Rosh Hashanah 33b — the Talmud in English

Here,

in the first clause, where we learned: “We occupy themselves with them [they say to them, ‘Sound!]” — it is speaking of

a minor who has reached the age of education,

and it is a mitzva to educate him.

But

here,

in the final clause, where we learned that they do not prevent them, it is speaking of

a minor who has not reached the age of education,

and there is no mitzva to educate him. Therefore they do not say to him to sound. Rather, if he sounds of his own accord, they do not prevent him.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one who occupies himself

with the shofar not intending to sound, and he sounded” —

he has not fulfilled [his obligation].

And we infer from our Mishna: specifically,

it is one who occupies himself who has not fulfilled [his obligation],

because he did not intend for sounding at all. For example, one who wishes to produce short barking sounds with a shofar, and a proper sounding came out in his hand; or one who blows into a shofar and a sounding comes out of it.

And it follows:

one who sounds for music has fulfilled [his obligation] —

since he intended to sound, except that his intention in sounding was for music and not for the mitzva.

For if we say that even one who sounds for music has not fulfilled [his obligation], it would have been fitting for the tannai to teach us a greater novelty: that even if he intended to sound, but sounded for music, he has not fulfilled [his obligation].

And we say:

Let us say that it supports Rava.

Can proof be brought from our Mishna for the words of Rava,

for Rava said:

“One who sounds for music —

has fulfilled [his obligation]”!

And we reject this:

Perhaps,

perhaps one who sounds for music has not fulfilled [his obligation],

and

one who sounds for music is also called “one who occupies himself.”

Even one who sounds for music is called in our Mishna “one who occupies himself,” because he did not intend in his sounding for the mitzva, but occupied himself with his sounding for music. And the tannai taught us that even in this case he has not fulfilled [his obligation], unlike the words of Rava.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one who hears from one who occupies himself has not fulfilled [his obligation].”

And we infer: it follows from the words of our Mishna that the hearer has not fulfilled [his obligation] because the one producing the sound occupied himself with his sounding without intending to fulfill [the obligation].

But one who hears from one sounding for himself,

from a person who sounded intending to fulfill the mitzva, but did not intend to bring others out [of their obligation],

what

what is the law of the hearer? —

He has fulfilled [his obligation]!

Let us say that it is a refutation of Rabbi Zeira.

Shall we say that our Mishna contradicts the words of Rabbi Zeira:

for Rabbi Zeira said to his attendant,

his servant:

“Intend, and sound for me!”

For Rabbi Zeira said to his attendant: intend in your sounding to bring me out of my obligation. But in our Mishna we learned that one who hears from one who occupies himself has not fulfilled [his obligation]; it follows that if the one producing the sound intended to fulfill the mitzva, the hearer also fulfilled [his obligation], even though the one producing the sound did not intend to bring him out [of his obligation]!

And this is unlike the words of Rabbi Zeira!

And we reject this:

Perhaps,

perhaps even one who hears from one who sounded with the intention of a mitzva has not fulfilled [his obligation], unless the one producing the sound intended to bring him out [of his obligation], in accordance with the words of Rabbi Zeira.

And

since the first clause taught “one who occupies himself,”

and since the tannai taught in the first clause that one who occupies himself himself has not fulfilled [his obligation],

he taught

[taught] also in

the final clause as well

the one who hears from the

one who occupies himself.

But in truth, the tannai could have taught us a greater novelty: that even if the one producing the sound intended to fulfill [his obligation], if he did not intend to bring the hearer out [of his obligation], he has not fulfilled [his obligation].

Mishna:

1.

The order of the soundings

is as follows:

He sounds

three

soundings.

And each of these three soundings is not a single sounding, but is an “order of sounding

of three three”

soundings in each and every order.

For in each order of sounding he would sound: a long plain sound, a terua, and a long plain sound, which are three kinds of soundings.

And they sound one order for kingships, one order for remembrances, and one order for shofarot.

2.

The measure

of the length of a

“plain sound”

is

like three teruot [

and in the Gemara it will be explained that the measure is like the length of one terua, and the wording of the Mishna will be explained in the Gemara].

And the

measure of

the

terua

is

like three yevavot.

Three short sounds, whatever their length, one after the other. [

And some say that each yevava is three sounds, whatever their length. It follows that the terua is nine sounds].

3. If he

sounded

in the first order [of kingships]

at first,

the first plain sound before the terua, according to the measure of a plain sound, as required,

and afterward he sounded a terua,

and after the terua he again sounded a plain sound,

and lengthened his

plain

second sound as

the length of

two

soundings, in order to fulfill through it the obligation of two soundings:

the first, that of the final plain sound after the terua, in the first order [of kingships];

and the second, that of the first plain sound before the terua, in the second order [of remembrances].

He has only

one

sound,

of the sound after the terua in the first order [of kingships], because one does not divide one sound into two soundings. 4.

One who

prayed the Additional Prayer and

blessed

in it nine blessings [which include kingships, remembrances, and shofarot], and did not have a shofar,

and afterward there became available

there came to hand

a shofar —

He sounds, and makes a terua, and sounds,

and performs in this manner

three times.

And although he does not sound according to the order of the blessings of kingships, remembrances, and shofarot, nevertheless he sounds three times corresponding to them.

Just as the prayer leader is obligated

to pray himself, both on Rosh Hashana and on the other days of the year,

so every individual

who is proficient and knows how to pray himself

is obligated

to pray himself, and does not fulfill [his obligation] through the prayer of the prayer leader.

And the prayer leader descends before the ark only to bring out one who is not proficient. [Gemara].

Rabban Gamaliel says: The prayer leader brings

all

the public out of their obligation,

both those proficient in prayer and those who are not proficient.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: the measure of a plain sound is like three teruot.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught in a beraita: The measure of a plain sound —

is like a terua

one!

And we answer:

Abaye said:

Everyone agrees that the measure of the plain sound is like one terua. Rather,

the tannai of our Mishna counts

the

plain sound

first

of all the units, and the teruot of all the units.

The tannai in our Mishna counted the three first plain sounds in the three orders

and the three teruot in the three orders.

And so the tannai said: “The measure of the three first plain sounds, which are at the beginning of every order, is like three teruot.”

That is, the measure of one plain sound is like one terua.

And the measure of the three final plain sounds is likewise this. Rather, the tannai did not need to say this explicitly, since we already learned the measure of the first plain sounds, and it is self-evident that the measure of the final plain sounds is equal to that of the first.

But

the external tannai —

counts one unit, and no more.

The tannai in the beraita counted only the plain sound and the terua of one order.

And so he said: the measure of one plain sound is like the measure of one terua.

It follows that the opinion of all the tannaim is equal. Since we learned in the beraita that the measure of one plain sound is like one terua, it follows that the measure of three plain sounds is like the measure of three teruot, as we learned in the Mishna.

We learned in the Mishna:

“The measure of a terua is like three yevavot.”

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught in a beraita: The measure of a terua —

is like three broken sounds!

But broken sounds are longer than yevavot!

Abaye said:

Even though I said above that the Mishna and the beraita do not disagree concerning the measure of the length of the plain sound,

in this matter,

concerning the measure of the terua,

they certainly disagree!

It is certain that they disagree, and it is impossible to find any explanation that reconciles their words so that they do not contradict one another.

Necessarily, they disagree in this: according to our Mishna, a terua is three yevavot; and according to the beraita, three broken sounds.

And Abaye continues and explains the reason for their disagreement:

As it is written [Numbers 29]:

“It shall be a day of terua for you.”

And we translate: “It shall be a day of yevava for you.”

From here, that a terua is a yevava.

And

what is a yevava?

It is written concerning the mother of Sisera,

it is said concerning the crying of the mother of Sisera [Judges 5]:

“Through the window she looked out, and she wailed

[and cried]

the mother of Sisera.”

And we learn from here that the yevava mentioned by the translation concerning the sounding on Rosh Hashana is an expression of crying, like the crying of the mother of Sisera.

And the tannai in our Mishna and the tannai in the beraita disagree concerning the interpretation of the holy-language expression “and she wailed”:

One master,

the tannai in the beraita, who says that the measure of a terua is like three broken sounds,

holds: a sick person groans,

a yevava is like the groans of a sick person, who lengthens his groaning.

And the other master,

the tannai in our Mishna,

holds: he wails.

Like a person crying with short sounds close to one another.

The Gemara brings a beraita explaining the source of the words of our Mishna concerning the order of the soundings:

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah concerning Rosh Hashana, “A day of terua.” But it was not stated explicitly through what this terua is performed.

From where that

the terua mentioned concerning Rosh Hashana is performed

with a shofar,

and not with a trumpet or another instrument?

The verse teaches [Leviticus 25], concerning Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year:

“And you shall cause a shofar of terua to pass.”

From here that the terua is performed with a shofar.

But

I have no

proof

except

that

in the Jubilee

the terua is performed with a shofar!

But

on Rosh Hashana —

from where

that the terua mentioned in it is likewise performed with a shofar?

The verse teaches in the matter of the Jubilee: “And you shall cause a shofar of terua to pass

in the seventh month,

on the tenth of the month, on Yom Kippur you shall cause a shofar to pass.”

For it is not necessary to state,

for there is no need to say

“in the seventh month,”

since it says afterward, “on Yom Kippur,” and it has already been stated in the Torah that Yom Kippur is in the month of Tishrei, which is the seventh in the counting of the months. [Ran]

And

if so,

for what purpose does the verse state

for what purpose was

“in the seventh month” said?

To tell you

that all the teruot of the seventh month,

Tishrei [both the terua of Rosh Hashana and the terua of Yom Kippur of the Jubilee]

this —

is like this.

Just as the terua of the Jubilee is performed with a shofar, so too the terua of Rosh Hashana is performed with a shofar.

And in the Torah only the terua was mentioned explicitly.

Therefore one must ask:

And from where that

a

plain

[long]

sound is before it?

The verse teaches in the matter of the Jubilee:

“And you shall cause a shofar of terua to pass.”

“And you shall cause to pass” means causing one sound to pass.

That is, a long plain sound, and not a terua, which consists of several sounds.

And since it first says “and you shall cause a shofar to pass,” and afterward it says “terua,” we learn that they sounded before the terua.

And from where that

a

plain sound after it,

after the terua?

The verse teaches: “

And you shall cause a shofar of terua to pass.

‘You shall cause a shofar to pass.’”

From here that after the terua they again caused a plain sound to pass with the shofar.

And I have no

proof that they sounded a plain sound before the terua and a plain sound after it

except in the Jubilee,

where this verse is stated.

But

on Rosh Hashana —

from where

that they sound in it a plain sound before the terua and a plain sound after it?

The verse teaches in the matter of the Jubilee:

“In the seventh month.”