Rosh Hashanah 29a (כט.) — the Talmud in English

He intended:

He intended to blow on my behalf, to fulfill my obligation,

and he blew for me.

And the Gemara concludes:

Apparently,

we learn from here that

Rabbi Zeira holds

Rabbi Zeira

“the one who sounds must have

[must have]

intention”

to fulfill the obligation of the listener. ,

Meytivi

An objection to Rabbi Zeira’s words from a Mishna: We learned in a Mishna:

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

if he directed his heart—

he fulfilled his obligation; but if not—

he did not fulfill his obligation.

And the Gemara asks:

“What would directing his heart accomplish?”

Even when the listener directed his heart, this should not help, because

how

the one sounding

“was not intending with regard to him”

did not intend to fulfill his obligation, since the one sounding did not know that he was passing behind the synagogue at that moment!

And we answer:

Here

[here]

we are dealing with a communal prayer leader, whose intention is directed toward everyone,

as he intends to fulfill the obligation of anyone who hears him and wishes to fulfill his obligation through his sounding.

Ta shma,

come and hear an objection to Rabbi Zeira’s words from a beraita:

As it was taught: One who heard the sound of a shofar from another person, who produced the sound of the shofar through his sounding,

if

he intended

only for the

listener, and the one who sounds did not intend

[this will be explained shortly];

or if

he intended

only for the

one who sounds, and the listener did not intend—

he did not fulfill his obligation,

the listener—

until both

the

listener and

the

one who sounds intend.

And the Gemara infers:

It teaches

that the tanna mentioned the intention of the

one who sounds, analogously

to how 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

listening

to the sounding of the shofar in order

to

fulfill his obligation through it

himself—

so too, “the intention of the

togo, kto vozveshchaet zvuk,

one who sounds”

means that he

sounds

the shofar with the intention

to

fulfill his obligation through it

himself.

This indicates that this intention of the one who sounds is sufficient to fulfill the obligation of the listener, who intends to fulfill his obligation. The one who sounds need not intend to fulfill the listener’s obligation as well.

And it teaches that if the one who sounds did not intend to fulfill his own obligation—only then

did the listener not fulfill his obligation,

despite intending to fulfill it.

This indicates that if the one who sounds also intended to fulfill his own obligation through this sounding, the listener would likewise fulfill his obligation, even though the one who sounds did not intend to fulfill the listener’s obligation!

[In the Hagahot Maharav Ranshburg, he cites the Gra as saying that the Gemara’s inference is based on the tanna’s use of the singular expression “he did not fulfill his obligation.” This indicates that only the one who sounds, who did not intend to fulfill his obligation, failed to fulfill it; but the listener, who intended to fulfill his obligation, did fulfill it, even though the one who sounds did not intend to fulfill his obligation for him.]

Indeed, this beraita holds that the one who sounds need not intend to fulfill the listener’s obligation.

But

it is a dispute among tannaim,

the tannaim disagreed on this matter, and Rabbi Zeira’s view follows the tanna who disagrees with the aforementioned beraita:

As it was taught: The listener listens for himself.

And the one who sounds sounds in his usual manner.

The one who sounds 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 sounds need not know that he has a listener?

With regard to a communal prayer leader,

whose intention is to sound for everyone.

But with regard to an individual,

who sounds for himself—

the listener does not fulfill his obligation

until

the listener intends

to fulfill his obligation

and the one who sounds

intends to fulfill it for him.

Mishna:

We learned in the preceding Mishna: One who passes behind a synagogue and hears the sound of a shofar or the reading of the Megilla fulfills his obligation if he directs his heart, but if not, he does not fulfill his obligation. Although both this one and that one heard, this one directed his heart and that one did not direct his heart.

In this connection, our Mishna cites a verse expounded with regard to directing the heart:

It is stated [Exodus 17]:

“And it happened that whenever Moses raised his hand, Israel prevailed

and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed.”

And the Gemara asks:

“Did Moses’ hands wage war, or break the war?”

Rather,

the verse comes

to tell you: As long as Israel looked upward,

when Moses’ hands were raised,

and subjugated their hearts to their Father in Heaven—

they prevailed.

But if not—

they fell.

Similarly, you can say:

When the people complained against God and Moses about the manna they had eaten in the wilderness, God sent the venomous snakes, which bit Israel, and many Israelites died.

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

And it is stated there: “God said to Moses:

Make for yourself

[a snake]

a venomous snake, and place it upon a standard

[a tall pole].

And it shall be that anyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.”

And the Gemara asks:

“Does a snake kill or does a snake give life?”

Rather, when Israel looked upward and subjugated 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 sounds the shofar in order to fulfill the community’s obligation:

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

cannot fulfill the obligation of the public,

as follows:

This is the general principle: Anyone who is not obligated in a matter cannot fulfill the obligation of the public.

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

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

Everyone is obligated in sounding the shofar: kohanim, Levites, Israelites, converts, and

Canaanite

freed slaves,

whose status is that of free Israelites.

But non-freed Canaanite slaves have the status of women, who are exempt from sounding the shofar [because sounding the shofar is a positive, time-bound mitzva, and women are exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva, as explained in Kiddushin 29a].

And

also

a tumtum,

whose male or female genitalia are covered by a layer of skin, and it is unknown whether the person is male or female.

And

also

an androgynos,

who has both male and female characteristics.

These people are obligated by uncertainty, in case they are male.

And likewise,

one who is half slave and half free,

such as a Canaanite slave belonging to two masters, one of whom emancipated him, leaving him half slave and half free; he is obligated in sounding the shofar because of the free half within him.

A tumtum —

cannot fulfill the obligation of either his own kind,

another tumtum,

or of one who is not his kind.

He cannot fulfill the obligation even of his own kind, because it is possible that he himself is female, whereas his fellow is male.

A female cannot fulfill the obligation of a male, since anyone who is not obligated in a matter cannot fulfill another person’s obligation, as explained in our Mishna.

But

an androgynos,

who has both male and female characteristics—

can fulfill the obligation of his own kind,

another androgynos like him, since they all have the same status: If the male characteristics are decisive, they are all male; and if the female characteristics are decisive, they are all female.

But not that of one who is not his kind.

It is possible that he is female and exempt from sounding the shofar, whereas the listener is male and obligated in sounding the shofar.

One who is half slave and half free—

cannot fulfill the obligation of either his own kind or one who is not his kind.

He cannot fulfill even the obligation of his own kind, because he contains an aspect of a Canaanite slave, whose status is that of a woman and who is exempt from sounding the shofar. The slave aspect within him cannot fulfill the obligation of the free aspect of the listener.

The Master said

in the beraita:

“Everyone is obligated in sounding the shofar: kohanim, Levites, and Israelites.”

This is difficult:

Is it obvious!

Even without the tanna’s statement, it is obvious that they are obligated, since

if these are not obligated,

who is obligated!?

If these are not obligated in sounding the shofar, who would be obligated in sounding the shofar?

And we answer: The obligation of the

kohanim

in sounding the shofar

was necessary,

the tanna needed to teach it to us.

For

it might enter your mind to say,

it might have occurred to you to say:

Since it is written

[Numbers 29], concerning Rosh HaShana:

“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 no sounding except on one day,

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

is obligated

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

And

if

these kohanim, since they are involved

in

the

mitzva of

soundings throughout the entire year, as it is written

[Numbers 10]:

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

I would say that

they should not be obligated

in the mitzva of the shofar of Rosh HaShana, since it is not called “a day of sounding” with regard to them, because they sound throughout the entire year!

It teaches us

the tanna that the kohanim too are obligated in sounding the shofar.

And we challenge this:

Are the cases comparable!?

Are the soundings that the kohanim perform throughout the year comparable to the sounding on Rosh HaShana?!

After all,

there,

throughout the year, they sound

trumpets.

And

if

here,

on Rosh HaShana, they sound a

shofar!

If so, it would never have occurred to us to exempt the kohanim from sounding the shofar on Rosh HaShana! Why, then, did the tanna need to teach us that everyone is obligated in sounding the shofar, kohanim, Levites, and Israelites?!

Rather,

a different answer must be given:

It was necessary

for the tanna to teach that the kohanim and Levites too are obligated in sounding the shofar. For

it might enter your mind to say:

Since we learned

[above, 26b]:

“The Jubilee is equivalent to Rosh HaShana with regard to sounding and blessings,”

I would therefore say that only

one who is subject

to

the mitzva of the Jubilee

is

subject

also

to the mitzva of

sounding on

Rosh HaShana.

And

if

these kohanim, since they are not subject to the mitzva of the Jubilee,

as the kohanim are not commanded in the mitzva of the Jubilee [as will be explained below], sounding the shofar on Rosh HaShana likewise does not apply to them.

As 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, does not have his field return to him in the Jubilee. Rather, in the Jubilee it leaves the possession of the purchaser from the Temple treasury and is then given to the kohanim.

And we learned in tractate Arakhin [26b]:

“Kohanim and Levites—

consecrate

their fields

forever,

whenever they wish.

[Israelites too consecrate forever, according to Rav, as explained in Arakhin 27a; rather, the principal novelty of the Mishna is stated later. The word “consecrate” is mentioned here incidentally, following 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.

From here, it follows that the Jubilee does not apply to the fields of the priests and Levites, to remove them from the priest or Levite who sold them and divide them among the priests.

And since the blowing of Rosh Hashanah is equivalent to the law governing the blowing of the yovel, and the priests and Levites are not subject to the aforementioned law of the yovel, therefore,

I might say:

I would say that even

in the mitzva

of blowing the shofar

of Rosh Hashanah

they too

would not be obligated.

This teaches us:

the tanna teaches us in the beraita that they too are obligated in the blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.

We learned in a beraita:

One who is half-slave and half-free cannot discharge either his fellow half-slaves’ obligation or the obligation of those who are not like him.

Rav Huna said: And for himself—

he discharges.

He can blow in order to discharge his own obligation.

He said—

raised

Rav Nahman

an objection

to Rav Huna:

What is different with regard to others, that he cannot

—why is it different in the case of one who is half-slave and half-free, that he cannot discharge the obligation of others who are likewise half-slave and half-free? It is because

the side of slavery

which does not come

in the capacity of a slave

within him

discharges

the obligation of

the side of freedom

within his fellow.

And if so,

for himself as well

how can he blow?

For the side of slavery in him cannot discharge the obligation of the side of freedom in him!

The side of slavery within him cannot discharge the side of freedom within him, since the power of the side of slavery is also involved in his act of blowing; so 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 discharge.

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

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

free—

even for himself he does not discharge.

We learned in the Mishna: This is the general principle: Anyone who is not obligated in a matter cannot discharge the obligation of the many.

The Gemara now discusses a person who belongs to the general category of those obligated, but who at present is not obligated—for example, if he has already fulfilled his obligation: Can he discharge the obligation of the many, or, since at present no obligation rests upon him, can he not discharge the obligation of others?

Taught

—

Ahava son of Rabbi Zeira

a beraita:

All blessings

—all blessings over 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

his own obligation, nevertheless he

discharges

the obligation of the many, because all of Israel are responsible for one another with regard to mitzvot.

Except for the blessing over bread

—Hamotzi—

and the blessing over wine,

and the blessings over other fruits and spices—

If he has not fulfilled

his obligation and is also obligated in the matter—for example, he wishes to eat—then he

discharges

the obligation of the others.

But if he has fulfilled

his obligation and is not presently obligated to recite a blessing,

he does not discharge.

Since these blessings are not an obligation incumbent upon a person unless he comes to derive benefit, it is forbidden for him to derive benefit from this world without a blessing. And the law of mutual responsibility does not apply to this, because no obligation is incumbent upon the person here. One can say to him: Do not eat, and you will not need to recite a blessing.

Rava asked

was uncertain

: