## Rosh Hashanah Daf 28a

###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:1
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:1)

שָׁמַע מִקְצָת תְּקִיעָה בַּבּוֹר וּמִקְצָת תְּקִיעָה עַל שְׂפַת הַבּוֹר — יָצָא. מִקְצָת תְּקִיעָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר וּמִקְצָת תְּקִיעָה לְאַחַר שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר — לֹא יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one heard part of the blast in the pit and part of the blast at the edge of the pit, he has fulfilled** his obligation. But if he heard **part of the blast before dawn,** when it is not yet time to sound the *shofar*, **and part of the blast after dawn, he has not fulfilled** his obligation.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:2
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם — דְּבָעֵינָא כּוּלַּהּ תְּקִיעָה בְּחִיּוּבָא, וְלֵיכָּא. הָכָא נָמֵי — בָּעֵינָא כּוּלַּהּ תְּקִיעָה בְּחִיּוּבָא, וְלֵיכָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: What is different there,** in the case of one who heard part of the blast before dawn and part of it after dawn? If you say that there **the entire blast needs to be** heard **in** a time of **obligation, and** when he hears part of the blast before dawn and part after dawn **it is not** all within the same time of obligation, **here too,** in the case of the pit, **the entire blast needs to be in** a place where one can fulfill his **obligation, and** when he hears part of the blast in a pit and part at the edge, **it is not** all within a place where he can fulfill his obligation.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:3
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:3)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם — לַיְלָה לָאו זְמַן חִיּוּבָא הוּא כְּלָל, הָכָא — בּוֹר מְקוֹם חִיּוּבָא הוּא לְאוֹתָן הָעוֹמְדִין בַּבּוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **How can** these cases **be compared? There, night is not a time of obligation at all,** and sounding the *shofar* then has no meaning whatsoever, **but here, a pit is a place of obligation for those standing in the pit.** That is to say, the part of the blast that was heard in the pit is not inherently invalid, but merely disqualified due to an external factor, so that it is possible to connect it with the part of the blast that was heard at the edge of the pit.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:4
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:4)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּסָבַר רַבָּה: שָׁמַע סוֹף תְּקִיעָה בְּלֹא תְּחִילַּת תְּקִיעָה — יָצָא, וּמִמֵּילָא: תְּחִילַּת תְּקִיעָה בְּלֹא סוֹף תְּקִיעָה — יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is this to say that Rabba maintains** that if **one heard the end of a blast without** hearing **the beginning of the blast, he has fulfilled** his obligation? Because in the case where one heard the beginning of the blast in a pit, he is considered to have heard only the end of the *shofar* blast, which he heard at the edge of the pit. **And it** therefore **follows** that if one heard **the beginning of a blast without** hearing **the end of the blast, he has** also **fulfilled** his obligation.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:5
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: תָּקַע בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, וּמָשַׁךְ בַּשְּׁנִיָּה כִּשְׁתַּיִם — אֵין בְּיָדוֹ אֶלָּא אַחַת. וְאַמַּאי? תִּסְלַק לֵהּ בְּתַרְתֵּי! פַּסּוֹקֵי תְּקִיעָתָא מֵהֲדָדֵי לָא פָּסְקִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof that this is not so, for we learned in the mishna: If **one blew the initial** *tekia* of the first set of *tekia-terua-tekia*, **and** then **drew out the second** *tekia* so that it spans the length of **two** *tekiot*, **it counts as only one** *tekia*, and is not considered two *tekiot*, i.e., the concluding *tekia* of the first set, and the initial *tekia* of the second set. **But why** is this so? If we consider part of a blast as a complete one, **let it count as two** *tekiot*. The Gemara explains: If one hears only the beginning or the end of a *shofar* blast, he has indeed fulfilled his obligation, but nevertheless, **we do not divide** a *shofar* blast **into two.**


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:6
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַתּוֹקֵעַ לְתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַדּוּת אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַפִּיטָס, אִם קוֹל שׁוֹפָר שָׁמַע — יָצָא, וְאִם קוֹל הֲבָרָה שָׁמַע — לֹא יָצָא. וְאַמַּאי? לִיפּוֹק בִּתְחִילַּת תְּקִיעָה מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיעַרְבַּב קָלָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty: **Come** and **hear** that which was taught in a mishna: If **one sounds** a *shofar* **into a pit, or into a cistern, or into a** large **jug, if he** clearly **heard the sound of the *shofar*, he has fulfilled** his obligation; **but if he heard the sound of an echo, he has not fulfilled** his obligation. **But why** is this so? If indeed half a blast is considered a blast, **let him fulfill** his obligation **with the beginning of the blast, before the sound** of the *shofar* **is confused** with the echo, since he heard the beginning of the blast clearly.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:7
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:7)

כִּי קָאָמַר רַבָּה — בְּתוֹקֵעַ וְעוֹלֶה לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Indeed, half a blast is not considered a blast, and Rabba’s statement must be understood differently. **When Rabba spoke,** he was speaking not about other people hearing the blast, but **about** one who was **sounding** the *shofar* **for himself** in a pit **and emerged** from the pit as he was blowing. He has fulfilled his obligation, because he was located in the same place as the sound of the *shofar* at all times, and so he heard the entire blast clearly.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:8
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:8)

אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: זִמְנִין דְּמַפֵּיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְאַכַּתִּי שׁוֹפָר בְּבוֹר, וְקָא מִיעַרְבַּב קָלָא — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, what** is the purpose of Rabba’s **statement?** The *halakha* in this case should be obvious, as there is no reason that the blast should be disqualified. The Gemara answers: **Lest you say that his head might sometimes emerge** from the pit **while the *shofar*** itself **is still in the pit, and the sound may become confused** with its echo, and so he would not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, Rabba **teaches us** that we are not concerned about this, and the obligation is considered to have been fulfilled.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:9
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:9)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: בְּשׁוֹפָר שֶׁל עוֹלָה — לֹא יִתְקַע, וְאִם תָּקַע — יָצָא. בְּשׁוֹפָר שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים — לֹא יִתְקַע, וְאִם תָּקַע — לֹא יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda said: One should not blow with the *shofar* of** an animal consecrated as **a burnt-offering, but if he** nevertheless transgressed and **blew, he has fulfilled** his obligation. **One should** also **not blow with the *shofar* of** an animal consecrated as **a peace-offering, and if he** nevertheless transgressed and **blew, he has not fulfilled** his obligation.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:10
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:10)

מַאי טַעְמָא? עוֹלָה בַּת מְעִילָה הִיא, כֵּיוָן דְּמָעַל בַּהּ — נָפְקָא לַהּ לְחוּלִּין. שְׁלָמִים דְּלָאו בְּנֵי מְעִילָה נִינְהוּ — אִיסּוּרָא הוּא דְּרָכֵיב בְּהוּ, וְלָא נָפְקִי לְחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** for this distinction? **A burnt-offering is subject to misuse** of consecrated objects before being offered, and **once one misuses it** for mundane purposes, **it becomes non-sacred,** so that the one who blows with its *shofar* fulfills his obligation. In contrast, **peace-offerings are not subject to misuse** of consecrated objects before being offered, since in the case of sacrifices of lesser sanctity, misuse is restricted to the fats and other portions that are offered on the altar, and even this applies only after the sprinkling of the blood. Since one is not considered to be misusing peace-offerings when utilizing them for mundane purposes, **the prohibition remains intact and they do not become non-sacred.** Therefore, one who blows the *shofar* of an animal consecrated as a peace-offering does not fulfill his obligation.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:11
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:11)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: אֵימַת מָעַל — לְבָתַר דְּתָקַע, כִּי קָא תָּקַע — בְּאִיסּוּרָא תָּקַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava strongly objects to this** argument: **When does he commit misuse? After he has sounded** it, for only then has he misused the consecrated animal. If so, **when he sounds** it, **he is sounding with something that is** still **prohibited,** even in the case of the animal that was consecrated as a burnt-offering, and so he should not be able to fulfill his obligation with it.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:12
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:12)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה — לֹא יָצָא. הֲדַר אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה — יָצָא. מִצְוֹת לָאו לֵיהָנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said: Both this one,** the *shofar* of a burnt-offering, **and the other one,** the *shofar* of a peace-offering, are governed by the same *halakha*: If he sounded them, **he has not fulfilled** his obligation. **Later,** Rava retracted his statement and **then said** the opposite: **Both this one,** the *shofar* of a burnt-offering, **and the other one,** the *shofar* of a peace-offering, are governed by the same *halakha*: If he sounded them, **he has fulfilled** his obligation. The reason for this is that **mitzvot were not given for benefit.** That is to say, the fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit, and in the absence of benefit, one is not liable for misuse.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:13
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:13)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: בְּשׁוֹפָר שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — לֹא יִתְקַע, וְאִם תָּקַע — יָצָא. בְּשׁוֹפָר שֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת — לֹא יִתְקַע, וְאִם תָּקַע — לֹא יָצָא. מַאי טַעְמָא: עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת כַּתּוֹתֵי מְיכַתַּת שִׁיעוּרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said** further: **One should not sound a *shofar*** that was used for **idol worship, but if he** nevertheless transgressed and **sounded it, he has fulfilled** his obligation. **One should** also **not sound a *shofar* from a city** whose residents were **incited** to idolatry, where the majority of inhabitants committed idolatry, **but if he** nevertheless transgressed and **sounded it, he has not fulfilled** his obligation. **What is the reason** for this last ruling? With regard to any object found in **a city** whose residents were **incited** to idolatry, **its size** as required for the mitzva **is seen** by *halakha* **as crushed** into powder. Since a *shofar* from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is destined for burning, it is considered as if it is already burnt, and it therefore lacks the requisite measurement for fulfilling the mitzva.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:14
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:14)

אָמַר רָבָא: הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ — מוּתָּר לִתְקוֹעַ לוֹ תְּקִיעָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה. הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מִשּׁוֹפָר — מוּתָּר לִתְקוֹעַ בּוֹ תְּקִיעָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** If **one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another,** i.e., if he took a vow not to receive any benefit whatsoever from a certain person, that other person **is** nevertheless **permitted to sound a blast for him** so that he fulfills the **mitzva,** in accordance with the principle that the fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit. For the same reason, if **one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from a** particular ***shofar*, he is** nevertheless **permitted to sound a blast with it** so that he may fulfill the **mitzva.**


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:15
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:15)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ — מַזֶּה עָלָיו מֵי חַטָּאת בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, אֲבָל לֹא בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה. הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מִמַּעְיָן — טוֹבֵל בּוֹ טְבִילָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, אֲבָל לֹא בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said** further: If **one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another,** that other person **may** nevertheless **sprinkle the waters of purification on him,** i.e., water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, which was used to purify people and objects that had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse, **in the rainy season,** for at that time the sprinkling is performed only in order to fulfill a mitzva. **But** he may **not** do so **in the summer season,** since then he also benefits from the very fact that water is being sprinkled on him. Similarly, if **one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from** a particular **spring, he may** nevertheless **immerse in it** an **immersion** performed in order to fulfill **a mitzva in the rainy season, but not in the summer season,** since then he also derives benefit from the very fact that he has immersed in cold water.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:16
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:16)

שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: כְּפָאוֹ וְאָכַל מַצָּה — יָצָא. כְּפָאוֹ מַאן? אִילֵימָא כְּפָאוֹ שֵׁד, וְהָתַנְיָא: עִתִּים חָלִים עִתִּים שׁוֹטֶה, כְּשֶׁהוּא חָלִים — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּפִקֵּחַ לְכׇל דְּבָרָיו, כְּשֶׁהוּא שׁוֹטֶה — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּשׁוֹטֶה לְכׇל דְּבָרָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is related that the following ruling **was sent** from Eretz Yisrael **to Shmuel’s father:** If one **was** forcibly **compelled to eat *matza*** on Passover, **he has fulfilled** his obligation. The Gemara clarifies the matter: **Who compelled him** to eat the *matza*? **If we say** that **a demon forced him,** i.e., that he ate it in a moment of insanity, this is difficult. **Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **someone** who **is at times sane** and **at times insane, at the times when he is sane, he is considered** halakhically **competent for all purposes** and is obligated in all the mitzvot. And **when he is insane, he is considered insane for all purposes,** and is therefore exempt from the mitzvot. If so, someone who was compelled by a demon to eat *matza* is not considered obligated to perform the mitzvot at all.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:17
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:17)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: שֶׁכְּפָאוּהוּ פָּרְסִיִּים. אָמַר רָבָא, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: הַתּוֹקֵעַ לָשִׁיר — יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** We are dealing with a case **where the Persians compelled him** to eat. **Rava said: That is to say** that **one who sounds** a *shofar* **for the music,** having no intent to fulfill the mitzva, **fulfills** his obligation, since the critical issue is hearing the blast and not the intent of the blower.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28a:18
[Rosh Hashanah 28a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28a:18)

פְּשִׁיטָא, הַיְינוּ הָךְ! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם, אֱכוֹל מַצָּה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — וְהָא אֲכַל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious that this is** identical to **that** which was stated above, that one who was compelled to eat *matza* fulfills the mitzva even if he had no intention of doing so? The same should apply in the case of the *shofar*, that one who heard the blast of a *shofar* fulfills his obligation even if he had no intention of doing so. The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that there is a difference between the two cases, **there, the Merciful One says: Eat *matza*, and he indeed ate** it, thereby fulfilling the mitzva.