(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Rosh Hashanah 32

ROSH HASHANAH 31-35 (Siyum!) - sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.



(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, the Shofar is not blown for the Pesukim of 'Malchuyos', which are inserted in the Berachah of Kedushas Hashem. The three required sets are blown in 'Kedushas ha'Yom', Zichronos and Shofros.

(b) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri - because, he argues, if one does not blow the Shofar for Malchuyos, then what is the point of saying them?

(c) In his opinion, 'Malchuyos' are said in the Berachah of 'Kedushas ha'Yom', so that one now blows for Malchuyos, Zichronos and Shofros.

(d) There are no other major changes in the order of the first three and the last three Berachos in the Musaf of the Amidah of Rosh Hashanah.

(a) When Rebbi Akiva asks Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri that 'If we don't blow by Malchuyos, then why mention them?', he cannot have meant this literally - because we learn the recital of Malchuyos (Zichronos and Shofros) from Pesukim. Consequently, whether we blow Shofar together with them or not has no bearing on the obligation to read them.

(b) What he really meant to ask was that, if, as Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri maintains, one does not blow for Malchuyos, then - why did Chazal not mark the difference between Malchuyos on the one hand, and Zichronos and Shofros on the other, with another distinction, by diminishing the number of Pesukim that one recites by them (to read *nine* Pesukim instead of *ten*)?

(c) We learn from the Pasuk ...

  1. ... "Havu la'Hashem B'nei Eilim" - to say the Berachah of 'Avos' ('Magein Avraham') in the Amidah.
  2. ... "Havu la'Hashem Kavod va'Oz" - to say 'Gevuros' ('Mechayeh ha'Meisim').
  3. ... "Havu la'Hashem Kevod She'mo, Hishtachavu la'Hashem be'Hadras Kodesh" - to say 'Kedushos' ('ha'Keil ha'Kadosh').
(a) The Torah writes in Emor "Shabason Zichron Teru'ah Mikra Kodesh". Rebbi Eliezer learns from ...
  1. ... "Shabason" - to say 'Kedushas ha'Yom' in the Amidah.
  2. ... "Zichron" - to say 'Zichronos'.
  3. ... "Teru'ah" - to say 'Shofros'.
  4. ... "Mikra Kodesh" - to sanctify Rosh Hashanah by refraining from doing Melachah on it.
(b) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with his Rebbe on the grounds that - since the major issue of Yom-Tov (dealt with in this Pasuk) is that of abstaining from Melachah, it would be more logical to ascribe that to the *first* word of the Derashah ("Shabason"), rather than the last ("Mikra Kodesh")?

(c) From "Mikra Kodesh" he prefers to learn the insertion of 'Kedushas ha'Yom' in the Amidah.

(a) Rebbi (who is coming to explain Rebbi Akiva) learns from "Ani Hashem Elokeichem ... u'va'Chodesh ha'Shevi'i" - to say Malchuyos in the seventh month (on Rosh Hashanah).

(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah argues with Rebbi. In his opinion, this Derashah is not necessary, because we can derive Malchuyos from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "ve'Hayu Lachem le'Zikaron ... Ani Hashem Elokeichem" (in connection with the trumpets) - to teach us that wherever there are Zichronos, there are Malchuyos.

(c) One should include 'Kedushas ha'Yom' in ...

1. ... Malchuyos, according to Rebbi (like Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah) - because it is the fourth Berachah (which is where 'Kedushas ha'Yom' is said on every other Yom-Tov).
2. ... Zichronos, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - because it is the middle Berachah (seeing as on Rosh Hashanah at Musaf the Amidah contains *nine* Berachos, instead of the usual *seven*) which is where it is said on every other Yom-Tov.
(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel commented in Usha one Rosh Hashanah ...
1. ... when Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah included Malchuyos in 'Kedushas Hashem' (like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri) - that that was *not* the custom in Yavneh.
2. ... when, on the second day, Rebbi Chanina Be'no shel Rebbi Yossi Hagelili included it in Zichronos, like Rebbi Akiva - that *that* was the custom in Yavneh.
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel agreed with Chanina Be'no shel Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, not with regard to the location of Kedushas ha'Yom (with which he specifically argues) - but with the fact that Malchuyos is said in the *fourth* Berachah, with the result that one blows Shofar then.

(c) The problem with 'the second day' mentioned by the Beraisa - is from Rav who said that since the time of Ezra up until his time, Elul had never been a full month (so how could there have been two days Rosh Hashanah in the time of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (before the Minhag of always observing two days came into effect)?

(d) What the Tana really meant by the 'second day' - was on a second occasion (i.e. a year later).

(a) According to the Tana Kama, one inserts a minimum of ten Pesukim for Malchuyos, ten for Zichronos and ten for Shofros. Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri says - a minimum of three for each.

(b) When Rebbi Levi ascribed the ten Pesukim to the ten Hilulim - he meant the ten "Haleluhu's" in Tehilim (Kapitel 150).

(c) According to Rav Yosef, they correspond to the Aseres ha'Dibros. Rebbi Yochanan ascribed them to - the ten commands with which Hashem created the world.

(d) We learn from the Pasuk in Tehilim "bi'D'var Hashem Shamayim Na'asu" - that Hashem created the world with words (and not with physical acts). Consequently, "Bereishis" will be the (otherwise missing) tenth command.

(a) When Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri said that if one said three from each, he is Yotze, we were not at first sure what he meant - whether he meant three from Torah, three from Nevi'im and three from Kesuvim (which one says by Malchuyos, Zichronos and Shofros); or whether he meant three Pesukim (one from Torah, one from Nevi'im and one from Kesuvim) together with Malchuyos, three with Zichronos and three with Shofros.

(b) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, one inserts *ten* Pesukim of Malchuyos ... Lechatchilah, Bedieved, *three*. Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri says: Lechatchilah, seven from all of them, Bedi'eved, three.

(c) We resolve our She'eilah from the fact that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri requires *seven* of each, Lechatchilah. If he meant seven Pesukim of Torah, seven of Nevi'im and seven of Kesuvim - then he would turn out to be more *stringent* than the Tana Kama; whereas it is clear from his orginal statement, that he is coming to be more *lenient* than him (because he said 'three' to the Tana Kama's 'ten').

(a) Some ascribe the minimum three Pesukim of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri to Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim - others, to the three sections of K'lal Yisrael, Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisraelim.

(b) The seven Pesukim (Bedieved of the Tana Kama - and presumably the seven Lechatchilah of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri) correspond to the seven heavens (through which the tone of the Shofar ascends to Hashem's Throne).

(c) The Halachah (at least as far as Bedi'eved is concerned) is like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri.




(a) We are permitted to insert Pesukim of punishment of the nations of the world, but not of Yisrael.

(b) The order of the Pesukim from Tenach according to ...

  1. ... the Tana Kama - is Torah, Kesuvim, Nevi'im.
  2. ... Rebbi Yossi - Torah, Nevi'im, Kesuvim, Torah.
(c) The Navi Yechezkel warns us that Hashem will, if need be, "rule over us with a strong hand ... and with poured out wrath" - on which Rav Nachman commented 'Let Hashem only be so angry with us, as long as He redeems us from Galus.

(d) It is nevertheless not in order to insert it in the Pesukim of Malchuyos - because it was said in an angry tone.

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi, one may insert the Pasuk from Vayeira "va'Hashem Pakad es Sarah ... ". Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with him - on the grounds that 'Pikdonos' are not the same as Zichronos (see above 16a.).

(b) This Pasuk is only invalid according to Rebbi Yehudah who holds that Pikdonos are not like Zichronos, but not according to Rebbi Yossi, because of Pikdonos de'Yachid - because it refers to the birth of one of the fathers of K'lal Yisrael (and is therefore considered Pikdonos de'Rabim).

(c) The Pesukim in Tehilim "Se'u She'arim Rosheichem ... ve'Yavo *Melech* ha'Kavod. Mi Zeh *Melech* ha'Kavod? ... " and "Zamru Elokim ... *le'Malkeinu* Zamru, Ki *Melech* Kol ha'Aretz Elokim", Rebbi Yossi counts as two Malchuyos. Rebbi Yehudah count only as one Malchus ...

1. ... "Se'u She'arim Rosheichem ... ve'Yavo Melech ha'Kavod. Mi Zeh Melech ha'Kavod? ... " - because the latter Pasuk is in the form of a question, and not a statement?
2. ... "Zamru Elokim ... *le'Malkeinu* Zamru, Ki *Melech* Kol ha'Aretz Elokim" - because in the first Pasuk, Hashem is described as *our *King, and not as King of the world.
(d) A reference to Hashem's Throne is considered a Pasuk of Malchus according to either Tana - that is why the Pasuk in Tehilim "Malach Elokim al Goyim Elokim Yashav al Kisei Kodsho" is only considered as *one* Malchus, and not *two*.
(a) According to Rebbi Yossi, a Pasuk that contains both 'Zikaron' and 'Teru'ah' can be inserted both in Zichronos and in Shofros, and the same principle applies to a Pasuk that contains both 'Malchus' and 'Teru'ah'. According to Rebbi Yehudah, a Pasuk that contains ...
  1. ... both 'Zikaron' and 'Teru'ah' - can only be inserted in Zichronos.
  2. ... both 'Malchus' and 'Teru'ah' - can only be inserted in Malchuyos.
(b) Rebbi Yossi permits inserting a Pasuk which contains 'Teru'ah' in Shofros. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that Teru'ah is not a Lashon of Shofar (presumably because it pertains equally well to trumpets).
(a) According to Rebbi Yossi - one concludes the Pesukim with one from Torah.

(b) We amend his statement in the Mishnah to read - 've'Im Hishlim ba'Navi, Yatza'?

(c) Rebbi Yehudah does not consider any of the three following Pesukim in the Torah valid to be inserted in Malchuyos: "Shema Yisrael ... "; "ve'Yada'ta ha'Yom va'Hasheivosa el Levavecha"; "Ata Har'eisa la'Da'as Ki Hashem Hu ha'Elokim ... " - Rebbi Yossi permits all of them. (Note: Rebbi in question 4a., as well as Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in 4b. [who both learn Malchuyos from "Ani Hashem Elokeichem"] seem to concur with the opinion of Rebbi Yossi here.)

(d) Rebbi Yossi's opinion is particularly significant here, because otherwise, his previous statement (that one concludes with a Pasuk from Torah), would be meaningless, seeing as according to him, one requires *four* Pesukim of Malchuyos, and without these three, there are only *three* altogether ("Hashem Elokav Imo, u'Seru'as Melech Bo" - Balak; "Vayehi bi'Yeshurun Melech ... " - ve'Zos ha'Berachah), and "Hashem Yimloch Le'olam Va'ed" - Beshalach).

(a) Hallel is said at Shachris, whereas the Shofar is blown at Musaf. The reason ...
1. ... that we initially gave for the latter - is because, based on the fact that there are more people in Shul for Musaf than there are for Shachris, we follow the principle 'be'Rov Am Hadras Melech'.
2. ... that we give for saying Hallel at Shachris (despite the fact that there are more people in Shul for Musaf) - is because of the principle 'Z'rizin Makdimin le'Mitzvos' (that one should always perform a Mitzvah as soon as possible). Note: From here we see that 'Z'rizin Makdimin le'Mitzvos' overrides that of 'be'Rov Am Hadras Melech'.
(b) The reason that Chazal instituted blowing the Shofar only at Musaf - is because the enemy, after having issued a decree forbidding the blowing of the Shofar, used to lie in wait to see whether the Jews would adhere to their decree. When by midday, they saw that the Shofar had not been blown, they would go away. So Chazal decreed that the Shofar should only be blown then (see also Tosfos DH 'be'Sha'as'), after the enemy had departed.

(c) We deduce from our Mishnah that Hallel is not said on Rosh Hashanah - from the Lashon 'u've'Sha'as Hallel', which suggests another day other than that of Rosh Hashanah, to which the previous statement was referring.

(d) Hallel is not said on Rosh Hashanah - because 'how can we possibly say Hallel at a time when Hashem is sitting on the Throne of judgment, and the Books of those who are going to live and of those who are going to die, are open before Him'?

(a) It is forbidden to cross the Techum on Yom-Tov, move a pile of rubble, climb a tree, or contravene any other Isur (d'Oraysa or de'Rabanan) in order to hear the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah - because Yom-Tov is both an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh - which the Asei of Shofar does not have the power to override (presumably, the reason why the Mitzvah of Shofar does not even override the Isur de'Rabbanan of Yom-Tov, is because the Rabbanan gave their Isurim the power of a d'Oraysa ('ke'Ein d'Oraysa Tiknu'.

(b) One may pour water or wine into the Shofar on Yom-Tov to clear it - in spite of the fact that it resembles the Isur of 'Tikun Mana'.

(c) When the Gemara asks on the Mishnah (that forbids first crossing the Techum and moving a pile of rubble, and then climbing a tree and riding an animal in order to hear the Shofar), 'Hashta de'Rabanan Amrat Lo, d'Oraysa Miba'i' - it means to ask that having forbidden the Isur of Techum and that of removing a pile of rubble (which do *not* lead to the transgression of any Isur d'Oraysa), in order to hear the Shofar, why did the Tana need to forbid riding an animal (which Chazal only prohibited because it might lead to an Isur d'Oraysa (breaking off the branch of a tree)? Is that not obvious? Rashi however, erases this entire section from the text, because this is not what the Kashya implies.

(d) The answer is that this Mishnah takes on the unusual format of 'Zu ve'ein Tzarich Lomar Zu' ('this and obviously that').

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,