Rosh Hashanah 29a — the Talmud in English

I intended:

he intended to blow on my behalf, to discharge me of my obligation,

and he blew for me.

And the Gemara concludes:

Evidently,

we learn from here that

he holds

Rabbi Zeira

“the one who makes heard requires

[i.e., needs]

intention”

to discharge the listener. ,

It was objected

as a contradiction to Rabbi Zeira’s words, from a Mishna: We learned in the Mishna:

“If one was passing behind a synagogue, or if his house was adjacent to the synagogue, and he heard the sound of a shofar or the sound of a Scroll”—

“If he directed his heart”—

“he fulfilled his obligation; but if not”—

“he did not fulfill his obligation.”

And one asks:

“But what would it accomplish if he directed his heart?”

For even when the listener directed his heart, this is not effective, because

how is it possible that

the blower

“did not intend with regard to him”—

he did not intend to discharge him, for the blower did not know that he was passing at that moment behind the synagogue!

And we answer:

Here

[it is speaking]

of a communal prayer leader, whose mind is directed toward everyone,

for his intention is to discharge everyone who hears him and wishes to fulfill his obligation through his blowing.

Come and hear,

come and hear a contradiction to Rabbi Zeira’s words, from a beraita:

For it was taught: One who heard the sound of a shofar from another person, who produced the sound of the shofar through his blowing, is as follows:

If

he intended

only to be a

listener, and did not intend to be the one who makes heard

[this will be explained shortly];

or if

he intended

only to be the

one who makes heard, and did not intend to be a listener—

he did not fulfill his obligation,

the listener—

until both the listener

and the

one who makes

also the

heard intend.

And the Gemara infers:

It teaches

the tanna mentioned the intention of the

one who makes heard, analogously

to the way he mentioned the intention

of the listener.

This indicates that in both cases the tanna is speaking of the same form of intention.

What—just as

“the intention of the

listener”

means that he intends to be a

listener

of the shofar blowing in order

to

fulfill the obligation through it, he

himself—

so too, “the intention of the

one who makes

heard”

means that he

makes heard

the shofar blowing with the intention

to

fulfill the obligation through it, he

himself.

This indicates that this intention of the one who makes heard is sufficient to discharge the listener, who intends to fulfill the obligation. The one who makes heard need not intend to discharge the listener as well.

And it teaches, if the one who makes heard did not intend to fulfill his own obligation through this blowing—only then

did he not fulfill his obligation

the listener, despite the fact that he intended to fulfill it.

This indicates that if the one who makes heard also intended to fulfill his obligation through this blowing, the listener would likewise fulfill his obligation, even though the one who makes heard did not intend to discharge the listener! [

In the glosses of Rabbi B. Ranshburg, he cited in the name of the Vilna Gaon that the Gemara’s inference is from the fact that the tanna stated “he did not fulfill” in the singular. This indicates that only the one who makes heard, who did not intend to fulfill the obligation, did not fulfill it; but the listener, who intended to fulfill it, indeed fulfilled it, despite the fact that the one who makes heard did not intend to discharge him].

Indeed, this beraita holds that the one who makes heard need not intend to discharge the listener.

But

it is a dispute among tannaim,

the tannaim disagreed concerning this matter, and Rabbi Zeira’s view follows the tanna who disputes the aforementioned beraita:

For it was taught: “A listener listens for himself.”

“And the one who makes heard makes heard in his own manner.”

The one who makes heard need not know that there is a listener here who wishes to fulfill the mitzva.

Rabbi Yosei said: When are these words stated,

that the one who makes heard need not know that he has a listener?—

With a communal prayer leader,

whose intention is to make everyone hear.

But with an individual,

who blows for himself—

the listener does not fulfill his obligation

until

the listener intends

to fulfill it

and the one who makes heard

intends to discharge him.

Mishna:

We learned in the preceding Mishna: One passing behind a synagogue who heard the sound of a shofar or a Scroll—if he directed his heart, he fulfilled his obligation, and if not, he did not fulfill it. Although this one heard and that one heard, this one directed his heart and that one did not direct his heart.

And incidentally, our Mishna brings a verse expounded concerning the intention of the heart:

It is stated [Exodus 17]:

“And it came to pass, whenever Moses raised his hand, Israel prevailed

and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed.”

And one asks:

“But did Moses’ hands wage war, or break war?”

Rather,

the verse came

to tell you: As long as Israel looked upward,

when Moses’ hands were raised,

and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven—

they prevailed.

But if not—

they fell.

Similarly you say:

When the people complained against the Lord and against Moses about the manna that they had eaten in the wilderness, the Lord sent the fiery serpents, which bit Israel, and many of Israel died.

The people came to Moses and said: We have sinned; pray on our behalf. And Moses prayed on their behalf [Numbers 21:4–7].

And it is stated there: “The Lord said to Moses:

Make for yourself

[a serpent]

a fiery one, and place it upon a banner

[a high pole].

And it shall be that whoever is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.”

And one asks:

“But does a serpent kill or does a serpent make alive?”

Rather, when Israel looked upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were healed.

But if not—

they wasted away.

And now the Mishna returns to the matter of one who blows the shofar in order to discharge the community of their obligations:

A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor—

do not discharge the many of their obligation,

as follows:

This is the principle: Whoever is not obligated in a matter cannot discharge the many of their obligation.

Therefore, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, who are exempt from the mitzvot, cannot discharge others who are obligated, of their obligation.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

Everyone is obligated in the blowing of the shofar: priests, Levites, Israelites, converts, and slaves,

Canaanite

freedmen,

whose status is like that of free Israelites.

But Canaanite slaves who have not been freed have the status of women, who are exempt from the blowing of the shofar [because the blowing of the shofar is a positive, time-bound mitzva. And from every positive, time-bound mitzva women are exempt, as explained in Tractate Kiddushin 29a].

And

likewise

a tumtum,

whose male or female sexual characteristics are covered by a membrane of skin, and it is unknown whether he is a man or a woman.

And

likewise

an androgynos,

who has both male characteristics and female characteristics.

These are obligated as a matter of doubt, lest they be males.

And likewise,

one who is half slave and half free,

such as a Canaanite slave belonging to two masters, one of whom freed him; he is found to be half slave and half free, and is obligated in the blowing of the shofar because of the free half within him.

A tumtum —

does not discharge either his kind,

another tumtum,

or one who is not his kind.

He does not discharge even his kind, because it is possible that he himself is female, whereas his fellow is male.

And a female does not discharge a male, since anyone who is not obligated in a matter cannot discharge his fellow of his obligation, as explained in our Mishna.

But

an androgynos,

who possesses male and female characteristics—

discharges his kind,

another androgynos like him, since all have one status: if we follow the male characteristics in them, they are all males, and if we follow the female characteristics in them, they are all females.

But not one who is not his kind.

For it is possible that he is female and exempt from the blowing of the shofar, whereas the listener is male and obligated in the blowing of the shofar.

One who is half slave and half free—

does not discharge either his kind or one who is not his kind.

He does not discharge even his kind, because a side of a Canaanite slave is mixed within him, whose status is like that of a woman, and who is exempt from the blowing of the shofar. The slave side within him cannot discharge the free side of the listener.

The Master said,

in the beraita:

“Everyone is obligated in the blowing of the shofar: priests, Levites, and Israelites.”

And this is difficult:

Obviously!

Even without the tanna’s words, it is obvious that they are obligated, for

if these are not obligated,

who is obligated!?

If these are not obligated in the blowing of the shofar, who will be obligated in the blowing of the shofar?

And we answer: The obligation of

the priests

in the blowing of the shofar

was necessary for him,

the tanna needed to teach us.

For

it might enter your mind to say,

it might occur to you to say:

Since it is written

[Numbers 29], on Rosh Hashanah:

“It shall be a day of sounding for you.”

This indicates that there is sounding only on this day, and therefore this day is called “a day of sounding.”

Therefore, only

one who has it only in the blowing of a single day,

an Israelite, upon whom there is no mitzva to blow throughout the entire year, but only on one day of the year—

is obligated

in the blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, because with regard to him Rosh Hashanah is called “a day of sounding,” since he sounds the shofar only on it.

And

if

these priests, since they have

since they belong

to the

mitzva of

the blowings of the entire year, as it is written

[Numbers 10]:

“And you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings,” let it be said,

I might say that

they should not be obligated

in the mitzva of the shofar of Rosh Hashanah, for it is not called for them “a day of sounding,” since they sound the shofar throughout the entire year!

It teaches us

the tanna that the priests too are obligated in the blowing of the shofar.

And we wonder:

Are they comparable!?

Are the blowings that the priests blew throughout the year similar to the blowing on Rosh Hashanah?!

For

there,

throughout the year, they blew with

trumpets.

And

if

here,

on Rosh Hashanah, they blew with a

shofar!

And if so, it would not have occurred to us to exempt the priests from the blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah! Why then did the tanna need to teach us that everyone is obligated in the blowing of the shofar, priests, Levites, and Israelites?!

Rather,

a different answer must be stated:

It was necessary

for the tanna to teach us that the priests and Levites too are obligated in the blowing of the shofar. For

it might enter your mind to say:

Since we learned

[above, 26b]:

“The Jubilee is equal to Rosh Hashanah with regard to blowing and blessings,”

therefore I might say that only

one who belongs

one who is included

in the mitzva of the Jubilee

is

included

also

in the mitzva of

blowing on

Rosh Hashanah.

And

if

these priests, since they are not included in the mitzva of the Jubilee,

for the priests are not commanded in the mitzva of the Jubilee [as follows], therefore the blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah likewise does not apply to them.

For we learned:

A person who sells his ancestral field to another—the field returns to him in the Jubilee year [Leviticus 25].

An Israelite who consecrates his ancestral field, and the treasurer sells it to another person—his field does not return to him in the Jubilee. Rather, in the Jubilee it leaves the person who purchased it from the consecrated property, and is then given to the priests.

And we learned in Tractate Arakhin [26b]:

Priests and Levites—

consecrate

their fields

forever,

whenever they wish. [

And Israelites too consecrate forever, according to Rav, as explained in Arakhin 27a; rather, the principal novelty of the Mishna is in its continuation. The word “consecrate” was mentioned here incidentally to the opening clause of that Mishna ].

And they redeem forever.

They can redeem the field for themselves forever, both before the Jubilee and after the Jubilee.

And from here, that the yovel does not apply to the fields of the kohanim and the Levites, to remove them from the kohen or Levite who sells them and to divide them among the kohanim.

And since the blowing of Rosh Hashanah is equivalent to the law of the blowing of the yovel, and the kohanim and Levites are not included in the aforementioned law of the yovel, therefore,

let us say:

I would say that even

with regard to the mitzva

of blowing the shofar

of Rosh Hashanah

also

they should not be obligated.

It teaches us:

the tannaitaught us in the baraita that they too are obligated in blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.

We learned in a baraita:

One who is half a slave and half a free man does not fulfill the obligation for either his kind or for one who is not his kind.

Rav Huna said: And for himself—

he fulfills the obligation.

He may blow in order to fulfill his own obligation.

He said

he raised

to him, Rav Nahman

a difficulty

to Rav Huna:

What is different with regard to others, that he does not—

why is it different in the case of one who is half a slave and half a free man, that he cannot fulfill the obligation for others who are also half slaves and half free men? It is because

there does not come

[that there does not come]

the side of slavery

within him,

and it fulfills

the obligation of

the side of freedom

within his fellow.

And if so,

for himself also

how can he blow? For

the side of his slavery does not come and fulfill the obligation of the side of his freedom!

For the side of slavery within him cannot fulfill the obligation of the side of freedom within him, since in the act of his blowing the power of the side of slavery is also involved; and how can the side of freedom within him fulfill the mitzva of blowing the shofar by hearing the blowing of the side of slavery?

Rather, Rav Nahman said: Even for himself he does not fulfill the obligation.

Rather, he must hear the blowing of the shofar from a fully free Israelite, and he fulfills the obligation through his blowing.

It was taught likewise: One who is half a slave and half

free—

even for himself he does not fulfill the obligation.

We learned in the Mishna: This is the general rule: whoever is not obligated in a matter cannot fulfill the obligation on behalf of the public.

And the Gemara now discusses a person who is included in the general obligation, except that at present he is not obligated—for example, if he has already fulfilled his obligation himself—whether he can fulfill the obligation on behalf of the public, or, since at present no obligation rests upon him, he cannot fulfill the obligation on behalf of others.

Taught

[learned]

Ahava, son of Rabbi Zeira,

a baraita:

All the blessings

[all the blessings of the mitzvot, such as the blessing over the lulav and the like, and also the blessings of the recitation of the Shema ]—

even though he has fulfilled the obligation

himself, nevertheless he

fulfills

the obligation on behalf of the public, because all Israel are guarantors for one another with regard to mitzvot.

Except for the blessing over bread

[ha-motzi],

and the blessing over wine,

and the blessings over the other fruits and spices—

if he has not fulfilled the obligation

and he too is obligated in the matter [for example, he wishes to eat], then he

fulfills

the obligation on behalf of the others.

But if he has fulfilled the obligation

and is not presently obligated to recite a blessing,

he does not fulfill the obligation.

Since these blessings are not an obligation upon a person, except that if he comes to derive benefit, it is forbidden for him to derive benefit from this world without a blessing. And concerning this there is no law of mutual guarantee, because here there is no obligation upon the person. One says to him: Do not eat, and you will not need to recite a blessing.

Rava raised a question

he was uncertain

Rava: