Rosh Hashanah 34a (לד.) — the Talmud in English

for there would be no reason to state

since there is no need to say

“in the seventh month”

, since it was already stated, “on the Day of Atonement,” and everyone knows that the Day of Atonement is in the seventh month!

And what does it teach

, and for what purpose was

“in the seventh month”

stated? It is to teach you

that all the blasts of the seventh month

—are identical to one another.

And just as with the blast of the Day of Atonement, one sounds a tekia peshuta before it and after it, so too, on Rosh HaShana one does so.

And from where is it derived that there are three

, that one sounds three sets of blasts [for Malkhuyot, Zikhronot, and Shofarot], each set consisting of

three

blasts—namely, in each set one sounds a tekia, a terua, and a tekia [as explained above]?

The verse states:

a. In the context of the Jubilee year it is stated [there]:

“And you shall sound a shofar blast.”

b. In the context of Rosh HaShana it is stated [Leviticus 23:24]:

“A solemn rest, a remembrance of a terua.”

c. It is further stated concerning Rosh HaShana [Numbers 29]:

“It shall be a day of terua for you.”

When we combine the verses stated with regard to Rosh HaShana and the Jubilee, we find that teruot are mentioned three times in the Bible, teaching that three sets were sounded, both on Rosh HaShana and in the Jubilee.

However, the following question may be raised: These three teruot were not stated in a single context.

And from where is it derived that we apply what is stated

, the terua stated in the verse,

of this

—that of Rosh HaShana—

to that

, the Jubilee?

And

the terua

of this

, that of the Jubilee,

to that

, Rosh HaShana?

It is as though “terua” had been written three times, both with regard to Rosh HaShana and with regard to the Jubilee.

The verse states

, and for this reason

“seventh”

[“in the seventh month”] was stated with regard to Rosh HaShana, and

“seventh”

with regard to the Jubilee.

To

teach

a gzeira shava.

And everything stated with regard to one is considered as though stated with regard to the other.

How so?

How many blasts are sounded in all?

Three

sets [each of which contains three blasts],

which

are, in total,

nine

blasts.

And

the measure of a tekia is equal to that of a terua.

And

the measure of a terua is equal to three shevarim.

And we raise an objection to the words of the beraita:

This tanna, initially, derives it by means of a juxtaposition.

At the beginning of the beraita, the tanna derives that Rosh HaShana is equivalent to the Day of Atonement by means of a juxtaposition, as it is stated concerning the Jubilee, “in the seventh month.” [These words are superfluous and were included] to teach that all the blasts of the seventh month are equivalent.

And

if

now,

at the end of the beraita, he

derives it by means of a gzeira shava.

The tanna derived that all the teruot stated with regard to one are considered as though stated with regard to the other, by means of a gzeira shava, as “seventh” is stated with regard to Rosh HaShana and “seventh” with regard to the Day of Atonement.

It follows that the tanna’s statements contradict one another! For once all the teruot of the seventh month have been juxtaposed to one another, it necessarily follows that all the teruot stated with regard to one were also stated with regard to the other. Otherwise, there is a difficulty: Two teruot were stated with regard to Rosh HaShana, whereas only one was stated with regard to the Day of Atonement, and they are not equivalent! Rather, you must necessarily apply the terua of one to the other as well!

We resolve the difficulty:

This is what he is saying

—this is what the tanna intended to say:

Were it not for the gzeira shava

, if it had not been stated to Moses at Sinai that “seventh” and “seventh” are to be learned by means of a gzeira shava, no person could derive a gzeira shava on his own.

And then,

we would have derived it by means of a juxtaposition

, I would have derived this on my own by means of a juxtaposition,

as it is stated with regard to the Jubilee, “in the seventh month,” to say that all the teruot of the seventh month are identical to one another, since a person may derive a juxtaposition on his own even in a matter that he did not receive from his teachers.

But

now, since the gzeira shava has come

[as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai] and taught us that the laws of the terua on Rosh HaShana and in the Jubilee are equivalent, consequently

the juxtaposition is unnecessary.

The Gemara cites a beraita that derives from another source that a plain blast is sounded before the terua and after it:

And this tanna

of the beraita before us

derives it

, learns this

by means of a gzeira shava

from the blasts sounded in the

wilderness

, as follows:

As it is taught:

It is stated [Numbers 10]: “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Make for yourself two silver trumpets. And they shall be for you for summoning the assembly [to summon the Sanhedrin and the people by means of the trumpets] and for causing the camps to journey.”

When the camps journeyed, they sounded them as a signal so that everyone would know that they needed to travel.

And it is stated [there, verse 5]: “And you shall sound a terua, and the camps encamped to the east shall journey.”

And the beraita taught: Although it is stated

“And you shall sound a terua,”

the intention is not that you sound only a terua. Rather, the expression

“blast”

[“you shall sound”] is

an entity in its own right

, and

the terua is an entity in its own right

.

And this is the meaning of the verse:

“And you shall sound”—a blast.

And afterward they sounded a terua—“a terua.”

And the beraita wonders:

Are you saying that the blast is an entity in its own right and the terua is an entity in its own right?! Or

, perhaps what we have said

is not

correct,

but the blast and the terua are one and the same

, and this is what the verse said: “They would sound a terua”!

The beraita answers:

When

the verse

says

[later in the passage, verse 10]:

“And when you gather the congregation, you shall sound, but you shall not sound a terua,”

you must say

that the expression

“blast, an entity in its own right,”

is distinct,

and

the expression

“terua, an entity in its own right,”

is distinct. For if one can also say of a terua, “you shall sound,” how are we to interpret the verse, “you shall sound but you shall not sound a terua”? The blast itself would be the terua!

From here it follows that before the journeys they sounded a blast and also sounded a terua.

And this is what the verse said: “And you shall sound”—a blast. And they sounded a terua—“a terua.” “And the camps encamped to the east shall journey.”

And from where is it derived that there is a plain blast before it

, before the terua?

The verse states: “And you shall sound,”

and afterward it states

“a terua.”

And from where is it derived that there is a plain blast after it?

The verse states

[there, verse 6]:

“They shall sound a terua

for their journeys.”

“A terua” is stated first, and afterward “they shall sound.”

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: It is unnecessary

to derive this from the order of the verse, “They shall sound a terua.”

Rather,

it

the verse

says

there:

“And you shall sound a terua—and the camps encamped to the east shall journey [in the east].”

“And you shall sound a second terua

—and the camps encamped to the south shall journey [in the south].”

For there would be no reason to state “second.”

There is no need to say “and you shall sound a second” since the verse already stated that one blast was sounded before it, and the camps in the east journeyed. Even had “and you shall sound a second” not been stated here, it would have been obvious that this was the second blast.

And the following question may be raised:

And what does it teach

, for what purpose was

“second”

stated? Rather,

this establishes a foundational principle

; this teaches

that wherever “terua” is stated

—a second blast shall follow it

, afterward.

And this is what the verse said: “And you shall sound a blast that is second to the terua.”

And the beraita continues and asks:

I have derived

a source for saying that a plain blast is sounded before the terua and after it

only in the wilderness

,

but

with regard to Rosh HaShana—

from where?

The verse states

, and for this reason

“terua”

was stated in the context of Rosh HaShana, and

“terua”

in the wilderness,

to

learn one from the other by means of

a gzeira shava.

And the beraita continues:

Three teruot were stated with regard to Rosh HaShana

: a.

“A solemn rest, a remembrance of a terua”

[Leviticus 23].

b.

“A day of terua”

[Numbers 29].

c.

“And you shall sound a shofar blast”

[Leviticus 25]. This verse was stated with regard to the Day of Atonement of the Jubilee. However, Rosh HaShana is derived from the Day of Atonement by means of a gzeira shava.

And two blasts for each one

, a blast before each terua and a blast after it.

We find

[we have found]

that we derive

that in total

three teruot and six blasts were stated with regard to Rosh HaShana.

Although we expounded these three teruot to teach that three sets are sounded, nevertheless, not all these blasts are of Torah origin. Rather, some are from the Torah and some are rabbinic, as the Sages instituted sounding them in the order of Malkhuyot, Zikhronot, and Shofarot, and expounded the verse in accordance with their words in order to support and reinforce their enactment. As follows:

Two

, two teruot are derived

from the words of the Torah.

And one, from the words of the Scribes:

a.

“A solemn rest, a remembrance of a terua”

b.

“And you shall sound a shofar blast”—

These verses are expounded

from the words of the Torah,

corresponding to two teruot.

But the third verse,

“It shall be a day of terua for you,” \-

comes for its own teaching

; it is needed for the gzeira shava “terua, terua” from the wilderness, to teach us that a blast is sounded before it and a blast after it. It cannot be counted among the teruot of Rosh HaShana.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said

in the name of

Rabbi Yonatan:

One terua is

from the words of the Torah, and two are from the words of the Scribes:

The verse

“And you shall sound a shofar blast,”

is expounded

from the words of the Torah

to establish the obligation of one terua. Whereas the verses: a.

“A solemn rest, a remembrance of a terua,”

b.

and “It shall be a day of terua for you”—

come for their own teaching

; they were written in order to derive from them a halakhic matter, as follows.

And we inquire concerning this: It is indeed understandable that one verse comes for its own teaching, as the verse is needed to derive “terua, terua” by means of a gzeira shava from the wilderness [that a blast is sounded before the terua and a blast after it].

But concerning Rabbi Yonatan, who said that two verses come for their own teaching, the following question may be raised:

What is the meaning of “comes for its own

[the second verse]

teaching”?

And we answer:

It is needed

; one of them [“a day of terua”] is needed to teach that one sounds

by day and not at night.

And the other is needed for the gzeira shava.

And we raise a difficulty:

And the other

—the first tanna, who derived two teruot from the words of the Torah—

from where does he derive “by day and not at night”

, from where does he learn that one sounds by day and not at night? [After all, according to him, the verse “a day of terua” was not written for this teaching!]

And we answer:

He derives it

—this law emerges for him from the verse

“On the Day of Atonement

[of the Jubilee] you shall sound a shofar.”

And he expounds: on the Day of Atonement, but not at night on the Day of Atonement. And the laws of sounding on Rosh HaShana are learned from sounding in the Jubilee by means of the gzeira shava “seventh” and “seventh,” as stated above.

And we wonder:

If he derives it from “on the Day of Atonement,”

if the tanna who taught this beraita also derives the laws of sounding on Rosh HaShana by means of a gzeira shava from sounding on the Day of Atonement, then the following question arises:

Why did the tanna need to derive by means of a gzeira shava from the wilderness [“terua, terua”] that a plain blast is sounded before the terua and a plain blast after it?

Let us derive that as well from there.

Let us also learn by means of a gzeira shava from the Day of Atonement

the

matter that one sounds

a plain blast before it and a plain blast after it!

For with regard to the Day of Atonement of the Jubilee it is stated, “And you shall sound a shofar blast,” and it is stated, “You shall sound a shofar,” and this sounding means a plain blast [as the Gemara said above, 33b].

And we answer: The tannaim who taught this beraita [the first tanna, Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, and the others] do not understand

“and you shall sound” and “you shall sound” as referring to a blast.

They do not interpret the words “and you shall sound” and “you shall sound” as referring to a plain blast.

And we raise a difficulty:

Rather, what do they expound from them?

What do they derive from the fact that the verse states:

a. “And you shall sound”

b. “You shall sound”?

And we answer:

a.

“And you shall sound”—

they expound it

in accordance with Rav Matna.

For Rav Matna said: “And you shall sound,”

teaches that one must sound the shofar

in the manner in which it naturally extends

, in the manner in which the shofar “extends” as it grows from the head of the ram.

From here it follows that if one reverses the shofar—that is, he widens its narrow end and narrows its wide end—and sounds it, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [As above, 27b.]

b.

“You shall sound”—

it is written a second time, because had the expression “you shall sound” been stated only once, we might have erred and interpreted it as meaning

that the Merciful One said: pass it by hand.

For the intention of the verse might be that one must pass the shofar by hand, and that it does not mean that one must sound it. Therefore, the expression of passing is stated twice, teaching from the redundancy of the verse that the intention is sounding in the manner of passing—that is, sounding a shofar that has not been reversed.

And we raise a difficulty:

And the other

, the tanna who taught the earlier beraita cited above, who expounded “and you shall sound” and “you shall sound” as referring to a plain blast, and derived from here that a plain blast is sounded before it and after it:

We have now derived two matters from the expression of passing: a. In the manner in which it naturally extends, and not reversed. b. That the intention of the verse is not passing by hand.

a. It must be used in the direction in which it naturally extends, not reversed. b. The verse does not mean passing it by hand.

But according to the tanna of the earlier beraita, these expressions of passing are not superfluous. From where, according to him, will these two matters be derived?

And we answer:

a. The

law

of

Rav Matna

[that one must sound it in the manner in which it naturally extends] was derived by the earlier tanna

from the fact that the verse altered its wording.

Since the verse altered its wording and did not say “and you shall sound,” but rather “and you shall pass,” it indicates that in addition to deriving from here the requirement of a plain blast, we derive from the change in wording that one must sound it in the manner of passing.

b. The second teaching that we derived—that the intention of the verse is not passing by hand—is superfluous according to the earlier tanna. For

“you shall pass it by hand”—

you cannot say this.

You cannot say that the intention of the verse is passing by hand,

for the passing is derived by means of an analogy from the passing of Moses,

because the passing mentioned here is learned from the passing written with regard to Moses our teacher, as follows:

It is written here

[here]:

“And you shall sound a shofar blast.”

And it is written there

[Exodus 36]:

“And Moses commanded, and they caused a proclamation to pass through the camp.”

Just as there, it was by means of a voice

, just as the passing mentioned there was carried out by means of a voice [and not by passing something by hand],

so too

the passing mentioned

here

, on the Day of Atonement, is

by means of a voice

and not by hand.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against the tanna who taught the last beraita, who derives the blast before and after it by means of a gzeira shava from the wilderness:

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to this tanna, who derives it from the wilderness

, this tanna who learned it by means of a gzeira shava from the wilderness—

If

we were to say:

Just as there, it was trumpets

, just as the terua mentioned in the wilderness was performed with trumpets, so too,

the

terua mentioned

here,

on Rosh HaShana, is performed with

trumpets!

And from where do we know that the terua mentioned with regard to Rosh HaShana is performed with a shofar?

And we answer:

The verse states

[Psalms 81]:

“Sound on the new month

[on the new moon]

a shofar, at the time when it is concealed, for the day of our festival”—

on the festival on which the moon is concealed.

And

which festival is it on which the month

[the moon]

is concealed?

You must say: This is Rosh HaShana!

For it is the only festival that occurs on the first day of the month!

And the Merciful One says

in that same verse: “Sound

a shofar.”

From here it follows that the terua mentioned with regard to Rosh HaShana was performed with a shofar.

The conclusion of the Gemara’s discussion is that by Torah law, on Rosh HaShana one sounds a blast, a terua, and a blast. There is a dispute concerning this:

Some say that by Torah law, two sets of a blast, a terua, and a blast are sounded.

And the Sages instituted sounding three sets of a blast, a terua, and a blast, corresponding to Malkhuyot, Zikhronot, and Shofarot.

There are those who say that by Torah law only one sequence of tekiah-teruah-tekiah is sounded, while the rest is rabbinic.

The sugya before us discusses how to sound the sequence of tekiah-teruah-tekiah:

He instituted

[he introduced]

Rabbi Abbahu in Caesarea

that they should sound the blasts in the following order:

tekiah, three shevarim, teruah, tekiah.

And we raise a difficulty concerning Rabbi Abbahu’s institution:

In either case,

what does Rabbi Abbahu hold?

If it is a wailing,

if in his view the teruah mentioned in the Torah is a wailing consisting of short sounds [as in our Mishna]—

let them perform

they should perform

tekiah, teruah, and tekiah,

without shevarim!

And if it is a groaning,

and if his view is like that of the beraita [above, 33b], that a teruah consists of somewhat prolonged groans—

let them perform

they should perform

tekiah, three shevarim, and tekiah,

without teruah!

And why, then, did Rabbi Abbahu institute that they should sound both shevarim and teruah? And we answer:

He was uncertain;

Rabbi Abbahu was uncertain what the teruah mentioned in the Torah is:

whether it is groaning or wailing.

Is it prolonged groaning, namely, shevarim, or short wailing, namely, teruah?

Therefore, he instituted that they should sound both shevarim and teruah.

Rav Avira raised an objection to this:

Since Rabbi Abbahu was uncertain what the teruah mentioned in the Torah is, then

perhaps it was wailing,

perhaps the teruah is a short wailing and not shevarim. And the Torah stated that a plain tekiah should be sounded adjacent to the teruah. Yet when a person sounds tekiah, shevarim, teruah, as instituted by Rabbi Abbahu, he

interrupts

by means of

three

shevarim

between

the

teruah and

between the

tekiah

that precedes it!

Thus, the tekiah is not adjacent to the teruah!

And we answer: In order to avoid this concern, Rabbi Abbahu instituted

that he would repeat the procedure,

so that after the blower sounded tashrat [t’kiah, sh’varim, t’ruah, t’kiah], he would return and sound

tekiah, teruah, and tekiah.

He would not interrupt between the tekiah and the teruah.

Ravina raised an objection: And perhaps

the teruah mentioned in the Torah

was groaning,

it consists of groans, namely, shevarim, and not what we call teruah.

And the Torah stated that a plain tekiah should be sounded immediately after the shevarim.

And

if, when a person sounds tekiah, shevarim, teruah, and tekiah [as instituted by Rabbi Abbahu], he

interrupts,

the

teruah interrupts between

the

shevarim and

between the

tekiah

that follows them, and the tekiah is not adjacent to the shevarim!

And we answer: In order to avoid this concern, Rabbi Abbahu instituted

that he would repeat the procedure with tashat—

after they sounded tashrat [t’kiah, sh’varim, t’ruah, t’kiah], they would return and sound tashat [t’kiah, sh’varim, t’kiah].

And they would not interrupt between the shevarim and the tekiah.

And they would likewise sound tarat, as explained above.

And we challenge this:

Rather,

since they needed to sound tashat [t’kiah, sh’varim, t’kiah] separately and tarat [t’kiah, t’ruah, t’kiah] separately,

what did Rabbi Abbahu—

institute!?

What did Rabbi Abbahu accomplish by instituting that they should also sound tashrat [t’kiah, sh’varim, t’ruah, t’kiah]?

For

if

the teruah mentioned in the Torah is

groaning

[shevarim]—

this he already performed;

they already did so separately in tashat.

And

if

it is

wailing—

this he already performed;

they already did so separately in tarat!

Why, then, did they need to sound tashrat as well?

And we answer:

He was uncertain;

Rabbi Abbahu was uncertain:

perhaps

the teruah mentioned in the Torah consists of both elements together, namely,

groaning and wailing.

It begins with shevarim and concludes with teruah.

Therefore, he instituted that they should sound a tekiah, followed by shevarim-teruah, which is the “teruah” mentioned in the Torah, followed by a tekiah.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if Rabbi Abbahu was indeed uncertain whether the “teruah” mentioned in the Torah consists of shevarim and teruah together—

let them also perform the reverse!

It would have been appropriate to do the reverse as well:

tekiah, teruah, three shevarim, and tekiah.

For

perhaps

the teruah mentioned in the Torah is

wailing and groaning,

beginning with teruah and concluding with shevarim!

And we answer: Since teruah is a whimper, namely, crying [as the Gemara learned above, 33b, from the verse “And the mother of Sisera whimpered”],

as a matter of course, when something bad happens to a person,

first he groans, and afterward he wails.

Naturally, when something bad happens to a person, he first emits prolonged groans, and afterward the crying becomes rapid [and then he wails in short sounds close to one another].

Therefore, even the teruah mentioned in the Torah, if it includes both shevarim and teruah, follows only the manner of those who cry: first shevarim, and afterward teruah.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he sounded the

tekiah

first

that precedes the teruah in the customary manner,

and he prolonged

and extended

the second one,

that follows the teruah,

as two,

intending to fulfill with its first half his obligation for the tekiah at the end of the first sequence, and with its second half his obligation for the tekiah at the beginning of the second sequence, he has fulfilled only one obligation.