Tekias Shofar
[2] (Halacha 647)
We learned in the previous halacha that, according to halacha, one fulfills his obligation by hearing the sound of the shofar from a stolen shofar [2]
Question: May one recite a bracha on blowing such a shofar?
Answer: On the words of the Mechaber1, that one fulfills the obligation with a stolen shofar, the Mahariksh writes in Erech Lechem: 'But one does not recite a bracha on it, and see siman 649, din 1'. And so wrote the Magen Avraham2: 'Nevertheless, one does not recite a bracha on it, and see the end of siman 691'.
However, the Pri Chadash there writes: 'Our teacher the Mahariksh z"l 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 on it, the same applies here. And it seems to me that just as we distinguish between a stolen lulav and a stolen shofar regarding the obligation of the mitzvah — as we say in the Yerushalmi: What is the difference between lulav and shofar? There, he fulfills it with its body; here, with its sound; meaning, the mitzvah of shofar is only the hearing, and there is no law of theft regarding a sound — so too one can distinguish regarding the bracha: it is different there regarding lulav, where he mentions the Name of Heaven over the taking, and therefore it is not proper that he recite a bracha, even though regarding the mitzvah, since it does not involve mentioning the Name of Heaven, he fulfills it; which is not so here, where the bracha is only on the hearing, and theft does not apply to hearing, as I have written; it is proper to recite a bracha on it in any case; so it seems to me3.
And the Alter Rebbe ruled4: 'Nevertheless, since the mitzvah came to him through theft, he should not recite a bracha on it5, as the law of a mitzvah that comes through a transgression, which was explained in siman 11 and in siman 649; see there'.
★ ★ ★
Question: After one has already stolen, is it permitted lechatchilah to hear a stolen shofar?
Answer: The Bach writes6: 'However, it appears that even when the owners have 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, is that lechatchilah there is no distinction between where they have despaired and where they have not despaired'7.
And it may be said that also because the mitzvah is fulfilled without reciting a bracha, it is considered bedieved, and one should not do so lechatchilah; and 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 writes10: 'However, one must understand why it was necessary to say that one does not recite a bracha on it, since lechatchilah one may not blow with it, as is understood from the words of the poskim, who wrote that if one blew with a stolen shofar he has fulfilled his obligation, which implies that lechatchilah one should not blow with it; and if so, regarding bedieved a warning is not relevant, since what has happened has happened. And it is forced to say that their intent is that even one who will not listen to the words of the Sages and will take it should at any rate not recite a bracha. And perhaps it may be said that the practical difference is for one who hears the bracha of someone who inadvertently recites it over a stolen shofar, that he should not answer Amen to his bracha. And further, perhaps it may be said that according to what we generally hold, that a time of pressing need is like bedieved, if so, if he has no shofar other than this stolen one, he should take it and not recite a bracha on it. So it seems to me to argue, and this requires examination, if Hashem wills'. However, seemingly the matter is explicit in the words of the Alter Rebbe11 regarding matzah, where he writes: '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 any rate) he should not recite a bracha on it'. And see also the Mateh Ephraim12.
Notes:
1 Orach Chaim, siman 586, se'if 2 ↩
2 There, se'if katan 4 ↩
3 And see Hilchos Chag BeChag (Karp), Yamim Nora'im, in Mishmeres Yamim Nora'im, siman 7 ↩
4 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 586, se'if 4 ↩
5 The Alter Rebbe did not explicitly explain whether one who hears from the thief who blows may recite a bracha. For seemingly it may be said that since there is no transgression on his part, he may recite a bracha. And it is not comparable to lulav, matzah and tzitzis, for he does not use an object that he must return; rather he hears a sound, in which there is no theft, from another (the thief) who transgresses. This requires further study ↩
6 Orach Chaim, siman 586; and he wrote only "they have despaired". But see what the Pri Chadash wrote there: 'However, the matter is clear that even one who buys 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 Perek Lulav HaGazul'. And so wrote the Mateh Ephraim, siman 586, in the Elef LaMateh, se'if katan 8, that even in a case where there was yei'ush and change of ownership, where he recites 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 on the Mahariksh); and even without this he should not buy it (when he has another shofar), so as not to strengthen the hands of transgressors'* ↩
7 Unlike what is written in the Amudei Eish, siman 6, as explained in the Sdei Chemed there ↩
8 Siman 432, se'if 9 ↩
9 And in Sefer Arba'as HaMinim (Weiner), vol. 1, siman 649, os 7, he inferred so from the wording of the Alter Rebbe in siman 454 (cited above), who wrote that nevertheless lechatchilah one should not fulfill the obligation, for the reason explained in siman 11, while there it is written only that one should not recite a bracha. And see also Ohr HaHalacha (Davidovitch), siman 11, Chiddushim, os 6. And see the Biur Halacha, siman 11, se'if 6, s.v. La'asosan ↩
10 Asifas Dinim, Ma'areches Rosh Hashanah, siman 2, os 30 (vol. 6, p. 2800) ↩
11 454, se'if 10 ↩
12 Siman 586, in the Elef HaMagen, se'if katan 7 ↩
[3] (Halacha 906)
In the coming days we will learn several minhogim and halachos connected with the approaching Yamim Nora'im.
Question: What is the reason that next to the ba'al tokea there is someone who calls out to him the order of the blasts? (1)
Answer: The Rosh writes in a responsum1: 'And as for calling out to the one who blows, it is a proper minhag, since the awe of the congregation is upon the one who blows and he is flustered; one may say that perhaps he will err, and it is not an interruption, like "mix for the oxen"'2.
And the Rema3 writes in the Darkei Moshe: 'It is customary that the chazzan who leads Shacharis calls out before the one who blows, word by word, the order of the blasts, so that he not err in his blowing, and it is a fine minhag'.
And so he wrote in the gloss in the Shulchan Aruch4: 'It is customary to call out before the one who blows the order of the blasts, word by word, so that he not err, and this is correct'.
However, besides the concern of error, we find an additional reason, as the Shelah writes5: 'It is customary to call out before the one who blows, saying: Tekiah, Shevarim, Teruah, Tekiah; and likewise for all the sounds. And it is a fine minhag, so that the one who blows not err. However, there is also a secret in the matter, for the blasts arouse the hidden matters Above, and when the makri says "Tekiah", he should have in mind the secret of the tekiah; and likewise when he says "Shevarim" or "Teruah", he should have in mind their secrets; and in each and every order according to its secret. And on the basis of this knowledge the one who blows blows. Therefore the makri must be a great person, versed in the secrets, and a tzaddik. And the one who blows performs the action of blowing upon the arousal of his mind, and this will be effective even when the one who blows is himself not versed in the secrets. And certainly it would be better if the one who blows were also a master of the secrets; however, [if] not, this too will be proper. And according to this, it is also fitting that for the first tekiah too the makri should say "Tekiah"; and not as is customary, that the one who blows begins the first tekiah by himself, for whatever can be done to have the secrets in mind, one should be scrupulous and zealous about it'.
And the Magen Avraham writes6: 'For the first tekiah [too] he should 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 Vihi Noam into it, and then they were able to blow (Mateh Moshe, Maharil). And it is good that the one who blows know how to have the secrets in mind; and if not, then at any rate the makri should know, and when he calls out he should have the secrets in mind; Shelah'.
And the Mekor Chaim (Bachrach) writes: 'It is proper that he call out also the first tekiah, if the one who blows does not object, lest he be flustered'. And he further wrote: 'He should take care not to call out until the completion of the Amen from the mouths of those responding and the completion of the sound of the blast, and likewise for the sitting blasts; and he should not blow until the completion of the voice of the one calling out; and likewise the congregation in their response of Ashrei HaAm'.
And by way of derush, Rabbi Shlomo Kluger writes to explain8: '"משה ידבר והאלהים יעננו בקול" ("Moshe would speak and G-d would answer him with a voice") .. The Holy One, blessed be He, further showed them how they should act regarding the blasts: that there should be two, one calling out and one blowing, and thereby the shofar is elevated more than if the one blowing were blowing alone. And therefore at first it says "ויהי קול השופר הולך וחזק" ("and the sound of the shofar grew continually stronger"), but not "very", and nevertheless "ויחרד כל העם אשר במחנה" ("and all the people in the camp trembled"); but afterward it says "ויהי קול השופר הולך וחזק מאד" ("and the sound of the shofar grew continually much stronger"), more than it was at first; that is, "משה ידבר" — he was the makri and the one arranging the blasts — "ואלהים יעננו בקול" — the Holy One, blessed be He, blows according to his speech. And therefore, through both of them, the calling out of Moshe and the blasts, the shofar became stronger than it was at first, before Moshe was the makri; for then it was only a strong sound, and afterward it became very strong, because Moshe was the speaker and the makri. And also what the Magen Avraham wrote [there], that at any rate the makri should have the secrets in mind, appears to be alluded to in that once it says9 "יום תרועה יהיה לכם" ("it shall be a day of teruah for you"), and once it is written10 "זכרון תרועה מקרא קודש" ("a remembrance of teruah, a holy convocation"). And the intent is: Chazal11 expounded "יום תרועה יהיה לכם", and therefore the Torah alluded thus to us: that for the one who blows himself, "יום תרועה יהיה לכם" in any case, whether he is able to have the secrets in mind or not; but "זכרון" — the makri, who mentions the teruah with his mouth — this shall be "מקרא קודש", and he should have in mind the holiness within them. But because of our many sins, there is none among us who knows how much, and we have nothing to rely on but our Father in Heaven'.
Thus we have seen several reasons why someone needs to call out the blasts to the ba'al tokea12, and that the first tekiah too needs to be called out.
In the coming halachos we will see who the makri is, the words of the Alter Rebbe, and the Chabad minhag in practice.
--------------
Notes:
1 Klal 4, siman 18 ↩
2 The Gemara in Brochos 40a says: 'Rav Sheshes said: Even "mix for the oxen" too [= even if a person said after the bracha, bring food for the animal] — he does not need to recite the bracha again, for Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: A person is forbidden to eat before he gives food to his animal, as it says: "ונתתי עשב בשדך לבהמתך והדר ואכלת ושבעת" ("And I will give grass in your field for your cattle, and then you will eat and be satisfied")'. And if so, there is no problem of interruption in the makri saying the order of the blasts to the ba'al tokea' ↩
3 Orach Chaim, siman 585, os 2 ↩
4 Orach Chaim, siman 585, se'if 4 ↩
5 Maseches Rosh Hashanah, Perek Ner Mitzvah ↩
6 Shulchan Aruch there, se'if katan 11 ↩
7 Indeed, the main reason for calling out the first tekiah is as in the words of the Shelah, on account of the kavanah; but it should be noted that some wrote that also on account of the concern of error one should call out the first tekiah, and at any rate because no distinction is made; and see the Machatzis HaShekel and the Pri Megadim on the Magen Avraham. But see Ma'amar Mordechai, Orach Chaim, siman 592, se'if katan 7: 'Now according to all the explanations, it seems to my humble opinion that one should take care that the makri not call out to blow the first tekiah, for at the first tekiah there is no concern of error, as explained above in siman 128, se'if 13; and even according to the words of the Rema there, it appears that here is different, since lechatchilah one should not interrupt between the bracha and the blowing; but I saw that the Rav Magen Avraham and the Acharonim z"l above in siman 585 wrote in the name of the Rav Shelah that for the first tekiah too he should call out before him'. And so wrote the Mishnah Berurah in the Sha'ar HaTziyun (siman 585, se'if katan 31): 'Nevertheless, in our matter, in a place where there is no minhag, it is better not to call out the first tekiah, so that there will be no interruption for the makri' ↩
8 Chochmas Shlomo, Orach Chaim, there, se'if 4 ↩
9 Bamidbar 29:1 ↩
10 Vayikra 23:24 ↩
11 Rosh Hashanah 29b ↩
12 And regarding bedieved, see Shu"t Si'ach Yitzchak, siman 281: 'And regarding the blowing of the shofar, we have neither Midrash nor Gemara nor kabbalah for the custom of calling out before the ba'al tokea; except that in the Biurei HaGra (se'if katan 15) there [siman 585], he wishes to compare this calling out to the calling out to 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 ba'al tokea.' ↩
[4] (Halacha 907)
Question: Who should be the makri?
Answer: The Rema writes in the Darkei Moshe1: 'It is customary that the chazzan who leads Shacharis calls out before the one who blows'.
And indeed, in the Shulchan Aruch the Rema did not mention who should call out; however, the Magen Avraham2 writes: 'The one who leads Shacharis calls out to the one who blows (Darkei Moshe)'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe3: 'It is customary that the one who leads Shacharis calls out the order of the blasts before the one who blows, word by word, so that he not err in his blasts, and it is a fine minhag; and see siman 590'.
However, we saw in the previous halacha the words of the Shelah, that the reason for the calling out is also so that the makri should have the kavanos in mind, and therefore he writes: 'Therefore the makri must be a great person, versed in the secrets, and a tzaddik'.
And so it is written in the Siddur of the Arizal, Kol Yaakov: 'And at any rate, the one who arranges the blasts should be someone who is versed in these kavanos, and the one who blows should have in mind according to the kavanah of the arranger, for he performs this action to arouse an action Above, according to the kavanah of the arranger. And therefore it is minhag Yisroel that the arranger is the Av Beis Din or a sage who sits in the seat of wisdom; and at any rate he should be learned, experienced, of unblemished youth, and an elder, who is a likeness of Arich Anpin'.
And in the Siddur of the Ya'avetz4 he writes: 'And if the one who leads Shacharis is a knowledgeable person, he takes precedence over another, unless a makri has been appointed, who certainly has the right of precedence'.
And the Pri Megadim5 writes: 'The one who leads Shacharis calls out to the one who blows; see Eliyah Rabbah [se'if katan] 15, in the name of the Darkei Moshe. And in a place where there is a moreh tzedek, he calls out. The shliach tzibbur, in the midst of the tefillah, should not interrupt to call out; see there'.
And the Mateh Ephraim6 writes: 'The makri, the one who blows, and the chazzan who leads Musaf — it is fitting for them to be aroused more in thoughts of teshuvah, since they become intermediaries between Him, may He be blessed, and the congregation. And they should be careful to seek out a one who blows who is worthy, a master of Torah and good deeds, as we wrote regarding the chazzan, and likewise the makri; and they should practice abstinence and purity from anything that leads to the impurity of keri, Heaven forbid, at least three days before Rosh Hashanah, and they should learn the kavanah of the tefillos and the blasts. And if no one who blows is found in whom is the spirit of G-d to have in mind the secrets of the blasts, it is fitting that the makri be knowledgeable, and at the time he calls out before the one who blows he should have in mind; and even though the kavanos are long and it is impossible to have them in mind at the time of saying, which is like a moment, he should take a short path — the general idea of the matter. And he should study the Shelah and the Siddur of the Gaon Rabbi Yaakov Emden. And if no such man is found who has a grasp and a name in this wisdom, at any rate one must choose an understanding and wise person, the greatest and most G-d-fearing. And it is fitting for the makri and the one who blows to learn well the laws of the shofar and the order of the blasts, for sometimes, for some reason, an error falls in the mouth of the makri or through the inadvertence of the one who blows; and if he will not be versed in the law of how to act — whether to blow further or to return to the beginning of the order — they will shout at him in the beis midrash, as in the incident that the Rosh cited in the name of the Ra'avan; and this leads to confusion and distraction of the mind of the one who blows and of the listeners. And the custom in every place where there is an Av Beis Din is that he is the makri'.
And Rabbi Hillel Lichtenstein writes in the Maskil El Dal7: 'And I remember (from my teacher, the Gaon, the luminary of the generation, the author of the Chasam Sofer, of blessed memory) that he said in a witty way: Why, at the time of the shofar blasts, is it specifically the rav of the city who is the makri for the one who blows — Tekiah, Teruah, Tekiah? Surely another can also do this service. Rather, the reason for the matter is that if one of the common people were the makri and would see the text of the tefillos (printed in the machzorim) with the names of the angels, he would imagine in his mind that only this reason is the foundation of the mitzvah of the shofar blasts, and he would call out to blow only according to this kavanah, because in his opinion whoever does not blow according to this kavanah has not fulfilled the mitzvah of shofar at all. But in truth, my heart does not imagine so, for "מי עמד בסוד ה׳" ("who has stood in the counsel of Hashem"), "ואמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני" ("I said, I will become wise, but it was far from me"). Therefore the enactment was that the makri should be only the rav, who is a talmid chacham and knows that all those texts with the names of the angels are only trivial matters and not indispensable'; and the main intent of the mitzvah is: the Merciful One said "Blow" — the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded His children, fulfill the mitzvah of blowing; and only according to this kavanah, that is, "I am ready and prepared to fulfill the will of Hashem, Who said 'Blow'", does he call out to the one who blows; and this is the chosen kavanah, in which there is no error. End of his golden words'.
And so wrote the Mishnah Berurah8: 'And in a place where there is a moreh tzedek, he calls out'.
Thus we have seen that it is customary that there be a person who calls out to the ba'al tokea the order of the blasts; some have the custom that this be the ba'al tefillah of Shacharis, and so wrote the Alter Rebbe; and some have the custom that this be the rav or the moreh tzedek of that place.
In the next halacha we will see the conduct of our Rebbeim, our Nesi'im, and the Chabad minhag regarding the makri.
Notes:
1 Orach Chaim, siman 585, os 2 ↩
2 There, se'if katan 11 ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch there, se'if 10 ↩
4 Laws of Tekias Shofar, Nitzotz 7, os 15 ↩
5 Orach Chaim there, Mishbetzos Zahav, se'if katan 7 ↩
6 Siman 585, se'if 2 ↩
7 Vol. 4, klal 3, prat 2 (folio 21b, in the marginal gloss) ↩
8 There, siman 585, se'if katan 18 ↩
[5] (Halacha 908)
In the previous halacha we saw the words of the Alter Rebbe1, who wrote: 'It is customary that the one who leads Shacharis calls out the order of the tekios before the tokea, word by word, so that he will 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) The makri does not call out verbally, but rather points with his 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 baal tokea and his father, the Rebbe Rashab, was the makri: 'Once the Rebbe נ״ע wanted me to blow in a single breath, and I did so in one set. At times he wanted me to blow five shevarim (and not four). And we had signs between us by which I understood his wish; as long as he did not remove his finger from the word, I would keep drawing out (the tekiah or the teruah)'.
Further testimony about the tekios by the Rebbe Rashab was related by R' Y. Chitrik3: 'Strong yeshiva bochurim held on to one another like a chain and a fence, so that people would not push close to the table and close to the Rebbe, and only a few of the elder chassidim and the baal makri (who was also the baal korei) were given permission to enter inside the fence and the chain. The baal korei and the baal makri on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur were, by chazakah, the baal magiah, the chossid R' Sholom Volosov .. and the makri only points with his finger to 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 the Rebbe, my father-in-law, שליט״א said the pesukim and the brochos. He did not call out the tekios verbally, but only pointed with his finger in the siddur'5.
And so the Rebbe also wrote in the minhogim for HaYom Yom, vol. 26: 'If for some reason the Rebbe is not the tokea, then he is the makri — but not verbally, rather by pointing with his finger in the siddur (and the 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 held his finger on the siddur; when it was 'tekiah' he held his finger on the shevarim, at 'shevarim' on the teruah, etc., like a makri'.
And likewise in a diary from the year 57148 it is related: 'The Rebbe blew only the first tekiah (as last year), and afterwards handed it to R' Mendel שי' Tenenbaum, who blew the rest of the tekios while the Rebbe called them out with his finger in the siddur'.
And likewise in a diary from Tishrei 57209 it is related that the Rebbe began blowing the shofar, but let Rabbi Tenenbaum continue the tekios, and the Rebbe called them out with his finger10.
Regarding our minhag, the Rebbe wrote to R' Chaim Na'eh11: 'Regarding the matter of the makri of the tekios — that he wishes to explain that pointing with the finger alone applies only when the Rebbe himself was the tokea: surely he knows that in previous years, for many, many years of the Rebbe Rashab, the Rebbe was not the tokea but rather the makri, and likewise in the last years of the Rebbe, my father-in-law; and they would call out only with the finger, but not verbally'.
At the seudah of the first day of Rosh Hashanah 5729 the Rebbe also 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 indeed in all the shuls of Chabad chassidim this was the practice. When I was in Rostov in the presence of the Rebbe, my father-in-law, I saw for the first time tekios without a makri [=verbally]. Now, the concept of hiddur means that one adds, and strives to add, etc., a certain peripheral detail; but in this itself, what hiddur is relevant? If so, it is difficult to say that this is for the sake of hiddur. Perhaps for the Rebbeim what mattered more was avoiding an interruption'. Rabbi Moshe Dovber Rivkin said to the Rebbe: 'Perhaps one could say, as the reason that our Rebbeim, our Nesiim, had no makri, that the role of the makri is for when the tokea does not know the kavanos thoroughly and the makri does know them; whereas our Rebbeim, our Nesiim, certainly knew the kavanos, so there is no place at all for a makri?' The Rebbe answered him: 'It is impossible to accept this explanation, for I heard from the Rebbe, my father-in-law, that once he was the one blowing the shofar, and his father, the Rebbe Rashab נ״ע, was the makri'.
And so it is written in Sefer HaMinhogim13: 'The makri of the tekios points with his finger in the siddur, but does not call out verbally'.
Accordingly, in practice, according to our minhag the makri does not call out verbally but rather points with his finger, and they were not particular that the makri be the baal Shacharis.
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 585, se'if 10 ↩
2 Toras Menachem, Reshimos HaYoman, p. 347 ↩
3 Reshimas Devarim, p. 356 ↩
4 Toras Menachem, Reshimos HaYoman, p. 159 ↩
5 And see also Sefer HaSichos 5704, p. 3, and Sefer HaSichos 5705, p. 3 ↩
6 Toras Menachem, Reshimos HaYoman, p. 475 ↩
7 Tishrei in Lubavitch (Yuzevitch), p. 60 ↩
8 Tishrei in Lubavitch (Granovetter), p. 1 ↩
9 Tishrei in Lubavitch (Yuzevitch), p. 283 ↩
10 Regarding the other years: the chossid R' Shmuel Levitin was the makri for the Rebbe for a number of years, until his passing on 11 Elul 5734; afterwards, for a number of years, the Rebbe blew the shofar without a makri, until the second day of Rosh Hashanah 5739, when the Rebbe signaled to R' Mendel Tenenbaum to be the makri (Otzar Minhogei Chabad, Tishrei, p. 120) ↩
11 Igros Kodesh, vol. 5, p. 109, item 3 (a facsimile of it was printed in Noda BaShiurim, p. 438) ↩
12 HaMelech BiMesibo, vol. 1, pp. 235–236; Toras Menachem, vol. 54, p. 4 ↩
13 p. 56 ↩
[6] (Halacha 909)
Question: Who is fit to be the baal tokea?
Answer: It is written in the Zohar1 regarding the chazzan and the baal tokea of the Yamim Noraim: 'Rabbi Elazar said: I saw my father, on the days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, that he did not wish to hear the tefillah from any person unless he had examined him three days beforehand to purify him, for Rabbi Shimon would say thus: through the tefillah of this person whom I purify, the world is atoned, and all the more so with the blowing of the shofar2, for he would not accept the blowing of a person who is not wise in blowing according to the mystery of the tekiah'.
The words of the Zohar are brought in the Shelah3, and these are his words: 'Three days before Rosh Hashanah, and likewise before Yom Kippur, the shliach tzibbur and anyone chosen from the congregation to lead the tefillah or to blow must separate themselves from anything that brings to tumah, and they require extra purity. For so wrote the Zohar in Parshas Vayikra, and these are its words: Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Abba were sitting; Rabbi Elazar said: I saw my father, on the days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, that he did not wish to hear the tefillah from any person unless he had examined him three days beforehand, to purify him. For Rabbi Shimon would say thus: through the tefillah of this person whom I purify, the world is atoned; and all the more so with the blowing of the shofar, for he would not accept the blowing of a person who is not wise in blowing according to the mystery of the tekiah. Thus far its words. We see that Rashbi did not want to hear the tefillah from just anyone in the shul on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur unless he had tested him three days before Yom Tov, examining whether he was fit to lead the tefillah, both on account of his deeds and on account of his knowledge of the kavanah. And this is what it says, "unless he had examined him" etc., meaning, he looked into him and knew his matter. Therefore the shliach tzibbur or the one who blows must be a complete baal teshuvah, and he should also study the tefillah and the kavanah of the tekios thoroughly'.
And in Sefer Chassidim4 it is written: 'If there are two people in the city who know how to blow the shofar, one a tzaddik and one not a tzaddik, one worthy and one not worthy, they should give the worthy one to blow, provided that there is no dispute over the matter. And those who feared Heaven would hand over their korbanos only to righteous kohanim'5.
[And note what the Tur writes6: 'There is also a minhag in Ashkenaz that the great men of the city hurry to blow, each one who is more zealous in it, which is not so 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 brought the Sefer Chassidim: 'And it is proper to give the blowing to one who is a tzaddik and worthy, provided that there is no dispute over the matter'.
And the Mateh Efraim wrote9: 'And they should take care to seek out a tokea who is worthy, a man of Torah and good deeds, as we wrote regarding the shliach tzibbur, and likewise the makri .. And if no tokea is found in whom is the spirit of G-d to have in mind the secrets of the tekios, it is proper that the makri should know them .. 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 and the greatest in fear of Hashem'. And he further wrote10: 'One who is able to blow well, it is a mitzvah upon him to blow for the congregation to discharge their obligation, even if there is another there, but who is not as expert as he is, and the merit of the many depends on him'.
And note the words of the Baal Shem Tov11 regarding the baal tokea: 'The watchman who goes up on the tower, when he sees something, then blows the shofar; and you have gone up on the tower of the shul — do you see all the accusers surrounding the Throne, that you are blowing, as the early ones would see, to cut down the tyrants, to cut off the thorns etc. Therefore it is called a day of teruah, from the expression "mukash itra'a", like a poor man at the door knocking: "פתחי לי שערי צדק" ("open for me the gates of righteousness"), "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 it")'12.
And in the Levushei Mordechai13 he wrote: 'And since the tekios depend on many halachos, it is obvious that the Rav, the Av Beis Din, is more expert'.
Thus we have seen that it is proper for the baal tokea to be a tzaddik and worthy14, and as we saw in the previous halacha15, that our Rebbeim, our Nesiim, blew the shofar.
--------------
Notes:
1 Vayikra 18a ↩
2 And see Shu"t Keren LeDovid, Orach Chaim, siman 22: 'And it is simple that the baal tokea on Rosh Hashanah has the same law as the shliach tzibbur who goes before the teivah, and whatever disqualifies a shliach tzibbur disqualifies a baal tokea; and he is even more stringent than him, for he discharges the many of their obligation in a positive mitzvah from the Torah, and he is the means of raising the remembrance of Yisroel before our Father in Heaven' ↩
3 Maseches Rosh Hashanah, Perek Ner Mitzvah ↩
4 Siman 761 ↩
5 See Mekor Chessed, os 2 ↩
6 Orach Chaim, siman 585 ↩
7 Orach Chaim, siman 585, se'if katan 1 ↩
8 Shulchan Aruch, there, se'if 3 ↩
9 Siman 585, se'if 2 ↩
10 Se'if 10 ↩
11 Keser Shem Tov, os 419-2 ↩
12 Elef HaMagen, siman 585, se'if katan 3: 'It is written in the sefer Reishis HaDaas, composed by the Ram Almosnino, and these are his words: The one who blows or leads the tefillah on the Yamim Noraim and they do not know or understand what they are saying, and do not know the kavanah of the tefillos and the tekios to draw down the abundance from Above, he is likened to the parable of small children who come to a tree full of fruits that are good and pleasant to look at and a delight to the eyes, and the child wants to grasp the tree but has no strength; but when an adult, a strong 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 am ha'aretz comes to lead the tefillah or to blow, how can he draw down abundance from Above, since he is only like a child in the kavanos, and does not know how to grasp the tree and to arouse and to have in mind the kavanah of the tefillah and 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 abundance from Above for the whole congregation; see there' ↩
13 Shu"t, Mahadura Revi'ai, siman 52 ↩
14 The Mishneh Halachos wrote (vol. 11, siman 479): 'Regarding his question, in a place where there are two baalei tekiah, one expert in the tekios who blows without any stumbling, but he is a simple man and does not know how to have any kavanah at all in the tekios, and the second is a tzaddik and great in Torah who knows how to have kavanah and has in mind the necessary kavanos, but he is not so expert in the tekios and many times the sounds do not come out successfully and he must repeat many times — which of them is preferable to go and hear. In my humble opinion it appears simple, according to what the holy Shelah wrote, that it is good that the tokea should know how to have in mind the secrets, and if not, then in any event the makri should know, and the makri should have in mind the secrets; see there .. *And if so, in a place where the tokea is a simple man but in any event the makri is a talmid chacham who knows how to have in mind the secrets, it is possible that the expert tokea is preferable; but if the makri too is not capable of this, it is simple that the tekios of the tzaddik are preferable, for it is simple that the tzaddik and great man will blow according to halacha*, and an allusion to the matter is "ובשופר גדול יתקע" ("and with a great shofar it shall be blown"), even when only a still, small voice is heard; and if he sometimes needs to repeat until he blows well, what of it, for he too is acting according to halacha, since he is expert in its halachos, as explained in Shulchan Aruch, siman 590. On the contrary, sometimes the simple man may not even act according to 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 versions and the like, and all of it requires great knowledge in this mitzvah .. And one cannot rely on whoever blows that he does so properly, for not everyone is expert in these halachos, even without kavanos; and therefore certainly the tekios of a tzaddik and great man are preferable' ↩
15 From HaYom Yom, vol. 2 – Toras Menachem, Reshimos HaYoman, p. 475 ↩
[7] (Halacha 911)
Question: How should the makri and the tokea prepare?
Answer: The Shelah wrote1: 'Therefore .. the one who blows must be a complete baal teshuvah, and he should also study the tefillah and the kavanah of the tekios thoroughly'.
And so wrote the Mateh Efraim2: 'The makri, the tokea, and the shliach tzibbur who leads Musaf — it is proper for them to be aroused more in 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 it is proper for the makri and the tokea to study well the laws of the shofar and the order of the tekios, for sometimes, for some reason, an error occurs in the mouth of the makri or through an oversight of the tokea, and if he is not expert in the law of what to do — whether to continue blowing onward or to return to the beginning of the order — they will cry out at him in the beis medrash, as in the incident the Rosh brought in the name of the Raavan, and this leads to confusion and distraction of the mind of the tokea and the listeners'3.
And the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch wrote4: 'And they should study, according to their ability, the explanations of the tefillos and the piyutim and the halachos of the tekios, and they should also study sefarim of mussar that arouse a person's heart, so that he will be in awe of the fear of Hashem and of the glory of His majesty when He rises to judge the earth'.
And the Mishnah Berurah5 wrote: 'And it is proper that the shliach tzibbur and the tokea be complete baalei teshuvah; it is also proper 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 days of Rosh Hashanah in the morning, the maamar "Lehavin Inyan Tekias Shofar" (which is in the Siddur)'.
And in the note there it is explained: 'The reason may be said simply: because in this discourse 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'.
Thus it is proper 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 Efraim wrote8: 'There are places where the custom is for the whole congregation to wear the kittel on Rosh Hashanah, and many have the custom that only the one leading the tefillah and the tokea wear a kittel'.
And he repeated his words9: 'And after the completion of the reading of the Sefer Torah, the tokea, the makri who calls out the order of the tekios before him, and the shliach tzibbur who leads Musaf go to immerse, for the sake of extra purity. These go to immerse, and as for the rest of the congregation, one studies the explanation and kavanah of the tekios, another learns, another says Tehillim, each according to the kind of person he is, and all is directed to one intention: to unite their hearts in love and awe 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 practice of our Rebbeim, our Nesiim, was to blow without a kittel, as brought in Reshimas Devarim10 regarding the Rebbe Rashab: the tekios without a kittel.
And likewise at the daytime seudah of Rosh Hashanah 5727,11 the Rebbe asked Rabbi M. D. Rivkin whether the baal tokea must wear a kittel. 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 chazzan 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 chazzan need not wear one. Rabbi M. D. said that the baal tefillah in Lubavitch, Reb Yechiel Halperin, did wear one. The Rebbe said that there is no proof from this that this is how one should conduct oneself, since the Rebbe Rashab would not interfere in the affairs of the baalei batim of the shul, even in matters that were not to his liking. And the Rebbe added that according to the Alter Rebbe, the reason for wearing a kittel on Yom Kippur is in order to resemble the ministering angels; if so, this has no place on Rosh Hashanah.
And so too it is written in practice in Sefer HaMinhogim there: 'The kittel is worn only on Yom Kippur'.
Thus there are communities where 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, se'if 2. And see there what he brought from the Shelah regarding separation for three days (also brought in halacha number 908) ↩
3 Brought in Mishnah Berurah, siman 585, se'if katan 18 ↩
4 Siman 128, se'if 11 ↩
5 Siman 581, se'if katan 11 ↩
6 Regarding the kavanah 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 brought in the Siddur im Dach, in the additions ↩
7 p. 56 ↩
8 Siman 584, se'if 3 ↩
9 Siman 585, se'if 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 of Musaf?
Answer: It is written in the Teshuvos HaGeonim1: 'Such is the minhag in Yisroel, that the one who blows while the congregation is seated, and recites the bracha before the blowing, is the one who blows during the order of the brochos when they are standing, and he does not need a bracha. And if the first one was prevented and could not blow the nine during the brochos, and another came to blow them, since the first one already recited the bracha, the second need not recite a bracha, for one does not recite the bracha "asher kideshanu b'mitzvosav vetzivanu" to blow, but rather to hear the sound of the shofar; since he heard the bracha that the first one recited at the seated blowing, he and all the people have already fulfilled 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 during the order of the brochos when they are standing'.
And the Maggid Mishneh wrote: 'So wrote the Geonim, and so said Rabbeinu Hai, of blessed memory: the minhag in Yisroel is that the one who blows while the congregation is seated, and recites the bracha before the blowing, is the one who blows during the order of the brochos when they are standing, and he does not need a bracha; and if the first one was prevented and cannot blow, the second again need not recite a bracha. Thus far'.
And the Orchos Chaim wrote3: 'The Rambam, of blessed memory: the one who blows while they are seated blows during the order of the brochos, and he does not speak between the seated tekios and the tekios during the order of the 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 here is not to make it a requirement that the one who blew seated must blow during the order of the brochos; he said it only to say that the mitzvah should not be taken away from him since he began it, as we say: one who begins a mitzvah is told, "Complete it"'.
And as halacha, the Mechaber wrote4: 'The one who blows while they are seated blows during the order of the brochos'.
And the Rema wrote in his gloss: 'However, this is not a requirement, and another may blow, but it is proper to do so, and I have already written above in siman 585'.
And in siman 5855 he wrote: 'And if the shliach tzibbur does not blow the seated tekios, it is proper that the same tokea should also blow during the order of the brochos, for one who begins a mitzvah is told, "Complete it"'.
However, the Levush wrote6: 'The minhag of the early generations, who were zealous in mitzvos and cherished them, was that each one would take his portion in order to receive reward — one leads the tefillah and another blows — and whoever came first merited. And some say that the one who blows the seated tekios also blows during the order of the brochos, for one who begins a mitzvah is told to complete it; and the great men of the city hurry to lead the tefillah and to blow — whoever is more zealous gains'.
And he further wrote7: 'Our minhag is not to be particular that specifically the one who blew the seated tekios should blow during the order of the brochos; rather, we let either him or another blow'.
And similarly the Taz wrote8: 'And the minhag in many communities is to divide them, even among the tekios of the orders themselves, and one may justify them based on what the Tur wrote in the name of the Baal HaIttur: it is reasonable that if the shliach tzibbur knows how to blow he has the right, but the minhag of the early generations, who were zealous in mitzvos and cherished them, was that each one would take his portion in order to receive reward. Thus far his words׳9.
And the Magen Avraham10 wrote: 'And it seems to me that all this refers to their times, when they would give him the blowing without specification, and if so he immediately acquired all the tekios, as written in siman 174; but now that in some places the custom is to give the orders to another, then the first one never acquired it, and it is permitted. And this is what he wrote, "and another may blow." Know that this is so, for with the Tamid nine kohanim merited it, because of "in the multitude of people" etc.'.
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe11: 'The tekios during the order of the brochos should not be blown by the shliach tzibbur who leads Musaf, lest he become confused and be unable to return to his tefillah without distraction of mind; but if he is confident in himself that he will return to his tefillah without distraction of mind, or he leads the tefillah from a siddur, in which case he is certainly confident, he may blow, even if there is another person who knows how to blow as well as he does, because the blowing is not an interruption in the tefillah at all, since one must blow during the order of the brochos; if so, it is a need of the tefillah. And therefore the one who blows the seated tekios should properly also blow the standing tekios, for one who begins a mitzvah is told, "Complete it," unless he is the shliach tzibbur who leads Musaf and is not confident that he will return to his tefillah without distraction of mind. When was this said? In the early generations, when the custom was to give the blowing without specification, and so he immediately acquired all the tekios, even those of the order of the brochos, for the reason explained, and the mitzvah should not be taken from him. But now that in some places the custom is to give the standing tekios to another, then the first one never acquired the standing tekios, and it is permitted to give them to another person in every place'.
And so was the practice of our Rebbeim, our Nesiim, as the Rebbe's grandfather, the Rav and Chossid Reb Boruch Shneur, of blessed memory, wrote12 about the conduct of the Rebbe Rashab on Rosh Hashanah 5673, that the Rebbe blew the seated tekios, but 'at Musaf, in the silent Shemoneh Esrei, another blew the tekios, and only in the chazaras hashatz did the Rebbe שליט״א blow'.
[And it should be noted13 that at the seudah on motzei Yom Kippur 5726, Rabbi M. D. Rivkin said to the Rebbe: the Rebbe Rashab would not blow the tekios of the silent tefillah, but only in the chazaras hashatz; and the Rebbe said to him: 'Since the Rebbe, my father-in-law, did not blow in the chazaras hashatz, it is not reasonable to say that the Rebbe Rashab blew. [And the reason he did not blow in the silent tefillah — perhaps it was because he was not holding at 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 minhag of the Rebbe Rayatz, who blew only the seated tekios, the Rebbe conducted himself, and the standing tekios were blown by Rabbi M. M. Tenenbaum.
Thus we have seen that in the earlier generations the custom was that whoever blew the seated tekios also blew the standing tekios, but in the later generations the minhag is not to be particular about this, and another person blows the standing tekios.
--------------
Notes:
1 HaChadashos – Emanuel (Ofek), siman 178 ↩
2 Hilchos Shofar, perek 3, halacha 11 ↩
3 Din Tekias Shofar, os 16 ↩
4 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 592, se'if 4 ↩
5 Se'if 4, in the gloss ↩
6 Orach Chaim, siman 585, se'if 4 ↩
7 Siman 592, se'if 4 ↩
8 Orach Chaim, siman 585, se'if katan 6 ↩
9 And the Eliyah Rabbah wrote, siman 585, se'if katan 16: 'And this can be rejected, for there, tefillah and blowing are each a different mitzvah, which is not so with one mitzvah, within the blowing itself. And see Yoreh Deah, end of siman 266, regarding two mohalim. However, the Levush too, at the end of siman 592, wrote "our minhag is not" etc.' ↩
10 Siman 592, se'if katan 7 ↩
11 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 592, se'ifim 10-11 ↩
12 Reshimas HaRabash, p. 40 (Kehot edition), p. 24 (Kraus edition) ↩
13 HaMelech BiMesibo, 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 the Shemoneh Esrei, the shliach tzibbur was already holding at the piyut Unesaneh Tokef. And in Reshimas Devarim (Chitrik), p. 357, he wrote: 'The Rebbe's Musaf tefillah was lengthy, sometimes until the shliach tzibbur reached Kesser, and sometimes until "Aleinu" in the chazaras hashatz' ↩
[9] (Halacha 913)
Covering the Shofar
Question: Should 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 seated, before they stand for the tefillah, the shliach tzibbur holds the shofar in his hand and recites the bracha ..'.
And so wrote the She'iltos of Rav Achai1: 'Now, how should one do it? Before they pray Musaf, the shliach tzibbur should stand on his feet while everyone sits, and he takes the trumpet in his hand2 and recites the bracha: Boruch Atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam asher kideshanu b'mitzvosav vetzivanu lisko'a b'shofar'.
The words of Rav Amram Gaon are brought in several sefarim of the Rishonim, as written in the Siddur Rashi3: 'And while they are seated, immediately before they stand for the tefillah and before they begin with Tehillah, the shliach tzibbur holds the shofar in his hand, stands on his feet, and recites the bracha'.
And so wrote the Machzor Vitri4: 'And while they are seated, before they stand for the tefillah, and before they begin with Tehillah, the shliach tzibbur holds the shofar in his hand, stands on his feet, and recites the bracha'.
And so wrote the Minhag Marseille5: 'And after he completes, 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 written in the Minhogim of Tyrnau, in the Hagahos HaMinhogim6: 'The tokea (must) [may]7 cover the shofar at the time of the brochos'.
And the Eliyah Rabbah brought it8: 'The Hagahos Minhogim wrote that one must cover the shofar at the time of the brochos'. And so wrote the Be'er Heitev9 in the name of the Bach׳10.
However, in the Siddur Yaavetz11 he wrote in accordance with the words of Rav Amram and the aforementioned Rishonim: before the bracha over the shofar: 'He should take the shofar in his right hand .. and afterwards recite the bracha'12.
And some have written that both things can be fulfilled together, as the Rosh Mashbir wrote13: The conclusion we reach for 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 was lying before him, he need not repeat the bracha .. And as for what is written in the sefer Be'er Heitev .. in the name of the Rav, the Bach: "and one should cover the shofar at the time of the bracha," thus far — besides the fact that I have not found that the Bach, of blessed memory, wrote this, his words seemingly are puzzling, for what reason is there in it? Besides 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 heard that some do, holding the shofar in the right hand and hiding the right hand with the shofar under the outer garment called a "kapa"׳.
And so wrote the Ben Ish Chai14: 'He should cover the shofar until the completion of the brochos, and he must hold it in his hand, covered, at the time of the bracha; and see Rosh Mashbir, siman 74'.
The Mateh Efraim15 wrote: 'And the custom is to cover the shofar with the cloth spread on the table, and it should remain covered until the completion of the brochos, when he takes it from there to blow with it'. And in the Elef HaMagen16 he added: 'To cover the shofar — so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah and the Derech HaChaim. However, in the Siddur of the Mahari Yaavetz it is implied that he must hold the shofar in his hand at the time of the bracha. And it seems more correct that at the time of the bracha he should hold it in his hand, and only between the orders should he cover it, to fulfill the minhag. And our minhag is to cover (and in any event it is good that he should also hold it in his hand, through the separation of a cloth, as with anything over which one recites a bracha, that one must hold it in his hand, as explained in the Acharonim)'.
The Chabad minhag
Although the minhag of covering the shofar is not brought in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, our Rebbeim, our Nesiim, did have the custom to cover the shofar, as brought17 regarding the conduct of the Rebbe Rashab.
And regarding the Rebbe's conduct: it is brought in several diaries18 that the Rebbe held the covered shofar in his hand at the time of the brochos.
Thus 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 custom to do both together — to hold the shofar at the time of the bracha.
In the next halacha we will see several reasons brought in the poskim to explain the reason for the minhag of covering the shofar at the time of the bracha.
Notes:
1 Parshas Vezos HaBracha, She'ilta 171 ↩
2 And see Ha'amek She'elah, os 3: 'It is explained that he should take hold of the shofar in his hand and afterwards recite the bracha, as stated in Pesachim 7: since he lifted it he has fulfilled his obligation with it; evidently, before one takes hold of the lulav one cannot recite the bracha. And likewise regarding tefillin it is stated in Menachos 37: from when does one recite the bracha? From the time of putting them on, and not before he places them on his arm. *And likewise with the shofar, it is forbidden to recite the bracha at a time when he is not holding it in his hand'* ↩
3 Siman 183 ↩
4 Siman 347 ↩
5 Tefillas Rosh Hashanah, p. 124 ↩
6 Rosh Hashanah, os 120 ↩
7 And see Minchas Elazar, Shu"t, vol. 4, siman 36: '(And what he wrote there in the introduction to the sefer HaZohar, that in the Hagahos Minhogim before him the wording was that he may cover it, and it did not say that he must — apparently it may be a printing error in the edition before him, and in the early editions of the earlier machzorim before us it is written there in the Hagahos Minhogim in these words: "It is proper for the tokea to cover" etc., as above)' ↩
8 Siman 585, se'if katan 8. And in the Eliyah Zuta, siman 593, se'if katan 1 ↩
9 Siman 593, se'if katan 3 ↩
10 And the commentators noted that this is not found in the Bach before us. And see below in the Rosh Mashbir ↩
11 Eighth gate – Shaar HaAyin, os 35 ↩
12 However, what is written in os 32: 'And the shofar should be covered with the cloth on the table until the completion of the brochos [and likewise between each order of the tekios]' is an addition of the printers ↩
13 Shu"t, vol. 1, siman 30 ↩
14 First year, Nitzavim, se'if 15 ↩
15 Siman 585, se'if 3 ↩
16 There, os 7 ↩
17 See Otzar Minhogei Chabad, Tishrei, p. 114 ↩
18 Yoman Arenu Niflaos, p. 8. Otzar Minhogei Chabad, Tishrei, os 247. Chikrei Minhogim, vol. 3, siman 90, note 2. And so testified HaGaon Rabbi M. S. Ashkenazi, of blessed memory ↩
19 And note what the Kaf HaChaim wrote, siman 585, se'if katan 14: 'And likewise one must cover the shofar between each siman. Kitzur Shelah there. And according to this, one must cover it the whole time that 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 the 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 deal with the reason for the minhag of covering the shofar, and we find several reasons in the Acharonim, as follows:
A) A remembrance of the Akeidah
The Mateh Efraim wrote in the Elef HaMagen1: 'And the reason that the minhag is to cover the shofar — the Gaon Rabbi D. L. wrote2 in the Kadmus HaZohar that it is in remembrance of what they said in the Pesikta and in the Midrash Rabbah3, that before the Akeidah, at the time of building the mizbeach, Avraham Avinu, peace be upon him, hid Yitzchok until the actual Akeidah, so that the knife should not be thrown into him and he become disqualified. And since blowing a ram's shofar is a remembrance of the Akeidah and the ram of Yitzchok, therefore they instituted this as a remembrance; see there''4.
'And he wrote in the Katzeh HaMateh5: 'And in my humble opinion, perhaps there is an allusion to this: תקעו בחודש שופר בכס״א ("Blow the shofar at the new moon, at the covered time"), and understand'.
B) So that it should not appear as passing over 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 — seemingly this is puzzling, for it is proper to bring the bracha as close to the mitzvah as possible; and with tefillin, for this reason, we recite the bracha between placing and tying, so why should the shofar be different? And it seems to me that in the Teshuvos of the Rambam7 they asked him what the difference is between the bracha "al tekias shofar" and "lishmo'a kol shofar." And he answered that the mitzvah is in the hearing alone, and the blowing is like one who makes a sukkah to sit in it; therefore we recite "lishmo'a." And the matter is puzzling, for if so, one who hears the blowing of a deaf-mute, a shoteh, a minor, or a woman should also fulfill his obligation, just as with a sukkas Ganbach. And I have already said regarding this .. so too with the shofar, one does not fulfill one's obligation by hearing unless one performed an action so that he would hear — namely, that he blew, or his agent did. And therefore one who is not obligated, who cannot become an agent .. But according to this, seemingly he could recite the bracha over the blowing, since he is obligated to blow, he himself or his agent, as above. However, this bracha would be only for the one blowing for himself and not for the listeners8, like anyone who performs a mitzvah through an agent — when his son is circumcised by another, the mohel recites the bracha .. and therefore it is impossible for the listener to recite the bracha over the blowing, just as the father of the boy does not recite the bracha over his son who was circumcised by another. Therefore we recite "lishmo'a," for this bracha is also for the congregation, not for the one blowing alone. And with this, the covering of the shofar is well understood. For otherwise, when he recites the bracha over the sound and not over the shofar, it would be considered passing over mitzvos with respect to the tokea, who truly could also recite the bracha over the blowing of the shofar; therefore it is covered at the time of the bracha. One may also explain according to this: just as the bread is covered at the time of Kiddush so that the bread should not see its shame, that Kiddush is not made over it, so too here, since the tokea could recite the bracha over the shofar, it is covered so that the shofar should not see its shame'9.
C) To show that the bracha is over the sound and not over the shofar
He wrote in Shu"t Afarkasta D'Anya10: 'And in my humble opinion, a simple reason may be given for this, based on what the poskim wrote, that this is why we recite "lishmo'a kol shofar" and not "lisko'a" or "al tekias shofar": because the essence of the mitzvah is hearing the sound of the shofar. And it may be said that this is why the shofar is covered at the time of the bracha — to teach this halacha, that the bracha is over the sound and not over the shofar'.
D) To show that he does not intend a specific shofar
The Divrei Yatziv wrote11: 'And one may further suggest a reason for the minhag: in Shu"t Binyan Olam, siman 31, he discusses a case where the shofar was taken from him between the brochos and the beginning of the blowing, and another was brought to him — whether he must recite the bracha again; for one may say that it is not comparable to the case in siman 206, se'if 6, where one took a fruit in his hand to eat it and recited the bracha over it, and it fell from his hand and was lost or became repulsive, that he must repeat the bracha, for there the bracha is over the fruit, which is not so here, where he recites the bracha over the mitzvah of blowing; see there what he elaborated on this .. And for this reason he covers the shofar at the time of the bracha, to reveal his intent that he does not mean a specific shofar, so that he will not need to repeat the bracha if this shofar is taken from him, or if it becomes damaged and he takes another. And see the Elef HaMagen, siman 585, se'if katan 6, that the minhag is to place next to the tokea all the shofars, so that he should have them in mind in his bracha, and then if one becomes damaged he blows with another; see there. And it is well understood that they also cover the shofar to emphasize even more strongly that in his bracha he has in mind every shofar with which he will blow; and consider this carefully׳.
--------------
Notes:
1 Siman 585, se'if katan 7 ↩
2 And see Sdei Chemed, Maareches Rosh Hashanah, siman 2, os 14. Shu"t Minchas Elazar, vol. 4, siman 36 ↩
3 Bereishis, parsha 56 ↩
4 And some wrote (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, perhaps the reason is based on the incident brought in the Magen Avraham, that once they were unable to blow, and they turned the shofar over and read into it "Vihi No'am" and blew, because the Satan was there and prevented the blowing; see there. And therefore the shofar is covered until the time of the tekios, so that the Satan should not have dominion over it ..'. And see Shu"t Chelkas Yaakov, Orach Chaim, siman 222 ↩
5 Os 13 ↩
6 Orach Chaim section, siman 431 ↩
7 Siman 51 ↩
8 The Minchas Elazar there disagreed with his words and wrote: 'And the main reason is because the essence of the mitzvah of tekias shofar is only in the hearing, since the tokea himself does not fulfill his obligation — if he stands at the edge of a pit and puts his mouth into the pit, he himself also does not fulfill his obligation. If so, the essence is only the hearing, as the Bahag and other Rishonim wrote, as brought in the Beis Yosef (siman 585), that this is why we do not recite "lisko'a" or "al hatekiah"; and see the Pri Chadash there, that even b'dieved one does not fulfill one's obligation if he recited "lisko'a." And what relevance is the comparison of the bracha of the milah by the father's agent, which the Avnei Nezer brought, as mentioned, to compare it to here .. And furthermore, if according to the Avnei Nezer, it would be proper for the tokea himself to recite the bracha over the blowing, "lisko'a" etc. .. And in truth this is not so according to the words of the Bahag and the aforementioned poskim, whom we follow, since the tokea himself sometimes does not fulfill his obligation with his blowing; and therefore it is only relevant to recite "lishmo'a kol shofar," and they did not institute another text of the bracha, as mentioned' ↩
9 The Minchas Elazar there wondered at his words and wrote: 'And his words are not understood at all, for how is this considered passing over mitzvos with respect to the tokea, when even the tokea on his own can only recite "lishmo'a," as above? And also, even according to his words, where do we find passing over mitzvos with respect to a person, namely the tokea? If so, they would need to cover the baal tokea and not the shofar. And this is also the second reason he wrote, and neither of them has any reason at all, with all due respect to his great honor' ↩
10 Vol. 1, siman 116 ↩
11 Shu"t Likutim VeHashmatos, siman 56. And see his words there, where he wrote additional reasons ↩
[11] (Halacha 916)
Question: Where should the tekios meyushav and the tekios me'umad be blown?
Answer: The Kolbo wrote1: 'And there are also places where he blows on the first day on the bimah and on the second day in his place'.
And the Rema wrote in the Darkei Moshe2: 'And this is not the custom; rather, we blow on both days on the bimah before the tefillah'.
And so he wrote as halacha3: 'And the custom is to blow on the bimah, at the place where the reading is done'.
And as the reason for this, the Levush wrote4: 'And he stands on the bimah, at the place where the Torah is read, and he should not stand in his seat, out of respect for the congregation'.
And regarding the tekios me'umad, it is written in the Minhogei Maharil5: 'If there was no 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 blow the standing sounds, and he did not go up on the tower as other tokim do when they blow during the order of the standing brochos'.
And from his words it appears that generally the tekios me'umad too were blown on the bimah6.
However, the Rema in the Darkei Moshe there wrote: 'And the tekios that are blown during the order of the tefillah, on both days, in his place'.
And the Magen Avraham brought it7: 'And he stands in his place and need not stand on the bimah [Darkei Moshe, siman 586]'.
And the Eliyah Rabbah wrote8: 'And it seems to me that its explanation is: at the time of the blowing he stands in his place and need not stand on the bimah, but before the blowing he is permitted to walk here and there, provided that he does not speak and does not divert his attention. And even one who is stringent — in any event, for the need of a mitzvah, for opening the Aron Kodesh, it is certainly permitted'.
However, the Ateres Zekeinim9 wrote: 'And there are places where they blow next to the chazzan. And in the holy community of Vienna the custom was to blow even those tekios during the order of the tefillah on the bimah, and that tokea goes up on the bimah immediately before Musaf begins and stands there until the end of the tefillah. And I remember that this minhag was established by the outstanding Gaon, our teacher Rabbi Wolf, of blessed memory, when he was Av Beis Din and Rosh Mesivta there'.
And the Pri Megadim wrote10: 'There are places where they blow the orders in their places, and some go up on the bimah, but for the tekios meyushav they go up on the bimah'.
And in practice the Alter Rebbe wrote in accordance with the words of the Rema and the Magen Avraham, for in siman 58511 he wrote: 'The custom is to blow on the bimah, at the place where the reading is done'. And in siman 59212 he wrote: 'The custom is that for the tekios meyushav the tokea goes up on the bimah and blows there, out of respect for the congregation, but for the tekios me'umad, since they are within the tefillah, he is not troubled to go up; rather, he stands [in his place] and blows'.
And the Mateh Efraim wrote13: 'And in some places the custom is to blow also the tekios during the order of the brochos on the bimah, so that it will be heard well by the whole congregation, and the tokea goes up on the bimah before Musaf begins and stands there until the end of the tefillah'.
And as the reason for blowing on the bimah, we saw that the Levush and the Alter Rebbe wrote that it is because of respect for the congregation; however, we find in the Acharonim several more reasons for this14. The Gra15 wrote: "And the custom is" etc. Midrash Rabbah, beginning of Parshas Shoftim, 223: Rabbi Yitzchok said, two things are in the right hand of HaKadosh Boruch Hu — tzedakah and Torah. Tzedakah, as it is written, "צדק מלאה ימינך" ("Your right hand is full of righteousness"); Torah, as it is written, "מימינו אש דת למו" ("from His right hand, a fiery law for them"). Two things are in His hand, and they are the soul and judgment. The soul, as it is written, "אשר בידו נפש כל חי" ("in Whose hand is the soul of every living thing"); and judgment, as it is written, "ותאחז במשפט ידי" ("and My hand takes hold of judgment") etc. The words of the Rokeach: and He will remember his righteousness at the reading of the Torah, for both are in the right hand, to benefit the soul at the time of judgment; and this is what is said in Tehillim 89: "צדק ומשפט" ("righteousness and justice") etc., "אשרי העם יודעי תרועה" ("fortunate is the people who know the teruah") etc. And in the Pesikta, Rabbi Yehudah bar Nachmani, in the name of Reish Lakish, opened: "עלה אלהים בתרועה" ("G-d ascends with the teruah") — at the time that HaKadosh Boruch Hu ascends and sits on the Throne of Judgment, He ascends with judgment, and at the time that Yisroel take the shofar and blow, HaKadosh Boruch Hu rises from the Throne of Judgment and sits on the Throne of Mercy etc.; see there in the Rokeach. And this is what is said, "righteousness and justice" etc., for the left is included with the right; and this is what is said, "My lamp is in your hand and your lamp is in My hand" etc., also as above. Therefore it is fitting to include the judgment in the place of the Torah'.
And the Gaon Rabbi N. Y. Palagi, in the Yafeh LaLev16, wrote: 'And the reason is to remember that the Torah was given to Yisroel with the shofar, as it says, "ויהי קול השופר הולך וחזק מאוד" ("and the sound of the shofar grew continually stronger") etc. And see Tanna D'vei Eliyahu .. ch. 22 .. when Dovid brought up the Aron of G-d, in which were the Luchos of the Torah, from the house of Oved Edom to the City of Dovid, as written in Shmuel II, ch. 6, it is written there: "ודוד וכל בית ישראל מעלים את ארון ה׳ בתרועה וקול שופר" ("and Dovid and all the house of Yisroel brought up the Aron of Hashem with teruah and the sound of the shofar"); and this is easily understood'.
And the Netziv, in the Meishiv Davar17, wrote: 'And likewise we have the custom to hold a Sefer Torah at the time of tekias shofar on the bimah, so that it should be like the blowing of the trumpets over the offering of the korbanos on the mizbeach; and since the day the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed, we have no protector and no one to raise remembrances for good like the Torah, which is our existence and the sustenance of our souls and our nation in the midst of our dispersion, and we are distinguished by it as by the Beis HaMikdash in former times'.
The Rebbe18 remarked on what the Alter Rebbe wrote in the Siddur, that after the reading of the Torah he should prepare himself to blow the shofar: 'Seemingly this requires examination — what is it teaching us? .. And it may be said that it alludes to the connection of tekias shofar with Matan Torah, as Rav Saadia Gaon wrote (brought in the Abudraham), that this is one of the reasons for tekias shofar: to remember the sound of the shofar at Matan Torah (and as we say in the pesukim of Shofros). And it may be said that this is the reason for the minhag .. to blow on the bimah, at the place where the reading is done'.
Thus we have seen that the tekios meyushav are blown on the bimah of the Torah reading, but the tekios me'umad may be blown in one's place
--------------
Notes:
1 Siman 64 ↩
2 Orach Chaim, siman 585, se'if katan 1 ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 585, se'if 1, in the gloss ↩
4 Orach Chaim, siman 585, se'if 1 ↩
5 Hilchos Shofar ↩
6 See Likutei Maharich, Seder Rosh Hashanah, p. 70 ↩
7 Siman 592, se'if katan 6 ↩
8 Siman 592, se'if katan 8 ↩
9 Siman 585, se'if katan 1 ↩
10 Eshel Avraham, siman 592, se'if katan 6 ↩
11 Se'if 3 ↩
12 Se'if 9 ↩
13 Siman 592, se'if 9 ↩
14 And see Kaf HaChaim, siman 585, se'if katan 8. Halachos Chag BeChag (Karp), Yamim Noraim, ch. 9, note 13. Teshuvos VeHanhagos, vol. 2, siman 277 ↩
15 In his Biur on siman 585, os 2 ↩
16 Vol. 2, siman 585, se'if katan 2 ↩
17 Shu"t, vol. 1, siman 15. And see also Mishnah Berurah, siman 585, se'if katan 3 ↩
18 Likkutei Sichos, vol. 39, p. 43, in the sicha for Rosh Hashanah, note 1 ↩
[12] (Halacha 1168)
Teruah
Question: One of the sounds we make with the shofar on Rosh Hashanah is called a teruah, which is a short sound. How many such short sounds must be made?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Rosh Hashanah1 says: 'The length of a teruah is like three yevavos'.
And Rashi wrote: 'Three yevavos — merely three sounds, of any length'. And the Rosh2 wrote: 'And Rabbeinu Chananel explained like Rashi's explanation, and so it says in the Yerushalmi3: What is a teruah? Three thin sounds'.
However, the Tosafos there disagreed with Rashi and wrote: 'And the Riva and Rabbi Yitzchok the son of Rabbi Meir explain that a yevava is three short bursts of any length; thus a teruah is nine bursts'.
[The Rambam4 wrote: 'The length of a teruah is like two tekios; the length of three shevarim is like a teruah'. And the Maggid Mishneh wrote that the view of the Rambam is that nine yevavos are made, like the words of the Tosafos: 'And our master did not mention a length because he already explained that we are in doubt as to what the teruah is, but he wrote that the length of the shevarim is like a teruah; and so it is, that the length of the yevavos and the shevarim is one, for the shevarim are three and the yevavos nine; and so they, of blessed memory, wrote; but this is not clearly explained in the words of our master'].
> Thus the Rishonim disagreed whether a teruah is three sounds or nine sounds.
And the Korban Nesanel wrote on the words of the Rosh5 that their dispute depends on the version of the Yerushalmi: 'What is a teruah? "Tlas dakikin" — so is the version of Rashi, meaning thin sounds, that is, three bursts of any length. But the Riva reads "tlas rekikin," meaning broad sounds like wafers, that is, that each yevava should be like three bursts. And see the Migdal Oz, perek 3 of Hilchos Shofar'.
As halacha, the Mechaber wrote6: 'Some say that the length of a tekiah is like a teruah, and the length of a teruah is like three yevavos, that is, merely three bursts of any length, and they are called tromitin .. And some say that the length of a yevava is three tromitin, and the length of a teruah is like three yevavos, which are nine tromitin'.
The Alter Rebbe7 brought the two views: 'The length of the teruah stated in the Torah is like three yevavos. Some say that this means merely three bursts, and they are called tromitin .. And some say that the length of a yevava is three tromitin, and the length of a teruah is like three yevavos, which are nine tromitin'.
And he ruled8: 'And as for the halacha, one should be stringent in a Torah matter in accordance with the latter view .. and in every teruah one must make nine tromitin, as explained; but b'dieved, if he already blew and changed one of all these, he need not blow again, because one may rely on the first view'.
Question: May one add to the number of teruah sounds, more than nine ?
Answer: The Tosafos wrote there: 'As we lengthen the yevavos'.
And the Ritva wrote there: 'And all the measures of our Mishnah are only minimums, but if he wishes to lengthen more, he may do so, as is the custom. And so we learned: if he extended the second like two, he has only one — thus he does have one, even though it is long. And the one who holds that he does not have even one, that is not because of the length but for another reason, as we will say shortly. And likewise you say regarding the teruah, which is three yevavos, that if he wishes to make it of a hundred yevavos he may do so, provided that he does not interrupt in between with a breath; for if he interrupts in between, it becomes two teruos, and one of them is a teruah that interrupts between the tekiah and the teruah, and we require that no sound interrupt between the middle teruah and the tekiah before it or after it. And so they said in the Tosefta: if he blew a tekiah and a teruah, and again a teruah and a tekiah, he has only one — that is, if he did tekiah-teruah-teruah-tekiah, he has only the last tekiah, and he completes the siman upon it, for the teruah he added nullified the first ones through the interruption; therefore he attaches to the last tekiah a teruah and a tekiah, and it becomes tekiah-teruah-tekiah. In any event, as long as he did not interrupt in between in the teruah, he may lengthen it as much as he wishes'.
And in the Minhogei Maharil9 it is written: 'The Mahari Segal said: the fact that they blow and lengthen the teruah more than what our Sages, of blessed memory, set — there is no consequence to this, for the Sages gave a measure only not to do less than it, and so too in Orchos Chaim'.
As halacha, the Mechaber wrote there: 'And likewise with the teruah, he may lengthen it as much as he wishes'.
And the Alter Rebbe wrote10 there in se'if 4: 'Tromitin — he may make as many as he wishes'. And indeed this is the minhag of our Rebbeim, our Nesiim, who greatly lengthened the teruah11.
> Thus we have seen that one must make at least nine teruah sounds in each teruah order, and the minhag is to make many more. And in the coming halachos we will see regarding the length of the tekiah and the shevarim.
Notes:
1 33b ↩
2 Rosh Hashanah, perek 4, siman 10 ↩
3 Perek 4, halacha 10 ↩
4 Hilchos Shofar, perek 3, halacha 4 ↩
5 There, os 70 ↩
6 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 590, se'if 3 ↩
7 Shulchan Aruch, there, se'ifim 4-6 ↩
8 Se'if 7 ↩
9 Hilchos Shofar ↩
10 There, se'if 4 ↩
11 See the sources cited in Otzar Minhogei Chabad, Rosh Hashanah, p. 123 ↩
[13] (Halacha 1169)
Tekiah
Question: What is the length of the tekiah that one should make?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Rosh Hashanah1 writes: 'The length of a tekiah is like three teruos'. The Gemara asks: 'But it was taught in a Baraisa: The length of a tekiah is like a teruah? Abaye said: Our Tanna counts the tekios of all the sets and the teruos of all the sets; the Tanna of the Baraisa counts one set and no more'.
a) And Rashi explained: 'Our Tanna counts all the sets — and this is what he is saying: the length of three tekios is like the three teruos. And the Tanna of the Baraisa counts one set — the length of the tekiah is like the length of the teruah; and both are saying one thing'.
> It is clear from his words that the measure of the length of the tekiah is like the measure of the length of the teruah2.
And regarding the number of sounds of the teruah, we saw in the previous halacha that the Rishonim disagreed about this: according to Rashi a teruah is three short sounds, and according to the Riva it is nine short sounds. Accordingly, they also disagreed about the length of the tekiah that one should make, as follows:
Tosafos wrote according to Rashi's view: 'One must draw out the tekios of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah for the length of three shevarim and three yevavos; and the tekios of tekiah-shevarim-tekiah for the length of three shevarim, since we do tekiah-shevarim-tekiah because of the doubt whether it is a groaning sound; and the tekios of tekiah-teruah-tekiah for the length of a teruah, which is a wailing sound. However, if he draws out all the tekios like the tekios of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah, there is no concern, for he may draw them out as long as he wishes, as we learned: if he drew out the second for the length of two, he has only one to his credit'.
And according to the Riva's view they wrote there: 'And according to their explanation one must draw out the tekiah of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah for the length of three shevarim and nine bursts'.
b) The view of the Raavad3 is that even according to the opinion that the teruah is three wails, the tekiah is nevertheless the length of nine. In his words: 'The teruah is tromitin, and its length is three tromitin, which is a short length; and the other Tanna says that the teruah is shevarim, and they are three, which is a long length; but the length of the tekiah is the same for both of them — like nine tromitin or like three shevarim, which are one measure'.
c) The Rambam4 wrote: 'The length of a teruah is like two tekios'.
And see what the Maggid Mishneh and the Ran5 discussed regarding his words. And the Bach6 wrote that according to the Rambam the teruah is a long measure, like nine bursts, and likewise the shevarim, and the tekiah is a measure of four and a half bursts.
Halachically, the Mechaber7 wrote: 'Some say that the length of a tekiah is like a teruah, and the length of a teruah is like three yevavos, that is, merely three bursts of any length, and they are called tromitin .. And one must draw out the tekiah of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah more than that of tekiah-shevarim-tekiah, and that of tekiah-shevarim-tekiah more than that of tekiah-teruah-tekiah. However, if he draws out each tekiah a great deal, there is no concern, for it has no upper limit .. And some say that the length of a yevava is three tromitin, and the length of a teruah is like three yevavos, which are nine tromitin, and the length of a tekiah is also nine tromitin, like a teruah. According to this, there is no concern if he drew out the shevarim somewhat; and one must draw out the tekiah of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah for the length of twelve8 tromitin'.
The Alter Rebbe9 wrote: 'The length of the tekiah stated in the Torah is like the length of the teruah stated in the Torah, and the length of the teruah stated in the Torah is like three yevavos. Some say this means merely three bursts, and they are called tromitin. And now that the Sages instituted blowing tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah, tekiah-shevarim-tekiah, tekiah-teruah-tekiah in order to resolve all the doubts regarding the teruah, one must draw out the tekiah of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah for the length of the teruah of the tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah set, that is, three medium shevarim, which are like three medium groans, and like three short wails, since all together they are the teruah of the tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah set. And in the tekiah-shevarim-tekiah set he need draw out its tekios only for the length of three medium shevarim, which is the length of the teruah of the tekiah-shevarim-tekiah set; and in the tekios of the tekiah-teruah-tekiah set he need draw them out only for the length of three short wails, which is the length of the teruah of the tekiah-teruah-tekiah set. And if he wishes to draw out each tekiah a great deal, he is permitted to draw it out as long as he wishes; they stated a measure for the tekios only so that he not go below the measure'.
And he further wrote10: 'And some say that the length of a yevava is three tromitin, and the length of a teruah is like three yevavos, which are nine tromitin, and the length of a tekiah is like the length of a teruah, also nine tromitin .. And according to their words one must draw out the tekios of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah no less than eighteen tromitin, which is the length of the teruah of the tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah set, that is, three groans and three yevavos together, which are no less than eighteen tromitin .. And in the tekiah-shevarim-tekiah set one must draw out the tekios for the length of nine tromitin, which is the length of the [teruah] of this set'.
And halachically he ruled11: 'As a matter of halacha, one should be stringent regarding a Torah obligation in accordance with the latter view, that is, that he should draw out the tekios of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah for the length of eighteen tromitin at least, and the tekios of tekiah-shevarim-tekiah and tekiah-teruah-tekiah for the length of nine tromitin at least'.
> Thus we have seen that the length of the tekiah in each set — tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah, tekiah-shevarim-tekiah or tekiah-teruah-tekiah — depends on the length of the teruah that must be made [and according to each view, on the length of the teruah in that view], or of the shevarim, or of the shevarim and teruah together, in that set. But one may draw it out longer. And in the next halacha we will see what the length of the shevarim is.
Notes:
1 33b ↩
2 And see Chiddushei HaTzemach Tzedek, Rosh Hashanah 75c, that this is the view of the Rosh, the Ran, the Ramban and the Rashba; and so it is explained in the Smag, siman 42, and in the Smak, siman 92 ↩
3 In the Hasagos, Hilchos Shofar, ch. 3, halacha 4 ↩
4 Hilchos Shofar, there ↩
5 Rosh Hashanah 10a in the pages of the Rif ↩
6 Orach Chaim, siman 590 ↩
7 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 590, se'if 3 ↩
8 The commentators on the Shulchan Aruch (see the Bach, and the Magen Avraham, se'if katan 12) emended it to read eighteen. However, see what the Tzemach Tzedek wrote in his Chiddushim on Shas, 76a, to refute their words and uphold the existing text; and we will see more on this in the next halacha ↩
9 There, se'if 4 ↩
10 Se'if 6 ↩
11 There, se'if 7 ↩
[14] (Halacha 1170)
Shevarim
Question: What is the measure of the length of each shever?
Answer: In the previous halachos we saw that Rashi and the Baalei HaTosafos disagreed regarding the amount of teruah required in each set, and that the length of the tekiah depends on this. Below it will be explained that the length of the shever also depends on this disagreement.
Rashi's view: We saw that according to Rashi a teruah is 'merely three sounds', and since 'the length of a tekiah is like a teruah', the tekiah [of the tekiah-teruah-tekiah set] is accordingly the length of three sounds. Based on this, Tosafos1 wrote according to Rashi's view: 'And one must be careful with the shevarim not to draw out each one by itself for the length of three yevavos of three sounds of any length, for if so it becomes a tekiah and not shevarim, since the length of a tekiah is like a teruah and the length of a teruah is like three yevavos'.
And similarly the Rosh2 wrote: 'According to this, one must be careful with the shevarim not to draw out each one by itself for the length of three yevavos of three bursts of any length, for if so they leave the category of shevarim and become a tekiah, since the length of a tekiah is like a teruah and the length of a teruah is like three yevavos'.
And so the Mechaber wrote according to Rashi's view3: 'According to this, one must be careful not to draw out a shever for the length of three tromitin, for if so it leaves the category of a shever and becomes a tekiah'.
However, the Rema wrote in a gloss: 'And some say there is no concern if he drew out the shevarim somewhat, provided he does not draw them out excessively. And this is the practice'.
And the Magen Avraham4 explained: 'That is, for the length of three shevarim and a teruah; for we do tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah out of doubt, lest the teruah of the verse is both of them together, and if so the tekiah too must be like both of them together; and if so, even if he drew out the shevarim somewhat, it does not matter. But in tekiah-shevarim-tekiah he should not draw out one shever for the length of three shevarim, for this reason'.
And the Alter Rebbe5 wrote according to Rashi's view: 'And one must be careful with the shevarim of the tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah set not to draw out one of the three shevarim for the length of three medium shevarim and three wails, that is, tromitin, which is the length of the tekiah of the tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah set; and if he draws out one shever for this length, it leaves the category of a shever and is called a tekiah. And in the tekiah-shevarim-tekiah set, where the length of the tekiah is like three medium shevarim, he should not draw out one shever for the length of three medium shevarim, so that it not leave the category of a shever and be called a tekiah; and if he was not careful about this, even b'dieved he has not fulfilled his obligation (according to this view). And l'chatchilah it is good to be careful that even in the tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah set he not draw out one shever for the length of [three] tromitin, because this is the length of the tekiah of the tekiah-teruah-tekiah set, and if he draws it out for this length it will bear the name of a tekiah of tekiah-teruah-tekiah and not the name of a shever. Therefore it is good to shorten each and every shever as much as possible, only not to shorten it excessively, so that it bear the name of a groan and not the name of a wail, that is, tromitin'.
> Thus according to Rashi it is proper l'chatchilah that each shever be shorter than the length of three sounds; but even if he drew out a shever of tekiah-shevarim-tekiah or of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah longer than three bursts, it is not invalid, since in those sets the tekiah is also longer than three bursts.
The view of Tosafos: We saw that according to the Rivam a teruah is nine sounds. Based on this the Bach6 wrote: 'Since each of the yevavos is three bursts, three yevavos are necessarily nine bursts, and three shevarim are at least nine bursts, for they are not shorter than yevavos'. And so the Taz7 wrote: 'For we require the length of three shevarim, which are nine bursts'.
[In the words of the Magen Avraham8 too we see that he understood that according to the Rivam nine bursts are required, and therefore he wrote that there is a scribal error in the words of the Mechaber, for the tekiah must be the length of eighteen (that is, nine bursts in the three shevarim and nine sounds in the teruah), as was cited in the previous halacha. However, he wrote that this is not the practice, in his words9: 'And so the practice is not to draw them out so much, to the length of nine bursts'.]
The Alter Rebbe10 wrote: 'And some say that the length of a yevava is three tromitin, and the length of a teruah is like three yevavos, which are nine tromitin, and the length of a tekiah is like the length of a teruah, also nine tromitin, and the length of the shevarim is certainly not less than the length of a teruah, also nine tromitin at the least; and if so, one must draw out each shever no less than three tromitin, so that the three shevarim together will be no less than nine tromitin, like the length of a teruah'.
> Thus we have seen that they wrote that according to the Riva the length of all three shevarim is nine bursts, and accordingly each shever is no less than three bursts.
However, the Tzemach Tzedek11 explained at length that 'it appears that even according to the Riva and the Rivam, for whom a teruah is nine tromitin, it does not necessarily follow that three shevarim are as long as nine tromitin ..'12.
Accordingly it emerges that the Alter Rebbe and the Tzemach Tzedek disagree halachically, for the Alter Rebbe wrote13: 'As a matter of halacha, one should be stringent regarding a Torah obligation in accordance with the latter view, that is, that he should draw out the tekios of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah for the length of eighteen tromitin at least, and the tekios of tekiah-shevarim-tekiah and tekiah-teruah-tekiah for the length of nine tromitin at least; and each shever he should draw out a little, for the length of three tromitin, but he should not draw it out to nine tromitin, even in the tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah set; and in each teruah one must make nine tromitin, as explained'.
And the Tzemach Tzedek wrote: 'Therefore one should not intend to draw out each shever for three bursts in order to fulfill the obligation according to the Riva and the Rivam, following the words of the Bach cited in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe נ״ע, se'if 7. Moreover, against this he would lose out according to the words of Tosafos and the Rosh in explaining Rashi, for it would leave the category of a shever; and certainly Rashi's view is more primary, as stated above.'14 And he concludes briefly: 'Therefore one need not draw out the shevarim, only that it be longer than one tromit; but one need not draw it out to three tromitin'.
> Thus we have seen that the Alter Rebbe and the Tzemach Tzedek disagree whether l'chatchilah15 the shever must be drawn out to three bursts: the Alter Rebbe wrote that he should draw it out to three bursts16, while the Tzemach Tzedek wrote that, on the contrary, he should make it only longer than one tromit17. And in practice we find several who have written about the Rebbe's tekios, in various ways18; and especially since it is difficult to describe in writing the manner of the shevarim, it is therefore proper that anyone who comes to blow should learn from a qualified baal tokea the manner of making the shevarim according to our minhag.
Notes:
1 Rosh Hashanah 33b ↩
2 Rosh Hashanah, ch. 4, siman 10 ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 590, se'if 3 ↩
4 There, se'if katan 2 ↩
5 There, se'if 5 ↩
6 Orach Chaim, there, end of os 6 ↩
7 There, se'if katan 4 ↩
8 There, se'if katan 3 ↩
9 Se'if katan 2; and see also there regarding the teruah: 'And now the practice l'chatchilah is not to make nine bursts in the teruah, in accordance with Rashi's view, and one who is stringent — may a blessing come upon him' ↩
10 There, se'if 6 ↩
11 Chiddushim on Shas, 76a ↩
12 And based on this he proves and explains the words of the Mechaber, who wrote that the length of a tekiah is twelve tromitin — 'meaning three shevarim and nine bursts; and there is no need for the Magen Avraham's emendation to eighteen' ↩
13 There, se'if 7 ↩
14 And see also Mateh Efraim, Elef HaMagen, siman 590, se'if 9: *'And in Sefer Eish Das he wrote that l'chatchilah one should rule in accordance with the first opinion, that is, that each shever should be shorter than three bursts. And the Magen Avraham also testified that the practice is to shorten the shever'.* And see there in the note on se'if 6: 'In my humble opinion the primary view is that of the Magen Avraham and those who follow him, who ruled that each of the three shevarim may not be as long as three bursts, but only as two bursts; see there, where he discussed this at length' ↩
15 Because of the length and the various opinions, we have not cited the words of the Alter Rebbe regarding b'dieved; and see also what was recently published (Kovetz Ohr Yisroel, issue 93 (Tishrei 5787), p. 7) on what the Tzemach Tzedek explained in his words ↩
16 For then, according to the Alter Rebbe's explanation, it is the length of a shever according to the Riva; and according to Rashi too it is valid b'dieved, since it is shorter than a tekiah, for in the tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah and tekiah-shevarim-tekiah sets the tekiah is longer. [And see also Mateh Efraim, in the Elef LaMateh there, se'if 5: 'We do not set aside the concern for something that may invalidate even b'dieved for the sake of l'chatchilah caution'.] ↩
17 For according to the Tzemach Tzedek, even according to the Riva three are not needed, and when he makes three bursts he loses out according to Rashi's view, which according to the Tzemach Tzedek is primary, as stated above ↩
18 See at length in the sefer by Rabbi Reuven Shmelah, Yalkut Halachos V'Taamei HaMinhogim, vol. 3, p. 222 ff. ↩
[15] (Halacha 1171)
Shevarim (2)
Question: May one make more than three shevarim?
Answer: The Raavan1 wrote, cited briefly in the Rosh2: 'An incident occurred here in Magenza on Rosh Hashanah of the year 4905, when the tokea blew .. and in the tekiah-shevarim-tekiah set he blew two [times] tekiah-shevarim-tekiah in proper order, and the third time he blew four shevarim and a tekiah; and those who had sent him back the first time sent him back to the beginning, and he blew tekiah-shevarim-tekiah three more times. And my teacher and father-in-law, Rabbi Elyakim, became angry and said: If there is no wisdom here, there is age here — we have never seen anyone go back to the beginning because of such things, and those who sent him back acted improperly. And those who sent him back said: We acted properly. And I, Eliezer, set my heart to inquire and investigate their words, and it appears to me that they sent him back to the beginning improperly .. And also regarding the second set, tekiah-shevarim-tekiah, where he blew tekiah-shevarim-tekiah twice and the third time blew four shevarim and completed the set, I say that he lost nothing of his entire set, because we regard that fourth shever as if he drew out the teruah, for shevarim are a teruah; and since we learned: if he blew the first and drew out the second for the length of two, he has only one to his credit — here too, because he drew it out he did not lose, and it is one teruah .. So too, the fourth shever does not interrupt between the three shevarim and the tekiah after the shevarim. Moreover, the fourth shever is of the same kind as the shevarim and does not interrupt; even though a teruah interrupts between shevarim and a tekiah, that is perhaps because a teruah is [wailing], and wailing interrupts between groaning and a tekiah; but a fourth shever, which is groaning, does not interrupt — as we say3: a person should not bind the lulav tightly at the Hoshana, lest leaves fall off and form an interposition between the lulav and the aravah; Rava said: it is a species with its own species, and it is not an interposition between the lulav and the aravah. Here too, a fourth shever does not interrupt between three shevarim and a tekiah. But if he reduced, blowing only two shevarim and then blowing a tekiah or a teruah, he must go back to the beginning of the set in which he erred'.
Tosafos4 too ruled that it is permitted to add shevarim, in their words: 'For this reason too there is no concern if he made four or five shevarim, for the shevarim are in place of a teruah, and it is a prolonged teruah'.
[However, the Orchos Chaim5 wrote: 'But one who adds to the shevarim beyond three — there is nothing wrong with this, provided that he does it without a break, in one breath, just as we are not particular about the length of the tekios, for this too is a long teruah'.]
In Minhogei Maharil6 it is brought that in practice the minhag is not to add shevarim, in his words: 'And Mahari Segal would wonder why it is not customary to also make more than three shevarim, as is done with the teruah; and consider this carefully'.
And the Bach7 wrote: 'And so the prevalent halacha is that one may make more than the measure; nevertheless, in practice it is proper not to make more than three, and below the reason will be explained, with the help of Heaven'.
And we find in the poskim two reasons why another shever is not added:
a) The Bach there wrote: 'And it is written in the Maharil that he wondered at the minhag not to make more than three shevarim — what is the difference from the teruah? And it appears to me that the minhag is because of the dispute of the Geonim regarding the length of the shevarim, lest it leave the category of a shever and become a tekiah, as explained; and therefore it is proper not to make more than three, lest the last shever become a tekiah and constitute an interruption according to the Ramban. And so it appears to me to be primary, not to make more than three l'chatchilah'.
b) The Prishah8 explained: 'See the Maharil, who wrote: And Mahari Segal would wonder why it is not customary to also make more than three shevarim, as is done with the teruah; and consider this carefully — end of quote. And my teacher wrote on this: And we are accustomed to draw out even the shevarim — end of his words. And in my humble opinion it appears that one may give some reason for the Ashkenazi minhag: because they hold like the Rosh and the Ritz Gias, cited below, who require making the shevarim and teruah in one breath, and therefore they shorten the shevarim, not making them more than the measure, out of concern that they will not be able to make the teruah after them in the same breath; which is not so with the teruah, which comes last, so that one may draw it out as long as he wishes'.
In practice the minhag was accepted not to blow more than three shevarim, as the Magen Avraham wrote9: 'And the minhag is not to add to three shevarim'.
And so it is written in the Mateh Efraim10: 'L'chatchilah one should not blow more than three shevarim; and if he blew four or five, there is no concern b'dieved, and he has fulfilled his obligation'.
The Alter Rebbe11 wrote: 'And likewise with the shevarim, if he adds to three shevarim there is nothing wrong with this, and it is not like an interruption between the teruah or the shevarim and the tekiah after it, since he makes all the shevarim or all the tromitin in one breath. Nevertheless, the minhag is not to add to three shevarim'.
[In several places it is brought that our Rebbeim, our Nesiim, had the practice of adding another shever12, but it is possible that the intent is not a full shever, but rather something like a short tekiah at the end of the shevarim, as will be cited in the next halacha]
> Thus we have seen that in principle, if one added another shever continuously after the three shevarim, there is no problem with this13. But in practice the minhag is not to add another shever. And in the next halacha we will see regarding the minhag of adding another sound afterwards.
--------------
https://chat.whatsapp.com/HSFw14kcxch7wDr7Ysh4cP?s=sh&p=a&ilr=4
Notes:
1 Shu"t (at the beginning of the sefer), siman 61. Cited in the Raavyah, vol. 1, Shu"t, siman 171, from what the Raavyah's father, Rabbi Yoel, wrote in the name of his father-in-law, the Raavan: 'This is the language of my father-in-law, the Raavan ז״ל, in brief, for he wrote at length'. And he goes on there to discuss his words ↩
2 Rosh Hashanah, ch. 4, siman 11 ↩
3 Sukkah 37b ↩
4 Rosh Hashanah 33b ↩
5 Vol. 1, Din Tekias Shofar, os 13; and see also at length in the Derashah for Rosh Hashanah of the Ramban, who discussed this at length and cited from the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi: 'If he blew a tekiah and a teruah, and again a teruah and a tekiah, he has only one to his credit' ↩
6 Hilchos Shofar ↩
7 Orach Chaim, siman 590 ↩
8 Orach Chaim, there ↩
9 Orach Chaim, there, se'if katan 2 ↩
10 There, se'if 14 ↩
11 Shulchan Aruch, there, se'if 4 ↩
12 The Rebbe Rayatz related (Reshimos HaYoman, p. 165) regarding the shofar blowing of the Rebbe Maharash: 'And the shevarim — three, at most four'. And he likewise related (there, p. 347) that when he blew the shofar for his father, the Rebbe Rashab: 'At times he wanted me to blow five shevarim (and not four)'. And see also Igros Kodesh, vol. 20, p. 39, in the publisher's notes, that the Rebbe asked R' Y. Landa how the shevarim were blown in Chabad shuls in various places. To this HaGaon R' Y. Landa replied: My father, the Rav ז״ל, would blow four shevarim; but in our shul there were several things instituted by my father's father-in-law, the chossid R' Zishke נ״ע, that were not practiced in other places. And to imitate what our holy Rebbe [=the Rashab] זצוקללה״ה זי״ע did — this certainly did not enter my mind .. even in matters that may also be done according to the Shulchan Aruch but are not mentioned as needing to be done, and our Rebbe did practice so — as for example with the shevarim, that our Rebbe blew more than three. And in the next halacha we will elaborate further regarding the minhag of the Rebbe Rashab and of the Rebbe ↩
13 It is worth noting what is cited in various places in the name of HaGaon R' Chaim of Brisk, that he blew four shevarim (each of them shorter than three bursts, to take into account the various opinions cited in the previous halacha, and he added a fourth shever) so that all together they would combine to nine bursts ↩
[16] (Halacha 1172)
Shevarim (3)
Question: What is the source of the minhag to add a sound at the end of the shevarim?
Answer: It is written in Sefer HaMinhogim (Tyrnau)1: 'And he should make three shevarim apart from the hafsakah'.
And the Bach2 explained: 'But it appears primary that this is its meaning: since those who blow are accustomed, at the end of the tekiah, the end of the shevarim and the end of the teruah, to conclude with a somewhat long sound, he cautioned regarding making the three shevarim that one should not count this hafsakah sound as one shever, making first two shevarim so that with this hafsakah there would be three; for since this hafsakah is made in the teruah as well, it is not considered a shever at all. Rather, one must make three shevarim apart from this hafsakah sound at the end of the shevarim, and so we hold. And if he made only two shevarim and counted this hafsakah as the third shever, he has not fulfilled the obligation of tekiah — so it appears to me'.
However, the Magen Avraham3 wrote: 'And three shevarim are required apart from the long sound made at the end of the shevarim, for in the teruah too such a long sound is made; and if he did not do so, he has not fulfilled his obligation (Bach, Minhogim). But this is not the practice'.
And the Machatzis HaShekel explained: 'According to this, the Bach would explain that he comes to teach us that one should make three shevarim apart from the long sound, which is called the hafsakah, with which the sound concludes at the end; and on this the Magen Avraham first wrote: but this is not the practice, and you must necessarily say that we do not hold like the Minhogim in this. And afterwards the Magen Avraham added: it also appears to me that what is written etc. — that in truth we do not disagree with the Minhogim, for the Minhogim themselves did not speak of this long sound, and it is possible that the Minhogim themselves hold that the long sound combines with the three shevarim, so that only two shevarim are needed apart from the long sound; and he explained the words of the Minhogim as the Bach had first understood them ..'.
However, in the words of the Alter Rebbe4 it appears that he explained the words of the Magen Avraham5, 'but this is not the practice', as referring to the very adding of a sound6 [and not as the Machatzis HaShekel said, that it refers to combining the sound with the shevarim], in his words: 'Nevertheless, the minhag is not to add to three shevarim, but tromitin he may make as many as he wishes. And some make at the end of the three shevarim a plain sound like a tekiah, and likewise they do at the end of the tromitin, but this is not the minhag'.
> Thus we have seen that there was an early minhag to add another sound after the shevarim, and some mentioned it also after the tekiah7 and the teruah. And the poskim wrote that in practice this is not done.
The practice of the Rebbe Rashab of adding a sound at the end of the shevarim8.
In HaMelech BiMesibo9 is brought the conversation that took place at the table of the Rebbe's Yom Tov seudah on the second day of Rosh Hashanah 5721, and there the Rashag asked: Regarding the 'shpitz' of the shevarim that is blown here on the basis of the practice of the Rebbe (the Rashab) נ״ע — is this a directive for the public?
The Rebbe שליט״א: Since this was done by the Rebbe Rashab נ״ע in public, then presumably this is a directive for the public.
The Rebbe שליט״א: turned to the rabbonim present שי׳ — R' Sh. Z. Garelik, R' Sh. N. Sasonkin and R' Ch. Sh. Bruk — and asked each one of them: How do you practice, how many shevarim do you make? I am not asking the halacha, only how you practice.
R' Ch. Sh. Bruk: Is it worthwhile to institute that it be done as is practiced here?
The Rebbe שליט״א: I am surprised that this is not practiced in the wider world10.
[R' Z. Dvoretz: I used to blow three shevarim until the chossid R' Refoel Nachman (שי׳) Kahan remarked to me that in Lubavitch they added another half].
The Rashag said that Rabbi Landa was among those close to the Rebbe (the Rashab) נ״ע, and his son is sitting here.
The Rebbe שליט״א: [turned to the Tamim R' Eliyahu Landa and asked]: How is it blown in the shul of your father, the Rav?
And R' E. Landa answered: Without the "shpitz".
The Rebbe שליט״א: Is this according to your father's instruction?
R' E. Landa: My father himself is the baal tokea. My father related that my grandfather (his father), the Gaon and chossid R' Moshe Yehudah Leibel, would blow four sounds.
The Rebbe שליט״א: (continuing from the beginning of the conversation): Since this is something done in public, it is a directive for the public!'
And in Igros Kodesh11 is brought the Rebbe's reply to Rabbi Yaakov Landa about a month after the above conversation: 'Even if this is so regarding practices for oneself — it requires great investigation whether it is so regarding what one does to fulfill the obligation of others (at least — also of others), and in a positive mitzvah from the Torah, and in public. And all the more so — in the blowing of the shofar (and not in the bracha), where each and every one fulfills the mitzvah himself, and he hears the shevarim in a manner etc. And this is easily understood. In the end — how did they practice in the Chabad shuls in various places, regarding the shevarim?'.
And in Sefer Shevach HaMoadim12 he writes: 'The Rebbe שליט״א is accustomed to make at the end of the shevarim a short plain sound, like a very short tekiah'. And in a note he explains: 'And the reason the Rebbe שליט״א makes a very short sound appears to be because of the concern cited in the Bach there, lest it leave the category of a shever and become a tekiah and constitute an interruption; see there. But if the sound he adds is very short, there is no such concern'.
> Thus we have seen that the Rebbe Rashab had the practice of making a short sound at the conclusion of the shevarim, and the Rebbe said that this practice is a directive for the public, and so he practiced.
--------------
https://chat.whatsapp.com/HSFw14kcxch7wDr7Ysh4cP?s=sh&p=a&ilr=4
Notes:
1 Rosh Hashanah ↩
2 Siman 590 ↩
3 Siman 590, se'if katan 2 ↩
4 Siman 590, se'if 4 ↩
5 For in the source references of the first edition, the Magen Avraham is cited on the statement that the minhag is not to blow so ↩
6 And see also the Pri Megadim, Orach Chaim, Eshel Avraham, siman 590, se'if katan 2: 'And on this the Magen Avraham wrote that this is not the practice, but rather three shevarim alone are made and no more. And so it appears to me, for why make a long sound at the end of the shevarim and the teruah, which is like an actual tekiah, when there is concern of an interruption'. And see also the Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 2 ↩
7 Some wrote that the minhag cited in the Bach was not a sound separate from the tekiah or the shever, but rather a raising of the sound. And see Ohr HaTzafon, issue 111, p. 22 ↩
8 However, some wrote that the practice of our Rebbeim, our Nesiim, is not connected at all to the words of the Bach and to the early minhag that fell into disuse; rather, the additional sound that they blew is to complete the shevarim (and see in the previous halacha, note 13, regarding the minhag of HaGaon R' Chaim of Brisk). And see Kovetz He'aros U'Biurim, issue 1222, p. 77 ↩
9 Vol. 1, p. 55 ↩
10 Perhaps the Rebbe's intent was because of what is also cited in the previous halacha, note 12, regarding the practice of HaGaon R' Chaim of Brisk ↩
11 Vol. 20, p. 39 ↩
12 Section Yamim Nora'im, ch. 13, os 2. And he writes that this minhag is based on the words of the Bach cited above ↩
[17] (Halacha 1174)
Shevarim (4)
Question: Must the shevarim or the teruah be made in one breath?
Answer: The Raavyah1 wrote: 'I saw in a responsum of Rabbeinu Tam in which it is written: Three shevarim we make in one breath, for they stand in place of a teruah .. end of his words. And I add to confirm his words, for we learn in Perek HaChalil: In what do Rabbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan of the Mishnah disagree? For they count twenty-one tekios and Rabbi Yehudah seven. Rabbi Yehudah holds that tekiah-teruah-tekiah is one, and the Rabbanan hold that a tekiah is separate and a teruah separate, etc. According to whom is that which Rav Kahana said: There is nothing at all between tekiah and teruah? According to whom? According to Rabbi Yehudah. And even those who explain "nothing at all" as except for the length of a breath — that is because it is not possible otherwise; but if it were possible, one would need not to pause at all. And even the Rabbanan disagree with Rabbi Yehudah only regarding tekiah, teruah and tekiah; but regarding the teruah itself, or also the three shevarim that are in place of a teruah, which it is also possible to shorten and make in one breath, they agree with him. And this is primary. And I too am accustomed to caution those who blow about this. And that which we learned: if he blew the first and drew out the second for the length of two, he has only one to his credit — that is because both are one sound, and it is like one long tekiah; but tekiah, teruah and tekiah according to Rabbi Yehudah, even though he compresses them without a pause, the change of sound demonstrates otherwise. And in the Yerushalmi I saw: The length of a tekiah is like three teruos; the length of a teruah is like three yevavos. If he said them in one breath, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he blew the first and drew out the second for the length of two, he has only one to his credit. Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Ulla: one must sound the teruah from within the plain sound; Rabbi Ba in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Rav Huna said: one need not sound the teruah from within it. And in the Yerushalmi of Megillah we learn: the ten sons of Haman too must be said in one breath. And this does not mean that only b'dieved he has fulfilled his obligation; rather this is its explanation: if they are in one breath, he has fulfilled his obligation, and if not, there is no mitzvah in the choicest manner — and so with the tekiah, and so with the ten sons of Haman. But [whether] one must sound the teruah between the plain sound and the teruah, they disagree in the dispute of Rabbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan. So it appears to me to explain the Yerushalmi'.
And the Ramban2 wrote: 'And know that the meaning of shevarim is not that he breaks the sound and pauses; rather, a shever is like a person who groans, sobbing brokenly from heartache, and they are long yevavos; and those who blow and pause between them entirely are mistaken. And I then found in a responsum of Rabbeinu Tam ז״ל: Three shevarim we make in one breath, for they stand in place of a teruah'.
And the Ran3 wrote: 'Nevertheless, one must be careful to make all the shevarim and all the yevavos in one breath, for shevarim and yevavos, according to us, are certainly one mitzvah, like tekiah and teruah according to Rabbi Yehudah; and just as according to Rabbi Yehudah one must make the tekiah and teruah in one breath, as is evident in Perek HaChalil (there), so too with shevarim and yevavos according to us, since they are one mitzvah. And if he added one shever and made it in another breath, according to the words of the Rambam ז״ל the entire set is invalid, for since he separated it by itself it is not part of the shevarim, and he interrupted between the shevarim and the teruah. And Rabbeinu Tam ז״ל wrote in a responsum that three shevarim we make in one breath, for they are in place of a teruah..'
And in the Orchos Chaim4 he wrote: 'And the Riag ז״ל wrote .. And know that the meaning of shevarim is not that he breaks the sound and pauses; rather, a shever is like a person who groans brokenly and from heartache, and they are long yevavos; and those who blow and pause between them entirely are mistaken — end of his words. And so is the view of R' Aharon HaLevi ז״ל, and so they said in Tosafos: if he blew a tekiah and a teruah, and a teruah and a tekiah — meaning that he paused in the middle of the teruah — he has only one to his credit, meaning the last tekiah alone, for all the rest is invalidated because of the invalid break of sound between them — end of quote'.
And the Avudraham5 wrote: 'And just as one should not pause within the teruah itself, so one should not pause within the shevarim themselves; and if he paused, he must go back and make all three shevarim without a pause'.
And so the Kolbo6 wrote: 'And one should not pause in the teruah itself; and if he paused, it is interrupted and lacks its measure, and it does not count'.
> Thus we have seen in the words of the Rishonim that one should not make a pause in the middle of the shevarim7 (and we will see more of the words of the Rishonim on this in the coming halachos, where we will discuss tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah).
Halachically, the Mechaber8 wrote: 'Three shevarim must be made in one breath'.
And the Acharonim disagreed regarding his view, whether this is a law l'chatchilah9 or whether it is indispensable even b'dieved. The Taz10 wrote: 'In one breath. The Minhogim also ruled so, in these words: And he should make three shevarim without a hafsakah, that is, without a pause for breath .. this is l'chatchilah, but b'dieved he fulfills his obligation even with two breaths, for he ruled in se'if 7 that if he remembered immediately, he should blow another shever'.
And see also the Magen Avraham11 [as explained by the Pri Megadim and the Machatzis HaShekel]: 'Another shever. It appears from his words that one need not make them in one breath; and according to what was written above, that one must make them in one breath, he must go back and blow three shevarim (the Rosh and Rabbeinu Yerucham). And even in the tekios d'meyushav it appears to me that one need not blow three shevarim, for b'dieved we rely on the opinion that one breath is not required; and therefore the Beis Yosef stated it here without qualification'.
However, the Knesses HaGedolah12 wrote: 'Moreover, it must necessarily be said that what he wrote in se'if 4, that three shevarim must be made in one breath, is stated as indispensable, for the Rosh wrote that those who require making three shevarim and a teruah in one breath state it as indispensable; and the same applies to those who require making three shevarim in one breath — they state it as indispensable'.
And the Eliyah Zuta13 wrote: 'The view of the Shiyarei Knesses HaGedolah inclines that even b'dieved he does not fulfill his obligation when he did not make them in one breath, and so I found explicitly in the Avudraham and in the Kolbo, folio 80'14.
And so the Maamar Mordechai15 wrote: 'Must be made in one breath — see what is written below in se'if 7, where it appears that he means that even b'dieved he has not fulfilled his obligation if he did not make them in one breath, unlike some of the Acharonim ז״ל'.
And so it was ruled in practice by the Alter Rebbe16: 'The yevavos of the teruos, and likewise the three shevarim that are in place of a teruah, must be made in one breath; and if he did not make them in one breath, he has not fulfilled his obligation, for the Torah said one teruah, and not one interrupted into two teruos'.
> Thus we have seen that one must make all the shevarim17 in tekiah-shevarim-tekiah, and the entire teruah in tekiah-teruah-tekiah, in one breath, and this is indispensable18.
In the coming halachos we will see regarding tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah, and regarding the pause between the tekiah and the shevarim or the teruah.
--------------
https://chat.whatsapp.com/HSFw14kcxch7wDr7Ysh4cP?s=sh&p=a&ilr=4
Notes:
1 Rosh Hashanah, siman 542 ↩
2 Rosh Hashanah 34a ↩
3 Rosh Hashanah 10b, s.v. V'dilma ↩
4 Vol. 1, Din Tekias Shofar, os 11 ↩
5 Seder Tefillas Rosh Hashanah ↩
6 Siman 64 ↩
7 It is worth noting that there are Rishonim from whose words it appears that the practice was that the three shevarim or the teruah are not interrupted sounds at all, but rather one sound without a break, only that its pitch changes, as is explained in the words of the Ramban in the Derashah for Rosh Hashanah and seemingly this is also his intent in his Chiddushim on Shas (unlike the words of the Ritva, who wrote explicitly on 33b, s.v. Lamadnu, that the shever differs from a tekiah only in that it is shorter); and if so, the Ramban's words, that they should not pause, do not apply to those who blow each shever separately. (Regarding the teruah too, some had the practice that it is one sound that rises and falls, and so too it appears from the words of the Ritva; and see Moadim U'Zmanim, vol. 1, siman 5, os 10. And perhaps this can also be seen from the illustrations brought in the issue of Ohr HaTzafon 111, p. 22) ↩
8 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 590, se'if 4 ↩
9 See also the Mekor Chaim and the Derech Chaim ↩
10 There, se'if katan 5 ↩
11 Se'if katan 7 ↩
12 Shiyarei Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos Beis Yosef, Orach Chaim, siman 590, os 7 ↩
13 There, se'if katan 7 ↩
14 And it is worth noting that in the Eliyah Rabbah there, se'if katan 7, he did not mention that the above Rishonim wrote so, but only wrote: 'This is l'chatchilah, but b'dieved he fulfills his obligation even with two breaths, for he ruled in se'if 7 that if he remembered immediately he should blow another shever — Taz and Magen Avraham. But the Shiyarei Knesses HaGedolah inclines to be stringent even b'dieved' ↩
15 There, se'if katan 4 ↩
16 There, se'if 8 ↩
17 Even if he adds to three shevarim; and see the words of the Ramban in the Derashah for Rosh Hashanah, and the words of the Ran above, and the words of the Orchos Chaim, Din Tekias Shofar, os 13. And see Halacha no. 1171 ↩
18 And see the Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 16: 'And most poskim wrote that this is indispensable, even b'dieved' ↩
[18] (Halacha 1175)
Shevarim (5)
In the previous halacha we saw that all the shevarim, and likewise the entire teruah, should be blown in one breath
Question: What is the law regarding the tekiah before or after the shevarim — may one blow it in the same breath as the shevarim or the teruah?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Sukkah1 brings a braisa: 'It was taught: Rabbi Yehudah says: One who reduces may not reduce below seven, and one who adds may not add beyond sixteen. On what do they disagree? Rabbi Yehudah holds: tekiah-teruah-tekiah is one, and the Rabbanan hold: the tekiah is separate and the teruah is separate'.
And in the Tosefta2 it is written: 'If he blew a tekiah, a teruah and a tekiah in one breath, he has not fulfilled his obligation', [however, some have the reading in the Tosefta 'he has fulfilled his obligation'; see below in the words of the Yerushalmi and in the words of the Rishonim].
And in the Talmud Yerushalmi3: 'If he said them in one blast — it was found that a tanna taught: if he said them in one blast, he has fulfilled his obligation. But have we not learned: the order of the blasts is three of three each? That is so that he not reduce. Rabbi Ze'ira, Rabbi Abba bar Ila'i in the name of Rav: he must blow the teruah from within the plain blast. Rabbi Ba in the name of Abba bar Rav Huna: he need not blow the teruah from within the plain blast'.
[In the previous halacha we saw the words of the Raavyah, who explained the two opinions in the Yerushalmi as corresponding to the dispute of Rabbi Yehudah and the Chachomim, and that these opinions disagree regarding the pause between the tekiah and the teruah, and likewise between the tekiah and the shevarim4].
And the Rishonim wrote that from the words of the Yerushalmi we learn that one does fulfill the obligation, as follows:
The Ramban wrote5: 'If he blew a tekiah and a teruah at once, he has fulfilled his obligation, and they count for him as a tekiah and a teruah, since the change in the sound of the teruah or the tekiah serves as its beginning, and it is not called a beginning without an end or an end without a beginning. And I learned this from the Yerushalmi, for we have the reading there in the chapter below: "If he said them in one blast — it was found that a tanna taught: if he said them in one blast he has fulfilled his obligation. But have we not learned: the order of the blasts is three of three each? That is so that he not reduce." Explanation: since it teaches "of three each", evidently we require them to be separated, for if done in one blast they are not three. And we answer: "so that he not reduce" — our Mishnah comes only to say that he may not reduce below three, but must blow a plain blast before it and a plain blast after it; but if he blew them in one breath he has fulfilled his obligation, for he has not reduced, and the sound of the tekiah is different from the sound of the teruah, and it is recognizable that they are three. And as for what is found in the Tosefta, "if he blew a tekiah, a teruah and a tekiah in one breath he has not fulfilled his obligation", do not rely on it; it is a corrupt text, and one should read "he has fulfilled his obligation", for it is the same braisa that they brought in the Yerushalmi, which teaches "he has fulfilled his obligation"'.
And the Rosh6 wrote: 'And if he made a tekiah, a teruah and a tekiah in one breath, he has not fulfilled his obligation, because there is neither end nor beginning here. However, in the Yerushalmi it does not appear so, for we have the reading there: "It was taught: if he made them in one blast, he has fulfilled his obligation. But was it not taught: three of three? There it is so that he not reduce." Explanation: but have we not learned three of three, and if he made them in one blast there are not three of three here? And it answers: what it says "three of three" means that he not reduce below the required measure, but regarding pausing between them it was not stated'.
From the words of the Rosh it appears that because of the words of the Yerushalmi we hold that he has fulfilled his obligation; however, Rabbeinu Yerucham7 wrote in the name of the Rosh: 'And so it is implied from the Yerushalmi, that if he made the tekiah, the teruah and the tekiah in one breath he has fulfilled his obligation. And some commentators wrote that one must pause between them so that each sound is recognizable by itself, and if he made them in one breath he has not fulfilled his obligation, for the Rabbanan said the teruah is separate and the tekiah is separate, meaning that one must pause between them; and so wrote the Rosh'.
And the Beis Yosef wrote8: 'And what the Rosh wrote, "and if he blew a tekiah, a teruah and a tekiah in one breath, seemingly he has not fulfilled his obligation" etc. — it appears from his words that he holds that since the Yerushalmi wrote explicitly that he has fulfilled his obligation, so we rule; and so it appears to be the opinion of the Ran. But Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote in the name of the Rosh and in the name of some commentators that he has not fulfilled his obligation. And in the Tosefta I found: "if he blew a tekiah, a teruah and a tekiah in one breath, he has not fulfilled his obligation"9'.
> We have thus seen that the Rishonim disagree as to whether one fulfills the obligation when he did not pause for breath between the tekiah and the shevarim or the teruah10.
And the Terumas HaDeshen wrote11 that even for those who blow shevarim-teruah in one breath [as we will see the details of this in the next halacha], one should pause: 'And it further appears that whenever one blows shevarim-teruah in one breath, he should take care not to blow as the blowers are accustomed to blow shevarim-teruah in one push without any pause, for in such a manner it is not called "in one breath". Rather, he should pause slightly, only he should not take a breath in between; so Rashi explains at the end of the first chapter of Chullin'.
As halacha, the Mechaber wrote12: 'If he blew tekiah-teruah-tekiah in one breath, he has fulfilled his obligation; and there is one who says that he has not fulfilled his obligation'.
And regarding the reason that he has not fulfilled his obligation, the Magen Avraham wrote13: 'For there is neither beginning nor end here'.
However, the Levush14 wrote: 'If he blew a tekiah, a teruah and a tekiah in one breath, some say that he has fulfilled his obligation, since it is one mitzvah; and some say that he has not fulfilled his obligation, for the tekiah is a sign of joy and peace, as it is stated15 וביום שמחתכם ובמועדיכם וגו' ותקעתם וגו׳ ("And on the day of your gladness and on your festivals etc., you shall blow etc."), and the teruah is a sign of weeping and wailing, as its Targum renders it "yevava", and as it is stated16 וכי תבואו מלחמה בארצכם על הצר הצורר אתכם והרעותם וגו׳ ("And when you go to war in your land against the enemy who oppresses you, you shall sound a teruah etc."), and joy and peace do not combine with weeping and wailing, for they are two opposites, and therefore they do not belong together. And all the more so if he blew a tekiah and a teruah in one breath and paused, and afterwards blew the last tekiah, that he has not fulfilled his obligation, for since he paused before the last one he revealed his intent that they do not belong together; therefore the first one also does not count for him — so it appears to me'.
And the Eliyah Rabbah wrote17: '"Some say that he has fulfilled his obligation" etc. Since the Shulchan Aruch wrote this view anonymously, it implies that he ruled so; but from the Levush it is implied that the main view is that he has not fulfilled his obligation. And the reason seems to me to be because the Beis Yosef wrote that he found so in the Tosefta; and I likewise saw in the Tanya, page 109 [siman 77], that he ruled in accordance with this Tosefta and concluded that he has not fulfilled his obligation, neither for the tekiah nor for the teruah'.
And the Pri Megadim wrote18: 'And "one breath" means that nevertheless he pauses slightly, as the Maharai, of blessed memory [= the Terumas HaDeshen] wrote regarding Rashi's explanation in Chullin ..'.
And in practice, the Alter Rebbe wrote19: 'One who blows tekiah-teruah-tekiah or tekiah-shevarim-tekiah in one breath: if he paused slightly between them in such a way that they are divided into three sounds, he has fulfilled his obligation. And some say that he has not fulfilled his obligation and must go back and blow all three sounds, for the first tekiah had no pause and end, and the last tekiah had no beginning and start, since he did everything in one breath. And although the main view is like the first opinion, nevertheless one should be concerned for the latter opinion, and go back and blow all three sounds'.
> Thus, lechatchilah one must make a pause for breath between the tekiah and the shevarim or the teruah. However, a person who blew the entire tekiah-shevarim-tekiah or tekiah-teruah-tekiah in one breath, if he paused between them, has fulfilled his obligation, but it is proper that he go back and blow all three sounds
Notes:
1 53b ↩
2 Rosh Hashanah, perek 2, halacha 12 ↩
3 Rosh Hashanah, perek 4, halacha 10 ↩
4 However, it seemingly appears from the words of the Raavyah that the Chachomim do not hold that one *must* pause, but rather that one *may* pause. And he likewise explained the words of the Yerushalmi that "in one blast he has fulfilled his obligation" to mean that lechatchilah one should do so. [Though it is possible to say that this refers only to the shevarim themselves, and not to joining them to the tekiah, about which they disagree immediately afterwards] ↩
5 Rosh Hashanah 27a ↩
6 Rosh Hashanah, perek 4, siman 10 ↩
7 Toldos, Orach Chaim, nesiv 6, chelek 2, 49b ↩
8 Orach Chaim, siman 590 ↩
9 However, see above that the Ramban had the reading in the Tosefta that he has fulfilled his obligation ↩
10 See Terumas HaDeshen, siman 142, who brought a proof from the words of the Gemara: 'At the end of the first chapter of Chullin (26b), it considers such a case as blowing a tekiah without blowing a teruah, when he blows the teruah from within the tekiah in the same breath' ↩
11 Siman 142 ↩
12 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 590, se'if 5 ↩
13 Ibid., se'if katan 4 ↩
14 Ibid., se'if 5 ↩
15 Bamidbar 10:10 ↩
16 Ibid. 9 ↩
17 Ibid., se'if katan 9 ↩
18 Eishel Avraham, se'if katan 4 ↩
19 Ibid., se'if 9 ↩
[19] (Halacha 1176)
Shevarim-Teruah (1)
In the previous halachos we saw that all the shevarim, and likewise the entire teruah, should be blown in one breath, but one must pause for breath between the shevarim and the tekiah.
Question: In the shevarim-teruah of the tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah sequence, must one pause for breath between them? [A]
Answer: The Ramban wrote1: 'And it is reasonable that one should not pause at all in tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah between the shevarim and the teruos, for since it is because perhaps it means groaning and wailing, then it is all one teruah, and one may not pause within the teruah itself; and if he paused, it is broken off and lacks its required measure and does not count, and it is a kal vachomer: for according to Rabbi Yehudah, who says that the tekiah and teruah are one — that is, one mitzvah — we say there is nothing at all between the tekiah and the teruah; all the more so the shevarim and teruah in the sequence tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah, which are truly all one teruah, that there is nothing at all between the shevarim and the teruah. And the Rav Rabbi Yitzchak ben Gias, of blessed memory, wrote: and he blows tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah, tekiah-teruah-tekiah and tekiah-shevarim-tekiah three times each, so each set is three of three each, which are twenty-seven, for the teruos of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah [and the three] shevarim are one .. I found in a responsum of Rabbeinu Tam, of blessed memory: three shevarim we do in one breath, since they stand in place of a teruah; but three shevarim and the teruah of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah — it is not reasonable, for people do not groan and wail in one breath, until here. And his words are not correct, for it is a teruah and it is impossible for there to be a pause in it in any way; and groaning and wailing are no more distinct than the plain blast and the wailing or groaning of Rabbi Yehudah, and nevertheless one must do them in one breath'.
And in the Derashah for Rosh Hashanah he also disputed the words of Rabbeinu Tam: 'And when he blows tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah, he must lengthen its tekios to the length of three shevarim and three yevavos, which is its teruah. And therefore, if he paused in tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah between the shevarim and the teruah, it is invalid, for he paused within the teruah itself, and it is as if he made one yevava, paused, and made a second yevava. And I saw that Rabbeinu Tam in a responsum said that three shevarim we do in one breath since they stand in place of a teruah, and this is not correct at all; it is a kal vachomer from Rabbi Yehudah, who says that the tekiah, teruah and tekiah are one, and since he holds that it is one, if he paused at all it is invalid, for Rav Kahana said there is nothing at all between the tekiah, the teruah and the tekiah — even though they are sounds entirely different from each other, whose names are not the same and whose sounds are not the same nor similar to each other at all; and moreover, their allusions are not the same, for one expresses mercy and the other expresses wailing and weeping — all the more so the teruah and the shevarim, which are of one kind and have one name; and this is a kal vachomer that has no refutation'. [However, the Mordechai2 wrote that from the words of Rashi there regarding Rabbi Yehudah it appears that there is no concern about a pause for breath. And so wrote the Rivash3: 'I found that Rashi, of blessed memory, explained in Perek HaChalil, "there is nothing at all between the tekiah and the teruah" — he would not pause in between except for the length of a breath. And if the explanation is so, the proof of the Ramban, of blessed memory, from there is refuted'. And see also below in the words of the Tashbetz].
> Thus, according to Rabbeinu Tam, the shevarim-teruah of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah does not need to be in one breath4; however, the Ramban disagreed with him and wrote that the shevarim-teruah too must be in one breath5.
And some have inferred regarding our matter from the count of the sounds, as the Maggid Mishneh wrote6: 'And from what he wrote, "and the number of the blasts is found to be thirty", it appears that he holds that in the sequence tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah he may pause between the shevarim and the teruah — that is to say, he is not obligated to do them in one breath, but may pause between them; but certainly he is obligated to do the shevarim in one breath, for all three of them are one teruah, and our Rabbeinu, of blessed memory, did not need to explain this since he explained that they are one teruah. And so is the opinion of many of the commentators, of blessed memory. But the Ramban, of blessed memory, wrote that the shevarim and teruah of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah are all one teruah, for perhaps groaning and wailing is the teruah; therefore, even though they differ in their sound, he should not pause between them, and one should be concerned for his words'.
The Tashbetz7 answered the Ramban's difficulty in the manner of the Mordechai cited above, but leans toward being stringent in accordance with the words of the Ramban: 'You further asked about a blower who paused in tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah between the shevarim and the teruah, whether he must repeat it according to the opinion of the Ramban, of blessed memory, or not, for here they objected and relied on Rabbeinu Tam, of blessed memory, that people do not groan and wail in one breath; and I say that although these and those are the words of the living G-d, nevertheless, in order to leave the doubt, it is proper to be concerned for the words of the Ramban, of blessed memory. Answer: Know that many of the Rishonim, of blessed memory, rely on him, for the opinion of the Rif, of blessed memory, appears to be so, that one should not pause in the shevarim and teruah, for all of them are one sound, and for this reason he counts only twenty-seven sounds; and so is the opinion of the Rosh, of blessed memory. And the proof of our Rabbeinu the Ramban, of blessed memory, is from the words of Rabbi Yehudah, who said in Perek HaChalil and likewise in Perek Ein BaArachin that there is nothing at all between the tekiah and the teruah, because according to him it is one mitzvah; and from it we may infer for the Rabbanan regarding the shevarim and the yevavos, that they are one mitzvah, for perhaps the Torah meant groaning and wailing. And this proof is not so clear, for although we say in the Gemara there that this "nothing at all" is precise, and not to exclude the view of Rabbi Yochanan, who said that if one heard nine tekios in nine hours of the day he has fulfilled his obligation, even so one can say that this "nothing at all" does not mean that he does them in one blast, but rather means that he does not pause much more than one breath. And so Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote there in his commentary: "there is nothing at all between the tekiah and the teruah" — that he would not pause in it except for the length of a breath. And in my opinion, what compelled him to explain so is that it did not say "he blows a tekiah and blows a teruah from within the tekiah", but said "there is nothing at all between the tekiah and the teruah", which implies that he pauses for one breath; for in the first chapter of Chullin8 it is implied that "he blows a tekiah and a teruah in one breath" involves a slight pause, for the one who says this disagrees with the one who says "he blows a tekiah and a teruah from within the tekiah", that is, before he finishes the tekiah; and the one who says "he blows a tekiah and a teruah in one breath" pauses in between; and so Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote there. This implies that the length of one breath, even though a slight pause is evident in it, is one sound, and it should not be invalidated as if he had paused in it more than one breath. And from this it appears that if he paused one breath between the shevarim and the yevavos, it is one sound and it is not a pause. And in the Yerushalmi we say that a tekiah and a teruah in one blast — he has fulfilled his obligation, because they are distinct sounds, and it has a beginning and it has an end. And it appears from here that a tekiah and a teruah in one blast do not count as two tekios, for a tekiah that is broken within one blast is a tekiah. And we have learned from all this support for our minhag, that the tekiah which is done in one blast is not done entirely plain, but one pauses in the middle, since in one blast it is one sound. And likewise we learn from this to pause one breath between the shevarim and the yevavos, for it is not a pause, since it is in one blast and is one sound. And nevertheless, to satisfy all the doubts, if it is possible to make the sound plain in the tekiah, according to the minhag of the Sephardim, and not to pause between the shevarim and the yevavos even for the length of a breath, according to the opinion of the Ramban, of blessed memory — this is what is good and upright'.
[And seemingly, from the plain meaning of the words of the Maggid Mishneh and the Tashbetz9 it appears that according to Rabbeinu Tam it may be done in two breaths, but not that it must be done in two breaths; however, in the Terumas HaDeshen10 he wrote: 'Question: Should the shevarim and teruah be done in one breath or not? Answer: It appears that in this matter there is no decisive ruling, for in this matter the great authorities disagree. Rabbeinu Tam wrote that the shevarim and teruah should not be done in one breath, for people do not groan and wail in one breath; and so wrote the Mordechai, and so too the Hagahos in the Asheri in the name of the Maharam, that they should not be done in one breath.. And it appears that one who examines their words carefully will see that according to one master he does not fulfill his obligation in this way, and according to the other master he does not fulfill his obligation in that way, even if he did so bedieved..'.]
> Thus we have seen that the Rishonim disagree regarding the shevarim-teruah of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah, whether one must pause for breath between them, or whether there is no need but it is possible, or whether one should not pause for breath between them. In the next halacha we will see the solutions the poskim wrote to satisfy the various opinions, and what is brought as halacha.
Notes:
1 Rosh Hashanah 34a. And see also Machzor Vitri, siman 348 ↩
2 Rosh Hashanah, siman 720; and similarly in Hagahos Asheri, Rosh Hashanah, perek 4, siman 10 ↩
3 Siman 39 ↩
4 And we will see below that the Rishonim disagree about his intent — whether he means that one must pause, or that there is no problem with pausing ↩
5 And see also Kolbo, siman 64, and Orchos Chaim, chelek 1, Din Tekias Shofar, os 11 ↩
6 Hilchos Shofar, perek 3, halacha 2 ↩
7 Shu"t, chelek 3, siman 209 ↩
8 26b ↩
9 And see also the Rivash there, who wrote: 'The opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, of blessed memory, is that one may pause between the shevarim and the teruah of tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah, for people do not groan and wail in one breath' ↩
10 Siman 142 ↩
From the 'Shone Halacha' project - a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (quiet) group: 'Shone Halacha - Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp groupA Stolen Shofar
[A] (Halacha 646)
Tekias Shofar
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Rosh Hashanah1: 'Rav Yehudah said: With a shofar of avodah zarah2 one should not blow, but if he blew, he has fulfilled his obligation. With a shofar of an ir hanidachas one should not blow, and if he blew, he has not fulfilled his obligation. What is the reason? An ir hanidachas — its measure is considered crushed [= since it is subject to burning, it is as if it has no measure]'.
And in the Talmud Yerushalmi, Maseches Sukkah3, a dispute is brought on this: 'A shofar of avodah zarah and of an ir hanidachas — Rabbi Elazar said it is valid. Rabbi Chiya taught it is valid; Rabbi Hoshaya taught it is invalid. All agree regarding a lulav that it is invalid. What is the difference between a shofar and a lulav? Rabbi Yosah said: regarding the lulav it is written ולקחתם לכם ("And you shall take for yourselves") — from what is yours, not from what is forbidden for benefit; but here4 it is written יום תרועה יהיה לכם ("It shall be a day of teruah for you") — in any case. Rabbi Lazar said: there one fulfills the obligation with its body, but here one fulfills the obligation with its sound, and is there a sound that is forbidden for benefit? Where do they disagree? When he stole it already smoothed; but if he stole it and then smoothed it, he owes him only its monetary value'.
We have thus seen that the Talmud Bavli validates bedieved a shofar of avodah zarah [of a non-Jew], and invalidates a shofar of an ir hanidachas, but the law of a stolen shofar is not mentioned. However, in the Yerushalmi a dispute is brought regarding a shofar of avodah zarah and of an ir hanidachas, and it appears there that they compared a shofar of avodah zarah to a stolen shofar, and explained the difference between a lulav (which according to all opinions is forbidden if of avodah zarah, or stolen) and a shofar. Two reasons for permitting are explained there in the Yerushalmi: a. that we learn this from a pasuk; b. that in a mere sound there is no theft and no prohibition of avodah zarah. And the Yerushalmi concludes that if he stole a shofar that was not smoothed and he smoothed it, according to all opinions he has fulfilled his obligation, since he acquired it through a change.
The Rambam (as the Maggid Mishneh explained) ruled regarding a stolen shofar in accordance with those in the Yerushalmi who say it is valid, and wrote the second reason. And the Raavad wrote the first reason.
For the Rambam5 wrote: 'A stolen shofar with which he blew — he has fulfilled his obligation, for the mitzvah is only in hearing the sound; even though he did not touch it nor lift it, the listener has fulfilled his obligation, and a sound is not subject to the law of theft'. And the Raavad wrote: 'Avraham says: and even if it were subject to the law of theft, יום תרועה יהיה לכם ("it shall be a day of teruah for you") — in any case; so it is found in the Yerushalmi'.
The Rosh6 also ruled like those who validate it, and the Beis Yosef explained7 that the Rambam and the Rosh ruled to validate it 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 it. Nevertheless, they hold that a shofar of an ir hanidachas is invalid, but not for the reason written in the Yerushalmi, that it is forbidden for benefit, but rather because of the reason of the Bavli, that its measure is considered crushed.
However, the Ohr Zarua8, cited in the Hagahos Asheri9, ruled like those who forbid it, and wrote: 'It is written in the Teshuvos .. and a shofar bought from an idolater is valid; one taken by coercion or stolen is invalid, and so ruled my teachers the Geonim, until here. And it is explained in the Yerushalmi in Perek Lulav HaGazul that when he stole a shofar already smoothed it is forbidden, but if he stole a horn and smoothed it, he owes him its monetary value and it is valid'.
And the Beis Yosef explained there that the view of the Ohr 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 it; and if so, a stolen shofar is also invalid, unless he stole it and smoothed it, in which case it is valid, since he acquired the shofar itself through a change of name and a change in form, and he is not obligated to return the shofar, but only to pay money.
In the Chiddushei HaRan10 as well he is stringent, and wrote: 'And from here it appears to me that a shofar which he 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 on the basis that with a lulav one fulfills the obligation with its body and with a shofar one fulfills the obligation with its sound, for if so — granted that we now hold that mitzvos were not given for benefit — why would he not fulfill his obligation? But in the Yerushalmi in Maseches Sukkah they validated it, and we ask there: what is the difference between a shofar and a lulav? And it answers: there one fulfills the obligation with its body, but here with the sound, and a sound is not subject to the law of theft. And it does not appear so to me according to our Gemara, and so is the opinion of the Ra'ah, of blessed memory, that even with a shofar he has not fulfilled his obligation. And the Rambam, of blessed memory, relied on the Yerushalmi in the first perek 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 they explained that one should not blow with it lechatchilah, but if he blew with it he has fulfilled his obligation; and even though regarding a lulav they said he has not fulfilled his obligation — with a lulav one fulfills the obligation with its body, with a shofar one fulfills the obligation with its sound, and a sound is not subject to the law of theft. And I have seen some of the great ones of the generation who disagree with the Talmud of the West, invalidating it even bedieved, for 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 in form; and these words do not appear correct at all'.
And in practice, the Mechaber ruled12 in accordance with the view 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 shofar is only the hearing, and the hearing of a sound is not subject to the law of theft, for in hearing it he does not touch the shofar at all. Therefore, even though he blew with it in violation of the prohibition of theft, since the essence of the mitzvah, namely the hearing, involves no prohibition of theft, he has fulfilled his obligation..'.
We have thus seen that even one who hears from a stolen shofar fulfills his obligation; tomorrow we will see regarding a bracha on such a shofar, and further details of this law.
Notes:
1 28a ↩
2 And the Rishonim, the Rosh and the Ran, explained (see the words of the Beis Yosef, Orach Chaim, siman 586, and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 586, se'if 3) that this refers to a shofar of a non-Jew, but with a shofar of avodah zarah belonging to a Jew he has not fulfilled his obligation, as stated in Maseches Chullin 89a ↩
3 Perek 3, halacha 1 ↩
4 Bamidbar 29:1 ↩
5 Hilchos Shofar, perek 1, halacha 3 ↩
6 Rosh Hashanah, perek 3, siman 9 ↩
7 Orach Chaim, siman 586 ↩
8 Hilchos Rosh Hashanah, siman 274 ↩
9 Rosh Hashanah, perek 4, siman 14 ↩
10 Rosh Hashanah 28a ↩
11 Rosh Hashanah, ibid. ↩
12 Siman 586, se'if 2 ↩
13 Siman 586, se'if 4 ↩