Tekias Shofar
[2] (halacha 647)
We learned in the previous halacha that as a matter of halacha one fulfills his obligation by hearing the sound of a shofar from a stolen shofar [ב]
Question: May one recite a bracha over blowing such a shofar?
Answer: On the words of the Mechaber1 that one fulfills his obligation with a stolen shofar, the Maharikash wrote in Erech Lechem: 'But one does not recite a bracha over it, and see siman 649, din 1.' And so wrote the Magen Avraham2: 'Nevertheless, one does not recite a bracha over it, and see the end of siman 691.'
But the Pri Chadash there wrote: 'The Maharikash, of blessed memory, wrote that just as we say below in siman 649 [se'if 1] regarding a stolen lulav — that even if he acquired it through a change he should not recite a bracha over it — so too is the law here. But it appears to me that just as we distinguish between a stolen lulav and a stolen shofar with regard to the obligation of the mitzvah, as we say in the Yerushalmi: what is the difference between lulav and what is the difference between shofar? There he fulfills [the mitzvah] with its body, here with its sound — meaning that the mitzvah of shofar is nothing other than the hearing, and there is no law of theft in a sound — so too one should distinguish with regard to the bracha. For there, regarding lulav, it is different, since he mentions the Name of Heaven over the taking, and therefore it is not fitting that he recite a bracha, even though with regard to the mitzvah, since it contains no mention of the Name of Heaven, he fulfills [it]; this is not so here, where the bracha is only over the hearing, and theft is not applicable to hearing, as we have written — hence it is entirely proper to recite a bracha over it in every case. So it appears to me3.
And the Alter Rebbe ruled4: 'Nevertheless, since the mitzvah came to him by means of theft, he should not recite a bracha over it5, as is the law of a mitzvah that comes through a transgression, which is explained in siman 11 and in siman 649 — see there'.
★ ★ ★
Question: After he has already stolen it, is there a heter to hear a stolen shofar lechatchilah?
Answer: The Bach wrote6: 'However, it appears that even where they despaired, lechatchilah he should not blow with it, for the implication of the poskim, who wrote without qualification that bedieved he has fulfilled his obligation but lechatchilah [he has not] — the implication is that one should not distinguish between where they despaired and where they did not despair'7.
And one may say that also because the fulfillment of the mitzvah is without reciting a bracha, it is [a matter of] bedieved, and one should not do so lechatchilah. See also the words of the Alter Rebbe8: 'Nevertheless, lechatchilah they should not search without hearing the bracha, for they are performing a mitzvah, and one should not perform a mitzvah without a bracha before it9'.
And the Sdei Chemed wrote10: 'But it needs to be understood why it was necessary to say that he does not recite a bracha over it, for lechatchilah he may not blow with it, as is understood from the words of the poskim who wrote that if he blew a stolen shofar he has fulfilled his obligation — which implies that lechatchilah he should not blow with it. If so, with regard to bedieved, a warning is not applicable, for what has been has been. And it is forced to say that their intent is that even one who does not heed the words of the Sages and takes it should at least not recite a bracha. Perhaps one may say that the practical difference is for one who hears the bracha of one who recites it over a stolen shofar unwittingly, that he should not answer amen to his bracha. And further, perhaps one may say that according to what we hold generally, that a time of pressing need is treated like bedieved — if so, if he has no shofar other than this stolen one, he should take it and not recite a bracha over it. So it appears to lean, and this requires examination, im yirtzeh Hashem.' However, it seems that the matter is explicit in the words of the Alter Rebbe11 with regard to matzah, where he wrote: 'Nevertheless (lechatchilah he should not fulfill his obligation with it, for the reason explained in siman 11; and if he has no other matzah, at least) he should not recite a bracha over it.' See also the Mateh Efraim12.
Notes:
1 OC siman 586:2 ↩
2 Ibid., s.k. 4 ↩
3 See Hilchos Chag BeChag (Karp), Yamim Nora'im, in Mishmeres Yamim Nora'im, siman 7 ↩
4 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 586:4 ↩
5 The Alter Rebbe did not explain explicitly whether one who hears from the thief blowing may recite a bracha. Seemingly one may say that since no transgression is being committed by him, he may recite a bracha; and it is unlike lulav, matzah, and tzitzis, for he is not using an object that must be returned, but rather hears a sound in which there is no theft, from another (the thief) who is committing the transgression. And this still requires examination ↩
6 OC siman 586; and he wrote only [where] they despaired. But see what the Pri Chadash wrote there: 'However, the matter is clear that even one who purchases a stolen shofar should not blow with it if he has another, for woe to this one whose defender has become his accuser, as we say regarding lulav in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of the chapter Lulav HaGazul.' And so wrote the Mateh Efraim, siman 586, in Elef LaMateh, s.k. 8, that even in a case where there was despair and a change of domain, where he does recite a bracha, nevertheless: *'Nevertheless, if he has another shofar he should not blow with this shofar, for woe to this one whose defender has become his accuser. Pri Chadash (and see there what he wrote regarding the Maharikash). And apart from that, he should not purchase it (when he has another shofar), so as not to strengthen the hands of transgressors'* ↩
7 And not like what is written in Amudei Eish, siman 6, as explained in the Sdei Chemed there ↩
8 Siman 432:9 ↩
9 And in the sefer Arba'as HaMinim (Winer), vol. 1, siman 649, os 7, he inferred this from the language of the Alter Rebbe in siman 454 (cited above), who wrote that nevertheless lechatchilah one should not fulfill his obligation, for the reason explained in siman 11 — and there it is written only that one should not recite a bracha. See also Ohr HaHalacha (Davidovitch), siman 11, Chidushim, os 6. And see Biur Halacha, siman 11:6, s.v. la'asosan ↩
10 Asifas Dinim, Ma'areches Rosh Hashanah, siman 2, os 30 (vol. 6, p. 2800) ↩
11 454:10 ↩
12 Siman 586, in Elef HaMagen, s.k. 7 ↩
[3] (Halacha 906)
In the coming days we will learn several minhogim and halachos connected with the approaching Yamim Noraim.
Question: What is the reason that alongside the baal tokea there is someone who calls out to him the order of the tekiah? (1)
Answer: The Rosh wrote in a responsum1: 'And regarding the fact that they call out to the tokea — it is a proper minhag, because the awe of the congregation is upon the tokea and he is flustered, so there is room to say that he might err, and it is not a hefsek, like 'gevil letorei''2.
And the Rama wrote3 in Darkei Moshe: 'It is customary that the chazan who leads shacharis calls out before the tokea, word by word, the order of the tekios, so that he not err in his blowing, and it is a fine minhag'.
And so too it is written in the Hagah in the Shulchan Aruch4: 'It is customary to call out before the tokea the order of the tekios word by word, so that he not err, and this is correct'.
However, apart from the concern of error, we find an additional reason, as the Shelah wrote5: 'It is customary to call out before the tokea, and to say: tekiah, shevarim, teruah, tekiah. And likewise with all the sounds. And it is a fine minhag, so that the tokea not err. However, there is also a secret in the matter, for the tekios arouse the hidden matters Above, and when the makri says 'tekiah', he should direct his intent to the secret of the tekiah. And likewise when he says 'shevarim' or 'teruah', he should direct his intent to their secrets. And in each and every order according to its secret. And upon this knowledge the tokea blows. Therefore the makri must be a great man, expert in the secrets, and a tzaddik. And the tokea performs the act of the tekiah upon the arousal of his mind, and this is effective even when the tokea himself is not expert in the secrets. And certainly it would be better if the tokea too were a master of the secrets; however, [if] not, this too is acceptable. And according to this, it is fitting that for the first tekiah as well the makri should say tekiah. And not as is customary, that the first tekiah the tokea begins on his own, for whatever it is possible to do in order to direct one's intent to the secrets, one must seek out and hasten to do'.
And the Magen Avraham wrote6: 'The first tekiah he should [also] call out before him7 (Shelah), see siman 128, se'if 13. Once they were unable to blow, and he turned the shofar over and recited ויהי נועם ("May the pleasantness [of the L-rd our G-d] be upon us") into it, and then they were able to blow (Mateh Moshe, Maharil). And it is good that the tokea should know how to direct his intent to the secrets, and if not, then at least the makri should know, and when he calls out he should direct his intent to the secrets (Shelah)'.
And the Mekor Chaim (Bachrach) wrote: 'It is correct that he should call out the first tekiah as well, if the tokea does not object lest he become flustered'. And he further wrote: 'He should be careful not to call out until the amen from the mouths of those answering is complete and the sound of the tekiah has finished, and likewise regarding the meyushav; and he should not blow until the voice of the makri has finished; and likewise the congregation in their answering — אשרי העם ('fortunate is the people')'.
And by way of derush, the Gaon Rav Shlomo Kluger wrote to explain8: 'משה ידבר והאלהים יעננו בקול ('Moshe would speak and G-d would answer him with a voice'). .. Hakadosh Baruch Hu showed them further how they should act in the matter of the tekios — that there should be two, one who calls out and one who blows, and through this the shofar is elevated more than if the tokea were blowing alone. And therefore, at first it says ויהי קול השופר הולך וחזק ('the sound of the shofar grew increasingly stronger'), but not exceedingly, and even so ויחרד כל העם אשר במחנה ('all the people who were in the camp trembled'); but afterward it says ויהי קול השופר הולך וחזק מאד ('the sound of the shofar grew exceedingly stronger'), more than it was at first — that is, משה ידבר, and he was the makri and the one arranging the tekios, ואלהים יעננו בקול, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu blows according to his speech; and therefore, through the two of them — Moshe's calling out and the tekios — the shofar became stronger than it had been at first, before Moshe was the makri, for then it was only a strong sound, and afterward it became exceedingly strong, because Moshe was the speaker and the makri. And also what the Magen Avraham wrote [ibid.], that at least the makri should direct his intent to the secrets, it appears that this is alluded to in that in one place it says9 יום תרועה יהיה לכם ('it shall be a day of teruah for you'), and in another place it is written10 זכרון תרועה מקרא קודש ('a remembrance of teruah, a holy convocation'), and the meaning is: behold, Chazal11 expounded יום תרועה יהיה לכם, and therefore the Torah hinted to us thus, that as for the tokea himself, יום תרועה יהיה לכם in any case, whether he is able to direct his intent to the secrets or not; but 'zikaron' — the makri who mentions the teruah with his mouth, this shall be a מקרא קודש, and he should direct his intent to the holiness within them. But in our many sins, there is none among us who knows how long, and we have none to rely upon but our Father in Heaven'.
If so, we have seen several reasons why the tekios must be called out to the baal tokea12, and that the first tekiah too must be called out.
In the coming halachos we will see who the makri is, and the words of the Alter Rebbe, and the Chabad minhag in practice.
--------------
Notes:
1 Klal 4, siman 18 ↩
2 The Gemara in Berachos 40a says: 'Rav Sheishes said: Even 'gevil letorei' [= even if a person said after the bracha, bring food for the animal] he need not recite a bracha again, for Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: It is forbidden for a person to eat before he gives food to his animal, as it says: ונתתי עשב בשדך לבהמתך ("I will give grass in your field for your animal") and then ואכלת ושבעת ("and you shall eat and be satisfied")'. And if so, there is no problem of hefsek in the makri saying the order of the tekios to the baal tokea' ↩
3 OC siman 585, os 2 ↩
4 OC siman 585, se'if 4 ↩
5 Maseches Rosh Hashanah, perek Ner Mitzvah ↩
6 Shulchan Aruch ibid., sk 11 ↩
7 However, the primary reason for calling out the first tekiah is as the Shelah writes, from the standpoint of kavanah; but note that some have written that the first tekiah should be called out from the standpoint of the concern of error as well, and in any event because of lo plug, and see Machatzis HaShekel and Pri Megadim on the Magen Avraham. But see Maamar Mordechai OC siman 592, sk 7: 'Now, according to all the explanations it appears to me that one must be careful that the makri not call out to the tokea the first tekiah, for regarding the first tekiah there is no concern of error, as was explained above in siman 128, se'if 13; and even according to the words of the Rama there, it appears that here is different, since one should not lechatchila make a hefsek between the bracha and the tekiah. But I have seen the Magen Avraham and the Acharonim, of blessed memory, above in siman 585, who wrote in the name of the Shelah that the first tekiah too should be called out before him'. And so too the Mishnah Berurah wrote in Shaar HaTziyun (siman 585, sk 31): 'In any event, in our case, in a place where there is no minhag, it is better not to call out for the first tekiah, so that there not be a hefsek for the makri' ↩
8 Chochmas Shlomo OC ibid., se'if 4 ↩
9 Bamidbar 29:1 ↩
10 Vayikra 23:24 ↩
11 Rosh Hashanah 29b ↩
12 And regarding bedieved, see Shu"t Siach Yitzchak siman 281: 'And regarding tekias shofar we have neither a Midrash nor a Gemara as a received tradition for what they were accustomed to do, to call out before the baal tokea; only that in Biurei HaGra (sk 15) there [siman 585], he seeks to compare this calling out to the calling out done for the kohanim. But an explicit Midrash or Gemara we do not have on this. Consequently, according to both reasons, bedieved they have fulfilled their obligation even if they did not call out before the baal tokea.' ↩
[4] (Halacha 907)
Question: Who should be the makri?
Answer: The Rema wrote in Darkei Moshe1: 'The minhag is that the chazzan who davens Shacharis calls out before the toke'a'.
Now, in the Shulchan Aruch the Rema did not mention who should do the calling out, but the Magen Avraham2 wrote: 'The one who davens Shacharis calls out to the toke'a (Darkei Moshe)'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe3: 'The minhag is that the one who davens Shacharis calls out the order of the tekios before the toke'a word by word, so that he should not err in his blasts; and it is a fine minhag; and see siman 590'.
But we saw in the previous halacha the words of the Shelah, that the reason for the calling out is also so that the one who calls out should have the kavanos in mind, and therefore he wrote: 'Therefore the makri must be a great man, expert in the secrets, and a tzaddik'.
And so it is written in the Siddur of the Arizal, Kol Yaakov: 'In any event, the one who arranges the tekios should be someone expert in these kavanos, and the toke'a should direct his intent according to the kavanah of the arranger, for he performs this act below in order to arouse the act above, in accordance with the kavanah of the arranger. Therefore the minhag of Yisroel is that the arranger is the Av Beis Din, or a sage who sits in the seat of wisdom; and at the very least he should be learned in Torah, practiced, of unblemished repute, and elderly, for he corresponds to Arich Anpin'.
And in the Siddur of the Yaavetz4 he wrote: 'And if the one who davens Shacharis is an expert, he takes precedence over another, unless there is a makri who certainly has the right of precedence'.
And the Pri Megadim5 wrote: 'The one who davens Shacharis is the one who calls out to the toke'a; see Eliyah Rabbah [ס"ק] 15 in the name of Darkei Moshe. And in a place where there is a moreh tzedek, he is the makri. The shliach tzibbur during the tefillah should not interrupt in order to call out; see there'.
And the Mateh Efraim6 wrote: 'The makri, the toke'a, and the shliach tzibbur who davens Mussaf — it is fitting for them to arouse themselves more with thoughts of teshuvah, since they become intermediaries between Him, may He be blessed, and the tzibbur. And they should be particular to seek out a toke'a who is worthy, a man of Torah and good deeds, as we wrote regarding the shliach tzibbur, and likewise the makri; and they should conduct themselves with abstinence and purity from anything that leads to tumas keri, G-d forbid, at least three days before Rosh Hashanah, and they should study the kavanah of the tefillos and of the tekios. And if no toke'a is found who has the spirit of G-d in him to direct his intent to the secrets of the tekios, it is fitting that the makri be one who knows, and at the time that he calls out before the toke'a he should have the kavanah in mind; and even though the kavanos are lengthy and it is impossible to have them all in mind while saying them, in an instant he should grasp the general matter in brief. And let him study the Shelah and the Siddur of the Gaon R. Yaakov Emden. And if no such man is found who has a grasp and a name in this wisdom, in any event one must choose the most understanding and wise man, the greatest and G-d-fearing. And it is fitting for the makri and the toke'a to study well the laws of the shofar and the order of the tekios, for sometimes, for one reason or another, an error falls in the mouth of the makri or through an oversight of the toke'a, and if he is not expert in the law as to what to do — whether to blow onward or to return to the beginning of the order — they will cry out against him in the beis midrash, as in the incident brought by the Rosh in the name of the Raavan, and this leads to confusion and to the bewildering of the mind of the toke'a and of the listeners. And the minhag everywhere that there is an Av Beis Din is that he is the makri'.
And Rabbi Hillel Lichtenstein wrote in Maskil El Dal7: 'And I recall (from my teacher, the Gaon, the leader of all the exile, the author of Chasam Sofer, of blessed memory) that he said in a witty manner: why is it that at the time of the shofar blasts specifically the rav of the city is the one who calls out to the toke'a, tekiah, teruah, tekiah? Surely another could also perform this service. Rather, the reason for the matter is that if one of the common people were the one calling out, and he would see the text of the tefillos (printed in the machzorim) with the names of the malachim, he would imagine in his mind that this alone is the reason and the foundation of the mitzvah of blowing the shofar, and that only in accordance with this kavanah should one call out to blow, because in his view one who does not blow in accordance with this kavanah has not fulfilled the mitzvos of shofar at all — and in truth my heart does not so imagine, for מי עמד בסוד ה' ("who has stood in the council of Hashem"), ואמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני ("I said, 'I will be wise,' but it is far from me"). For this reason the enactment was that the one calling out should be only the rav, who is a talmid chacham and who knows that all those texts with the names of the malachim are merely matters of little consequence and are not indispensable; and the essential kavanah of the mitzvah is: the Merciful One said, blow — the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded His children, fulfill the mitzvos of blowing; and only with this kavanah — namely, "Behold I am prepared and ready to fulfill the will of Hashem Yisborach, who said, blow" — does he call out to the toke'a; and that is the choicest kavanah, and there is no error in it. End of his golden words'.
And so wrote the Mishnah Berurah8: 'And in a place where there is a moreh tzedek, he is the makri'.
Thus we have seen that the practice is that there be a person who calls out the order of the tekios to the ba'al toke'a; and some have the minhag that this be the ba'al tefillah of Shacharis, and so wrote the Alter Rebbe; and some have the minhag that it be the rav or the moreh tzedek of that place.
In the next halacha we will see the practice of our Rebbeim, the Nesi'im, and the Chabad minhag regarding the makri.
Notes:
1 או"ח סי' תקפה אות ב ↩
2 שם ס"ק יא ↩
3 שו"ע שם ס"י ↩
4 דיני תקיעת שופר נצוץ ז אות טו ↩
5 או"ח שם משב"ז ס"ק ז ↩
6 סי' תקפה ס"ב ↩
7 ח"ד כלל ג פרט ב (דף כא, ב בשוה"ג) ↩
8 שם סי' תקפה ס"ק יח ↩
[5] (halacha 908)
In the previous halacha we saw the words of the Alter Rebbe1 who wrote: 'The custom is that the one who leads Shacharis calls out the order of the tekios before the ba'al tokea word by word so that he not err in his tekios, and it is a fine minhag'.
Question: What in practice is the Chabad minhag?
Answer: In the Chabad minhag we find a) that it was not the practice for the shliach tzibbur to be the makri. b) they do not call out verbally, but rather indicate with a finger in the siddur, as follows:
The Rebbe Rashab
The Rebbe Rayatz related on Rosh Hashanah 56952 that for a number of years he was the ba'al tokea and his father the Rebbe Rashab was the makri: 'Once the Rebbe נ"ע wanted that I should blow in one breath, and I did so in one set. Sometimes he wanted that I should blow five shevarim (and not four). And there were signs between us through which I understood his wish, as long as he did not remove his finger from the word I would draw out (the tekiah or the teruah)'.
A further testimony about the tekios by the Rebbe Rashab was related by R. Y. Chitrik3: 'The strong yeshiva bochurim held one another like a chain and a fence, so that people should not press close to the table and close to the Rebbe, and only a few of the elder chassidim and the ba'al makri (who was also the ba'al korei) were given permission to enter within the fence and the chain. The ba'al korei and the ba'al makri on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur were a chazakah for the ba'al magiah, the chassid R. Sholom Volosov .. and the makri only indicates with his finger the order of the tekios as they are printed in the machzor or in the siddur'.
The Rebbe Rayatz
Regarding Rosh Hashanah 5691 the Rebbe wrote4: 'R. Feivish Zalmanov נ"י blew. And my father-in-law the Rebbe שליט"א said the pesukim and the brochos. He did not call out - the tekios - verbally, only indicated with a finger in the siddur'5.
And so too the Rebbe wrote in the minhogim for Hayom Yom vol. 26: 'If for some reason the Rebbe is not the ba'al tokea, then he is the makri, but not verbally, rather by indicating with a finger in the siddur (and the ba'al tokea draws out his tekiah until [the makri removes his finger])'.
The Rebbe
In a diary from the year 57127 it is related: 'R. Mendel Tenenbaum blew the tekios, and the Rebbe שליט"א held his finger on the siddur, and when it was 'tekiah' he held his finger on the shevarim, 'shevarim' on the teruah etc., like a makri'.
And likewise in a diary from the year 57148 it is related: 'The Rebbe שליט"א blew only the first tekiah (as in the previous year), and afterwards gave it to R. Mendel שי' Tenenbaum, and he blew the rest of the tekios while the Rebbe שליט"א called out with his finger in the siddur'.
And likewise in a diary from Tishrei 57209 it is related that the Rebbe began to blow the shofar, but gave R. Tenenbaum to continue the tekios, and the Rebbe called out with a finger10.
Regarding our minhag, the Rebbe wrote to R. Chaim Noeh11: 'Concerning the makri of the tekios, that he wishes to explain that it is only indicating with a finger, which is only at the time when the Rebbe himself was the ba'al tokea. Surely it is known to him that in earlier years, for many, many years of the Rebbe Rashab the Rebbe was not the ba'al tokea but rather the makri, and likewise in the later years of my father-in-law the Rebbe, and they would call out only with a finger but not verbally'.
Also at the seudah of the first day of Rosh Hashanah 5729 the Rebbe addressed our minhag12, and said: 'The matter of the makri at the blowing of the shofar is mentioned explicitly in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, and in all the shuls of Chabad chassidim they practiced so. When I was in Rostov in the presence of my father-in-law the Rebbe, I saw for the first time tekios without a makri [=verbally]. Now, the concept of hiddur means that one adds and endeavors to add some particular secondary detail, or the like, but in this itself what hiddur is applicable? And if so it is difficult to say that this is on account of hiddur. Perhaps by the Rebbeim the negation of the matter of hefsek was of greater concern', R. Moshe Dovber Rivkin said to the Rebbe: 'One could say as the reason for the matter that by our Rebbeim there is no makri, because the matter of the makri is when the ba'al tokea does not know the kavanos properly and the makri knows them, whereas by our Rebbeim, who certainly knew the kavanos, there is no place at all for a makri?' The Rebbe answered him: 'It is impossible to accept this explanation, for I heard from my father-in-law the Rebbe that once he was the ba'al tokea, and his father the Rebbe Rashab נ"ע was the makri'.
And so it is written in Sefer HaMinhagim13: 'The makri of the tekios - indicates with his finger in the siddur but does not call out verbally'.
Therefore, in practice, according to our minhag the makri does not say it verbally but indicates with a finger, and they were not particular that the makri be the one who leads Shacharis.
Notes:
1 שו"ע או"ח סי' תקפה ס"י ↩
2 תו"מ רשימות היומן ע' שמז ↩
3 רשימת דברים ע' 356 ↩
4 תו"מ רשימות היומן ע' קנט ↩
5 וראה ג"כ סה"ש תש"ד ע' 3 וסה"ש התש"ה ע' 3 ↩
6 תו"מ רשימות היומן ע' תעה ↩
7 תשרי בליובאוויטש (יוזביץ) ע' 60 ↩
8 תשרי בליובאוויטש (גרנובטר) ע' 1 ↩
9 תשרי בליובאוויטש (יוזביץ) ע' 283 ↩
10 ביחס לשאר השנים: הרה"ח ר' שמואל לויטין הי' המקריא אצל הרבי כמה שנים עד פטירתו ביא אלול התשל"ד, ולאחמ"כ כמה שנים הרבי תקע בשופר בלי מקריא, עד יום ב' דר"ה התשל"ט, שאז הרבי רמז להר' מענדל טננבוים שיהי' המקריא (אוצר מנהגי חב"ד תשרי ע' קכ) ↩
11 אג"ק ח"ה ע' קט אות ג (צילומו נדפס בנודע בשיעורים ע' 438) ↩
12 המלך במסיבו ח"א ע' רלה - ו, תו"מ חנ"ד ע' 4 ↩
13 ע' 56 ↩
[6] (Halacha 909)
Question: Who is fit to be the baal tokea?
Answer: It is written in the Zohar1 with regard to the chazzan and the baal tokea of the Yomim Noraim: 'Rabbi Elazar said: I observed of my father, on the days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, that he did not wish to hear the tefillah of any person unless he had stood over him for three days beforehand, to purify him. For Rabbi Shimon would say thus: through the tefillah of this person whom I have purified, the world is atoned. And all the more so with the tekias shofar2 — that he would not accept the tekios of a person who is not wise enough to blow with the mystery of the tekiah'.
The words of the Zohar are cited in the Shelah3, and this is his language: 'For three days before Rosh Hashanah, and likewise before Yom Kippur, the shatz, and everyone selected from the congregation to daven or to blow, must separate themselves from every matter that brings one to tumah, and they require exceptional taharah. For so wrote the Zohar in parshas Vayikra, and this is its language: Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Abba were sitting. Rabbi Elazar said: I observed of my father, on the days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, that he did not wish to hear the tefillah of any person unless he had stood over him for three days beforehand, to purify him. For Rabbi Shimon would say thus: through the tefillah of this person whom I have purified, the world is atoned; and all the more so with the tekias shofar — that he would not accept the tekios of a person who is not wise enough to blow with the mystery of the tekiah; end of its language. Thus Rashbi did not wish to hear the tefillah from any man in the shul on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur unless he had examined him for three days before Yom Tov, testing him as to whether he was fitting to daven — both on account of his deeds and on account of his knowledge of the kavanah. And this is what is meant by 'unless he stood over him' etc. — the explanation being that he stood over him and knew his matter. Therefore the shatz or the tokea must be a complete baal teshuvah, and must also study the tefillah and the kavanah of the tekios exceedingly'.
And in Sefer Chassidim4 it is written: 'If there are two men in the city, one a tzaddik and one not a tzaddik, one fitting and one not fitting, who know how to blow the shofar, they should give the blowing to the fitting one — provided that there be no dispute over the matter. And the God-fearing would entrust their korbanos only to tzaddik kohanim'5.
[And note what the Tur6 wrote: 'So too there is a further minhag in Ashkenaz, that the great men of the city hasten to blow — whoever is more zealous in it — which is not the case in Sefarad, where they flee from the mitzvah, until they must hire someone from the marketplace to blow for them'].
The Ateres Zekeinim7 and the Alter Rebbe8 cited the Sefer Chassidim: 'And it is fitting to give the blowing to one who is a tzaddik and fitting, provided that there be no dispute over the matter'.
And the Mateh Efraim9 wrote: 'And they should be scrupulous to seek out a tokea who is fitting, a master of Torah and of good deeds, as we wrote regarding the shatz, and likewise the makri .. And if no tokea is found who has the spirit of God in him to direct the secrets of the tekios, it is fitting that the makri be one who knows .. And if no such man is found who has a grasp and a name in this wisdom, in any event one must choose the one who is most understanding and wise and God-fearing'. And he further wrote10: 'One who is able to blow well — it is a mitzvah upon him to blow for the tzibbur, to fulfill their obligation, even if there is another there who is simply not as expert as he; and the merit of the many depends upon him'.
And note the words of the Baal Shem Tov11 with regard to the baal tokea: 'The watchman who ascends the tower, when he sees something, then he blows the shofar. And you have ascended the tower of the shul — do you see all the accusers surrounding the Throne, that you should blow, as the early ones would see, to prune the tyrants, to cut off the thorns, etc. Therefore it is called Yom Teruah, an expression of knocking at the door (mokesh atra'a), like a pauper at the entrance knocking: "פתחי לי שערי צדק" ("Open for me the gates of righteousness"); "פתח לנו שערי רחמים כי בידך מפתח שערי רחמים" ("Open for us the gates of mercy, for in Your hand is the key to the gates of mercy"), "זה השער לה' צדיקים יבואו בו" ("This is the gate of Hashem, the righteous shall enter through it")'12.
And in the Levushei Mordechai13 he wrote: 'And since the tekios depend upon numerous halachos, it is obvious that the Rav, the Av Beis Din, is the more expert'.
If so, we have seen that it is fitting that the baal tokea be a tzaddik and a fitting person14, and as we saw in the previous halacha15, that our Rebbeim, our Nesi'im, blew the shofar.
--------------
Notes:
1 Vayikra 18, 1 ↩
2 And see Shu"t Keren LeDovid OC siman 22: 'And it is obvious that a baal tokea on Rosh Hashanah has the same law as a shatz who goes down before the amud, and whatever disqualifies a shatz disqualifies a baal tokea — and it is even more stringent than that, for he fulfills the obligation of the many in a positive Torah commandment, and he is the means for raising up the remembrance of Yisroel to our Father in Heaven' ↩
3 Maseches Rosh Hashanah, perek Ner Mitzvah ↩
4 siman 761 ↩
5 See Mekor Chessed, os 2 ↩
6 OC siman 585 ↩
7 OC siman 585, s"k 1 ↩
8 Shulchan Aruch there, se'if 3 ↩
9 siman 585, se'if 2 ↩
10 se'if 10 ↩
11 Kesser Shem Tov, os 419-2 ↩
12 Elef HaMagen siman 585, s"k 3: 'It is written in the sefer Reishis HaDaas, authored by R. M. Almosnino, and this is his language: The tokea or the one who davens on the Yomim Noraim, who do not know and do not understand what they are saying, and do not know the kavanah of the tefillah and of the tekios to draw down the flow of blessing from Above — he is comparable to the parable of the children who come to a tree full of fine fruits, pleasing to the sight and desirable to the eyes, and the child wishes to grasp the tree but he has no strength; but when a grown and mighty man comes, he grasps the tree in his hand and shakes it like a lulav in his hand, and the fruits fall to the ground. So too when an ignoramus comes to daven or to blow — what can he draw down of the flow from Above, since he is only like a child with respect to the kavanos, and does not know how to grasp the tree and to arouse and to direct with the kavanah of the tefillah and of the tekios. But when one comes who is mighty in Torah and in the wisdom of the kavanos and the secrets of the tefillos and the tekios, that man arouses and draws down the flow from Above for the entire tzibbur; see there' ↩
13 Shu"t, Mahadura Revi'i, siman 52 ↩
14 The Mishneh Halachos wrote (vol. 11, siman 479): 'Regarding your question, in a place where there are two baalei tekios — one who is expert in the tekios and blows without any mishap, but he is a simple man and does not know how to direct any kavanah at all in the tekios; and the second is a righteous man, great in Torah, who knows how to direct the kavanah and does direct the requisite kavanos, but he is not so expert in the tekios, and many times the sounds do not come out successfully and he must repeat them many times — which of them is preferable to go and hear from. And in my humble opinion it appears obvious, according to what the holy Shelah wrote, that it is good that the tokea know how to direct the secrets, and if not, then at least the makri should know, and when the makri directs the secrets, see there .. *And if so, in a place where the tokea is a simple man but at least the makri is a talmid chacham who knows how to direct the secrets, it is possible that the expert tokea is preferable; but if the makri too is not of that caliber, it is obvious that the tekios of the tzaddik are preferable, for it is obvious that one who is righteous and great will blow in accordance with the halacha* — and a hint to this matter: "ובשופר גדול יתקע" ("and a great shofar shall be sounded"), even when only a still small voice is heard. And if at times he must repeat until he blows well, what of it — for he too is acting in accordance with the halacha, since he is expert in its halachos, as is explained in Shulchan Aruch siman 590. And on the contrary, at times the simple man may possibly not even be acting in accordance with the halacha — for example, what is explained in Shulchan Aruch regarding one breath and two breaths, see there siman 590, se'if 4, and it depends on the variant texts and the like, and all of this requires great knowledge in this mitzvah .. And one may not rely on whoever it is who blows that he is doing it properly, for not everyone is expert in these halachos, even without the kavanos; and therefore certainly the tekios of one who is righteous and great are preferable' ↩
15 From Hayom Yom vol. 2 — Toras Menachem, Reshimos HaYoman p. 475 ↩
[7] (halacha 911)
Question: How must the makri and the tokea prepare?
Answer: The Shelah writes1: 'Therefore .. the tokea must be a complete baal teshuvah, and he should also study the tefillah and the kavanah of the tekios especially'.
And so writes the Mateh Ephraim2: 'The makri, the tokea, and the shatz who davens Mussaf — it is fitting for them to arouse themselves more with thoughts of teshuvah, since they become intermediaries between Him, may He be blessed, and the congregation .. and they should study the kavanah of the tefillos and the tekios .. and the makri and the tokea ought to study well the laws of the shofar and the order of the tekios, for sometimes, for some reason, an error falls in the mouth of the makri or through an unintentional slip of the tokea, and if he is not expert in the law as to what to do — whether to sound onward or to return to the beginning of the order — they will cry out against him in the beis midrash, as in the incident brought by the Rosh in the name of the Raavan, and this brings about confusion and bewilderment of mind for the tokea and the listeners'3.
And the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch writes4: 'And they should study, according to their ability, the meanings of the tefillos and the piyutim and the halachos of the tekios, and they should also study seforim of mussar that arouse a person's heart, and he should fear before the dread of Hashem and the splendor of His majesty when He arises to judge the earth'.
And the Mishnah Berurah5 writes: 'It is fitting that the shatz and the tokea be complete baalei teshuvah; it is also fitting that they study the kavanos of the tefillos and the tekios, and this is from the Zohar'6.
And in Sefer HaMinhogim7 it is written: 'The Rebbe, my father-in-law, would instruct the tokea to study, on the mornings of the days of Rosh Hashanah, the maamar "Lehavin Inyan Tekias Shofar" (which is in the Siddur)'.
And in the note there it is explained: 'The reason may simply be said to be that in this droshe the kavanos of the tekios are explained. — It is self-understood that this is in addition to the obligation to know the halachos of tekias shofar, as explained in the poskim'.
Accordingly, it is fitting for the baal tokea to study the halachos required for the tekios, as well as the kavanos of the tekios.
★ ★ ★
Question: Must the baal tokea wear a kittel?
Answer: The Mateh Ephraim writes8: 'There are places where the entire congregation has the minhag to wear the kittel on Rosh Hashanah, and many have the minhag that only the one who davens and the tokea wear a kittel'.
And he repeats his words9: 'And after the completion of the reading of the Sefer Torah, the tokea, the makri who calls out the order of tekios before him, and the shatz who davens Mussaf go to immerse, for the sake of additional purity. These go to immerse, while of the rest of the congregation, this one studies the explanation and kavanah of the tekios, this one learns, and this one says Tehillim, each according to what he is, and it all goes toward one intent: to unify their hearts in love and in fear and to arouse their hearts to complete teshuvah. And after their immersion they put on a kittel and go up to the bimah'.
However, the conduct of our Rebbeim, our Nesi'im, was that they sounded the shofar without a kittel, as is brought in Reshimas Devarim10 regarding the Rebbe Rashab: the tekios without a kittel.
Likewise, at the seudah of the day of Rosh Hashanah 5727,11 the Rebbe asked R. M. D. Rivkin: must the baal tokea wear a kittel? And he answered the Rebbe that the Rebbe Rashab and the Rebbe Rayatz did not wear one. The Rebbe said that if so, it is not understood why the chazan wears a kittel, for the mitzvah of the day is with the shofar, and if the baal tokea does not wear one, all the more so the chazan need not wear one. R. M. D. said that the baal tefillah in Lubavitch, R. Yechiel Halperin, did wear one. The Rebbe said that there is no proof from this that one must conduct oneself so, since the Rebbe Rashab would not involve himself in the balebatishkeit affairs of the shul, even in matters that were not to his liking. And the Rebbe added that according to the Alter Rebbe, that the reason for wearing a kittel on Yom Kippur is in order to resemble the ministering angels, if so there is no place for this on Rosh Hashanah.
And so too it is written in practice in Sefer HaMinhogim there: 'The kittel is not worn except on Yom Kippur'.
Accordingly, there are communities in which the baal tokea wears a kittel, but according to our minhag a kittel is not worn.
Notes:
1 Maseches Rosh Hashanah, Perek Ner Mitzvah ↩
2 Siman 585:2. And see there what he brings from the Shelah regarding separation for three days, (also brought in halacha number 908) ↩
3 Brought in the Mishnah Berurah, Siman 585 s.k. 18 ↩
4 Siman 128:11 ↩
5 Siman 581 s.k. 11 ↩
6 Regarding the kavanos of the tekios, it should be noted that besides the kavanos brought in the writings of the Arizal, there are kavanos (of the Arizal) that were printed in the name of the Baal Shem Tov and are brought in the Siddur im Dach in the addenda ↩
7 p. 56 ↩
8 Siman 584:3 ↩
9 Siman 585:1 ↩
10 p. 356 ↩
11 See HaMelech BiMesibo vol. 1 pp. 115-117. Toras Menachem vol. 48 p. 18 ↩
[8] (Halacha 912)
Question: Must the one who blew the tekios meyushav be the baal tokea for Mussaf?
Answer: It is written in Teshuvos HaGeonim1: 'Such is the minhag in Israel: the one who blows while the congregation is seated and who recites the brochos before the tekiah is the one who blows for the order of brochos while they are standing, and he does not need a bracha. And if the first one was prevented and could not blow the nine [tekios] over the brochos, and another came to blow them — since the first recited the bracha, the second need not recite a bracha, for he does not recite "asher kideshanu b'mitzvosav v'tzivanu litkoa" but rather "lishmoa kol shofar"; since he heard the bracha that the first recited while seated, he and all the people have already fulfilled the obligation of the bracha, and there is no need to repeat the bracha.'
And so wrote the Rambam2: 'The one who blows while they are seated is the one who blows for the order of brochos while they are standing'.
And the Maggid Mishneh wrote: 'So wrote the Geonim, and so said Rabbeinu Hai z"l: the minhag in Israel is that the one who blows while the congregation is seated and recites the bracha before the tekiah is the one who blows for the order of brochos while they are standing, and he does not need a bracha; and if the first one was prevented and cannot blow again, the second need not recite a bracha — ad kan'.
And the Orchos Chaim wrote3: 'The Rambam z"l [writes]: the one who blows while they are seated blows for the order of brochos, and he does not speak between the tekios meyushav and the tekios of the order of brochos; and if he did speak between them, although he transgressed, he does not repeat the bracha. And some say that the Rambam's intent in this is not that it is indispensable that the one who blew meyushav must blow for the order of brochos; rather, he said it only to say that the mitzvah is not to be taken away from him, since he began it, as we say: one who begins a mitzvah is told, "Finish it"'.
And l'halacha, the Mechaber wrote4: 'The one who blows while they are seated blows for the order of brochos'.
And the Rema wrote in his gloss: 'However, this is not indispensable, and another may blow — only that it is proper to do so, and I have already written above, siman 585'.
And in siman 5855 he wrote: 'And if the shliach tzibbur does not blow the tekios meyushav, it is proper that that baal tokea also blow for the order of brochos; for one who begins a mitzvah is told, "Finish it"'.
But the Levush6 wrote: 'The minhag of the early ones, who were zealous in mitzvos and cherished them, was that each and every one would take his portion in order to receive reward — this one davens and this one blows, and whoever comes first acquires it. And some say that the one who blows meyushav also blows for the order of brochos, for one who begins a mitzvah is told to complete it; and the leaders of the city hasten to daven and to blow — whoever is more zealous is the more rewarded'.
And he further wrote7: 'It is not our minhag to be particular that specifically the one who blew meyushav should blow for the order of brochos; rather, we let either him or another blow'.
And in this vein the Taz wrote8: 'And the minhag in many communities is to divide them, even among the tekios of the sedarim themselves, and one may find justification for them based on what the Tur wrote in the name of the Baal HaItur: it stands to reason that if the shliach tzibbur knows how to blow, he has the right to do so; only that it was the minhag of the early ones, who were zealous in mitzvos and cherished them, that each one would take his portion in order to receive reward, ad kan leshono'9.
And the Magen Avraham10 wrote: 'And it appears to me that all this speaks of their times, when they would give him [the shofar] to blow without specification, and therefore he immediately acquired all the tekios, as written in siman 174. But nowadays, when the minhag in some places is to give the sedarim to another, the first one never acquired them, and it is permitted; and this is what [the Rema] wrote, "and another may blow." Know this, for regarding the Tamid nine kohanim had a share in it because of "b'rov am," etc.'.
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe11: 'The tekios of the order of brochos should not be blown by the shliach tzibbur who davens Mussaf, lest he become confused and be unable to return to his tefillah without a confusion of mind. But if he is confident in himself that he will return to his tefillah without a confusion of mind, or he davens from the siddur, in which case he is certainly assured, he may blow, even if there is another man who knows how to blow as well as he does — because the tekiah is not an interruption at all in the tefillah, since one must blow for the order of brochos, and it is therefore a need of the tefillah. Therefore, the one who blows the tekios meyushav should also blow the tekios meumad, for one who begins a mitzvah is told, "Finish it," unless he is the shliach tzibbur who davens Mussaf and is not confident that he will return to his tefillah without a confusion of mind. When do these words apply? In the earlier generations, when the minhag was to blow without specification, so that he immediately acquired all the tekios, even those of the order of brochos, for the reason explained, and the mitzvah is not to be taken from him. But nowadays, when the minhag in some places is to give the tekios meumad to another, the first one never acquired the tekios meumad, and it is permitted to give them to another person anywhere'.
And so was the practice of our Rebbeim, our Nesi'im, as the Rebbe's grandfather, the Rav and Chassid R' Boruch Shneur z"l, wrote12 regarding the conduct of the Rebbe Rashab on Rosh Hashanah 5673, that the Rebbe blew the tekios meyushav, but 'at Mussaf, during the silent Shemoneh Esrei, another blew the tekios, and only during chazaras hashatz did the Rebbe שליט"א blow'.
[And note13 that at the seudah on Motzaei Yom Kippur 5726, R' M.D. Rivkin said to the Rebbe: the Rebbe Rashab would not blow the tekios of the silent tefillah, only during chazaras hashatz. And the Rebbe said to him: 'Since my father-in-law the Rebbe did not blow during chazaras hashatz, it is not reasonable to say that the Rebbe Rashab blew, [and the reason he did not blow during the silent tefillah is perhaps because he was not up to the same place as the minyan, and they did not want to interrupt14]', and perhaps there were changes in this over the years]
And following the practice of the Rebbe Rayatz, who blew only the tekios meyushav, so the Rebbe conducted himself, and the tekios meumad were blown by R' M.M. Tenenbaum.
Thus we have seen that in the earlier generations the minhag was that the one who blew the tekios meyushav on the shofar also blew the tekios meumad; but in the later generations the minhag is not to be particular about this, and another person blows the tekios meumad.
--------------
Notes:
1 HaChadashos – Emanuel (Ofek) siman 178 ↩
2 Hilchos Shofar 3:11 ↩
3 Din Tekias Shofar, os 16 ↩
4 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 592:4 ↩
5 Se'if 4, in the Hagah ↩
6 OC siman 585:4 ↩
7 Siman 592:4 ↩
8 OC siman 585, s.k. 6 ↩
9 And the Eliyah Rabbah, siman 585, s.k. 16, wrote: 'This can be refuted, for there tefillah and tekiah are each a separate mitzvah, unlike here, where it is one mitzvah, in the tekiah itself. And see YD, end of siman 266, regarding two mohalim. However, the Levush too, at the end of siman 592, wrote "it is not our minhag," etc.' ↩
10 Siman 592, s.k. 7 ↩
11 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 592, se'ifim 10 - 11 ↩
12 Reshimas the Rabash, p. 40 (Kehot edition), p. 24 (Kraus edition) ↩
13 HaMelech B'Mesibo vol. 1, pp. 94 - 95. Toras Menachem vol. 45, p. 46 ↩
14 And one of the participants at the seudah [said]: that when the Rebbe Rashab finished Shemoneh Esrei, the shliach tzibbur was already up to the piyut V'Nesaneh Tokef. And in Reshimas Devarim (Chitrik), p. 357, he wrote: 'the Rebbe's Mussaf tefillah was lengthy, sometimes until the shliach tzibbur reached Kesser, and sometimes until the "Aleinu" of chazaras hashatz' ↩
[9] (halacha 913)
Covering the Shofar
Question: Must one hold the shofar, or cover it, at the time of the bracha?
Answer: Rav Amram Gaon wrote in his siddur: 'And while they are sitting, before they stand for the tefillah, the shliach tzibbur holds the shofar in his hand and recites the bracha ..'.
And so too wrote the Sheiltos d'Rav Achai1: 'Now, how should one act? Before the Musaf tefillah, the shliach tzibbur must stand on his feet while everyone else remains seated, and he takes the trumpet in his hand2 and recites the bracha: BA"Y AM"H AKB"V lisko'a b'shofar'.
The words of Rav Amram Gaon are cited in several works of the Rishonim, as written in Siddur Rashi3: 'And while they are sitting, immediately before they stand for the tefillah and before they begin with tehillah, the shliach tzibbur holds the shofar in his hand, and stands on his feet and recites the bracha'.
And so too is written in Machzor Vitry4: 'And while they are sitting, before they stand for the tefillah. And before they begin with tehillah, the shliach tzibbur holds the shofar in his hand. And he stands on his feet and recites the bracha'.
And so too is written in Minhag Marsilia5: 'And after he finishes, the shliach tzibbur holds the shofar in his hand .. and recites the bracha'.
However, we find a minhag to cover the shofar at the time of the bracha, as is written in the Minhogim of 'Tirna' in the Hagahos HaMinhogim6: 'The tokei'a (must) [may]7 cover the shofar during the brochos'.
And the Eliyah Rabbah8 cited it: 'The Hagahos Minhogim wrote that one must cover the shofar during the brochos'. And so too wrote the Ba'er Heitev9 in the name of the Bach'10.
But in Siddur Yaavetz11 he wrote in accordance with the words of Rav Amram and the aforementioned Rishonim, before the bracha over the shofar: 'And he shall take the shofar in his right hand .. and afterwards recite the bracha'12.
And some wrote that it is possible to fulfill both matters as one, as the Rosh Mashbir13 wrote: The rule that emerges for us in our case is that l'chatchilah one must hold the shofar in his hand before he recites the bracha .. and if b'dieved he recited the bracha while it lay before him, he need not repeat the bracha .. And as for what is written in the sefer Ba'er Heitev .. in the name of the Rav Bach, that one should cover the shofar at the time of the bracha, ad kan — behold, apart from the fact that I have not found the Bach z"l writing so, if so his words are seemingly puzzling, for what reason is there in it; and apart from all this, there is no contradiction to what we have written, namely, that he should hold the shofar in his right hand and cover the shofar while it is still in his right hand, as I have heard that there are some who do so, holding the shofar in the right hand and concealing his right hand together with the shofar in it beneath the outer garment called a kappa'.
And so too wrote the Ben Ish Chai14: 'He should cover the shofar until the conclusion of the brochos, and he must hold it in his hand at the time of the bracha while it is covered; and see Rosh Mashbir siman למ"ד'.
The Mateh Efraim15 wrote: 'And the minhag is to cover the shofar with the cloth spread over the table, and it should remain covered until the conclusion of the brochos, when he takes it from there to blow it'. And in the Elef HaMagen16 he added: 'To cover the shofar. So too wrote the Eliyah Rabbah. And the Derech HaChaim. However, in the Siddur of the Maharivaavetz it is implied that one must hold the shofar in his hand at the time of the bracha. And so it appears more correct — that at the time of the bracha he should hold it in his hand, and only between the sets should he cover it, in order to uphold the minhag. And our minhag is to cover (and in any event it is good that he should also hold it in his hand, even if by way of the interposition of a cloth; for anything over which one recites a bracha, he must hold it in his hand, as is explained in the Acharonim)'.
Chabad Minhag
Indeed, in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe the minhag of covering the shofar is not cited, yet our Rebbeim, the Nesi'im, did have the practice to cover the shofar, as is cited17 regarding the conduct of the Rebbe Rashab.
And regarding the conduct of the Rebbe: it is cited in several diaries18 that the Rebbe held the covered shofar in his hand during the brochos.
Accordingly, the Rishonim wrote to hold the shofar in the [right] hand at the time of the bracha, and some wrote that one must cover the shofar at the time of the bracha19, and therefore some have the practice to do both of them together — to hold the shofar at the time of the bracha.
In the next halacha we will see several reasons cited in the poskim to explain the reason for the minhag of covering the shofar at the time of the bracha.
Notes:
1 Parshas V'Zos HaBracha, She'ilta קעא ↩
2 And see Ha'amek She'eilah os ג: 'It is explained that he should grasp the shofar in his hand and afterwards recite the bracha, as it appears in Pesachim daf ז' that once he lifted it he has fulfilled his obligation with it — evidently, before one grasps the lulav it is impossible to recite the bracha; and likewise regarding tefillin it is stated in Menachos daf לז, from when does one recite the bracha — from the time of placing, and not before he places them upon his arm, *and so too regarding a shofar it is forbidden to recite the bracha at a time when he is not holding it in his hand'* ↩
3 siman קפג ↩
4 siman שמז ↩
5 Tefillas Rosh Hashanah page 124 ↩
6 Rosh Hashanah os קכ ↩
7 And see Minchas Elazar Shu"t vol. 4 siman לו: '(And as for what is written there in Kadmus Sefer HaZohar, that in the Hagahos Minhogim before him the wording is that he may cover it and it does not say that he must — it seems that perhaps it is a printer's error in the edition before him; and in the early printings of the machzorim before us, the earlier ones, it states there in Hagahos Minhogim in these words: it is proper for the tokei'a to cover etc., as stated above)' ↩
8 siman תקפה s.k. ח. And in the Eliyah Zuta siman תקצג s.k. א ↩
9 siman תקצג s.k. ג ↩
10 And the commentators noted that this is not found in our editions of the Bach. And see below in the Rosh Mashbir ↩
11 Sha'ar Shemini - Sha'ar HaAyin os לה ↩
12 And indeed, what is written in os לב: 'And the shofar should be covered with the cloth that is on the table until the conclusion of the brochos [and likewise between each set of the tekios]', is an addition of the printers ↩
13 Shu"t vol. 1 siman ל ↩
14 Sh"a Nitzavim se'if טו ↩
15 siman תקפה se'if ג ↩
16 there, os ז ↩
17 See Otzar Minhagei Chabad, Tishrei p. קיד ↩
18 The diary Ar'enu Niflaos p. 8. Otzar Minhagei Chabad, Tishrei os רמז. Chikrei Minhogim vol. 3 siman צ note 2. And so testified Harav M.Sh. Ashkenazi z"l ↩
19 And to note from what the Kaf HaChaim wrote, siman תקפה s.k. יד: 'And likewise one must cover the shofar between each set. Kitzur Shelah there. And accordingly one must cover it whenever he is not blowing it, such as during the recitation of Ashrei and during the Amidah, etc.' ↩
[10] (Halacha 914)
Covering the Shofar
In the previous halacha we saw from the words of the Geonim and Rishonim that one must hold the shofar at the time of the bracha, and the minhag to cover the shofar at the time of the bracha. In this halacha we will discuss the reason for the minhag of covering the shofar, and we find several explanations among the Acharonim, as follows:
a) A remembrance of the Akeidah
The Mateh Efraim wrote in the Alef HaMagen1: 'And the reason that it is customary to cover the shofar — the Grad"l wrote2 in Kadmus HaZohar that it is a remembrance of what they said in the Pesikta and in the Midrash Rabbah3 that before the Akeidah, at the time of the building of the mizbeiach, Avraham Avinu a"h concealed Yitzchak until the very moment of the Akeidah, so that the knife should not be cast at him and he be rendered blemished. And since blowing a ram's shofar is a remembrance of the Akeidah and of the ram of Yitzchak, therefore they instituted this as a remembrance — see there'4.
'And he wrote in the Ketzei HaMateh5: 'And in my humble opinion, one may perhaps allude to this in "תקעו בחודש שופר בכס"א" ("Blow the shofar at the new moon, at the covering") — and understand.'
b) So that it should not appear as passing over the mitzvos, and so that the shofar should not see its shame
The Avnei Nezer wrote6: 'Regarding the minhag to cover the shofar with a cloth until after the bracha. At first glance this is puzzling, for it is fitting to bring the bracha as close to the mitzvah as possible; and with tefillin we make the bracha for this very reason between the placing and the tying — so why should the shofar be different? And it appears to me that in the Responsa of the Rambam7 he was asked what the difference is between the bracha "al tekias shofar" and "lishmoa kol shofar". And he answered that the mitzvah is in the hearing alone, and the blowing is like one who makes a sukkah in order to dwell in it; therefore we make the bracha "lishmoa". And the matter is puzzling, for if so, one who hears the blowing of a cheresh, shoteh, or katan, or of a woman, should likewise fulfill his obligation, just as with a sukkah of ganba"ch. And I have already said regarding this .. so too with the shofar, he does not fulfill his obligation through hearing unless he performed an act so that he would hear — namely, that he blew, or his shaliach blew. And therefore one who is not obligated cannot be made a shaliach .. But according to this, seemingly he could have made the bracha "al hatekiah", since he is obligated to blow himself or through his shaliach, as above. However, this bracha would be only for the blower himself and not for the listeners8. Just as with anyone who performs a mitzvah through a shaliach — whose son is circumcised by another, where the mohel makes the bracha .. And therefore it is impossible for the listener to make the bracha "al hatekiah", just as the father of the child does not make a bracha over his son who was circumcised by another. Therefore we make the bracha "lishmoa", for this bracha is also for the congregation and not for the blower alone. And with this it is well understood why we cover the shofar. For otherwise, when he makes the bracha on the sound and not on the shofar, it would be considered passing over the mitzvos with regard to the blower, who in truth could also make the bracha "al tekias shofar"; therefore we cover it at the time of the bracha. One may also explain accordingly, just as we cover the bread at the time of Kiddush so that the bread should not see its shame, since we do not make Kiddush over it. And here too, since the blower could make the bracha over the shofar, we cover it so that the shofar should not see its shame'9.
c) To show that the bracha is on the sound and not on the shofar
He wrote in Shu"t Aprakasta D'Anya10: 'And in my humble opinion a simple reason may be said for this, based on what the poskim wrote, that we therefore make the bracha "lishmoa kol shofar" and not "litkoa" or "al tekias shofar", because the essence of the mitzvah is the hearing of the sound of the shofar, and it may be said that for this reason we cover the shofar at the time of the bracha, to teach this halacha, that the bracha is on the sound and not on the shofar'.
d) To show that he does not intend a specific shofar
The Divrei Yatziv wrote11: 'And one may further say in the reason for the minhag, for in Shu"t Binyan Olam siman 31 he discusses a case in which the shofar was taken from him between the brochos and the beginning of the blowing and another was brought to him — whether he must make the bracha a second time. For it may be said that this is not comparable to that case in siman 206:6, where one took a fruit in his hand to eat it and made a bracha on it and it fell from his hand and was lost or became repulsive, that he must repeat the bracha — for there the bracha is on the fruit, which is not so here, where he makes the bracha on the mitzvah of blowing. See there at length what he wrote on this .. And for this reason he covers the shofar at the time of the bracha, to reveal his intent that his intention is not upon a specific shofar, and he will not need to repeat the bracha if this shofar is taken from him or becomes damaged and he takes another. And see the Alef HaMagen siman 585 s"k 6, that it is customary to place near the blower all the shofros, so that he may have them all in mind in his bracha, and then if one becomes damaged he may blow with another — see there. And it is well understood that we also cover the shofar in order to emphasize all the more that in his bracha he has in mind every shofar with which he may blow — and understand this well.'
--------------
Notes:
1 Siman 585, s"k 7 ↩
2 And see Sdei Chemed, Ma'areches Rosh Hashanah siman 2, os 14. Shu"t Minchas Elazar vol. 4 siman 36 ↩
3 Bereishis parsha 56 ↩
4 And some have written (see Vayitzbor Yosef siman 18) that it is a remembrance of the ram. And in Likutei Maharich vol. 3, Seder Rosh Hashanah p. 70, he wrote: 'And in my humble opinion, the reason may perhaps be based on the incident brought in the Magen Avraham, that once they were unable to blow, and they turned the shofar over and recited into it "ויהי נועם" ("May it be pleasant") and then blew, because the Satan was there and prevented the blowing — see there. And therefore we cover the shofar until the time of the tekios, so that the Satan should not have power over it ..'. And see Shu"t Chelkas Yaakov O"C siman 222 ↩
5 Os 13 ↩
6 Cheilek O"C siman 431 ↩
7 Siman 51 ↩
8 The Minchas Elazar there disagreed with his words and wrote: 'And the essential reason is that the primary mitzvah of tekias shofar is only in the hearing, since the blower himself does not fulfill his obligation if he stands at the edge of a pit and places his mouth into the pit — he does not fulfill it even for himself. If so, the essential thing is only the hearing, as the Beha"g and other Rishonim wrote, as brought in the Beis Yosef (siman 585), and that is why we do not make the bracha "litkoa" or "al hatekiah"; and see the Pri Chadash there, that even bedieved he does not fulfill his obligation if he made the bracha "litkoa". And what relevance is the comparison to the bracha of milah from the father's shaliach, to liken it to here, as the Avnei Nezer brought, as mentioned .. And furthermore, if it were as the words of the Avnei Nezer, that for one who blows for himself it would have been correct to make the bracha "al hatekiah", "litkoa", etc. .. And in truth this is not so according to the words of the Beha"g and the aforementioned poskim, whom we follow in halacha, since the blower himself sometimes does not fulfill his obligation with his own blowing, and therefore it is not appropriate to make any bracha other than "lishmoa kol shofar", and they did not institute any other text of a bracha, as mentioned ↩
9 The Minchas Elazar there wondered at his words and wrote: 'And his words are entirely incomprehensible, for how is this considered passing over the mitzvos with regard to the blower — for even the blower by himself could make no bracha other than "lishmoa", as above. And even if it were as he says, where do we find "passing over the mitzvos" with regard to a person, i.e., the blower? And if so, they would have needed to cover the blower and not the shofar. And this is likewise the case with the second reason that he wrote, and neither of them has any reason at all, with the pardon of his exalted honor' ↩
10 Vol. 1 siman 116 ↩
11 Shu"t Likutim V'Hashmatos siman 56. And see his words there, where he wrote further reasons ↩
[11] (halacha 916)
Question: Where must one blow the tekios mi'yushav, and the tekios me'umad?
Answer: The Kolbo writes1: 'And there are also places where one blows on the first day on the bimah, and on the second day in his place.'
And the Rema writes in Darkei Moshe2: 'And this is not the minhag; rather we blow on both days on the bimah before the tefillah'.
And so he writes as halacha3: 'And the minhag is to blow on the bimah, in the place where they read'.
And as to the reason for this, the Levush writes4: 'And he stands on the bimah, in the place where they read there from the Torah, and he should not stand in the place of his seat, because of the honor of the tzibbur'.
And regarding the tekios me'umad, it is written in Minhagei Maharil5: 'If there was no baal tokea there other than the Maharil Segal, then he would blow himself, even though he was at that time the shliach tzibbur .. and he would remain standing in his place before the amud and would blow the kolos of me'umad, and he did not go up onto the migdal like the other baalei tokea do when they blow on the order of the brochos, me'umad'.
And from his words it appears that generally the tekios me'umad too were blown on the bimah6.
But the Rema in Darkei Moshe there writes: 'And the tekios that are blown on the order of the tefillah — on both of them, in his place'.
And the Magen Avraham brings this7: 'And he stands in his place, and he need not stand on the bimah [Darkei Moshe, siman 586]'.
And the Eliyah Rabbah writes8: 'And it appears to me that its meaning is: at the time of the blowing he stands in his place and need not stand on the bimah, but before the blowing it is permitted to walk here and there, provided that he does not speak and does not divert his mind. And even one who is stringent — in any case, for the need of a mitzvah, to open the aron kodesh, it is certainly permitted'.
But the Ateres Zekeinim9 writes: 'And there are places where they blow next to the chazzan. And in the holy community of Vienna they had the minhag to blow even those tekios that are on the order of the tefillah on the bimah, and that baal tokea goes up onto the bimah immediately before they begin Mussaf, and stands there until the end of the tefillah. And I recall that this minhag was instituted by the outstanding gaon Moreinu HaRav Rav Wolf, of blessed memory, when he was Av Beis Din and Rosh Mesivta there'.
And the Pri Megadim writes10: 'There are places where they blow the sedarim in their place, and there are those who go up onto the bimah; but the tekios mi'yushav — they go up onto the bimah'.
And in practice the Alter Rebbe writes in accordance with the words of the Rema and the Magen Avraham, for in siman 58511 he writes: 'The minhag is to blow on the bimah, in the place where they read'. And in siman 59212 he writes: 'The minhag is that for the tekios mi'yushav the baal tokea goes up onto the bimah and blows there because of the honor of the tzibbur, but for the tekios me'umad, since they are within the tefillah, we do not trouble him to go up; rather he stands [in his place] and blows'.
And the Mateh Efraim writes13: 'And in some places the minhag is to blow also the tekios that are on the order of the brochos on the bimah, so that it should be well heard by the entire tzibbur, and the baal tokea goes up onto the bimah before they begin Mussaf and stands there until the end of the tefillah'.
And as to the reason for blowing on the bimah, we have seen that the Levush and the Alter Rebbe write that it is because of the honor of the tzibbur; however, we find among the Acharonim several further reasons for this14. The Gra15 writes: 'and the minhag is [as above], etc. Midrash Rabbah, beginning of parshas Shoftim, 223: R' Yitzchak said, two things are in the right hand of the Holy One, blessed be He — tzedakah and Torah. Tzedakah, as it is written צדק מלאה ימינך; Torah, as it is written מימינו אש דת למו. Two things are in His hand, and these are the soul and judgment. The soul, as it is written אשר בידו נפש כל חי; and judgment, as it is written ותאחז במשפט ידי, etc. The language of the Rokeach: and he shall recall His tzedakah at the reading of the Torah, for both of them are in the right hand, to do good to the soul at the time of judgment. And this is what is said in Tehillim 89, צדק ומשפט כו', אשרי העם יודעי תרועה כו'. And in the Pesikta, R' Yehoshua bar Nachmani in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish opened: עלה אלהים בתרועה — at the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, ascends and sits upon the throne of judgment, He ascends in judgment; and at the time that Yisrael take a shofar and blow, the Holy One, blessed be He, rises from the throne of judgment and sits upon the throne of mercy, etc. — see there in the Rokeach. And this is what is said, צדק ומשפט כו', that the left is included together with the right. And this is what is said, נרי בידך ונרך בידי כו', likewise as above. Therefore we see fit to include judgment in the place of the Torah'.
And the Gaon Rav Nissim Yaakov Palagi in Yefeh LaLev16 writes: 'And the reason is to recall that with a shofar the Torah was given to Yisrael, as it says ויהי קול השופר הולך וחזק מאוד וגו'. And see Tanna d'Bei Eliyahu .. chapter 22 .. when David brought up the Aron of God, in which were the Luchos of the Torah, from the house of Oved Edom to the City of David, as is written in Shmuel II siman 6, it is written there ודוד וכל בית ישראל מעלים את ארון ה' בתרועה וקול שופר, and this is easily understood'.
And the Netziv in Meishiv Davar17 writes: 'And so is our minhag, to hold a sefer Torah at the time of the blowing of the shofar on the bimah, so that it should be like the blowing of the chatzotzros over the offering of the korbanos upon the mizbeach. And from the day the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed we have no shield, and nothing that raises up zichronos for good, like the Torah; and it is our standing and the sustenance of our soul and of our nation amidst our dispersions, and we are distinguished through it as [we were] in the Beis HaMikdash of old'.
The Rebbe18 noted regarding what the Alter Rebbe writes in the Siddur, after the reading of the Torah, that he should prepare himself to blow the shofar: 'It seemingly requires study — what is he teaching us .. And one may say that he is hinting at the connection of tekias shofar to the matter of mattan Torah, as the Rasag writes (brought in the Abudraham) that this is one of the reasons for tekias shofar — to recall the sound of the shofar of mattan Torah (and as we say in the pesukei shofros). And one may say that this is the reason for the minhag .. to blow on the bimah, in the place where they read'.
Thus we have seen that the tekios mi'yushav are blown on the bimah of the reading of the Torah, but the tekios me'umad he may blow in his place
--------------
Notes:
1 סי' סד ↩
2 או"ח סי' תקפה ס"ק א ↩
3 שו"ע או"ח סי' תקפה ס"א בהג"ה ↩
4 או"ח סי' תקפה ס"א ↩
5 הל' שופר ↩
6 ראה לקוטי מהרי"ח סדר ר"ה ע' ע ↩
7 סי' תקצב ס"ק ו ↩
8 סי' תקצב ס"ק ח ↩
9 סי' תקפה ס"ק א ↩
10 א"א סי' תקצב ס"ק ו ↩
11 ס"ג ↩
12 ס"ט ↩
13 סי' תקצב ס"ט ↩
14 וראה כף החיים סי' תקפה ס"ק ח. הלכות חג בחג (קארפ) ימים נוראים פ"ט הערה 13. תשובות והנהגות ח"ב סי' רעז ↩
15 בביאורו לסי' תקפה אות ב ↩
16 ח"ב סי' תקפה ס"ק ב ↩
17 שו"ת ח"א סי' טו. וראה גם משנ"ב סי' תקפה ס"ק ג ↩
18 לקו"ש חל"ט ע' 43 בשיחה לר"ה הערה 1 ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp groupA Stolen Shofar
[1] (halacha 646)
Blowing the Shofar
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Rosh Hashanah1: 'Rav Yehudah said: With a shofar of avodah zarah2 one should not blow, but if one blew, he has fulfilled his obligation. With a shofar of an ir hanidachas (a condemned city) one should not blow, and if one blew, he has not fulfilled his obligation. What is the reason? An ir hanidachas — its measure is considered crushed [=since its law is that it must be burned, it is as if it has no [proper] measure].'
And in the Talmud Yerushalmi in Maseches Sukkah3 a dispute is brought regarding this: 'A shofar of avodah zarah and of an ir hanidachas — Rabbi Elazar said it is valid. Rabbi Chiya taught that it is valid; Rabbi Hoshaya taught that it is invalid. All agree regarding a lulav that it is invalid. What is the difference between a shofar and a lulav? Rabbi Yosa said: Regarding a lulav it is written "ולקחתם לכם" ("and you shall take for yourselves") — from your own, not from that which is forbidden in benefit; but here4 "יום תרועה יהיה לכם" ("it shall be a day of teruah for you"), in any case. Rabbi Lazar said: There [with the lulav] he fulfills his obligation with its body, but here [with the shofar] he fulfills it with its sound, and there is no sound that is forbidden in benefit. Wherein do they disagree? Where he stole it [already] shaped; but if he stole it and [then] shaped it, he owes its monetary value to him.'
If so, we have seen that the Talmud Bavli validated after the fact a shofar of avodah zarah [of a non-Jew], and invalidated a shofar of an ir hanidachas, but the law of a stolen shofar was not mentioned. However, in the Yerushalmi a dispute was brought regarding a shofar of avodah zarah and of an ir hanidachas, and it appears there that they equated a shofar of avodah zarah with a stolen shofar, and they explained the difference between a lulav (which according to all is invalid when of avodah zarah, and when stolen) and a shofar, and two reasons to permit are explained there in the Yerushalmi: a. that they derive this from a pasuk; b. that with sound alone there is no [issue of] theft or prohibition of avodah zarah. And the Yerushalmi concluded that if one stole a shofar that was not [yet] shaped, and shaped it, according to all he has fulfilled his obligation, since he acquired it through a change.
The Rambam (and as the Maggid Mishneh explained) ruled regarding the law of a stolen shofar in accordance with those who say in the Yerushalmi that it is valid, and he wrote the second reason. And the Raavad wrote the first reason.
For the Rambam5 wrote: 'A stolen shofar that one blew with — he has fulfilled his obligation, for the mitzvah is only in hearing the sound; even though he did not touch it and did not lift it, the one who hears has fulfilled his obligation, and there is no law of theft regarding sound.' And the Raavad wrote: 'A.A.: even if there would be a law of theft regarding it, "יום תרועה יהיה לכם" ("it shall be a day of teruah for you"), in any case — thus it is in the Yerushalmi.'
The Rosh6 also ruled like those who validate, and the Beis Yosef7 explained that the Rambam and the Rosh ruled to validate since the halacha follows the majority — Rabbi Elazar, Rabbi Chiya, and Rabbi Yosa, who validated a shofar of avodah zarah, and not the individual — Rabbi Hoshaya, who invalidated; and nevertheless they hold that a shofar of an ir hanidachas is invalid, but this is not for the reason written in the Yerushalmi, that it is a prohibition of benefit, but rather because of the reason of the Bavli, that its measure is crushed.
But the Or Zarua8, brought in the Hagahos Ashri9, ruled like those who forbid, and wrote: 'It is written in the responsa .. and a shofar purchased from a non-Jew is valid; one taken by force, and one stolen, is invalid, and so my teachers the Geonim instructed, end of quote. And it is explained in the Yerushalmi in the chapter of Lulav HaGazul that when he stole a shaped shofar it is forbidden, but if he stole a horn and shaped it, owing its monetary value to him, it is valid.'
And the Beis Yosef explained there that the approach of the Or Zarua is that since the Bavli invalidates a shofar of an ir hanidachas, this teaches that the halacha follows the words of Rabbi Hoshaya in the Yerushalmi who invalidated, and if so, a stolen shofar is also invalid, unless he stole it and shaped it, in which case it is valid, since he acquired the shofar itself through a change of name and a change of action and is not obligated to return the shofar, but rather to pay money.
Also in the Chidushei HaRan10 he is stringent and wrote: 'And from here it appears to me that a shofar that one stole from his fellow and blew with — he has not fulfilled his obligation, just as we say regarding a lulav, because of a mitzvah that comes through a transgression, and we do not distinguish between them because [one might say] that with a lulav he fulfills his obligation with its body and with a shofar with its sound, for if so, granted that we now hold that mitzvos were not given for benefit, why should he not fulfill his obligation? But in the Yerushalmi in Maseches Sukkah they validated it, and they ask there: what is the difference between a shofar and a lulav? And it answers: there he fulfills his obligation with its body, but here with sound, and there is no law of theft regarding sound. But this does not appear correct to me according to our Gemara, and such is the opinion of the Raah z"l, that even with a shofar he has not fulfilled his obligation. And the Rambam z"l relied on the Yerushalmi in chapter 1 of Hilchos Shofar.'
The Meiri11 brought the two opinions and decided like the Rambam, and these are his words: 'The law of a stolen shofar is not mentioned in our Talmud, but in the Talmud of the West [the Yerushalmi] they explained that one does not blow with it l'chatchilah, but if one blew with it he has fulfilled his obligation; and even though regarding a lulav they said he has not fulfilled his obligation, [it is because] a lulav — he fulfills his obligation with its body, [while] a shofar — he fulfills his obligation with its sound, and there is no law of theft regarding sound. And among some of the great ones of the generation I have seen that they disagree with the Talmud of the West, to invalidate after the fact, [holding] that anyone who fulfills a mitzvah with a stolen object has not fulfilled the mitzvah unless he acquired it according to law, such as through despair [of the owner] and a change of action; but these words do not appear correct at all.'
And in practice the Mechaber12 ruled in accordance with the approach of the Rambam and the Rosh: 'One who steals a shofar and blows with it has fulfilled his obligation, even if the owners have not despaired of it.'
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe13: 'One who steals a shofar and blows with it has fulfilled his obligation, even if the owners have not despaired of it, and it is not comparable to a stolen lulav, matzah, and tzitzis, because the mitzvah of the shofar is only the hearing alone, and there is no law of theft regarding the hearing of the sound, for in his hearing it he does not touch the shofar at all; and therefore, even though he blew with it through the prohibition of theft, since regarding the essence of the mitzvah — namely the hearing — there is no prohibition of theft, he has fulfilled his obligation..'.
If so, we have seen that even one who hears from a stolen shofar fulfills his obligation, and tomorrow we will see regarding the bracha on this shofar, and additional details in this law.
Notes:
1 כח, א ↩
2 וביארו הראשונים הרא"ש והר"ן (ראה בדברי הב"י או"ח סי' תקפו. ושו"ע או"ח תקפ"ו ס"ג) שהמדובר בשופר של גוי, אך שופר ע"ז של ישראל לא יצא וכמ"ש במסכת חולין פט, א ↩
3 פ"ג ה"א ↩
4 במדבר כט א ↩
5 הל' שופר פ"א ה"ג ↩
6 ר"ה פ"ג סי' ט ↩
7 או"ח סי' תקפו ↩
8 הל' ר"ה סי' רעד ↩
9 ר"ה פ"ד סי' יד ↩
10 ר"ה כח, א ↩
11 ר"ה שם ↩
12 סי' תקפו ס"ב ↩
13 סי' תקפו ס"ד ↩