Rosh Hashanah 27b (כז:) — the Talmud in English

c.

If it was perforated

the shofar,

and he sealed the perforation—

If

the perforation

prevents the sounding

after it was sealed, meaning that the sound of the shofar does not return to what it was before it was perforated , it is

invalid.

Since the added material is not firmly attached to the shofar and does not become part of it, it follows that he is sounding a shofar together with another object. Even if he sealed it with material of the same kind, it is considered as though he sounded two shofarot.

But if not,

if the sound of the shofar is no different from what it was before it was perforated—

it is valid,

because the seal is subordinate to the shofar, and it is one shofar. Thus, this is like sounding one shofar.

d.

One who sounds the shofar into a pit or into a cistern,

which is an enclosed area surrounded by walls above ground,

or into a pithas,

a large barrel—

If the sound of a shofar

clearly

was heard—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

But if an echo

was heard,

was heard—

he has not fulfilled his obligation.

e. [

And likewise,]

one who was passing behind a synagogue, or whose house was adjacent to a synagogue, and heard the sound of a shofar

on Rosh HaShanah,

or

heard

the sound of the Megilla

on Purim—

If he directed his heart

to fulfill his obligation [this will be explained in the Gemara]—

he has fulfilled it.

But if not—

he has not fulfilled his obligation.

Therefore, it is possible for two people to hear the sound of a shofar or the Megilla, and for one of them to fulfill his obligation while the other does not.

And the Mishna explains:

Even though this one

who directed his heart

heard, and

also

this one

who did not direct his heart

heard.

Nevertheless,

this one directed his heart,

and therefore fulfilled his obligation,

while this one did not direct his heart,

and therefore did not fulfill his obligation.

Gemara:

The Gemara cites a beraita containing statements brought in our Mishna:

The Sages taught:

a. A shofar that was

long and he shortened it—

is valid.

b.

If he scraped it

[from the inside or from the outside, as follows]

and reduced it to its crust,

making it thin like a “crust” —

it is valid.

The thickness of the mouth of the shofar has an inner side and an outer side. It is possible to coat separately with gold either the thickness of its outer side or that of its inner side. Therefore:

c.

If he coated it with gold,

if he coated the thickness of the mouth of the shofar on its inner side

at the place where the mouth is placed,

that is, at the inner edge of its thickness, where the one sounding the shofar places his mouth , it is

invalid,

because the gold forms an interposition between his mouth and the shofar .

But if the coating was on the outside,

not at the place where the mouth is placed—

it is valid.

d.

If he coated it with gold, on the inside,

its inner wall—

it is invalid

because the sounding is being produced through the gold.

If he coated it

on the outside, and its sound changed from what it had been—

it is invalid,

because one must hear only the sound of a shofar.

But if not—

it is valid.

e.

If it was perforated and he sealed it—

if

the perforation

prevents the sounding,

meaning that after he sealed it, its sound is still not identical to what it was before it was perforated, it is

invalid,

since the seal is not firmly attached to the perforation and therefore does not become part of the shofar; thus, this is like sounding two shofarot.

But if not—

it is valid.

f.

If he placed one shofar inside another shofar—

If

the

sound

of the

inner one was heard,

for example, the inner shofar protruded beyond the outer one and he sounded it—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

But if the sound of the outer one was heard—

he has not fulfilled his obligation,

because the walls of the inner shofar interrupt the sounding.

The Gemara cites another beraita that discusses these matters:

The Sages taught:

a.

If he scraped it, whether from the inside or from the outside, it is valid,

and even if

he scraped it and reduced it to its crust—

made it as thin as a crust—

it is valid.

b.

If he placed one shofar inside another shofar, if he heard the sound of the inner one, he has fulfilled his obligation, and if he heard the sound of the outer one, he has not fulfilled his obligation,

as stated above.

c.

If he inverted it and sounded it, he has not fulfilled his obligation

[the Gemara explains this immediately].

Rav Pappa said:

What we learned, “If he inverted it and sounded it, he has not fulfilled his obligation,”

do not say that he inverted it like a garment,

do not think that the beraita means that the one sounding it turned the shofar over as one turns over a garment, so that the inner part became the outer part.

Rather,

he heated the shofar in boiling water and

widened the

narrow

side, and narrowed the

wide

side,

and sounded it.

And

what is the reason,

what is the reason that it is invalid?—

It is in accordance with Rav Mattana.

As Rav Mattana said:

It is stated [Leviticus 25]:

“And you shall sound

a shofar blast.” From here

we require that it be in the manner of its passage.

One must sound it in the manner in which it passes through the head of the ram while it is alive, with its narrow end facing the person’s mouth.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he glued together fragments of shofarot, it is invalid.

The Sages taught:

If he added to it,

to the shofar,

anything at all, whether of its kind or not of its kind—

it is invalid,

because this is like sounding two shofarot.

If it was perforated

the shofar

and he sealed it—

whether

he sealed it

with material of its kind or

not of its kind, it is invalid .

Rabbi Natan says:

If he added to it

something

that is

of its kind,

if it does not prevent the sounding,

it is valid.

But if he sealed it

with material not of its kind—

it is invalid.

The Gemara explains Rabbi Natan’s position, who says that if he added to it

material of its kind, it is valid:

Rabbi Yohanan said: And this is so

only

if most of it remained,

of the shofar; but if most of it did not remain, it is invalid.

And the Gemara infers:

By inference

you learn this,

that

if [according to Rabbi Natan] he added to it

material not of its kind—

even though most of it remained, it is invalid.

For Rabbi Natan spoke of a case in which most of it remained, and concerning this he said that material of its kind renders it valid, while material not of its kind renders it invalid.

Some teach this statement as referring to the latter clause.

Some transmit Rabbi Yohanan’s words as referring to the end of Rabbi Natan’s statement, which said

“material not of its kind”—

is invalid.

And concerning this

Rabbi Yohanan said: And this is so if most of it was broken away.

But if most of it remained, it is valid even when the added material was not of its kind.

And concerning this the Gemara infers:

By inference, when it is of its kind—

even though most of it was broken away,

it is

valid.

For Rabbi Natan spoke of a case in which most of it was broken away, since only in such a case is material not of its kind invalid, and concerning this he says that material of its kind is valid.

And the beraita continues:

If he coated it with gold: on the inside—

it is invalid.

Because the sounding emerges from the gold.

On the outside—

if its sound changed from what it had been, it is invalid,

because one must hear only the sound of a shofar.

But if not—

it is valid.

If it split

all the way

along its length—

it is invalid.

If it split

all the way

across its width—

If there remained

from the place of the split to the place where the mouth is placed

the measure

that is suitable for

sounding [

and this measure will be explained below]—

it is valid.

It is considered as though the entire section from the split onward had been removed, like a long shofar that he shortened, which is valid.

But if not,

if the measure suitable for sounding did not remain—

it is invalid.

And how much

is the

measure required for sounding?

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explained: Enough that he can hold it

[that he can hold the shofar]

in his hand, and it can be seen

protruding from his hand

on both sides.

If its sound was

of the shofar

thin, or thick, or hoarse—

it is valid,

because

all sounds are valid for a shofar.

The Sages sent word

to

Shmuel’s father: “If he bored it

[perforated it]

and sounded it—

he has fulfilled his obligation.”

The Gemara understood this to mean that he bored a hole through the narrow thickness of the shofar, in order to blow through it.

The Gemara therefore wondered:

It is obvious

that one who bored it has fulfilled his obligation, for

all of them also—

are bored.

All shofarot are bored in order to make an opening for them.

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said: When the shofar is attached to the animal, a bone protrudes from the animal and enters the shofar, and it is removed from inside it. Here, the case is one in which he did not remove the entire thickness of the bone, but rather

When the shofar is attached to the animal, a bone protrudes from the animal and enters the shofar, and it is removed from it. Here, however, the case is that he did not remove the entire thickness of the bone, but

bored through its horn-core,

the protruding bone itself.

Lest you say,

perhaps

even one kind of material interposes against the same kind,

and he is therefore not sounding a shofar—

it teaches us

that the tanna teaches us that one kind of material does not interpose against the same kind , and his sounding is valid.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who sounds the shofar into a pit or into a cistern

or into a pithas: if he heard the sound of a shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he heard an echo, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

Rav Huna said: They taught

that one who hears an echo has not fulfilled his obligation

only concerning those

people

standing at the edge of the pit,

who hear the echo of the one sounding the shofar who is inside the pit.

The same law applies if the head of the one sounding the shofar was outside the pit while he sounded into the pit: he has not fulfilled his obligation.

But those standing inside the pit—

have fulfilled their obligation,

because they hear the sound of the shofar and not an echo.

It was likewise taught

in accordance with Rav Huna’s words, that those listening from inside the pit fulfill their obligation:

As it was taught:

One who sounds the shofar into a pit or into a cistern—

has fulfilled his obligation.

This is difficult:

But didn’t we learn

in our Mishna, “If he heard an echo—

he has not fulfilled his obligation”!?

Rather, is it not so? Learn from this

that one can derive here

in accordance with

the words of

Rav Huna,

that a distinction must be made between those listening from outside, who hear only an echo, and those listening inside the pit, who hear the sound of the sounding.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from this

in accordance with Rav Huna’s words.

But some transmit Rav Huna’s words differently—as an answer to the contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita, as follows:

Some raise the contradiction explicitly,

some posed a contradiction between our Mishna and the beraita:

We learned: One who sounds the shofar into a pit or into a cistern has not fulfilled his obligation.

But it was taught,

we learned in a beraita

"he has fulfilled"!

And regarding this

Rav Huna said: This is not difficult.

Here,

in the Mishna that said that he did not fulfill his obligation, it is referring

to those standing at the edge of the pit,

and

here

in the beraita that said that he fulfilled his obligation—it is referring

to those standing in the pit.

And now the Gemara cites a statement of Rabba discussing one who hears a blast from the pit:

Rabba said: