself, having intent to fulfill his own obligation, and not that of others. And the baraita teaches that if the sounder did not have this intent, the hearer has not fulfilled his obligation. But this indicates that if the sounder had intent to sound the shofar for himself, he need not have intent to sound it for others, therefore contradicting Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 opinion.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜诪注 砖讜诪注 诇注爪诪讜 讜诪砖诪讬注 诪砖诪讬注 诇驻讬 讚专讻讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 讗讘诇 讘讬讞讬讚 诇讗 讬爪讗 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讬谉 砖讜诪注 讜诪砖诪讬注

The Gemara answers: This is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The hearer hears for himself, and the sounder sounds the shofar in his usual way, i.e., he need not intend to sound it for the sake of the hearer. Rabbi Yosei said: In what case is this statement said? It was said in the case of a representative of the community. But in the case of an ordinary individual, the hearer does not fulfill his obligation until both the hearer and the sounder have intent to discharge the hearer鈥檚 obligation, as argued by Rabbi Zeira.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讛讬讛 讻讗砖专 讬专讬诐 诪砖讛 讬讚讜 讜讙讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮 讜讻讬 讬讚讬讜 砖诇 诪砖讛 注讜砖讜转 诪诇讞诪讛 讗讜 砖讜讘专讜转 诪诇讞诪讛 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪住转讻诇讬谉 讻诇驻讬 诪注诇讛 讜诪砖注讘讚讬谉 讗转 诇讘诐 诇讗讘讬讛诐 砖讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讜 诪转讙讘专讬诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛讬讜 谞讜驻诇讬诐

MISHNA: Incidental to the discussion of the required intent when sounding the shofar, the mishna cites the verse: 鈥淎nd it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed鈥 (Exodus 17:11). It may be asked: Did the hands of Moses make war when he raised them or break war when he lowered them? Rather, the verse comes to tell you that as long as the Jewish people turned their eyes upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they prevailed, but if not, they fell.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 注砖讛 诇讱 砖专祝 讜砖讬诐 讗讜转讜 注诇 谞住 讜讛讬讛 讻诇 讛谞砖讜讱 讜专讗讛 讗讜转讜 讜讞讬 讜讻讬 谞讞砖 诪诪讬转 讗讜 谞讞砖 诪讞讬讛 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖专讗诇 诪住转讻诇讬谉 讻诇驻讬 诪注诇讛 讜诪砖注讘讚讬谉 讗转 诇讘诐 诇讗讘讬讛诐 砖讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讜 诪转专驻讗讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛讬讜 谞讬诪讜拽讬诐

Similarly, you can say: The verse states: 鈥淢ake for yourself a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he sees it, he shall live鈥 (Numbers 21:8). Once again it may be asked: Did the serpent kill, or did the serpent preserve life? Rather, when the Jewish people turned their eyes upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were healed, but if not, they rotted from their snakebites.

讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛专讘讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜讬讬讘 讘讚讘专 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛专讘讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉

Returning to its halakhic discussion, the mishna continues: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor who sounds the shofar cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of the community. This is the principle with regard to similar matters: Whoever is not obligated to do a certain matter cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of the community.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讙专讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 诪砖讜讞专专讬诐 讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught the following baraita: All are obligated to sound the shofar: Priests, Levites, and ordinary Israelites; converts; freed slaves; a tumtum, i.e., one whose sexual organs from birth are concealed or are so undeveloped that it is impossible to determine whether the individual is male or female; a hermaphrodite [androginos], i.e., one with both male and female reproductive organs; and a half-slave, half-freeman.

讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诇讗 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜诇讗 讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诇讗 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜诇讗 讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜

A tumtum who sounds the shofar cannot discharge the obligation of one of his kind, i.e., a fellow tumtum, since men are bound by the obligation, whereas women are not, and it is possible that the sounder is female and the hearer is male, nor can he discharge the obligation of one who is not of his kind, an ordinary man or woman. A hermaphrodite can discharge the obligation of one of his kind, a fellow hermaphrodite, since if the sounder is treated as a female, the hearer is also considered a female, but he cannot discharge the obligation of one who is not of his kind. One who is half-slave and half-freeman cannot discharge the obligation of one of his kind, as the slave component of the sounder cannot discharge the obligation of the free component of the hearer, and he certainly cannot discharge the obligation of one who is not of his kind, i.e., a completely free individual.

讗诪专 诪专 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬 讛谞讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬 诪讗谉 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬

The Master said above in the baraita: All are obligated to sound the shofar: Priests, Levites, and ordinary Israelites. The Gemara asks in astonishment: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? If these people are not obligated to perform the mitzva, who then is obligated to perform it?

讻讛谞讬诐 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讬讜诐 转专讜注讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诪讗谉 讚诇讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 讘转拽讬注讛 讚讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 讘转拽讬注讜转 讚讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜转拽注转诐 讘讞爪讜爪专讜转 注诇 注讜诇讜转讬讻诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It was necessary to say that priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva, for it may enter your mind to say as follows: Since it is written: 鈥淚t is a day of sounding the shofar to you鈥 (Numbers 29:1), you might have said that with regard to one who is obligated to sound only one day, he is obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana. But with regard to these priests, since they are obligated to sound all year long, because they sound trumpets when they offer the sacrifices in the Temple, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt-offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings鈥 (Numbers 10:10), you might say that they are not obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana. Therefore, the baraita comes to teach us that this is not true, and that even priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讞爪讜爪专讜转 讜讛讻讗 砖讜驻专 讗诇讗 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转谞谉 砖讜讛 讛讬讜讘诇 诇专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇转拽讬注讛 讜诇讘专讻讜转 诪讗谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜转 讛讬讜讘诇 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜讛 讚专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘诪爪讜讛 讚讬讜讘诇 讚转谞谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讜讙讜讗诇讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 讘诪爪讜讛 讚专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Are these things comparable? There, the priests sound trumpets, and here, we are dealing with the sounding of a shofar. Rather, it was necessary to say that priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva for a different reason, for it may enter your mind to say as follows: Since we learned in a mishna: Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year is the same as Rosh HaShana, with regard to both the shofar blasts and the additional blessings that are recited in the Amida prayer, I might have said: One who is fully included in the mitzva of the Jubilee is also included in the mitzva of Rosh HaShana. But these priests, since they are not fully included in the mitzva of the Jubilee, as we learned in a mishna: Priests and Levites may sell their fields forever and they may also redeem their lands forever, and they are not bound by the halakhot of the Jubilee Year, I might say that they should also not be obligated to fulfill the mitzva of Rosh HaShana. Therefore, the baraita comes to teach us that this is not so, and that even priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva.

诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诇讗 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜诇讗 讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇注爪诪讜 诪讜爪讬讗

搂 It was taught in the same baraita: A half-slave, half-freeman cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of one of his kind, and he certainly cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of one who is not of his kind. Rav Huna said: Even though he cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of others, he can discharge the obligation on behalf of himself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讗讞专讬诐 讚诇讗 讚诇讗 讗转讬 爪讚 注讘讚讜转 讜诪驻讬拽 爪讚 讞讬专讜转 诇注爪诪讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗转讬 爪讚 注讘讚讜转 讚讬讚讬讛 讜诪驻讬拽 爪讚 讞讬专讜转 讚讬讚讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Huna: What is the difference whereby he may discharge the obligation on behalf of himself but not on behalf of others? Because his slave component cannot come and discharge the obligation on behalf of the free component of the other. If so, with regard to himself as well, his slave component should not be able to come and discharge the obligation on behalf of his free component.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗祝 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗

Rather, Rav Na岣an said: Even on behalf of himself he cannot discharge the obligation. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: A half-slave, half-freeman cannot discharge the obligation even for himself.

转谞讬 讗讛讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 讛讘专讻讜转 讻讜诇谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬爪讗 诪讜爪讬讗 讞讜抓 诪讘专讻转 讛诇讞诐 讜讘专讻转 讛讬讬谉 砖讗诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪讜爪讬讗 讜讗诐 讬爪讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗

Continuing the discussion of performing an obligation on behalf of others, Ahava, son of Rabbi Zeira, taught the following ba-raita: With regard to all the blessings, even if one already recited a blessing for himself and has consequently fulfilled his own obligation, he can still recite a blessing for others and thereby discharge their obligation, as all Jews are responsible for one another. This is true with regard to all blessings except for the blessing recited over bread and the blessing recited over wine, both before and after their consumption. With regard to these blessings, if he has not yet fulfilled his own obligation, he can discharge the obligation of others as well, but if he already fulfilled his own obligation, he cannot discharge the obligation of others, as these blessings are recited in appreciation of physical enjoyment, and can only be recited by one who is actually deriving pleasure at the time.

讘注讬 专讘讗

Rava raised a dilemma:

讘专讻转 讛诇讞诐 砖诇 诪爪讛 讜讘专讻转 讛讬讬谉 砖诇 拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讜讘讛 讛讜讗 诪驻讬拽 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘专讻讛 诇讗讜 讞讜讘讛 讛讬讗

With regard to the blessing over bread that is recited before eating matza at the Passover seder and the blessing over wine recited as part of the sanctification of the day of Shabbat or a Festival, what is the halakha? The Gemara analyzes the question: Do we say that since there is an obligation to recite these blessings due to the mitzva involved, therefore one can discharge the obligation for others, even if he himself has already fulfilled his obligation? Or perhaps we say that the blessing itself is not an obligation, but rather the obligation lies in the eating and drinking, and the blessing is recited over one鈥檚 physical enjoyment; therefore, if he already fulfilled his own obligation, he cannot recite the blessing for others, as he derives no pleasure at this time.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 驻驻讬 讛讜讛 诪拽讚砖 诇谉 讜讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讬 讗专讬住讬讛 诪讚讘专讗 讛讜讛 诪拽讚砖 诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: Come and hear an answer to this question from what Rav Ashi said: When we were studying in the school of Rav Pappi, he would recite kiddush for us, and when his tenants would arrive from the field he would recite kiddush once again on their behalf. Therefore, it is clear that one may recite kiddush on behalf of others, including the blessing that is recited over the wine, even if he himself has already fulfilled his own obligation.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬驻专讜住 讗讚诐 驻专讜住讛 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讗讜讻诇 注诪讛诐 讗讘诇 驻讜专住 讛讜讗 诇讘谞讬讜 讜诇讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讻讚讬 诇讞谞讻谉 讘诪爪讜转 讜讘讛诇诇 讜讘诪讙讬诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬爪讗 诪讜爪讬讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: One should not break bread and recite a blessing for guests unless he is eating with them, so that he is obligated to recite a blessing for himself. But he may break bread for his children and for the other members of his household and recite the blessing, in order to educate them to perform the mitzvot, so that they know how to recite a blessing. And with regard to hallel and the Scroll of Esther, the halakha is that even if he already fulfilled his obligation, he can still discharge the obligation of others.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 专讗讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讘诪拽讚砖 讛讬讜 转讜拽注讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讚讬谞讛 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讜 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗诇讗 讘讬讘谞讛 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讞讚 讬讘谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉

MISHNA: With regard to the Festival day of Rosh HaShana that occurs on Shabbat, in the Temple they would sound the shofar as usual. However, they would not sound it in the rest of the country outside the Temple. After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the people should sound the shofar on Shabbat in every place where there is a court of twenty-three judges. Rabbi Elazar said: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted this practice only in Yavne, where the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges resided in his time, but nowhere else. They said to him: He instituted the practice both in Yavne and in any place where there is a court.

讜注讜讚 讝讗转 讛讬转讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讬讘谞讛 砖讻诇 注讬专 砖讛讬讗 专讜讗讛 讜砖讜诪注转 讜拽专讜讘讛 讜讬讻讜诇讛 诇讘讜讗 转讜拽注讬谉 讜讘讬讘谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 转讜拽注讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘诇讘讚

The mishna adds: And Jerusalem in earlier times had this additional superiority over Yavne after Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted this practice, for in any city whose residents could see Jerusalem and hear the sounding of the shofar from there, and which was near to Jerusalem and people could come to Jerusalem from there, they would sound the shofar there as well, as it was considered part of Jerusalem. But in Yavne they would sound the shofar only in the court itself, not in the surrounding cities.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 讘专 诇讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖讘转讜谉 讝讻专讜谉 转专讜注讛 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 转专讜注讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘讞讜诇

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters; from where is it derived that the shofar is not sounded on Shabbat? Rabbi Levi bar La岣a said that Rabbi 岣ma bar 岣nina said: One verse says, with regard to Rosh HaShana: 鈥淎 solemn rest, a memorial of blasts鈥 (Leviticus 23:24), which indicates that one should merely remember the shofar without actually sounding it. And another verse says: 鈥淚t is a day of blowing for you鈥 (Numbers 29:1), i.e., a day on which one must actually sound the shofar. This apparent contradiction is not difficult: Here, the verse in which the shofar is only being remembered but not sounded, is referring to a Festival that occurs on Shabbat; there, the verse in which the shofar is actually sounded, is referring to a Festival that occurs on a weekday.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讘诪拽讚砖 讛讬讻讬 转拽注讬谞谉 讜注讜讚 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讬讗 讚讗爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬

Rava said: This explanation is difficult, for if the distinction between Shabbat and the rest of the week applies by Torah law, how does one sound the shofar on Shabbat in the Temple? If it is prohibited to sound the shofar on Shabbat, it should be prohibited everywhere. And furthermore, there is an additional problem with this explanation: Although the Sages prohibited sounding a shofar and playing other musical instruments on Shabbat, by Torah law sounding a shofar is not a prohibited labor on Shabbat such that a verse is necessary to exclude it when Rosh HaShana occurs on Shabbat.

讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪诇讗讻转 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 讬爪转讛 转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讜专讚讬讬转 讛驻转 砖讛讬讗 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪诇讗讻讛

The Gemara cites a proof for this last claim: As a Sage of the school of Shmuel taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse that prohibits performing prohibited labor on Festivals: 鈥淎ny prohibited labor of work you shall not perform鈥 (Numbers 29:1). This comes to exclude from the category of prohibited labors the sounding of the shofar and the removal of bread from the oven, each of which is a skill and not a labor, and therefore they are not included in the category of prohibited labor. Apparently, sounding the shofar is not prohibited by Torah law.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝讜专 讘讬讛 讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诇谞讜 讘讬讚讜 讜讬诇讱 讗爪诇 讛讘拽讬 诇诇诪讜讚 讜讬注讘讬专谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Rather, Rava said: By Torah law one is permitted to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana even on Shabbat, and it was the Sages who decreed that it is prohibited. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba said: All are obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana, but not all are experts in sounding the shofar. Therefore, the Sages instituted a decree that the shofar should not be sounded on Shabbat, lest one take the shofar in his hand and go to an expert to learn how to sound it or to have him sound it for him, and due to his preoccupation he might carry it four cubits in the public domain, which is a desecration of Shabbat.

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讜诇讘 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪讙讬诇讛

The Gemara comments: And this is also the reason for the rabbinical decree that the palm branch [lulav] may not be taken on Shabbat, and this is likewise the reason for the decree that the Megilla of Esther may not be read on Shabbat. The Sages were concerned that one might carry the lulav or the Megilla four cubits in the public domain to take it to an expert who will teach him the proper manner to perform these mitzvot.

诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻注诐 讗讞转 讞诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讜讛讬讜 讻诇 讛注专讬诐 诪转讻谞住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 诇讘谞讬 讘转讬专讛 谞转拽注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讚讜谉

搂 The mishna taught: After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the people should sound the shofar even on Shabbat in every place where there is a court of twenty-three judges. The background to this decree is related in greater detail in a baraita, as the Sages taught: Once Rosh HaShana occurred on Shabbat, and all the cities gathered at the Great Sanhedrin in Yavne for the Festival prayers. Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said to the sons of Beteira, who were the leading halakhic authorities of the generation: Let us sound the shofar, as in the Temple. They said to him: Let us discuss whether or not this is permitted.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 谞转拽注 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讚讜谉 诇讗讞专 砖转拽注讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讚讜谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻讘专 谞砖诪注讛 拽专谉 讘讬讘谞讛 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪注砖讛

He said to them: First let us sound it, and afterward, when there is time, let us discuss the matter. After they sounded the shofar, the sons of Beteira said to Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai: Let us now discuss the issue. He said to them: The horn has already been heard in Yavne, and one does not refute a ruling after action has already been taken. There is no point in discussing the matter, as it would be inappropriate to say that the community acted erroneously after the fact.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗诇讗 讘讬讘谞讛 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讞讚 讬讘谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗

搂 The mishna further stated that Rabbi Elazar said: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted this practice only in Yavne. They said to him: He instituted the practice both in Yavne and in any place where there is a court. The Gemara asks: This last statement of the Rabbis: They said to him, etc.; is the same as the opinion of the first tanna of the mishna. Why did the mishna repeat this opinion?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚讗拽专讗讬

The Gemara answers: The practical difference between the opinion of the first tanna and the opinion of the Rabbis who issued that last statement is with regard to a temporary court, i.e., one that is not fixed in a certain place. According to the opinion of the first tanna, the shofar is sounded there as well, whereas according to the opinion of the Rabbis who responded to Rabbi Elazar, the shofar is sounded only in a place where there is a permanent court, similar to that in Yavne.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讞讚 讬讘谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

搂 The mishna taught that they said to him: He instituted the practice both in Yavne and in any place where there is a court. Rav Huna said:

Scroll To Top