Rosh Hashanah 55

Chapter 55

א שמע מקצת תקיעה בבור ומקצת תקיעה על שפת הבור יצא מקצת תקיעה קודם שיעלה עמוד השחר ומקצת תקיעה לאחר שיעלה עמוד השחר לא יצא
1 If one heard part of the blast in the pit and part of the blast on the edge of the pit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We naturally suppose this to speak of one who steps out of the pit while he hears someone else blowing in the pit.');"><sup>1</sup></span> he has performed his religious duty. If he heard part of the blast before the dawn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Lit., 'before the pillar of the dawn went up'. This is the legal dividing line between night and day.]');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אמר ליה אביי מאי שנא התם דבעינא כולה תקיעה בחיובא וליכא הכא נמי בעינא כולה תקיעה בחיובא וליכא
2 and part of the blast after dawn he has not performed his religious duty. Said Abaye to him: Why this difference? Because in the latter case we require the whole of the blast [which he hears] to be obligatory and this requirement is not fulfilled?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is obligatory to hear the shofar only by day but not by night.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג הכי השתא התם לילה לאו זמן חיובא הוא כלל הכא בור מקום חיובא הוא לאותן העומדין בבור
3 In the former case also we require the whole of the blast to be obligatory, and this requirement is not fulfilled!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One who is on the edge of the pit does not fulfil his obligation by hearing one blow in the pit.');"><sup>4</sup></span> - Are the two cases parallel? In the latter, night is a time to which the obligation does not apply at all, but in the former, the pit is a place to which the obligation does apply for those who are in the pit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he fulfils his obligation with the part he heard in the pit.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד למימרא דסבר רבה שמע סוף תקיעה בלא תחילת תקיעה יצא וממילא תחילת תקיעה בלא סוף תקיעה יצא
4 I infer from this that Rabbah was of opinion that if one heard the end of a blast without the beginning he has performed his religious duty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra.');"><sup>6</sup></span> and that from this it follows that if he heard the beginning without the end, he has likewise performed his religious duty. Come now and hear [an objection to this]: 'If one blew a teki'ah at the beginning [of the series] and prolonged the second one so as to be equal to two, it still counts as only one'.
ה ת"ש תקע בראשונה ומשך בשניה כשתים אין בידו אלא אחת ואמאי תסלק לה בתרתי פסוקי תקיעתא מהדדי לא פסקינן
5 Why should this be? Let it be counted as divided into two? - We do not divide teki'ahs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, and notes.');"><sup>7</sup></span> Come and hear [another objection]: 'If one blows into a pit or a cistern or a barrel, if he hears the sound of t shofar [pure] he has performed his religious duty, but if he hears the echo he has not performed his religious duty'.
ו ת"ש התוקע לתוך הבור או לתוך הדות או לתוך הפיטס אם קול שופר שמע יצא ואם קול הברה שמע לא יצא ואמאי ליפוק בתחילת תקיעה מקמי דליערבב קלא
6 Why should this be? Let him have performed his religious duty with the beginning of the blast, before the sound is confused [with the echo? ] - Rabbah was speaking of one who blows [for himself] and as he blows steps out of the pit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he hears both the beginning and the end of the blast clearly.');"><sup>8</sup></span> If that is so, what is the point of his remark?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is obvious.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ז כי קאמר רבה בתוקע ועולה לנפשיה
7 - You might argue that sometimes he puts his head out while the shofar is still in the pit and so the sound is confused. We are therefore told [that this makes no difference]. Rab Judah said: One should not blow with a shofar taken from a burnt-.
ח אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא זמנין דמפיק רישיה ואכתי שופר בבור וקא מיערבב קלא קמ"ל
8 offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Made from the horn of a living animal which, has been consecrated for a burnt-offering. After it has been offered and the blood thereof sprinkled the law of trespass does not apply to its horns, v. infra. rpuac');"><sup>10</sup></span> but if he did so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unwittingly. V. Tosaf. s.v. vkhgn');"><sup>11</sup></span> hie has performed his religious duty.
ט אמר רב יהודה בשופר של עולה לא יתקע ואם תקע יצא בשופר של שלמים לא יתקע ואם תקע לא יצא
9 One should not blow with a shofar taken from a peace-offering, and if he did so he has not performed his religious duty. What is the reason? A burnt-offering is subject to the rule of trespass,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. , the using of holy things for secular purposes, v. Lev. V, 15ff.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
י מ"ט עולה בת מעילה היא כיון דמעל בה נפקא לה לחולין שלמים דלאו בני מעילה נינהו איסורא הוא דרכיב בהו [ולא נפקי לחולין]
10 and once trespass has been committed with it, it becomes unhallowed. Peace-offerings, on the other hand, not being subject to the rule of trespass,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even while still alive. After it had been offered and the blood sprinkled the law of trespass applied to certain portions of the flesh assigned for the altar.');"><sup>13</sup></span> are still saddled with their prohibition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if they have been accidentally used for secular purposes, they remain hallowed and must not be further used for such purposes.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יא מתקיף לה רבא אימת מעל לבתר דתקע כי קא תקע באיסורא תקע
11 .<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These words in the text are bracketed.');"><sup>15</sup></span> Raba strongly demurred to this. When [he said], is the trespass committed?
יב אלא אמר רבא אחד זה ואחד זה לא יצא הדר אמר אחד זה ואחד זה יצא מצות לאו ליהנות ניתנו
12 After he has blown; but when he blows, he does so with something prohibited.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the case of the burnt-offering.');"><sup>16</sup></span> No, said Raba: alike in one case and the other, he has not performed his religious duty. Later, however, he said: Alike in one case and in the other he has performed his religious duty, because religious precepts are not meant to provide physical enjoyment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since he derives no physical enjoyment from the act, he does not commit trespass.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יג אמר רב יהודה בשופר של ע"ז לא יתקע ואם תקע יצא בשופר של עיר הנדחת לא יתקע ואם תקע לא יצא מ"ט עיר הנדחת כתותי מיכתת שיעוריה
13 Rab Judah said: One should not blow with a shofar which has been used for idolatrous purposes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because no benefit may be derived from articles which have been used for idolatrous purposes, v. A.Z. 51b.');"><sup>18</sup></span> but if he does so, he has performed his religious duty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because such performance is not intended to give any enjoyment. This reason is based on the opinion of Raba and not of Rab Judah; vsuvh cr rnt perhaps therefore we should read here 'Raba said', not 'Rab Judah said'. V. Tosaf. s.v. .');"><sup>19</sup></span> One should not blow with a shofar from a devoted city,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XIII, 13-17.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יד אמר רבא המודר הנאה מחבירו מותר לתקוע לו תקיעה של מצוה המודר הנאה משופר מותר לתקוע בו תקיעה של מצוה
14 and if he does so he has not performed his religious duty. What is the reason? In a devoted city nothing is [presumably] left of proper size.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its measurements are cut to pieces'. Everything in it was supposed to be burnt. vtbv');"><sup>21</sup></span>
טו ואמר רבא המודר הנאה מחבירו מזה עליו מי חטאת בימות הגשמים אבל לא בימות החמה המודר הנאה ממעין טובל בו טבילה של מצוה בימות הגשמים אבל לא בימות החמה
15 Raba said: If one is interdicted by vow to have any benefit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. which can mean either 'benefit' or enjoyment'.');"><sup>22</sup></span> from his neighbour, the other may yet perform the ritual blowing of the shofar for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this is no physical enjoyment.');"><sup>23</sup></span> One, too, who is interdicted by vow to have any enjoyment from a shofar may yet perform with it the ritual blowing.
טז שלחו ליה לאבוה דשמואל כפאו ואכל מצה יצא כפאו מאן אילימא כפאו שד והתניא עתים חלים עתים שוטה כשהוא חלים הרי הוא כפקח לכל דבריו כשהוא שוטה הרי הוא כשוטה לכל דבריו
16 Raba further said: If one is interdicted by vow to have any benefit from his neighbour, the other may yet sprinkle on him the water of the sin-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the red heifer, to cleanse him from the pollution of a dead body.');"><sup>24</sup></span> in the rainy season, but not in the summer time. One who has vowed to have no enjoyment from a fountain may take a ritual bath in it in the rainy season<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when it is cold.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
יז אמר רב אשי שכפאוהו פרסיים אמר רבא זאת אומרת התוקע לשיר יצא
17 but not in the summer time. They sent to inform the father of Samuel: If a man is compelled by force to eat unleavened bread [on Passover], he thereby performs his religious duty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though he had no intention of performing it.');"><sup>26</sup></span> Compelled by whom?
יח פשיטא היינו הך מהו דתימא התם אכול מצה אמר רחמנא והא אכל
18 Shall I say, by an evil spirit? But has it not been taught, 'If a man is sometimes in his sound senses and sometimes crazy, when he is in his senses he is regarded as a sane man in all particulars, and when he is crazy he is regarded as insane in all particulars'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we cannot speak of the performance of religious duties in connection with an insane person.');"><sup>27</sup></span> - R'Ashi said: [It means], if the Persians compelled him. Said Raba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. Rabbah.');"><sup>28</sup></span> This would imply that if one blew the shofar simply to make music, he has performed his religious duty. Is not this obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that this is the implication of R. Ashi's remark.');"><sup>29</sup></span> This is just what has been said!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this is that'.');"><sup>30</sup></span> - You might argue that in the previous case the All-Merciful has prescribed that unleavened bread should be eaten, and he has eaten<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And has obtained some physical benefit.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter