Torah Community Connections

Week 41 - Thursday - 7 September 2000

ROSH HASHANAH: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 6

A shofar that split, and was stuck together, is unfit. If a person joined pieces of shofarot, it is unfit. If it was pierced and he stopped it up, if it hinders the blowing - it is unfit, but if not - it is fit.

Kehati

A shofar that split - lengthwise (a baraita quoted in the Gemara), was stuck together - with glue, or by heating in a fire, - the shofar, is unfit - according to Rashi, the shofar was split into two pieces; according to Tosafot, however, the same applies if it split along the entire length of one side. According to Rabbeinu Yehonatan, even if there is a small lengthwise crack, the shofar is unfit because the blowing will cause the crack to increase, and the shofar is regarded as already entirely split. If it is cracked breadthwise, a baraita teaches: If the minimum size of a shofar remains, it is fit; and if not, it is unfit. And what is the minimum size for blowing? If on holding it in his hand it is visible on either side of his hand. The Sages determined that this length is one tefah.

If a person joined pieces of shofarot - if a shofar broke breadthwise into two or three pieces, but none of them has the minimum size of a shofar, and it was joined together into one shofar, it - the shofar, is unfit - if, however, one of the pieces has the minimum size, the joining together of the pieces does not invalidate the shofar. According to one opinion, even if one, or even each of the pieces, has the minimum size for blowing, since he joined the pieces together, and as a result the sound is emitted by all of them, it is unfit for the Torah states "shofar," one and not two or three shofarot (Hameiri). If it was pierced - there was a hole in the shofar,

And he stopped it up - the Gemara explains that he stopped it up with its own kind, i.e., with a piece from the type of a shofar: if it - the hole, hinders the blowing - the shofar could not be sounded when it was pierced, it - the shofar, is unfit - for the stoppage makes possible the sounding of the shofar; but if not - if the hole did not hinder the blowing, and it is therefore not through the stoppage that the sound of the shofar can be produced, though it improved the sound, it - the shofar,

Is fit - Rambam interprets this as follows: "if it prevents the blowing" - if the filling hinders the blowing, e.g., the sound became weaker because of it, then, since it was not properly done, it does not become part of the shofar, and the shofar is therefore unfit. "And if not" - if the filling does not interfere with the blowing, because the filling is flawless and the sound is perfect, as before, then the filling has become part of the shofar, and the shofar is fit for blowing it on Rosh Hashanah. Most commentators, however, follow the first interpretation.

ROSH HASHANAH: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 7

If a person blows into a bor, or into a dut, or into a pitam: if he heard the sound of the shofar - he fulfilled, but if he heard an indistinct sound - he did not fulfill. And similarly, if a person passed behind a synagogue, or his house was close to the synagogue, and he heard the sound of the shofar or the reading of the Megillah: if he directed his mind - he fulfilled, but if not - he did not fulfill, and though this one heard and that one heard, this one directed his mind and that one did not direct his mind.

Kehati

After the preceding mishnah taught the law of the faulty shofar, this mishnah teaches the law of garbled sounds which issue from a fit shofar.

If a person blows - the shofar - into a bor - an unfenced hole in the ground, or into a dut - a cellar-like pit surrounded by cement walls (Rashbam on B. B. 64a); according to another interpretation, a dut is a walled-in area, on ground level (Rashi; Rambam; Bartenura), or into a pitam - another version reads, "ha-pitas," which is a large earthenware barrel. Rav Hai Gaon explains that this mishnah was taught during a period of anti-Jewish persecutions, when people were afraid to blow the shofar publicly, and they would hide in pits and caves and blow there; Rambam interprets similarly that he stood inside a bor or a dut and blew,

If he heard the sound of the shofar - the sound of the shofar was clear, without any interfering sound or echo, he fulfilled - his obligation, but if he heard an indistinct sound - a kind of echo of the sound, he did not fulfill - i.e., whoever hears the sound of the shofar from a person blowing into a bor, the dut, or the pitam has fulfilled his obligation only if he is certain that he heard the sound of the shofar and not an echo-like sound. The Gemara elaborates that the people standing inside the bor or the dut definitely hear the sound of the shofar and fulfill their obligation; the mishnah, however, deals with the person who stands outside, or even on the edge of the bor, and it teaches that in such a case a distinction must be made between the sound of the shofar itself and an echo-like sound: if they heard the sound of the shofar, they have fulfilled their obligation, but if they heard an echo-like sound, they have not fulfilled their obligation. Similarly, Rambam writes: "If a person blows into a bor, or into a cave, those who stand inside the bor and the cave have fulfilled their obligation, but those who stand outside - if they heard the sound of the shofar - they fulfilled, and if they heard an indistinct sound - they did not fulfill" (Hil. shofar 1:8). Rabbeinu Asher, however, holds that one cannot distinguish between the sound of the shofar, and its echo. He therefore interprets this mishnah as follows: "if he heard the sound of the shofar" - i.e., he stood within the bor, and therefore he undoubtedly heard the sound of the shofar - "he fulfilled. But if he heard an indistinct sound" - i.e., he stood at the edge of the bor, and consequently heard only an indistinct sound, "he did not fulfill." Most commentators explain, however, that the fulfillment of the obligation depends upon the distinction made by the person, as explained above.

And similarly, if a person passed behind a synagogue, or his house was close to the synagogue, and he heard the sound of the shofar - on Rosh Hashanah, or the reading of the Megillah - the Book of (Megillat) Esther, on Purim: if he directed his mind - to fulfill his obligation by hearing it, he fulfilled - even though the person who blew the shofar or who read the Megillah on Purim did not have in mind to do so on his behalf, for he neither saw him nor knew of him, nevertheless, since he is the shaliah tzibur (the person conducting the service), he has in mind to fulfill the duty on behalf of all those listening; therefore, any person who directed his mind to fulfill his obligation has complied with his duty, but if not - if he did not direct his mind to fulfill, he did not fulfill - his obligation, and though this one heard and that one heard - there is a difference between this one's hearing and the other one's hearing, for this one directed his mind and that one did not direct his mind - the person who hears and directs his heart, fulfills his obligation; the person who hears and does not direct his heart, does not fulfill his obligation.

This interpretation of the mishnah implies that the obligation of shofar requires the intention of complying with the law, and the obligation of Megillah, i.e., a person must direct his mind in order to fulfill his obligation regarding this commandment. Hence, some Rabbis in the Gemara learn that the performance of all commandments requires intention of compliance. According to another opinion, the performance of the commandments does not require intention of compliance and "if he directed his mind" does not mean, intended to fulfill his obligation, but rather, to hear the sound of the shofar or to hear the reading of the Megillah. Regarding the wording of the last section of the mishnah, "And similarly, if a person passed…," Tosefot Yom Tov writes that the Tanna equated the case in the last section with the case in the first, because in both cases the person producing the sound and the hearer are in different places. According to Tiferet Yisrael, the reason is that in both cases there is a distinction between the two types of hearing, by one of which one fulfills his obligation, while by the other type, one does not. There are, however, versions of the mishnah which do not read, "And similarly."

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives