ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafRosh Hashanah 29
(a) Rebbi Zeira instructed his servant (who was blowing the Shofar) to have
Kavanah to blow for him, too.
(b) Rebbi Zeira will establish our Mishnah, which requires a person walking
behind a Shul to have Kavanah to hear the Shofar, but says nothing about the
blower (who is not aware of the man behimd the Shul and does certainly not
have him specifically in mind) - by a Sh'liach Tzibur (i.e. a Ba'al Tokei'a)
who has the entire community in mind (whether he sees them or not).
(c) We ask on Rebbi Zeira from the Beraisa which states that, if the
listener had Kavanah but not the blower, he is not Yotze - which must refer
to the blower not having *himself* in mind and not being Yotze (just like
the other case mentioned there, namely,of the listener, who did also not
have Kavanah that he himself should be Yotze).
(d) Rebbi Zeira answers that this is a Machlokes Tana'im. The Tana Kama of
the Beraisa holds that the blower does *not* need to specifically have the
listener in mind - whereas Rebbi Yossi holds that he *does*.
(a) Moshe's raised or lowered hands affected the course of the war with
Amalek - inasmuch as when he raised his hands, the people looked upwards,
causing them to subordinate themselves to Hashem (because 'external acts
affect a person internally'), which in turn, was the catalyst that caused
Hashem to fight on their behalf.
(b) The Tana presents a similar idea in connection with the copper snake -
where, it was not the copper snake that healed them from the snake-bites,
but the fact that they looked upwards and subordinated themselves to Hashem.
Note: the reason that the Tana found it necessary to give *two* examples of
the same concept, is presumably to teach us that doing so is effective both
before the sin and afterwards (as the Lashon of the Mishnah clearly
(c) A deaf-mute, a fool, and a minor cannot blow Shofar for grown-ups - due
to the principle that whoever is not included in the obligation to perform
any Mitzvah, cannot render Yotze someone who is.
(b) One Tumtum may not blow even for another - because of the possibility
that the one who is blowing is a woman, and the one who is listening, a man;
an Androginus may - because every Androginus has the same Safek, either they
are both men, or they are both women.
- A Tumtum - is someone whose sexual organs are covered, and one cannot tell what he/she is.
- An Androginus - is someone who has both male and female sexual organs.
(c) A slave is Patur from Teki'as Shofar - because women are Patur, and
generally, a slave is Patur from those Mitzvos that a woman is Patur.
(d) Someone who is half-slave, half free (e.g. who previously belonged to
two masters, one of whom set him free) may not blow for his friend - because
the half of him that is a slave cannot render Yotze the half of his friend
who is free.
(a) Initially, we quote two Pesukim to explain why the Tana of the Beraisa
needs to tell us that Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisraelim are obligated to blow
Shofar on Rosh Hashanah: "Yom Teru'ah Yihyeh Lachem", and "u'Seka'atem
ba'Chatzotz'ros"- from which we might have learned that whoever is Chayav
only the *one* Mitzvah of blowing the Shofar, is included in the Mitzvah, to
preclude the Kohanim, who have a second Mitzvah of blowing the trumpets.
Someone who is half-slave and half-free may not blow even for his friend. We
are forced to amend the statement of Rav Huna, who permitted him to blow for
himself - because, if the half of him that is a slave cannot blow for the
half of his friend who is free, then, by the same token, he cannot blow for
the half of himself that is a slave either.
(b) We refute this explanation however - on the grounds that, seeing as the
one pertains to blowing the Shofar, and the other, to blowing the trumpets,
how can we refer to that as the Kohanim having *two* Mitzvos of blowing
(since the two Mitzvos are totally different)?
(c) So we ultimately explain the Beraisa on the basis of the Mishnah that we
learned above, equating Rosh Hashanah with the Yovel. In that case, whoever
is included in the Mitzvos of the Yovel, we might have said, is also
included in the Mitzvah of blowing the Shofar, and whoever is not, is Patur.
(d) The source for this is the Mishnah in Erchin, which permits Kohanim and
Levi'im to sell their property at all times and to redeem it - and it is the
latter that the Beraisa needs to counter. Because the Din is that, should
the owner declare his field Hekdesh and not redeem it, and the treasurer of
Hekdesh goes on to sell it to someone else, then, comes Yovel, the field
does not revert to the owner, but goes to the Kohanim. However, if the owner
was from the tribe of Levi, then it reverts to him in the Yovel.
(a) One Jew (who is a Bar-Chiyuva) may blow for another, even though he
himself is not currently being Yotze with the blowing - because of the
principle 'Kol Yisrael Areivim Zeh la'Zeh' (each Jew is responsible for the
(b) This will only apply to a Mitzvah which his friend is *obligated* to
fulfill, but not to one which is purely *voluntary* - in which case, it will
not apply to reciting a Berachah over bread or wine (or any other food for
that matter), seeing as there is no obligation to recite the Berachah (Don't
eat the food and don't recite the Berachah!)
(a) Rava asks whether someone who is not himself being Yotze now the Mitzvah
or Matzah or that of Kidush, can be Motzi someone who is, with the Berachah
of 'ha'Motzi' over the former and that of 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' over the
latter - because, on the one hand, the Matzah and the Kidush-wine are
obligations, but on the other, the Berachos of 'ha'Motzi' and 'ha'Gafen' are
Birchos ha'Nehenin (come for the benefit of the food, and not for the
***** Hadran Alach, Ra'uhu Beis-Din *****
(b) Rava's She'eilah will not extend to the Berachos of 'Al Achilas Matzah'
and 'Mekadesh Yisrael' of Kidush - which are pure Birchos ha'Mitzvos, and
which one can obviously render Yotze even if one does intend to be Yotze
(c) We resolve Rava's She'eilah from Rav Ashi - who quotes Rav Papi as
having rendered Rav Ashi Yotze with Kidush (including the Berachah of Borei
P'ri ha'Gafen), and then, when his resident gardener arrived, as having
recited Kidush for him, too (from the Lashon of the Gemara, it is unclear
when Rav Papi himself was Yotze, though that will have no bearing on the
proof one way or another).
(d) The Tana of the Beraisa expressly permits reciting a Berachah over food
on behalf of his children who are about to eat (even though he does not
intend to eat together with them).
***** Perek Yom-Tov *****
(a) With regard to blowing the Shofar on Shabbos ...
Chazal also differentiated between Yerushalayim and Yavneh inasmuch as in
Yavneh, when Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbos, they would only blow in Yavneh
itself, whereas in Yerushalayim they would blow in other towns too, provided
four conditions were met - that they could see Yerushalayim, that they could
hear it, that it was close and that one could go to Yerushalayim from there
(b) After the Churban Beis ha'Mikdash - Raban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted
that they should blow in every town that had a Beis-Din (of three Semuchin).
- ... min ha'Torah - one may blow the Shofar anywhere.
- ... mi'de'Rabbanan - they decreed, forbidding it outside the Beis-Hamikdash, for reasons that we shall see later.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer restricts the scope of Raban Yochanan's Takanah - by
confining it to Yavneh, where the Sanhedrin sat.
(a) We try to resolve the discrepancy between the Pasuk in Emor, which
writes "Shabason *Zichron Teru'ah*" and the Pasuk in Pinchas, which writes
"*Yom* Teru'ah* Yihyeh Lachem" - by establishing the former Pasuk by Yom-Tov
which fell on Shabbos (when the Shofar is only mentioned but not blown), and
the latter one by Yom-Tov that fell during the week, when one actually
(b) Besides blowing the Shofar - removing the bread from the oven is also
referred to as a 'Chochmah' rather than a 'Melachah'
(c) Besides the fact that blowing the Shofar is a Chochmah and not a
Melachah (and that it cannot therefore be a *Torah* prohibition to blow on
Shabbos), the problem with the explanation that we gave in a. (to resolve
the discrepancy between the two Pesukim) is - that, if blowing the Shofar on
Shabbos is learned from a Pasuk (making it a Torah prohibition), then how
could Chazal permit it in the Beis Hamikdash.
(a) Chazal prohibited blowing the Shofar on Shabbos for the same reason as
they prohibited taking the Lulav on Shabbos and reading the Megilah -
because although everyone is Chayav to blow the Shofar, not everyone is
expert at blowing, so we are afraid that a person might (in his eagerness to
perform the Mitzvah) carry his Shofar in the street to an expert, to find
out how to blow properly. This decree does not extend to the Beis-Hamikdash,
in the same way as most Rabbinical decrees don't apply there, because of the
principle 'Ein Sh'vus ba'Mikdash'.
The 'Amru Lo', who permit blowing in any town with a Beis-Din, appear to be
saying the same as the Tana Kama. They disagree with them however - in a
town which has only a *temporary* Sanhedrin, which the Tana Kama permits;
whereas *they* maintain that it must be a permanent Beis-Din like that of
Yavneh, before one is permitted to blow on Shabbos.
(b) When after the Churban, the B'nei Beseirah suggested that Beis-Din sit
down and discuss whether or not to include the town where the Sanhedrin sat,
in the decree of not blowing Shofar on Shabbos - Raban Yochanan ben Zakai
suggested that they blow first, and discuss the matter later.
(c) After they had blown, and they wanted to sit down and discuss the matter
for future years - he ruled that, now that they had blown, there was nothing
more to discuss.