Rosh Hashanah 27b — the Talmud in English

c.

Was perforated

the shofar,

and he sealed it—

If

the perforation

impedes the sounding

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

invalid.

Since the addition is not tightly attached to the shofar, and is not nullified to it. And it follows that he is sounding with a shofar and another thing. And even if he sealed it with its own kind, it is like one who sounds with two shofars.

But if not,

if the sound of the shofar is not different from what it was before it was perforated—

valid,

because the sealing is nullified to the shofar, and it is one shofar. And this is like one who sounds with one shofar.

d.

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

which is a place enclosed by partitions on the ground,

or into a large barrel,

a large barrel—

If the sound of the shofar

clearly

was heard—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

But if an echo

an echo

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 the 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 it.

And therefore it is possible that two people hear the sound of a shofar or a Megilla, and one of them fulfills his obligation, while the other does not fulfill his obligation.

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 he fulfilled his obligation,

while this one did not direct his heart,

and therefore he did not fulfill his obligation.

Gemara:

The Gemara cites a beraita in which matters brought in our Mishna are brought:

The Sages taught:

a. A shofar that was

long and he shortened it—

valid.

b.

He scraped it

[from inside or outside, as follows]

and reduced it to its rind,

making it thin like a “rind” —

valid.

The thickness of the mouth of the shofar has an inner side and an outer side. And it is possible to coat separately the thickness of its outer side or its inner side with gold. And therefore:

c.

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 places his mouth , it is

invalid,

because the gold intervenes between his mouth and the shofar .

But if the coating was external,

not at the place where the mouth is placed—

valid.

d.

He coated it with gold, on the inside,

its inner wall—

invalid,

because the sounding is with the gold.

If he coated it

on the outside, if its sound changed from what it was—

invalid,

because one must hear the sound of the shofar alone.

But if not—

valid.

e.

It was perforated and he sealed it—

if

the perforation

impedes the sounding,

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

invalid,

since the sealing is not tightly attached to the perforation, and therefore is not nullified to the shofar, and this is like one who sounds with two shofars .

But if not—

valid.

f.

He placed one shofar inside another shofar—

If

the

sound of

the

inner one he heard,

for example, the inner shofar protrudes from the outer one, and he sounded with it—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

But if he heard the sound of the outer one—

he has not fulfilled his obligation.

Because the walls of the inner shofar interrupt the sounding.

The Gemara cites another beraita discussing these matters:

The Sages taught:

a.

He scraped it, whether from inside or from outside, it is valid,

and even if

he scraped it and reduced it to its rind—

he made it thin like a rind—

valid.

b.

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,

and as above.

c.

He inverted it and sounded with it, he has not fulfilled his obligation

[the Gemara explains this immediately].

Rav Pappa said:

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

do not say that he inverted it like a garment,

do not think that the intention of the beraita is to say that the one sounding inverted the shofar as one inverts 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 shortened the

wide

side,

and sounded with it.

And

what is the reason,

what is the reason that it is invalid?—

It is in accordance with Rav Mattana.

For Rav Mattana said:

It is stated [Leviticus 25]:

“And you shall pass

a shofar of a blast.” From here

we require the manner of its passage.

One must sound with it in the manner in which it passes over the head of the ram while it is alive, so that its narrow side is opposite the person’s mouth.

We learned in the Mishna:

He joined fragments of shofars, it is invalid.

The Sages taught:

If he added to it,

to the shofar,

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

invalid,

because this is like one who sounds with two shofars.

It was perforated

the shofar

and he sealed it—

whether

he sealed it

with its own kind or

not with its own kind, it is invalid

Rabbi Natan says:

If he added to it

with

something that is

of its own kind,

if it does not impede the sounding,

valid.

But if he sealed it

not with its own kind—

invalid.

And the Gemara explains the view of Rabbi Natan, who says that if he added to it

with its own kind, it is valid:

Rabbi Yohanan said: And this is,

specifically,

when most of it remained,

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

And the Gemara infers:

By implication

you learn this,

that

if [according to Rabbi Natan] he added to it

not with its own 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 with its own kind it is valid, and not with its own kind it is invalid.

There are those who transmit this with regard to the final clause.

There are those who apply the words of Rabbi Yohanan to the end of Rabbi Natan’s words, who said

“not with its own kind—

invalid.”

And concerning this

Rabbi Yohanan said: And this is when most of it was diminished.

But if most of it remained, it is valid, even when it was not sealed with its own kind.

And concerning this the Gemara infers:

By implication, when it is of its own kind—

even though most of it was diminished,

it is

valid.

For Rabbi Natan spoke of a case in which most of it was diminished, for only in such a case is it invalid when it is not of its own kind, and concerning this he says that when it is of its own kind it is valid.

And the beraita continues:

He coated it with gold: on the inside—

invalid.

Because the sounding emerges from the gold.

On the outside—

if its sound changed from what it was, it is invalid,

because one must hear the sound of the shofar alone.

But if not—

valid.

If it split

all of it

along its length—

invalid.

If it split

all of it

across its width—

If there remained in it

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

the measure

appropriate for

sounding [the measure will be explained below]—

valid.

It is as though the entire part from the split onward were removed, and it is like a long shofar that he shortened, which is valid.

It is as though the entire section beyond the crack had been removed, making it like a long shofar that was shortened, which is valid.

But if not,

if the measure required for sounding did not remain—

invalid.

And how much

is

the measure required for sounding?

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel explained: enough that he can grasp it

[that he can grasp the shofar]

in his hand, and it can be seen

the shofar protruding from his hand

on either side.

If its sound was

of the shofar

thin, or thick, or hoarse—

valid,

because

all sounds are valid for a shofar.

They sent word to him

the Sages

to Shmuel’s father: “He drilled

[perforated]

and sounded with it”—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

And the Gemara understood that the intention here was to say that he drilled the shofar through its narrow thickness, making a hole in it in order to blow into it.

And therefore we ask:

It is obvious

that the one who drilled it fulfilled his obligation, for

all of them too—

are drilled by drilling.

All shofars are drilled to make a mouth 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 they remove it from inside it. And here it is speaking of a case in which he did not remove the entire thickness of the bone, but rather

he drilled through its horn-core,

that same protruding bone.

You might say,

perhaps you will say that even

a kind with its own kind intervenes,

and he is not sounding with a shofar.

It teaches us

the tanna teaches us that a kind with its own kind does not intervene, and his sounding is valid.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who sounds into a pit or into a cistern

or into a large barrel: if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, and if he heard an echo [an echo], he has not fulfilled his obligation.

Rav Huna said: They taught this only

that one who hears an echo has not fulfilled his obligation

with regard to those

people

standing at the mouth of the pit,

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

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

But those standing in the pit—

have fulfilled their obligation.

For they hear the sound of the shofar, and not an echo.

It was also taught thus,

in accordance with the words of Rav Huna, that the listeners located inside the pit fulfill their obligation:

For it was taught:

One who sounds into a pit or into a cistern—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

And this is difficult:

But we learned

in our Mishna, “If he heard an echo”—

he has not fulfilled his obligation”!

Rather, is it not, learn from this,

is it not possible to learn from here

as

the words of

Rav Huna,

that one must distinguish 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 the words of Rav Huna.

But there are those who transmit the words of Rav Huna differently—as an answer to the contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita. And as follows:

There are those who raise it as a contradiction,

there are those who raised a contradiction between our Mishna and the beraita:

We learned: One who blows into a pit or into a cistern has not fulfilled [his obligation].

And it was taught,

behold, we learned in a baraita

"he has fulfilled [his obligation]"!

And concerning this

Rav Huna said: It is not difficult.

Here,

in the Mishna that said “he has not fulfilled [his obligation],” it is referring

to those standing at the edge of the pit,

and

here

in the baraita that said “he has fulfilled [his obligation]”—it is referring

to those standing in the pit.

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

Rabba said: