## Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav Chapter 2 ###### Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:1 [Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Shofar%2C%20Sukkah%20and%20Lulav/r/2:1) הַכּל חַיָּבִין לִשְׁמֹעַ קוֹל שׁוֹפָר כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּים וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְגֵרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִים. אֲבָל נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין. מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין וְטֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס חַיָּבִין: **Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:** Everyone is obligated to hear¹ 29a, he makes a slight emendation, adding the expression "to hear," in order to emphasize that the mitzvah is hearing, not blowing, the shofar. the sounding of the shofar: priests, levites, Israelites, converts,² 12:17 states:All the gentiles - when they convert and accept all the mitzvot of the Torah - ...are considered as Jews in every regard. and freed slaves.³ 14:19 states: "Freed slaves are the same as converts." However, women,⁴ 33a, the *Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim* 589:6 states that we are allowed to blow the shofar for them. The *Shulchan Aruch* continues that the women should not recite a blessing before hearing the shofar. Those statements are based on the Rambam, *Hilchot Tzitzit* 3:9 and Chapter 6, Halachah 13 below. The rationale is that the blessing recited before a commandment praises God "for commanding us to..." There is no commandment, either from the Torah or the Sages, requiring women to hear the blowing of the shofar. Hence, they should not recite this blessing. The Ashkenazic concept differs. The Ramah (based on *Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah*, ibid.) maintains that women may recite a blessing. Since our Sages explained that the women are granted reward for fulfilling these mitzvot, it is obvious that the commandment is relevant to them and they may say "who commanded us." slaves,⁵ 12:11, 14:9.) A Jew sold as a slave (עבד עברי) is required to fulfill all the mitzvot. and minors are free of the obligation.⁶ 11:9.) A person who is half slave and half free,⁷ 7:4, the Rambam explains that a slave can reach this status in one of three ways:a) his owner took money with the intent of freeing half of the slave; b) his master freed half the slave and sold or gave the other half to a colleague; c) a slave belonged to two masters; one freed him and one did not.Such a slave is considered as having two different natures included in the same person. Thus, the aspect of him which is a free man is obligated to hear the shofar, and the aspect which is a slave is not. See also Halachah 3. a *tumtum*,⁸ 2:25.) and an *androgynous*⁹ means "man," and *gynous* "woman." It refers to person who has both male and female sexual organs. The Sages were unsure whether to consider such a person a male or a female. (See *Hilchot Ishut* 2:24 and also the commentary on the following halachah.) are obligated [to hear shofar].¹⁰ footnotes: ¹ Though the Rambam's statements are based on Rosh Hashanah ² Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah ³ Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah ⁴ Women are freed from the obligation to perform mitzvot that are linked to a specific time. Nevertheless, based on Rosh Hashanah ⁵ i.e., gentile slaves (עבדים כנעניים), who are required to fulfill only the mitzvot for which women are obligated. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah ⁶ Until a person reaches majority, he is not obligated to perform any of the mitzvot. Nevertheless, when a child reaches an age when he can appreciate the mitzvah, his father is obligated to train him to hear shofar as part of his education. (See Hilchot Nachalot ⁷ In Hilchot Avadim ⁸ an expression meaning "closed one" in Hebrew. It refers to a person whose genitalia are covered by a layer of skin. Hence, this person's gender cannot be determined without this skin's removal. Thus, there is a doubt whether this person is male or female. However, should this layer of skin be removed and the person's gender be discovered, there is no difference between him and an ordinary person of the same gender. (See Hilchot Ishut ⁹ a term borrowed from the Greek, in which andro ¹⁰ In the latter two cases, the obligation results from the doubt which exists whether these individuals are male (and hence obligated to hear shofar) or not. ###### Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:2 [Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Shofar%2C%20Sukkah%20and%20Lulav/r/2:2) כָּל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בַּדָּבָר אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֶת הַחַיָּב יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִשָּׁה אוֹ קָטָן שֶׁתָּקְעוּ בַּשּׁוֹפָר הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מֵהֶן לֹא יָצָא. אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס מוֹצִיא אֶת מִינוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ. טֻמְטוּם אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לֹא אֶת מִינוֹ וְלֹא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ. שֶׁהַטֻּמְטוּם שֶׁנִּקְרַע אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא זָכָר וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא נְקֵבָה: **Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:** Whoever is not [himself] obligated regarding this matter¹ cannot facilitate the performance of the mitzvah² for one who is obligated.³ Thus, if a woman or a minor blows the shofar, one who hears does not fulfill his obligation.⁴ 589:6.) An *androgynous* can facilitate the performance of the mitzvah for one of his kind,⁵ but not for one who is not of his kind.⁶. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statement, noting that there is a difference of opinion among the Sages (*Yevamot* 83a) whether an *androgynous* is considered as half male and half female, or as a unique entity in his own right. The latter opinion is compatible with the Rambam's decision. However, according to the former opinion, it appears that an *androgynous* would resemble a person who is half slave and half free. As the following halachah states, such a person cannot blow the shofar even for himself, let alone for others. The *Maggid Mishneh* defends the Rambam's decision, explaining that the Rambam does not consider the difference of opinion in *Yevamot* as unresolved. Rather, he, as does Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (the Rif), maintains that the halachah follows the latter opinion. Furthermore, the *Maggid Mishneh* explains that even according to the former opinion, it is possible to differentiate between an *androgynous* and one who is half slave and half free, the former condition being brought about by God; the latter, by man. A *tumtum* cannot facilitate the performance of the mitzvah [for anyone], whether of his kind or not of his kind, for⁷ nature if [the layer of skin covering] the *tumtum's* [genitalia] is cut open, it is possible that it will be discovered that the *tumtum* is a male,⁸ he blows are acceptable. but it is possible that it will be discovered that the *tumtum* is a female.⁹ footnotes: ¹ i.e., those mentioned in the previous halachah, a שוטה (a mentally unstable individual) and a חרש (a deaf person). In contrast, a blind person is obligated to hear the shofar. ² by blowing the shofar ³ However, a male who has already fulfilled his obligation to hear the shofar can blow the shofar for a colleague (Rabbenu Manoach). ⁴ Nevertheless, they are allowed to blow the shofar for themselves. (See Halachah 7 and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim ⁵ i.e., another androgynous ⁶ a normal adult male or a tumtum ⁷ in his case, the doubt is not about the general category, but an individual question about the particular tumtum's ⁸ and the teki'ot ⁹ and hence, unable to blow the shofar for a male. ###### Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:3 [Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Shofar%2C%20Sukkah%20and%20Lulav/r/2:3) וְכֵן מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֲפִלּוּ עַצְמוֹ שֶׁאֵין צַד עַבְדוּת שֶׁבּוֹ מוֹצִיא צַד חֵרוּת שֶׁבּוֹ. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד יֵצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע מִבֶּן חוֹרִין שֶׁיִּתְקַע לוֹ: **Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:** A person who is half slave and half free cannot even facilitate the performance of the mitzvah¹ for himself,² because the aspect of himself which is a slave cannot facilitate the performance of the mitzvah for the aspect of himself which is free.³ he blows himself include the influence of his slave side, and are not sufficient to facilitate his performance of the mitzvah (*Rosh Hashanah* 29a). How should he fulfill his obligation? He should hear a free man blow the shofar.⁴ explains that there is a difference between hearing the shofar and blowing it. Hearing the shofar is a complete act in and of itself. Hence, since the free side of the person has heard the shofar, he is considered to have performed the mitzvah. In contrast, the blowing of the shofar is merely the preparation for the fulfillment of the mitzvah. Hence, the free side of the person cannot fulfill his obligation by hearing *tekiot* which were produced by a person whose entire being was not obligated to perform the mitzvah. Based on this explanation, we can understand how such a person fulfills the mitzvah of lulav, for there as well, the act of taking the lulav constitutes rather than prepares for, the fulfilment of the mitzvah. footnotes: ¹ by blowing the shofar ² let alone for others, ³ Every activity performed by such an individual is considered as a combined effort carried out by both aspects of his being. The aspect of his being which is a free man is obligated to hear shofar blown by one who is obligated to perform the mitzvah. Hence, the teki'ot ⁴ One might ask: Since his hearing the shofar also involves his slave side, how is that hearing sufficient to allow him to fulfill his obligation?The Tzaphnat Paneach ###### Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:4 [Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Shofar%2C%20Sukkah%20and%20Lulav/r/2:4) הַמִּתְעַסֵּק בִּתְקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר לְהִתְלַמֵּד לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מִן הַמִּתְעַסֵּק לֹא יָצָא. נִתְכַּוֵּן שׁוֹמֵעַ לָצֵאת יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן הַתּוֹקֵעַ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן הַתּוֹקֵעַ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ לָצֵאת לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּן שׁוֹמֵעַ וּמַשְׁמִיעַ: **Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:** A person who occupies himself with blowing the shofar in order to learn¹ does not fulfill his obligation. Similarly, one who hears the shofar² from a person who blows it casually³ does not fulfill his obligation.⁴ 589:5). These laws relate to a question of a much larger scope: Must a person who performs a mitzvah have the intention of doing so or not? *Rosh Hashanah* 32b, which is the source for these decisions, maintains that such intention is necessary. However, other Talmudic sources imply that there is no need for such intention. Whenever a person performs the deed of a mitzvah, he fulfills his obligation, regardless of his intention. On the surface, the Rambam's own decisions regarding this question appear paradoxical. *Hilchot Chametz U'matzah* 6:3 states:A person who eats matzah without the intention [of fulfilling the mitzvah] - e.g., if gentiles or thieves force him to eat - fulfills his obligation.There, it appears that the Rambam does not require a person to have the intention to fulfill a mitzvah, for in this instance the only reason the person ate the matzah was the coercion of the gentiles. The commentaries attempt to resolve the issue. The *Maggid Mishneh* states that to fulfill his obligation, the person being forced to eat the matzah must know that today is Pesach, that he is obligated to eat matzah, and that it is matzah which he is eating. Rabbenu Nissim, the *Kessef Mishneh*, and Rabbenu Manoach follow a different line of reasoning. They differentiate between eating matzah and hearing a shofar. In the former case, a person's body benefits from the activity regardless of his intention. To support this thesis, they draw a parallel to the following passage. Generally, the Torah frees a person from liability if he commits a transgression while being only מתעסק (performing a deed without any thought). However, a person who eats forbidden foods or engages in forbidden sexual relations in this manner is liable, because he derived pleasure from his activities (*Keritot* 19b). Similarly, since the person derived physical satisfaction from eating the matzah, even though he was forced to do so, the action is attributed to him. In contrast, since his body did not benefit from hearing the shofar, he does not fulfill his obligation until he hears the shofar blown in the proper manner. As regards *halachah l'ma'aseh*, in *Orach Chayim* 589:8, the *Shulchan Aruch* quotes the Rambam's decision concerning blowing the shofar, stating that a מתעסק does not fulfill the mitzvah. Similar decisions are rendered concerning *Kri'at Shema* (*Orach Chayim* 60) and lulav and etrog (*Orach Chayim* 651). Concerning matzah, the *Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim* 475:4 quotes the *Maggid Mishneh*'s opinion, and the *Shulchan Aruch HaRav* adds the explanation mentioned in the name of the *Kessef Mishneh*. (Even so, the *Pri Chadash* and other commentaries do not accept this decision.) If the person hearing had the intention of fulfilling his obligation, but the person blowing did not have the intention of facilitating the latter's performance of the mitzvah,⁵ 28b quotes Rabbi Zeira as instructing Shamaya: "Have me in mind and blow for me." or the person blowing had the intention of facilitating his colleague's performance of the mitzvah, but the person hearing did not have the intention of fulfilling his obligation, [the person hearing] did not fulfill his obligation.⁶ (189:4) states that if a person comes to the synagogue on Rosh Hashanah with the intention to fulfill his obligation to hear the shofar, that intention is sufficient. Even if he has no specific intention while the shofar is being blown, he fulfills his obligation. Rather, both the person hearing and the one allowing him to hear⁷ must have the [proper] intention. footnotes: ¹ without the intention of fulfilling the mitzvah of hearing the shofar ² even though he desires to fulfill the mitzvah ³ without the intention of facilitating his colleague's performance of the mitzvah ⁴ for he has heard an unacceptable shofar blast (Shulchan Aruch HaRav ⁵ Rosh Hashanah ⁶ The Magen Avraham ⁷ i.e., the person blowing the shofar ###### Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:5 [Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Shofar%2C%20Sukkah%20and%20Lulav/r/2:5) מִי שֶׁתָּקַע וְנִתְכַּוֵּן לְהוֹצִיא כָּל הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ תְּקִיעָתוֹ וְשָׁמַע הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ וְנִתְכַּוֵּן לָצֵאת יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַתּוֹקֵעַ מִתְכַּוֵּן לְזֶה פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁשָּׁמַע תְּקִיעָתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדְעוֹ יָצָא. שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְכַּוֵּן לְכָל מִי שֶׁיִּשְׁמָעֶנּוּ. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ אוֹ יוֹשֵׁב בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְשָׁמַע הַתְּקִיעוֹת מִשְּׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר יָצָא אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לָצֵאת. שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר מִתְכַּוֵּן לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן: **Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:** If a person blew the shofar with the intention of enabling all those hearing his blowing to perform the mitzvah,¹ and a listener heard while having the intention to fulfill his obligation² - even though the person blowing did not have a specific intention that this individual would hear his blowing, nor did he know about him³ 29a derives this principle by contrasting the law mentioned in the previous halachah with the law mentioned in this halachah's latter clause. - the listener has fulfilled his obligation, because the blower had in mind all those who heard him. Accordingly, if a person was traveling on a journey⁴ (589:5) explains that a person who continues traveling must be sure that he has the intention of fulfilling his obligation. However, if he stops to hear the shofar, that itself is sufficient proof that he desires to fulfill the mitzvah. or was sitting in his home and heard the *teki'ot* from the person leading the congregation, he has fulfilled his obligation if he had that intention, since the leader of the congregation had the intention of enabling the many to fulfill their obligation.⁵ 3:5), the Rambam writes: "the [function of] leader of the congregation was instituted in that capacity only in order to enable the many to fulfill their obligation." footnotes: ¹ The blower need not have each individual in mind. However, as the previous halachah states, he must have the intention that his blowing enable people to fulfill their obligation to hear shofar. If he blows without that intention, their listening is of no consequence. ² However, as stated in the previous halachah, if the listener lacks that intention, he does not fulfill his obligation. ³ the listener has fulfilled his obligation, because the blower had in mind all those who heard him. - Rosh Hashanah ⁴ The Magen Avraham ⁵ In his commentary on the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah ###### Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:6 [Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Shofar%2C%20Sukkah%20and%20Lulav/r/2:6) יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת אֵין תּוֹקְעִין בַּשּׁוֹפָר בְּכָל מָקוֹם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַתְּקִיעָה מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת וּמִן הַדִּין הָיָה שֶׁתּוֹקְעִין יָבוֹא עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְיִדְחֶה שְׁבוּת שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְלָמָּה אֵין תּוֹקְעִין גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִטְּלֶנּוּ בְּיָדוֹ וְיוֹלִיכֶנּוּ לְמִי שֶׁיִּתְקַע לוֹ וְיַעֲבִירֶנּוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. אוֹ יוֹצִיאוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת וְיָבוֹא לִידֵי אִסּוּר סְקִילָה. שֶׁהַכּל חַיָּבִים בִּתְקִיעָה וְאֵין הַכּל בְּקִיאִין לִתְקֹעַ: **Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:** If the festival of Rosh Hashanah falls on the Sabbath,¹ 7:1). Thus, the second day of Rosh Hashanah will never fall on the Sabbath. However, it is not at all infrequent for the first day of Rosh Hashanah to fall on the Sabbath. the shofar is not sounded in every place.² 32a). [This law was enacted] even though blowing [the shofar] was forbidden only as *sh'vut*.³. *Rosh Hashanah* 29b equates the blowing of the shofar with removing bread from the oven. It appears from *Shabbat* 117b that the removal of bread from the oven was forbidden only because it is "a weekday act," not in the spirit of the Sabbath. (See *Shulchan Aruch HaRav* 588:4.) It would be appropriate for [the shofar] to be sounded, for a positive commandment of the Torah should supersede *sh'vut* instituted by the Sages.⁴.The *Lechem Mishneh* offers a number of resolutions to this difficulty. Among them: a) Had the proper attention been paid to the matter before Rosh Hashanah, the *sh'vut* mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4 with regard to obtaining the shofar would not exist. In contrast, the *sh'vut* involved in blowing the shofar cannot be avoided. b) The *sh'vut* mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4 must be violated before the mitzvah is performed. Hence, there is no way the prohibition can be relaxed in the mere expectation that a mitzvah will be performed. In contrast, in this instance, the performance of the mitzvah and the *sh'vut* occur concurrently. However, the order of the halachot here suggests a different explanation. As the Rambam states in the following halachah, certain leniencies are taken regarding the *sh'vut* of sounding the shofar on Rosh Hashanah (since, as mentioned above, it is forbidden only because it is a "weekday act"). In contrast, the activities mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4 are of a more severe nature, and hence no leniency may be taken in their regard. If so, why is the shofar not sounded? Because of a decree [of the Sages] lest a person take it in his hands and carry it to a colleague so that the latter can blow for him,⁵ 29b, which states: "perhaps he will take it to a skilled person so that the latter will teach him." Perhaps, the emendation was made because it is more likely that a person would desire that his colleague blow for him than begin to teach him on Rosh Hashanah itself. and [in the process,] carry it four cubits in the public domain or transfer it from one domain to another,⁶ 12:8 equates the two and explains the nature of this *melachah*. It must be noted that the phrase "transfer it from one domain..." is the Rambam's addition and does not appear in *Rosh Hashanah*, ibid. (Indeed, *Tosafot, Megillah* 4b explains that there is no suspicion that the latter prohibition will be violated.) and thus violate a prohibition punishable by being stoned to death.⁷ (*Hilchot Shabbat* 1:1-2.) [This is necessary because] all are obligated in the mitzvah of blowing the shofar, but not all are skilled in it.⁸ 1:13, explaining why the Megillah is never read on the Sabbath. It must be noted that while the Temple was standing, a similar decree was not enacted on the first day of Sukkot which fell on the Sabbath, even though it is possible that a person would carry his lulav in a forbidden manner. Note our commentary on Chapter 7, Halachot 13 and 14, which explains the difference between the two festivals. The fact that a Rabbinic decree can cause a mitzvah to be nullified - particularly as significant a mitzvah as the blowing of the shofar - has been the subject of much discussion by the Rabbis. In his commentary on the tractate of *Sukkah*, Rabbenu Nissim states that this decree was instituted only because in most Jewish communities, the people were not aware of the date the Rabbis had established for Rosh Hashanah. Hence, since the people could not be sure that they were in fact performing a mitzvah, the Rabbinic decree had the power to negate its performance. Even in the places where they were conscious of the proper date, they would not blow the shofar in such a year, so that great divisions in Torah practice would not be created among the Jewish people. In *Likkutei Torah*, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi explains the matter from a mystical perspective. He writes that the Sabbath itself generates spiritual influences which resemble those produced by the blowing of the shofar. Thus, there is no necessity to blow the shofar, and the Sages were therefore willing to allow such a decree to negate its observance. footnotes: ¹ According to the fixed calendar we use, Rosh Hashanah never falls on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday (Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh ² However, it is sounded in certain places, as explained in Halachot 8 and 9. There is an allusion to this in the Torah itself. Though Numbers 10:10 describes Rosh Hashanah as a day of "the sounding of the shofar," Leviticus 23:24 refers to it as a day of "the remembrance of the sounding [of the shofar" - i.e., this refers to Rosh Hashanah which falls on the Sabbath, when the shofar is not actually sounded (Rashi, Rosh Hashanah ³ See the commentary on Chapter 1, Halachah 4 for a definition of the term sh'vut ⁴ A question can be raised, based on the Rambam's statements in Chapter 1, Halachah 4:Regarding a shofar to be used on Rosh Hashanah: It is forbidden to violate the festival's laws to obtain it. This applies even when the forbidden practice is in the category of sh'vut ⁵ The Rambam alters the expression used by Rosh Hashanah ⁶ Hilchot Shabbat ⁷ as is the commission of all Shabbat melachot ⁸ A similar expression is also found in Hilchot Megillah ###### Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:7 [Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Shofar%2C%20Sukkah%20and%20Lulav/r/2:7) הַתִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעוּ לְחִנּוּךְ אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אוֹתָן מִלִּתְקֹעַ בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּלְמְדוּ. וּמֻתָּר לְגָדוֹל שֶׁיִּתְעַסֵּק עִמָּהֶן כְּדֵי לְלַמְּדָן בְּיוֹם טוֹב. בֵּין קָטָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְחִנּוּךְ בֵּין קָטָן שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְחִנּוּךְ. שֶׁהַתְּקִיעָה אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת: **Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:** Children who have not reached an age at which they can be educated:¹ We need not prevent them from blowing [the shofar] on a Sabbath² which is not the festival of Rosh Hashanah, so that they will learn [to blow].³ 114a). The law stated here represents a reversal of the Rambam's understanding of *Rosh Hashanah* 33a from that in his commentary on the Mishnah. Indeed, his change in interpretation caused the Ra'avad to object to this halachah. It is interesting to note that the Jerusalem Talmud (*Rosh Hashanah* 4:9) and the primary interpretation mentioned in the *Halachot* of Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (the Rif) - sources which the Rambam relies upon heavily - follow the Rambam's initial approach. An adult is permitted to be involved in the instruction [of children⁴). in the blowing of shofar] on the festival.⁵ [This applies] concerning both children who have reached an age at which they can be educated and those who have not reached that age, for blowing [the shofar] is prohibited only as *sh'vut*.⁶ 589:6), and similarly, additional blasts are sounded to "upset Satan" (Ramah, *Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim*, 596:1). However, it is forbidden for an adult to sound the shofar on Rosh Hashanah unnecessarily. Nevertheless, even a child who has reached the age when he is educated concerning the mitzvot need not follow this stringency (Ramah, ibid.). footnotes: ¹ Rabbenu Manoach explains that this refers to children of six or seven. ² even though blowing the shofar on the Sabbath is prohibited for an adult ³ This halachah is not directly related to the laws of Rosh Hashanah, but rather to the laws of the Sabbath. If a child has not reached the age where he can be educated concerning the mitzvot, his parents are not required to prevent him from violating any of the mitzvot (Yevamot ⁴ He may tell them to blow the shofar and teach them how to blow (Maggid Mishneh ⁵ even though the blowing of the shofar is prohibited on the Sabbath. ⁶ Since the prohibition against blowing the shofar is not severe, a number of leniencies are taken in this regard. The shofar is sounded for women (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim ###### Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:8 [Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Shofar%2C%20Sukkah%20and%20Lulav/r/2:8) כְּשֶׁגָּזְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִתְקֹעַ בְּשַׁבָּת לֹא גָּזְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ בֵּית דִּין. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיָה הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּם וְהָיָה בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הָיוּ הַכּל תּוֹקְעִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בְּשַׁבָּת כָּל זְמַן שֶׁבֵּית דִּין יוֹשְׁבִין. וְלֹא אַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם בִּלְבַד אֶלָּא כָּל עִיר שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּתוֹךְ תְּחוּם יְרוּשָׁלַיִם וְהָיְתָה רוֹאָה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לֹא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בְּתוֹךְ הַנַּחַל. וְהָיְתָה שׁוֹמַעַת קוֹל תְּקִיעַת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לֹא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בְּרֹאשׁ הָהָר. וְהָיְתָה יְכוֹלָה לָבוֹא בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם לֹא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נָהָר מַפְסִיק בֵּינֵיהֶם. אַנְשֵׁי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר הָיוּ תּוֹקְעִים בְּשַׁבָּת כִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר עָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא הָיוּ תּוֹקְעִין: **Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:** When [the Sages] decreed not to sound [the shofar] on the Sabbath, they applied that decree only to places which lacked a court.¹ 4:1 and the following halachah.) However, while the Temple was standing and the Supreme Court was seated in Jerusalem,² 14:12-13.) everyone³ 30a). would sound the shofar in Jerusalem throughout the entire period the court held its sessions there.⁴ 4:1):When the festival of Rosh Hashanah fell on the Sabbath, they would sound the shofar in the *Mikdash*, but not in the country at large.In his commentary on that Mishnah, the Rambam writes: "We have already explained to you several times (see *Ma'aser Sheni* 2:4, *Shekalim* 1:3, *Sukkah* 3:10) that the term *mikdash* refers to the entire city of Jerusalem." Thus, he maintains that if Rosh Hashanah fell on the Sabbath while the Temple was standing, the shofar would be sounded throughout the city. After the destruction of the Temple, this practice was discontinued. [This did not apply] to the people of Jerusalem alone.⁵ Rather, every city that was within the outer limits⁶, Chapters 27 and 28.) of Jerusalem⁷ and [whose inhabitants] could: see Jerusalem⁸ - i.e., excluding those within a wadi; hear the shofar blown in Jerusalem⁹ - i.e., excluding those on the mountaintops; and travel to Jerusalem¹⁰ - i.e., excluding those separated by a wadi from the city the¹¹, ibid., based on the text of the Mishnah. The Jerusalem Talmud (*Rosh Hashanah* 4:1) interprets the Mishnah slightly differently. people of these cities would blow the shofar on the Sabbath as in Jerusalem. However, in the other cities of Israel,¹² they would not sound [the shofar on the Sabbath]. footnotes: ¹ The Sages forbade sounding the shofar on the Sabbath lest someone carry it in a forbidden manner, as explained in the previous halachah. However, that decree was not applied to places where the Sanhedrin, Israel's supreme court, held its sessions. The influence of the court would be felt throughout the entire city and its surroundings. Hence, the people would be more scrupulous in their observance of the mitzvot. (See the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah Rosh Hashanah ² After the Temple was constructed, the Sanhedrin held its sessions in the Chamber of Hewn Stone in the Temple. Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, the Sanhedrin was forced to move from that place to other locations in Jerusalem. (See Hilchot Sanhedrin ³ i.e., not only was the shofar sounded at the seat of the Sanhedrin and on the Temple mount, but throughout the city; even private individuals were allowed to blow the shofar (Rosh Hashanah ⁴ The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statements. He disagrees with the Rambam on two points:a) while the Temple was standing, the Rambam maintains that the shofar was sounded throughout Jerusalem, while the Ra'avad maintains that it was sounded in the Temple alone.b) after the Temple's destruction, the Rambam maintains that the shofar was not sounded in Jerusalem, while the Ra'avad argues that it was.The difference between the two depends on the Rambam's interpretation of the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah ⁵ The influence of the Sanhedrin could be felt even on the outskirts of the city. ⁶ This refers to the תחום שבת - 2000 cubits from the outermost house from each point on the city's circumference. (See Hilchot Shabbat ⁷ There were a number of smaller villages surrounding Jerusalem which met all the requirements specified below. ⁸ i.e., excluding those within a wadi - below the mountains, who could not see Jerusalem. ⁹ i.e., excluding those on the mountaintops - Since they were situated on the mountaintops, they could see the city even from afar. However, the sound would not carry that far. ¹⁰ i.e., excluding those separated by a wadi - which they would be unable to cross ¹¹ The exclusions mentioned by the Rambam are quoted from Rosh Hashanah ¹² even where the courts held session ###### Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:9 [Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Shofar%2C%20Sukkah%20and%20Lulav/r/2:9) וּבַזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁחָרַב הַמִּקְדָּשׁ כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ בֵּית דִּין קָבוּעַ וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה סָמוּךְ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל תּוֹקְעִין בּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. וְאֵין תּוֹקְעִין בְּשַׁבָּת אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁקִּדְּשׁוּ אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ אֲבָל שְׁאָר בָּתֵּי דִּינִין אֵין תּוֹקְעִין בָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן סְמוּכִין. וְאֵין תּוֹקְעִין אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין גָּדוֹל בִּלְבַד כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵן יוֹשְׁבִין וַאֲפִלּוּ נִנְעֲרוּ לַעֲמֹד וְלֹא עָמְדוּ תּוֹקְעִין בִּפְנֵיהֶם. אֲבָל חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין אֵין תּוֹקְעִין. וְלָמָּה תּוֹקְעִין בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּית דִּין זְרִיזִין הֵן וְלֹא יָבוֹאוּ הַתּוֹקְעִין לְהַעֲבִיר הַשּׁוֹפָר בִּפְנֵיהֶם בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מַזְהִירִין אֶת הָעָם וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתָן: **Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:** At present, while the Temple is destroyed, wherever a court whose judges received *semichah*¹ is the term used to refer to the permission granted to a judge to act in that capacity. Only a judge who himself possesses *semichah* can convey this distinction to a colleague. Moses gave Joshua and the seventy elders *semichah*, and they began a chain that stretched over many generations, ending several hundred years after the destruction of the Temple. (See *Hilchot Sanhedrin* 4:1-2.) in *Eretz Yisrael*² could be conveyed only in *Eretz Yisrael* (ibid.:6). permanently holds sessions,³ 4:1.) the shofar is sounded on the Sabbath.⁴ 29b) states:When the Temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai ordained that the shofar be sounded in every place where a court holds sessions.The Talmud elaborates:[After the destruction of the Temple,] Rosh Hashanah once fell on the Sabbath, and all the cities gathered together [in Yavneh]. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai asked the family of Beteira: "Shall we blow?" "Let us consider the matter," they replied to him. "Let us blow, and then consider the matter after having blown," he answered them. "Let us consider the matter," they replied again. He told them, "The sounding of a horn has already been heard in Yavneh. Once a deed has been performed, no further discussion is entertained." Furthermore, the shofar is sounded on the Sabbath only in a court that has sanctified the new moon.⁵, Chapters 1 and 2.) However, the shofar will not be sounded in other courts, even though their judges have received *semichah*.⁶ 29a) states that the shofar was sounded on the Sabbath only in the presence of the Supreme Sanhedrin. Thus, this law applied only in Yavneh and in the few other cities where the Sanhedrin subsequently held its session. Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (the Rif) quotes this law in his *Halachot* even though he quotes only those laws which are applicable in his age. From this it appears that he maintains that the shofar may be sounded in the presence of any court of stature on the Sabbath, even if its judges do not possess *semichah*. Indeed, the Ramban and Rabbenu Nissim write that Rav Yitzchak Alfasi would have the shofar sounded in his own court when Rosh Hashanah fell on the Sabbath. Similarly, the text *Haezer* records that the author saw a Sage from Damascus who stated that he saw the shofar blown on Rosh Hashanah which fell on a Sabbath. (The Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid., does not mention the need for the judges to possess *semichah*. Thus, it is possible that he also originally subscribed to this view.) In the *Mishneh Torah*, the Rambam's position lies in between these views. On one hand, unlike Rav Yitzchak Alfasi, he requires that the judges possess *semichah* and be of sufficient stature to have sanctified the new moon (thus, excluding any contemporary courts). Nevertheless, unlike Rashi, he allows the shofar to be sounded in the presence of any court that has those qualifications, and not the Supreme Sanhedrin alone. Also, the shofar is sounded only in the presence of a high court.⁷, who explains that in this context the term refers to an established court of judges with *semichah*, and not the Supreme Sanhedrin, as is sometimes the case. Indeed, authoritative manuscripts of the *Mishneh Torah* from Yemen omit the word גדול from the above expression. It may be sounded during the entire time they are in session.⁸ Even after they⁹ have begun preparing to rise¹⁰ 30a) raised a question on this matter and left it unanswered, the Rambam allows the shofar to be sounded under such circumstances. Since the question concerns a Rabbinic decree, the more lenient approach is taken (*Maggid Mishneh*). - as long as they have not risen - the shofar may be sounded before them. However, outside the court, the shofar may not be sounded.¹¹, ibid.). Why is the shofar allowed to be sounded in the court? Because the court is scrupulous [in the observance of the mitzvot] and, in its presence, those who blow the shofar will not carry the shofar in the public domain, for the court will warn the people and inform them.¹² derives a general principle from this law. *Hilchot Shabbat* 21:27 states that all Sabbath and festival prohibitions that were categorized as *sh'vut* were suspended in the Temple, because the priests were scrupulous in their observance of the mitzvot and there was no danger that any infringement of Torah law would occur. Similarly, the above text continues, all decrees of this nature may be suspended in the presence of a high court, because the court will ensure that the Torah's laws will be kept. This logic runs contrary to a statement of Rabbenu Nissim, who writes that although Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted the blowing of the shofar on the Sabbath in the presence of a court, he was not that lenient regarding the taking of the lulav and etrog. Thus, we see that the leniency mentioned here applies to the shofar alone and not to other cases. footnotes: ¹ Semichah ² semichah ³ i.e., if, on Rosh Hashanah, the court held special sessions in a city where it was not normally located, the shofar would not be sounded. (See the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah ⁴ The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah ⁵ Originally, the months were sanctified by the courts after hearing the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon. (See Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh ⁶ The Rambam's statements represent a middle road in a difference of opinion between the Rabbinical giants upon whom our understanding of the Talmud is based. Rashi (Rosh Hashanah ⁷ Our translation of בית דין גדול is based on the Kessef Mishneh ⁸ but only while they are in session. If they have risen, the shofar can no longer be sounded. However... ⁹ the judges ¹⁰ as long as they have not risen - the shofar may be sounded before them - Though the Sages (Rosh Hashanah ¹¹ In this aspect, there was a difference between the sounding of the shofar on the Sabbath between Jerusalem and Yavneh. In Jerusalem, the influence of the Temple and the court was felt so strongly that even outside the presence of the court, the shofar could be sounded. In contrast, in Yavneh and other cities where courts were located, the shofar was sounded only in the presence of a court (Rosh Hashanah ¹² The S'dei Chemed ###### Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:10 [Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 2:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Shofar%2C%20Sukkah%20and%20Lulav/r/2:10) בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁאָנוּ עוֹשִׂין שְׁנֵי יָמִים בַּגָּלוּת כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתּוֹקְעִין בְּרִאשׁוֹן תּוֹקְעִין בְּשֵׁנִי. וְאִם חָל יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת וְלֹא הָיָה בַּמָּקוֹם בֵּית דִּין הָרְאוּיִין לִתְקֹעַ תּוֹקְעִין בְּשֵׁנִי בִּלְבַד: **Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:** In the present age, when we celebrate Rosh Hashanah in the exile for two days,¹ even while the Temple was standing. It was impossible to notify the people in most of the land (for the messengers were not allowed to travel more than two thousand cubits beyond Jerusalem) whether or not the court had substantiated the testimony of the witnesses on the day when Rosh Hashanah was expected to fall. (See *Beitzah* 4b-5a; *Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh* 5:7-8.) the shofar is sounded on the second day just as it is sounded on the first.² (*Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim* 499:3). If the first day³ falls on the Sabbath, those who were not in the presence of a court fit to blow the shofar on the Sabbath⁴ notes that there is some difficulty correlating this statement with that of the previous halachah, which implies that, at present, no courts are of sufficient stature to blow the shofar on the Sabbath. Among the possible resolutions to this difficulty are: a) as the Rambam writes in *Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh* 5:3, until the age of Abbaye and Ravvah, there were courts of judges who sanctified the new month based on the testimony of witnesses. Thus, the Rambam could be referring to such a court. b) In *Hilchot Sanhedrin* 4:11, the Rambam discusses the possibility of the renewal of the practice of *semichah*. He could be referring to such an eventuality in the present instance. may blow the shofar on the second day alone.⁵ footnotes: ¹ There is a slight imprecision with the Rambam's statements. Rosh Hashanah was celebrated for two days throughout almost the totality of Eretz Yisrael ² This refers to the actual sounding of the shofar. According to Sephardic custom, there is a difference concerning the recitation of the blessing shehecheyanu ³ As mentioned above, according to the fixed calendar which we employ at present, it is impossible for the second day of Rosh Hashanah to fall on the Sabbath. ⁴ The Kessef Mishneh ⁵ This is our practice at present.