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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 11, 2021 | 讝壮 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 33

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Judy Tychman Shapiro in loving memory of her father, Albert Tychman and her mother-in-law, Margaret Shapiro in the hopes that 鈥渢he efforts at Torah learning and Tzedaka by their children and grandchildren are helping to raise up their neshamot.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is also sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel in loving memory of her sister Ruth Lewis – Rachel bat Berel haLevi. May her memory be blessed.

One is not allowed to do something that is forbidden on Yom Tov in order to blow the shofar, even if it is only a rabbinic prohibition. Children are not prevented from blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah to practice. From this statement, it is possible to derive that women would be prevented as they are not obligated to blow the shofar as it is a time-bound commandment. However, this contradicts a braita which says one can also not prevent them from practicing. Resolution of the contradiction: This is a matter of controversy between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yossi regarding women and smicha, leaning on the animal before slaughtering for a sacrifice 鈥 Rabbi Yehuda does not permit, but Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon do. 聽The debate related to all time-bound positive commandments that women are exempt from. If they can fulfill the mitzva, can they also make a blessing? This is a source of debate among the rishonim. Why nowadays is it viewed as if it鈥檚 an obligation on women as well, even though it seems clear here they are not obligated? Are kids not prevented from blowing, but also not encouraged? A different source says we encourage them to practice. How is this resolved? The Gemara derives other laws from the Mishna relating to intent by shofar blowing and then raises questions from the derivation. How many shofar blasts are necessary? How long are the blasts? What is the sound of the tru鈥檃 – is there a dispute whether it is three wails or three moans? Why do you use the shofar? And why should a teki鈥檃 be blown before and after each tru鈥檃?

讜讗讬谉 讞讜转讻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讜讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转注砖讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 诪讙诇讗 诇讗 转注砖讛 住讻讬谞讗

搂 The mishna stated: One may not cut the shofar if it needs to be prepared, neither with an object that is prohibited due to a rabbinic decree nor with an object that may not be used due to a Torah prohibition. The Gemara explains: An example of an object prohibited due to a rabbinic decree is a sickle, which is not ordinarily used for preparing a shofar; an example of an object that may not be used due to a prohibition by Torah law is a knife.

讛砖转讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讗诪专转 诇讗 诇讗 转注砖讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 讝讜 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讝讜 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: Now that you have said that to sound the shofar one may not perform an action that is prohibited due to rabbinic law, is it necessary to say that one may not perform an action that violates a prohibition by Torah law? The Gemara answers: The mishna teaches employing the style: This, and it is unnecessary to say that.

讗讘诇 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讬转谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 讗讜 讬讬谉 讬转谉 诪讬诐 讗讜 讬讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 诇讗

搂 The mishna continues. However, if one wishes to place water or wine into the shofar on Rosh HaShana, so that it should emit a clear sound, he may place it. The Gemara infers: Water or wine, yes, one may insert these substances into a shofar. However, urine, whose acidity is good for the shofar, no.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诪讬诐 讗讜 讬讬谉 诪讜转专 讻讚讬 诇爪讞爪讞讜 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 讛讻讘讜讚

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: With regard to water or wine, one is permitted to pour these liquids into a shofar on Rosh HaShana in order to make its sound clear. However, with regard to urine, one is prohibited to do so due to the respect that must be shown to the shofar. Although urine is beneficial, it is disrespectful to place it in a shofar, which serves for a mitzva.

讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪诇转拽讜注 讛讗 谞砖讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讗转 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪诇转拽讜注 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

搂 The mishna further teaches: One need not prevent children from sounding the shofar on Rosh HaShana. The Gemara infers: If women wish to sound the shofar, one indeed prevents them from doing so. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one does not prevent women or children from sounding the shofar on a Festival? The Gemara answers that Abaye said: This is not difficult: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, while that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon.

讚转谞讬讗 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 住讜诪讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 住讜诪讻讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞砖讬诐 住讜诪讻讜转 专砖讜转

As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel鈥and he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:2鈥4). The phrase 鈥渃hildren of Israel鈥 literally means sons of Israel, and this teaches that the sons of Israel place their hands upon offerings, but the daughters of Israel do not place their hands upon offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: It is optional for women to place their hands on the head of an offering before it is slaughtered, although they are not obligated to do so. Apparently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, if a woman wishes to perform any mitzva that is not obligatory for her, she is permitted to do so. Here too, one does not prevent a woman from sounding the shofar.

讗讘诇 诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讛诐 注讚 砖讬诇诪讚讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讛谉 注讚 砖讬诇诪讚讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪诇转拽讜注 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

搂 The mishna further states: Rather, one occupies himself with them, encouraging and instructing children, until they learn how to sound it properly. Rabbi Elazar said: This applies even when Rosh HaShana occurs on Shabbat. This is also taught in a baraita: One occupies himself with children until they learn to sound the shofar properly, even on Shabbat. And one does not prevent the children from sounding the shofar on Shabbat, and needless to say one does not prevent them on the festival of Rosh HaShana that occurs on a weekday.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讛谉 注讚 砖讬诇诪讚讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讗诇诪讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 转拽注讜 讜讛讚专 转谞讗 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 注讻讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讬谉 讛讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 转拽注讜

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, i.e., there is an internal contradiction in the baraita. You said that one occupies himself with the children until they learn how to sound the shofar, and this applies even on Shabbat. Apparently, we say to them ab initio: Sound the shofar. And then the baraita taught: One does not prevent them from sounding the shofar, which indicates that although one does not prevent them from sounding it, we do not say ab initio: Sound it.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult. Here,

讘拽讟谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 讻讗谉 讘拽讟谉 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱

in the first clause, the baraita is dealing with a minor who has reached the age of training in mitzvot. This child is taught to sound the shofar, as one is obligated to teach him the proper way to perform mitzvot. However, here, in the second clause, the baraita is dealing with a minor who has not yet reached the age of training. Although one need not prevent this child from sounding the shofar, one does not encourage him to do so.

讜讛诪转注住拽 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讗 转讜拽注 诇砖讬专 讬爪讗 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛转讜拽注 诇砖讬专 讬爪讗 讚诇诪讗 转讜拽注 诇砖讬专 谞诪讬 诪转注住拽 拽专讬 诇讬讛

搂 The mishna taught: One who acts unawares while sounding the shofar, without any intention to produce a sound, has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara infers: One who sounds a shofar for music, even if he has no intention to perform the mitzva, has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: Let us say that the mishna supports the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: One who sounds a shofar for music has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara rejects this suggestion. There is no clear proof from here, as perhaps one who sounds a shofar for music is also called one who acts unawares. It is possible that the tanna of the mishna includes in this category anyone who sounds the shofar without a clear intention to fulfill the mitzva.

讜讛砖讜诪注 诪谉 讛诪转注住拽 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗讘诇 讛砖讜诪注 诪谉 讛诪砖诪讬注 诇注爪诪讜 诪讗讬 讬爪讗 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇砖诪注讬讛 讗讬讻讜讜谉 讜转拽注 诇讬

搂 The mishna continues. And one who hears the shofar blasts from one who acts unawares has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: However, one who hears the shofar blasts from one who is sounding the shofar for himself, without intention of sounding it for others, what is the halakha? The mishna apparently indicates that he has fulfilled his obligation. Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said to his attendant: Have the intention to sound the shofar on my behalf and sound it for me. This statement indicates that one must have the intention to enable the one who hears it to fulfill his obligation.

讚诇诪讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诪转注住拽 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 诪转注住拽

The Gemara rejects this argument. Perhaps one can explain that since the first clause of the mishna taught the halakha with regard to one who acts unawares, the latter clause also taught the halakha with regard to one who acts unawares. If so, no inference may be drawn from here to the case of one who sounds the shofar for himself, with no intention of doing so for others.

诪转谞讬壮 住讚专 转拽讬注讜转 砖诇砖 砖诇 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 砖讬注讜专 转拽讬注讛 讻砖诇砖 转专讜注讜转 砖讬注讜专 转专讜注讛 讻砖诇砖 讬讘讘讜转 转拽注 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诪砖讱 讘砖谞讬讛 讻砖转讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讗诇讗 讗讞转

MISHNA: The order of the blasts is three sets of three blasts each, which are: Tekia, terua, and tekia. The length of a tekia is equal to the length of three teruot, and the length of a terua is equal to the length of three whimpers. If one sounded the first tekia of the initial series of tekia, terua, tekia, and then extended the second tekia of that series to the length of two tekiot, so that it should count as both the second tekia of the first set and the first tekia of the second set, he has in his hand the fulfillment of only one tekia, and he must begin the second set with a new tekia.

诪讬 砖讘讬专讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转诪谞讛 诇讜 砖讜驻专 转讜拽注 讜诪专讬注 讜转讜拽注 砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐

With regard to one who recited the blessings of the additional prayer, and only afterward a shofar became available to him, he sounds a tekia, sounds a terua, and sounds a tekia, an order he repeats three times.

讻砖诐 砖砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 讞讬讬讘 讻讱 讻诇 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛专讘讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉

Just as the prayer leader is obligated in the prayer of Rosh HaShana, so too, each and every individual is obligated in these prayers. Rabban Gamliel disagrees and says: Individuals are not obligated, as the prayer leader fulfills the obligation on behalf of the many.

讙诪壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讬注讜专 转拽讬注讛 讻转专讜注讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 转拽讬注讛 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讘讘讬 讜转专讜注讜转 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讘讘讬 转谞讗 讘专讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讞讚 讘讘讗 讜转讜 诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty. Although the mishna taught that the length of a tekia is equal to the length of three teruot, isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the length of a single tekia is equal to the length of an entire terua, which is comprised of several shorter sounds? Abaye said: There is no difficulty. The tanna of our mishna counts the tekia of all the sets of blasts and the teruot of all the sets. He means that the length of the three tekiot is equal to the length of the three teruot. Conversely, the tanna of the baraita counts the first tekia of only one set, and no more, and therefore he simply states that the length of one tekia is equal to the length of one terua.

砖讬注讜专 转专讜注讛 讻砖诇砖 讬讘讘讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讬注讜专 转专讜注讛 讻砖诇砖讛 砖讘专讬诐

搂 The mishna continues. The length of a terua is equal to the length of three whimpers. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the length of a terua is equal to the length of three shevarim, i.e., broken blasts, which presumably are longer than whimpers?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讛讗 讜讚讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讻转讬讘 讬讜诐 转专讜注讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讜诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 讬讜诐 讬讘讘讗 讬讛讗 诇讻讜谉 讜讻转讬讘 讘讗讬诪讬讛 讚住讬住专讗 讘注讚 讛讞诇讜谉 谞砖拽驻讛 讜转讬讘讘 讗诐 住讬住专讗 诪专 住讘专 讙谞讜讞讬 讙谞讞 讜诪专 住讘专 讬诇讜诇讬 讬诇讬诇

Abaye said: In this matter, the tanna鈥檌m certainly disagree. Although the first baraita can be reconciled with the mishna, this second baraita clearly reflects a dispute. As it is written: 鈥淚t is a day of sounding [terua] the shofar to you鈥 (Numbers 29:1), and we translate this verse in Aramaic as: It is a day of yevava to you. And to define a yevava, the Gemara quotes a verse that is written about the mother of Sisera: 鈥淭hrough the window she looked forth and wailed [vateyabev], the mother of Sisera鈥 (Judges 5:28). One Sage, the tanna of the baraita, holds that this means moanings, broken sighs, as in the blasts called shevarim. And one Sage, the tanna of the mishna, holds that it means whimpers, as in the short blasts called teruot.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讘砖讜驻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛注讘专转 砖讜驻专 转专讜注讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the soundings of Rosh HaShana must be performed with a shofar? The verse states: 鈥淭hen you shall make proclamation with the blast of the shofar on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement you shall make proclamation with the shofar throughout all your land鈥 (Leviticus 25:9).

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讬讜讘诇 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 讛砖讘讬注讬 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 讛砖讘讬注讬 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 讛砖讘讬注讬 砖讬讛讬讜 讻诇 转专讜注讜转 砖诇 讞讚砖 砖讘讬注讬 讝讛 讻讝讛

From this I have derived the halakha only with regard to Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year. From where do I derive that the soundings of Rosh HaShana must also be with a shofar? The verse states: 鈥淥f the seventh month.鈥 Since there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淥f the seventh month,鈥 as it already states: 鈥淥n the Day of Atonement,鈥 what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淥f the seventh month鈥? This comes to teach that all the obligatory soundings of the seventh month must be similar to one another.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖驻砖讜讟讛 诇驻谞讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛注讘专转 砖讜驻专 转专讜注讛 讜诪谞讬谉 砖驻砖讜讟讛 诇讗讞专讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注讘讬专讜 砖讜驻专

This verse states: 鈥淭he blast [terua] of the shofar,鈥 indicating that one must sound a terua. The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that the terua sound is preceded by a straight blast, i.e., a tekia? The verse states: 鈥淭hen you shall make proclamation with the blast of the shofar [shofar terua]鈥 (Leviticus 25:9), indicating that the terua must be preceded by the basic sound of a shofar, i.e., by the straight blast of a tekia. And from where is it derived that the terua sound is followed by a straight blast? The same verse states again: 鈥淵ou shall make proclamation with the shofar,鈥 which indicates that there must be another tekia after the terua.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讬讜讘诇 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 讛砖讘讬注讬

The baraita continues. From this I have derived the halakha only that these tekia blasts before and after the terua must be sounded on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year. From where do I derive that they must be sounded on Rosh HaShana as well? The verse states: 鈥淥f the seventh month.鈥

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Rosh Hashanah 33

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Rosh Hashanah 33

讜讗讬谉 讞讜转讻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讜讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转注砖讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 诪讙诇讗 诇讗 转注砖讛 住讻讬谞讗

搂 The mishna stated: One may not cut the shofar if it needs to be prepared, neither with an object that is prohibited due to a rabbinic decree nor with an object that may not be used due to a Torah prohibition. The Gemara explains: An example of an object prohibited due to a rabbinic decree is a sickle, which is not ordinarily used for preparing a shofar; an example of an object that may not be used due to a prohibition by Torah law is a knife.

讛砖转讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讗诪专转 诇讗 诇讗 转注砖讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 讝讜 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讝讜 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: Now that you have said that to sound the shofar one may not perform an action that is prohibited due to rabbinic law, is it necessary to say that one may not perform an action that violates a prohibition by Torah law? The Gemara answers: The mishna teaches employing the style: This, and it is unnecessary to say that.

讗讘诇 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讬转谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 讗讜 讬讬谉 讬转谉 诪讬诐 讗讜 讬讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 诇讗

搂 The mishna continues. However, if one wishes to place water or wine into the shofar on Rosh HaShana, so that it should emit a clear sound, he may place it. The Gemara infers: Water or wine, yes, one may insert these substances into a shofar. However, urine, whose acidity is good for the shofar, no.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诪讬诐 讗讜 讬讬谉 诪讜转专 讻讚讬 诇爪讞爪讞讜 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 讛讻讘讜讚

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: With regard to water or wine, one is permitted to pour these liquids into a shofar on Rosh HaShana in order to make its sound clear. However, with regard to urine, one is prohibited to do so due to the respect that must be shown to the shofar. Although urine is beneficial, it is disrespectful to place it in a shofar, which serves for a mitzva.

讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪诇转拽讜注 讛讗 谞砖讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讗转 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪诇转拽讜注 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

搂 The mishna further teaches: One need not prevent children from sounding the shofar on Rosh HaShana. The Gemara infers: If women wish to sound the shofar, one indeed prevents them from doing so. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one does not prevent women or children from sounding the shofar on a Festival? The Gemara answers that Abaye said: This is not difficult: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, while that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon.

讚转谞讬讗 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 住讜诪讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 住讜诪讻讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞砖讬诐 住讜诪讻讜转 专砖讜转

As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel鈥and he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:2鈥4). The phrase 鈥渃hildren of Israel鈥 literally means sons of Israel, and this teaches that the sons of Israel place their hands upon offerings, but the daughters of Israel do not place their hands upon offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: It is optional for women to place their hands on the head of an offering before it is slaughtered, although they are not obligated to do so. Apparently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, if a woman wishes to perform any mitzva that is not obligatory for her, she is permitted to do so. Here too, one does not prevent a woman from sounding the shofar.

讗讘诇 诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讛诐 注讚 砖讬诇诪讚讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讛谉 注讚 砖讬诇诪讚讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪诇转拽讜注 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

搂 The mishna further states: Rather, one occupies himself with them, encouraging and instructing children, until they learn how to sound it properly. Rabbi Elazar said: This applies even when Rosh HaShana occurs on Shabbat. This is also taught in a baraita: One occupies himself with children until they learn to sound the shofar properly, even on Shabbat. And one does not prevent the children from sounding the shofar on Shabbat, and needless to say one does not prevent them on the festival of Rosh HaShana that occurs on a weekday.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讛谉 注讚 砖讬诇诪讚讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讗诇诪讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 转拽注讜 讜讛讚专 转谞讗 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 注讻讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讬谉 讛讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 转拽注讜

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, i.e., there is an internal contradiction in the baraita. You said that one occupies himself with the children until they learn how to sound the shofar, and this applies even on Shabbat. Apparently, we say to them ab initio: Sound the shofar. And then the baraita taught: One does not prevent them from sounding the shofar, which indicates that although one does not prevent them from sounding it, we do not say ab initio: Sound it.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult. Here,

讘拽讟谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 讻讗谉 讘拽讟谉 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱

in the first clause, the baraita is dealing with a minor who has reached the age of training in mitzvot. This child is taught to sound the shofar, as one is obligated to teach him the proper way to perform mitzvot. However, here, in the second clause, the baraita is dealing with a minor who has not yet reached the age of training. Although one need not prevent this child from sounding the shofar, one does not encourage him to do so.

讜讛诪转注住拽 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讗 转讜拽注 诇砖讬专 讬爪讗 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛转讜拽注 诇砖讬专 讬爪讗 讚诇诪讗 转讜拽注 诇砖讬专 谞诪讬 诪转注住拽 拽专讬 诇讬讛

搂 The mishna taught: One who acts unawares while sounding the shofar, without any intention to produce a sound, has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara infers: One who sounds a shofar for music, even if he has no intention to perform the mitzva, has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: Let us say that the mishna supports the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: One who sounds a shofar for music has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara rejects this suggestion. There is no clear proof from here, as perhaps one who sounds a shofar for music is also called one who acts unawares. It is possible that the tanna of the mishna includes in this category anyone who sounds the shofar without a clear intention to fulfill the mitzva.

讜讛砖讜诪注 诪谉 讛诪转注住拽 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗讘诇 讛砖讜诪注 诪谉 讛诪砖诪讬注 诇注爪诪讜 诪讗讬 讬爪讗 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇砖诪注讬讛 讗讬讻讜讜谉 讜转拽注 诇讬

搂 The mishna continues. And one who hears the shofar blasts from one who acts unawares has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: However, one who hears the shofar blasts from one who is sounding the shofar for himself, without intention of sounding it for others, what is the halakha? The mishna apparently indicates that he has fulfilled his obligation. Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said to his attendant: Have the intention to sound the shofar on my behalf and sound it for me. This statement indicates that one must have the intention to enable the one who hears it to fulfill his obligation.

讚诇诪讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诪转注住拽 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 诪转注住拽

The Gemara rejects this argument. Perhaps one can explain that since the first clause of the mishna taught the halakha with regard to one who acts unawares, the latter clause also taught the halakha with regard to one who acts unawares. If so, no inference may be drawn from here to the case of one who sounds the shofar for himself, with no intention of doing so for others.

诪转谞讬壮 住讚专 转拽讬注讜转 砖诇砖 砖诇 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 砖讬注讜专 转拽讬注讛 讻砖诇砖 转专讜注讜转 砖讬注讜专 转专讜注讛 讻砖诇砖 讬讘讘讜转 转拽注 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诪砖讱 讘砖谞讬讛 讻砖转讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讗诇讗 讗讞转

MISHNA: The order of the blasts is three sets of three blasts each, which are: Tekia, terua, and tekia. The length of a tekia is equal to the length of three teruot, and the length of a terua is equal to the length of three whimpers. If one sounded the first tekia of the initial series of tekia, terua, tekia, and then extended the second tekia of that series to the length of two tekiot, so that it should count as both the second tekia of the first set and the first tekia of the second set, he has in his hand the fulfillment of only one tekia, and he must begin the second set with a new tekia.

诪讬 砖讘讬专讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转诪谞讛 诇讜 砖讜驻专 转讜拽注 讜诪专讬注 讜转讜拽注 砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐

With regard to one who recited the blessings of the additional prayer, and only afterward a shofar became available to him, he sounds a tekia, sounds a terua, and sounds a tekia, an order he repeats three times.

讻砖诐 砖砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 讞讬讬讘 讻讱 讻诇 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛专讘讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉

Just as the prayer leader is obligated in the prayer of Rosh HaShana, so too, each and every individual is obligated in these prayers. Rabban Gamliel disagrees and says: Individuals are not obligated, as the prayer leader fulfills the obligation on behalf of the many.

讙诪壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讬注讜专 转拽讬注讛 讻转专讜注讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 转拽讬注讛 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讘讘讬 讜转专讜注讜转 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讘讘讬 转谞讗 讘专讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讞讚 讘讘讗 讜转讜 诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty. Although the mishna taught that the length of a tekia is equal to the length of three teruot, isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the length of a single tekia is equal to the length of an entire terua, which is comprised of several shorter sounds? Abaye said: There is no difficulty. The tanna of our mishna counts the tekia of all the sets of blasts and the teruot of all the sets. He means that the length of the three tekiot is equal to the length of the three teruot. Conversely, the tanna of the baraita counts the first tekia of only one set, and no more, and therefore he simply states that the length of one tekia is equal to the length of one terua.

砖讬注讜专 转专讜注讛 讻砖诇砖 讬讘讘讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讬注讜专 转专讜注讛 讻砖诇砖讛 砖讘专讬诐

搂 The mishna continues. The length of a terua is equal to the length of three whimpers. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the length of a terua is equal to the length of three shevarim, i.e., broken blasts, which presumably are longer than whimpers?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讛讗 讜讚讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讻转讬讘 讬讜诐 转专讜注讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讜诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 讬讜诐 讬讘讘讗 讬讛讗 诇讻讜谉 讜讻转讬讘 讘讗讬诪讬讛 讚住讬住专讗 讘注讚 讛讞诇讜谉 谞砖拽驻讛 讜转讬讘讘 讗诐 住讬住专讗 诪专 住讘专 讙谞讜讞讬 讙谞讞 讜诪专 住讘专 讬诇讜诇讬 讬诇讬诇

Abaye said: In this matter, the tanna鈥檌m certainly disagree. Although the first baraita can be reconciled with the mishna, this second baraita clearly reflects a dispute. As it is written: 鈥淚t is a day of sounding [terua] the shofar to you鈥 (Numbers 29:1), and we translate this verse in Aramaic as: It is a day of yevava to you. And to define a yevava, the Gemara quotes a verse that is written about the mother of Sisera: 鈥淭hrough the window she looked forth and wailed [vateyabev], the mother of Sisera鈥 (Judges 5:28). One Sage, the tanna of the baraita, holds that this means moanings, broken sighs, as in the blasts called shevarim. And one Sage, the tanna of the mishna, holds that it means whimpers, as in the short blasts called teruot.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讘砖讜驻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛注讘专转 砖讜驻专 转专讜注讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the soundings of Rosh HaShana must be performed with a shofar? The verse states: 鈥淭hen you shall make proclamation with the blast of the shofar on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement you shall make proclamation with the shofar throughout all your land鈥 (Leviticus 25:9).

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讬讜讘诇 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 讛砖讘讬注讬 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 讛砖讘讬注讬 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 讛砖讘讬注讬 砖讬讛讬讜 讻诇 转专讜注讜转 砖诇 讞讚砖 砖讘讬注讬 讝讛 讻讝讛

From this I have derived the halakha only with regard to Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year. From where do I derive that the soundings of Rosh HaShana must also be with a shofar? The verse states: 鈥淥f the seventh month.鈥 Since there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淥f the seventh month,鈥 as it already states: 鈥淥n the Day of Atonement,鈥 what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淥f the seventh month鈥? This comes to teach that all the obligatory soundings of the seventh month must be similar to one another.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖驻砖讜讟讛 诇驻谞讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛注讘专转 砖讜驻专 转专讜注讛 讜诪谞讬谉 砖驻砖讜讟讛 诇讗讞专讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注讘讬专讜 砖讜驻专

This verse states: 鈥淭he blast [terua] of the shofar,鈥 indicating that one must sound a terua. The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that the terua sound is preceded by a straight blast, i.e., a tekia? The verse states: 鈥淭hen you shall make proclamation with the blast of the shofar [shofar terua]鈥 (Leviticus 25:9), indicating that the terua must be preceded by the basic sound of a shofar, i.e., by the straight blast of a tekia. And from where is it derived that the terua sound is followed by a straight blast? The same verse states again: 鈥淵ou shall make proclamation with the shofar,鈥 which indicates that there must be another tekia after the terua.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讬讜讘诇 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 讛砖讘讬注讬

The baraita continues. From this I have derived the halakha only that these tekia blasts before and after the terua must be sounded on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year. From where do I derive that they must be sounded on Rosh HaShana as well? The verse states: 鈥淥f the seventh month.鈥

Scroll To Top