Rosh ha-Shanah IV

נושא: RH

When the festival of Rosh ha-Shanah falls on Shabbat they would sound [the Shofar] in the Bet Mikdash, but not in the [rest of the] country. When the Bet Mikdash was destroyed Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai instituted that they should sound [the Shofar] in any place where there was a Bet-Din. Rabbi Elazar said that Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai instituted [the sounding of the Shofar on Shabbat] only in Yavneh. They responded that there was no difference between Yavneh and any other place where there was a Bet Din.

1:
The first mishnah of Chapter Four is most timely, since this year, as in many years, the first day of Rosh ha-Shanah falls on Shabbat. (The first day of Rosh ha-Shanah can only fall on four days of the week: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Shabbat.)

2:
In order to fully understand our mishnah we must know something of the biography of Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai. Rabban Yoĥanan was born in the early years of the first century CE. He studied Torah under the great sage Hillel, and after Hillel's death became one of the greatest propagators of the Hillelite school (as opposed to the school of Shammai). In his youth he was already noted as a Halakhic prodigy, possessed of great acumen: the Mishnah [Sanhedrin 5:2] records how he questioned the witnesses in a murder trial concerning the stalks by which dates were attached to their tree and turned the case around. During the great revolt of the Jews against the Romans, Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai was a "left-winger" politically, meaning that he had consistently opposed the nationalist and fanatical opposition of the "right-wing" zealots to the Roman war machine – not because he favoured the Romans, but because he saw that the opposition was futile and that it could only end with the complete destruction of Judah's independence. (I use the terms "left" and "right" as an avowed anachronism simply because it seems to be the simplest way of conveying the political forces at work in Jerusalem during the great siege.) Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai was smuggled out of Jerusalem disguised as a corpse – for the fanatical zealots had forbidden all exit from the desperate city. (Even burial outside the city was forbidden; an exception was made in the case of Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai because of the veneration in which he was held by the public at large.) According to the story as told by the Gemara [Gittin 46b] Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai immediately presented himself before the Roman war lord and demanded "Give me Yavneh and its sages" – and his wish was granted! Modern historians surmise that Yavneh was, in fact, a Roman internment camp in which they kept "friendly" prisoners-of-war. Be that as it may, Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai established in Yavneh an alternative to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and insisted that all the functions of the latter were now the prerogative of the former. That this was the case was finally established when the Shofar was sounded in Yavneh of Rosh ha-Shanah that fell on Shabbat; previously it had only been sounded on such circumstances in the Gazit Hall [see Rosh ha-Shanah 29b]. This, of course, is the subject of our mishnah.

When we studied mishnah 6 of Chapter 3 we noted that in order for the Mitzvah to be observed properly it is the actual sound of the Shofar that must be heard and not 'and echo'. William Friedman writes:

I don't know if you were going to get to it, but mishna 6 has very practical implications in our day, specifically with regard to the microphone. Assuming for the moment that the "always on, always amplifying" microphone type is halakhically acceptable for use on Yom Tov, the ba'al tekiah would, based on this mishna, have to be very careful to blow the shofar away from it, in such a way that the congregation would be hearing the shofar itself and not the amplification. Are there other areas of halakha where this (hearing an amplification instead of the actual words) could be a problem as well, such as responses to berachot and kedushah?

I respond:

William's point is very apposite. Many more years ago than I care to recall the oral examination that I had to take to earn Semichah [Halakhic ordination] concerned the permissibility of fulfilling the Mitzvah of hearing the Shofar sounded over the radio. Regardless of all other considerations (such as broadcasting on Yom Tov etc), can one hear the Shofar sounded over the radio or television and thus fulfill one's religious obligation? I was given a library full of books and one hour to prepare a written and annotated responsum. Thankfully I recalled the mishnah that William refers to and that gave me the starting point for my discussion. My answer was negative: what one hears over the radio is not the actual sound of the Shofar but the sound of its amplification. My responsum satisfied the examiners… How interesting to come full circle after all these years. William's question actually concerns other areas of religious performance. The problem of responding to Berakhot etc (and thus fulfilling one's religious obligation) is much more complex than mere amplification (which I do not think should be forbidden as such as long as it does not involve Melakhah [actions and results not permitted on Shabbat and Yom Tov]. What about the question of intention that we discussed in a previous mishnah? The facilitator in the studio (or wherever he or she is) must have the conscious intention to facilitate the observance by the people: could this include people of whose existence they are ignorant? I think not. In any case, to return to William's question: almost all the great Poskim [decisors] of modern times have rejected the use of amplification, even on an ordinary weekday, for the reasons we have outlined; and they state that anyone who hears Berakhot, Torah Reading, Megillah, Shofar etc through an amplifier (including radio, TV, telephone etc) may not thereby fulfill their religious obligation.

Irene Wechsler writes:

In addition to the incident describing Moses holding up his hands while the Israelites fought, I think that this was repeated by Joshua when he led the Israelites into battle. As I recall, during one battle, Joshua asked God to stop the sun and the moon while the Israelites fought. My question is, do the rabbis interpret that in order for Moses / Joshua to keep their hands elevated, must all of Israel be spiritually elevated? Also, if all of Israel was spiritually elevated, then why did Moses and Joshua need help in keeping their hands elevated?

I respond:

A famous dictum of the rabbis of old was that one should not question Aggadah too deeply: Eyn Meshivin Al Aggadah. Halakhah must be questioned again and again in order to establish acceptable religious behaviour. Aggadah is concerned with "spiritual uplift", philosophy, religious motivation and so forth. The language of Halakhah must be exact, precise, for it to be able to fulfill its function of directing the religious person to the correct "way to go" (which is the literal meaning of Halakhah). In order for it to have an emotive impact on the reader Aggadah sounds better when its language is diffuse, effusive, emotional. Halakhah, if you will, speaks to one's reasoning faculties; Aggadah speaks to one's emotional faculties. The purpose of the passage under discussion was to teach that, contrary to what appears to be the plain meaning of the biblical text, it was not the physical that wreaked Israel's salvation, but the spiritual. It was not Moses' hands or the bronze serpent that he made that were agents of redemption: they were spiritual indicators as it were that caused Israel to seek the true source of their salvation in heaven. I find no reference to Joshua raising his hands (or any other physical indication) in the story referred to by Irene – which can be found in Joshua Chapter 10.

Michael Simon writes:

I don't know if I'm jumping the gun here but the discussion on the inability of minors, etc. to facilitate mitzvot for others raises the question of the role of women which I know you've addressed in the past. Although a woman was not originally obligated to observe certain mitzvot and was placed in the category of a minor, etc., does the fact that women "voluntarily" choose to observe mitzvot, such as being counted in a minyan, change their status vis-à-vis being able to facilitate mitzvot for others? I would think that the issue of a woman's obligation to perform mitzvot and the issue of her facilitating mitzvot for others, i.e. shaliach tzibbur, are two separate issues and might require different answers or at least different modes of analysis?

I respond:

This response, because of the vehicle, will have to be short and not do justice to the question, which really requires a full-blown responsum. Nevertheless, as our sages tell us, "You can't be completely excused from this duty", so here are some brief notes.

It is quite clear from the sources we have studied that one who volunteers to perform a Mitzvah can not be a facilitator for others who are so obligated. However, in most cases, as far as women are concerned, this is a red herring. Despite unfounded "rumours" to the contrary, women are obligated to recite the prayers daily [Shaĥarit, Minĥah, Arvit]: when a woman recites these prayers she is not performing a voluntary act, but is fulfilling exactly the same duty as a man. Despite unfounded "rumours" to the contrary, men are no more obligated to public prayer than women. The participation of men in public prayer (as opposed to private prayer) is a "good deed" greatly to be attempted, but it is not a Mitzvah or a 'sine qua non'. Thus there is, in reality, no difference between the level of obligation between a man and a woman in this regard. (I am at a loss to explain how women managed to "get out" of these obligations during previous centuries, and why the Poskim did not object.) While women are traditionally excused positive Mitzvot that are observable only at a specific time, from the Middle Ages onwards Ashkenazi Poskim have maintained that if they wish to observe these Mitzvot they are welcome to and may even recite the Berakhah associated therewith. (Sefardi Poskim have been far less accommodating!)

I hope this brief analysis has helped.

3:
After the destruction of the Bet Mikdash Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai and his colleagues in Yavneh set themselves the task of picking up the pieces and starting all over again. The Judaism that would be from now on would be different from the Judaism that had been known until then. We have noted on several occasions in the past that from the end of the Biblical period until the destruction of the second Bet Mikdash two forms of Judaism has existed concurrently. The sacrificial cult that was indeed the very reason for the existence of the the Bet Mikdash, existed side-by-side with the Bet Midrash of each town and village, where in addition to study of the Oral Tradition (what I have called on many occasions "the Unwritten Torah") what we now recognize as the synagogue ritual was developing fast. All that changed in the summer of the year 70 CE. The Bet Mikdash and its ritual was no more; the Sadduceean priesthood became superfluous; the Pharisaic Judaism of the Sages was now supreme because it was the only game left in town. (Sadduceanism was to be re-incarnated as Karaism seven centuries later, but that is another story.) Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai realized that with the loss of the Bet Mikdash Judaism had also lost its "Supreme Court", the Great Sanhedrin that met in the precincts of the Bet Mikdash. One of the major tasks of the Great Sanhedrin was to settle disputes between the sages so that all Israel recognized one Halakhah. (See our study of Tractate Sanhedrin 11:2.) If the Great Sanhedrin was not reconstituted there was a grave danger that at this extremely critical moment in Jewish history the whole people would split up religiously into fragmentary groups each following one sage who was too stubborn to waive his view in the interests of unity. (The successor of Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai, Rabban Gamli'el, had to deal with several such situations, as we have learned in the past. Thus, it was a most important part of the rehabilitation programme of Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai that all the prerogatives, privileges and duties of the Great Sanhedrin of the Gazit Chamber now be transferred to the "Vineyard in Yavneh".

4:
His opportunity came when Rosh ha-Shanah fell on a Shabbat. As our present mishnah tells us, the Shofar was sounded as part of the ritual of Rosh ha-Shanah in the Bet Mikdash even when that day fell on Shabbat, whereas it was not sounded elsewhere. (Whether it was sounded elsewhere in Jerusalem is a Maĥloket between Rashi and Rambam which does not concern us here.) A Baraita quoted by the Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 29b] tells the story:

Once Rosh ha-Shanah fell on Shabbat and people from the outlying towns were all converging [on Yavneh]. Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai told ["the main opposition'] the Beteyrah family that they would sound the Shofar [on Shabbat]. They responded: "Let's discuss it". He replied: "We shall sound the Shofar and hold the discussion afterwards". After the Shofar had been sounded they said, "Let's discuss it". He then said to them that the horn had already been sounded in Yavneh and it was not appropriate to question the decision after the fact!

By this simple act of political adroitness Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai managed to demonstrate, despite conservative opposition, that all the privileges of the erstwhile Great Sanhedrin were now vested in the Bet Din in Yavneh.

5:
We must now consider the reasoning that lies behind our mishnah. The requirement to sound the Shofar on Rosh ha-Shanah is Biblical, therefore strictly speaking it is permitted to sound the Shofar even on Shabbat. It was the sages who interdicted the sounding of the Shofar on Shabbat, because "everybody must observe the Mitzvah but not everyone is expert enough to perform it"; therefore the sages decreed that the Shofar should not be sounded when Rosh ha-Shanah falls on Shabbat "lest someone carry it through the public domain on Shabbat, [which is forbidden by the Torah] to an expert to learn [how to do it]. In the Bet Mikdash it was sounded because that was the seat of the Great Sanhedrin and its members would make very sure that the rules of Shabbat would not be ignored even unwittingly. Elsewhere in the country this could not be guaranteed so the sounding of the Shofar was prohibited. This reasoning highlights the intention of Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai: just as the sounding of the Shofar was permitted in the Bet Mikdash because of the supervisory presence of the Great Sanhedrin, so it can be safely sounded in Yavneh because of the supervisory presence of the successor of the Great Sanhedrin. In the uncertain years that were to follow the Sanhedrin moved around from place to place, finally ending up in the town of Tzippori (Sepphoris) in the Galil. This explains the Seifa of our mishnah, that the decree of Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai did not apply only to Yavneh but also to wherever else the Sanhedrin might meet.

6:
The decrees that the sages made prohibiting certain acts on Shabbat and Yom Tov even though, strictly speaking, they are not forbidden by the Written Torah are called generically "Shevut". The purpose of these decrees (which were always prohibitive, not permissive) was to "make a fence around the Torah" [Mishnah Avot 1:1]. Certain actions, in themselves harmless, could all too easily lead without thinking to an action that is strictly prohibited by the Written Torah. Therefore, it is best that such harmless actions be interdicted by the sages so that if they are infringed it is only an infringement of a rule which is "mi-de-Rabbanan" [of the sages], and the Torah law will still be left unsullied. These decrees ["Gezerot"] once made could only be abrogated by a Bet Din that was superior to the Bet Din that made the original decree "in numbers and in wisdom" [Gemara Avodah Zarah 36a and elsewhere], which nowadays means never. (There is a loophole mentioned in the discussion in Avodah Zarah: a rule may be abrogated by a later court if it was never accepted by the Jewish people from a practical point of view since "we do not make decrees unless the majority of the people can abide by them". This loophole obviously does not apply to the sounding of Shofar on Shabbat, which is a prohibition easily observed.) Thus the sages forbadee the sounding of the Shofar on Shabbat, which is essentially permitted by the Torah, in order to make sure that it would not be carried in the public forum, which is a capital offence as we learned during our study of Tractate Sanhedrin.

In the wake of the previous mishnah we digressed to the issue of amplification and the fulfillment of Mitzvot. Art Marion continues the matter further and writes:

I am a gabai in a Conservative shul and honor the request of some older and hard of hearing persons for a hearing aid (Synagogue property) so that they may enjoy services. How does this relate to your discussion on amplification?

I respond:

Art's question has been amply reviewed by Orthodox scholars, in particular by Rabbi Ovadyah Yosef. The question is not only the permissibility of the amplificatory nature of a hearing-aid with regards to Mitzvot such as Megillah, Shofar, Kiddush, but even the more critical question of Shabbat observance. I will not bore you with the details. The upshot of the discussion is that the use of a hearing-aid on Shabbat and Yom-Tov is permitted even to the Orthodox Jew and he or she may fulfill the Mitzvot that involve "hearing" through their amplification device. The main burden of the latter argument is that the hearing-aid does not replace the original sound, it merely enhances it. Thus the listener still hears the actual sound of the Shofar, to choose our current topic, and the hearing aid enhances that original sound, but does not replace it as is the case with sounds heard only through a loudspeaker system (radio, TV etc). Thus it would seem to me that in the synagogues that use an amplification system to enhance the sound (and there systems available that do not involve Ĥillul Shabbat) the same logic would apply. However, since I would be very surprised if there were a synagogue so large that even the sound of the Shofar would not be clearly heard without mechanical amplification, I would still suggest that the person sounding the Shofar be advised not to direct the sound directly into the amplificatory system. (By the way, an unexpected outcome of Rabbi Yosef's discussion on hearing-aids on Shabbat is the permission granted to those who do not use electricity on Shabbat to wear a digital watch nevertheless.)

Another matter in which Jerusalem was superior to Yavneh: any town that could see [Jerusalem], could hear, was proximate and could come – they would sound [there the Shofar on Shabbat], but in Yavneh they would sound it only in the presence of the Sanhedrin.

1:
Our present mishnah is a continuation of the previous one – indeed, in the version of the Mishnah quoted in the Gemara the two mishnayot are treated as one.

2:
We must first add one word of caution. The Mishnah almost invariably calls any human settlement "a town" regardless of the size of its area or population. From the context of our mishnah it is clear that it is referring to hamlets which were technically outside Jerusalem but near enough to be what we would call today its suburbs. (Any such hamlet today would be well inside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.) Our mishnah seeks to state that when Rosh ha-Shanah falls on Shabbat it was not only in the Bet Mikdash that the Shofar was sounded, but throughout Jerusalem, and even in the outlying hamlets provided that they meet the four conditions laid out by our mishnah:

that the Bet Mikdash was visible from that hamlet, that there was no impediment, natural or otherwise, that prevented the Bet Mikdash from being visible in that hamlet.
that the Shofar being sounded in the Bet Mikdash could be heard in that hamlet, however distant it might sound.
that the hamlet is proximate to Jerusalem, that is to say that Jerusalem is within the "Teĥum Shabbat" of that hamlet. (We have explained in the past that it is forbidden to travel on Shabbat beyond the furthest limits of the town in which one is with an added bonus of one kilometre – actually about six tenths of one mile. Thus, our mishnah requires the "Teĥum" [boundary] of Jerusalem and the hamlet to be contiguous.
that there is no other halakhic impediment to travel between the hamlet and Jerusalem on Shabbat (such as crossing a river).

When the Bet Mikdash was in existence in any hamlet that met these four requirements the Shofar was sounded on Shabbat. No similar provision was made for the hamlets proximate to Yavneh.

3:
In our study of the previous mishnah I noted in passing that there was a difference in the interpretation of the mishnah between Rashi and Rambam. Rashi explains that the Shofar was sounded only in the Bet Mikdash itself and not in the rest of Jerusalem or further afield. Rambam explains that all of Jerusalem is considered to be a "Mikdash" therefore the Shofar was sounded throughout the city when Rosh ha-Shanah fell on Shabbat. In view of the content our present mishnah I am at a loss to understand how Rashi would square his explanation of the previous mishnah with the explicit statements in this one. Rambam has no such problems, and it would seem to be entirely logical to state that when Rosh ha-Shanah fell on Shabbat the Shofar was sounded in the Bet Mikdash, in the rest of Jerusalem and even in outlying hamlets that answered to the limitations we have mentioned above.

4:
The reasoning behind our mishnah is presumably that the authority of the Sanhedrin, sitting in the Bet Mikdash was so great that throughout the City and throughout its suburbs its authority was respected and therefore no one would carry a Shofar on Shabbat through the public domain. This was not considered to be the case with the Sanhedrin when it met elsewhere, after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the Shofar was sounded on Shabbat only in the actual presence of the Sanhedrin.

In our last Shiur I mentioned in passing that a by-product of the halakhic discussion of the use of hearing-aids on Shabbat for those who do not permit themselves the use of electricity was the permission for the wearing of digital watches on Shabbat.Daniel Burstyn writes:

could you explain the connection between the hearing aids and the digital watches?

I respond in three words:

The electric battery.

When we discussed the task of the facilitator I wrote: The facilitator in the studio (or wherever he or she is) must have the conscious intention to facilitate the observance by the people: could this include people of whose existence they are ignorant? I think not.

My esteemed colleague, David Bockman, writes:

Interestingly, this mishna talks about that issue (R"H 3:7). 'Similarly, if one passed behind the synagogue, or his house was next to the synagogue and heard the sound of the shofar or the megilla, if he focus his attention, he has fulfilled (his obligation to hear), and if he didn't focus his intention, he has not fulfilled (his obligation to hear).' The commentaries all seem to understand this the same way: if the intention of the shofar blozer was to exempt anybody by hearing the shofar, then even somebody about whom that person was unaware, who himself focussed on the sound with intention has fulfilled the obligation to hear.

I respond:

Obviously I agree, but with the warning that very few of our facilitators actually think to themselves along the lines that David has mentioned. Maybe someone should compose a text for them to read out loud before performing their task so that this point is brought into their consciousness. On the other hand, this acute awareness of what one is doing was the purpose of all the "Kavvanot" [meditations to aid awareness] composed by the Kabbalists: the moment they are simply recited as texts they lose their effectiveness and become "just another prayer" to be recited without thinking. So maybe the best idea would be to get the facilitator to make a public announcement using his or her own words. Something like, "OK, listen folks: I am about to recite Kiddush so if you want to fulfill your duty through me you've got to listen carefully and I've got to bear you in my mind as I recite the prayer".

The last mishnah of the previous chapter mentions in particular three kinds of person who are considered to be halakhically incompetent. Richard Friedman has sent me the following message, which I present for your judgment:

I think it's interesting that mishna 3:8 mentions the deaf-mute, the imbecile, and the minor, and not (as it does elsewhere) the woman or the slave. I venture to suggest that this may be connected to the fact that this statement about non-obligated persons being unable to blow shofar for others is in the same mishna with the aggadic statements about Israel raising their eyes aloft. If one believes that the Mishna is a carefully and consciously edited text, and that each mishna has a thematic integrity, these facts should be connected. Specifically, I suggest that in 3:8, the Mishna is continuing its theme of kavanna–it's saying that the kavanna (halachically required state of mind) required to fulfill the mitzva of shofar is not merely the intent to fulfill the mitzva, but the specific focusing on the need for divine support. Then the mishna is asserting that deaf-mutes, imbeciles, and minors are not mentally sophisticated enough to formulate that kind of thought. This may mean that "minor" as used in this mishna is a limited term, and that some kids under the age of bar/bat mitzva might be halachically competent to blow shofar for others, at least as far as this mishna is concerned. It also means that (again, for this mishna) when we hear shofar in a month, we haven't fulfilled the mitzva unless we have in mind our need for God's help.

I respond:

While not contending Richard's main thesis, I find one of his conclusions to be problematic. The idea that some children (minors) might be competent facilitators even though the mishnah excludes them offends against a great principle of rabbinic thought. This principle is called "La Pelug". What it means is that when the sages create a category of people (children, women, imbeciles, bankers, farmers – what you will) and implicitly or even explicitly the reason for the creation of that category is known, the sages do not exclude from the provisions of that category an individual who does not answer to the reasons implied. If the sages say that children are not competent facilitators that legality covers all minors – even one who has already earned his doctorate! La Pelug in Aramaic means "they do not distinguish".

Originally the Lulav would be taken in the Mikdash for [all] seven days but in the rest of the country only on one day. After the Bet Mikdash was destroyed Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai instituted that the Lulav would be taken throughout the country for the seven days as a memorial of the Mikdash. And [he also instituted] that the whole of the Waving Day was prohibited.

1:
Since the two previous mishnayot have dealt with changes in practice instituted by Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai it should not surprise us that our present mishnah has the same theme, for this is the way of the Mishnah. It certainly must have been an aid to the "memory-men" who would have to commit whole sections of the Mishnah to memory if sub-topics were arranged in an order useful for conning by rote. The other connection is, of course, that these changes in practice were instituted as a result of the destruction of the Bet Mikdash in Jerusalem in the summer of the year 70 CE. Although it is not immediately clear, our present mishnah deals with two discrete institutions: the only connection between them being the fact that they were instituted by Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai in the wake of the demise of the Bet Mikdash and its ritual.

2:
The first mishnah of our present chapter dealt with the major innovatory change that Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai instituted: that the Shofar be sounded when Rosh ha-Shanah fell on Shabbat even outside the Bet Mikdash, in any place where the Sanhedrin was meeting. The obverse side of this coin is, of course, that in any place where the Sanhedrin is not present the Shofar is not to be sounded, the considerations of a possible violation of the sanctity of Shabbat (by carrying the Shofar in the public domain) overriding the the Biblical requirement in such circumstances. (While the sages never would directly overturn a prohibition of the Torah – i.e. to permit something that the Torah expressly forbids – they did reserve the right to prohibit something that the Torah permits when, in their estimation, the circumstances demanded it.)

3:
Our present mishnah is almost the exact opposite of the previous two. In order to understand it we must preface a short description of the Mitzvah involved. The Torah legislates the festival of Sukkot (which falls two weeks after Rosh ha-Shanah and five days after Yom Kippur). After instituting the festival by stating the date of its incidence the Torah [Leviticus 23:40] continues:

You shall take for yourselves on the first day [of the festival] the fruit of a fine tree, palm branches, a sprig from a thick tree and willows of the brook, and you shall be happy before God for seven days.

These four items, now identified as a palm branch, a citron, three twigs of myrtle and two willow branches, are often, as here, known collectively as "Lulav" [palm branch]. The sages found in this verse an internal contradiction: at the beginning of the verse were are instructed to take these four items on the first day of the festival, whereas towards the end of the verse we are instructed to do so for seven days. The sages found that the contradiction could be resolved by noting the phrase "before God". For the sages "before God" meant in the Bet Mikdash. Thus the verse could be understood as requiring rejoicing with the four items within the precincts of the Bet Mikdash, but that outside the Bet Mikdash the taking of the four items was only for the first day of the festival. In his compendium of Halakhah, Mishneh Torah [Hilkhot Lulav, 7:13-18], Rambam states:

The Mitzvah of Lulav is observed on the first day of the festival only in all times and in all places, even on Shabbat … When the Bet Mikdash was destroyed they instituted that the Lulav was to be taken on all seven days … When the Bet Mikdash was existent the Lulav was taken even when the first day fell on Shabbat, and this was also the case everywhere else … But when the Bet Mikdash was destroyed the sages forbade the taking of the Lulav on the first day when it fell on Shabbat even in Eretz-Israel [where it was known that the day truly was Yom Tov] so that there would be no difference between the Jews in one part of the world and another… Nowadays even though all [the dates] are according to computation affairs have been left as they were: that the Lulav is not to be taken on Shabbat at all, either inside or outside Eretz-Israel, despite the fact that were are all now adept in computing the month. We have already explained that the main thrust of the prohibition of taking the Lulav on Shabbat is a rabbinic decree to preempt the possibility that someone might carry it in the public domain.

Thus Rambam explains that the case of Lulav is the opposite of the case of Shofar. Sounding the Shofar on Shabbat was originally prohibited outside the Bet Mikdash (and this remained the case after its destruction), whereas the taking of Lulav was originally permitted on Shabbat even outside the Bet Mikdash, but this was changed after its demise.

4:
The whole of the Reisha [first part] of our mishnah is completely ignored by the Gemara, which concentrates only on the cryptic Seifa [last part]: "the whole of the Waving Day was prohibited". In order to understand this provision we must once again resort to the Torah. In that same chapter [Leviticus 23] the Torah commands the institution of the Omer. Briefly (and utilizing the Pharisaic interpretation of the enigmatic text [Leviticus 23: 9-14]): on the evening after the first day of Pesaĥ (the evening that heralds the 16th Nisan) the High Priest would go out into a nearby field to ceremonially reap the first crop of the new cereal harvest. The following morning the harvested crop was ceremonially "waved" in the courtyard of the Bet Mikdash and only from that moment was it permitted throughout the land to eat of the new crop.

5:
The Torah prohibits using the new crop "ad etzem ha-Yom ha-Zeh", "until this very day". Since the ceremony in the Bet Mikdash took place early in the morning, during the existence if the Bet Mikdash it was permitted to start using the new crop from midday on 16th Nisan, since it could be assumed even by those not present that the ceremony had already taken place. The innovation of Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai was to prohibit using the new crop until the 16th Nisan had ended: "the whole of the Waving Day was prohibited". Our present mishnah is replicated word for word in Tractate Sukkah 3:12. I quote here the commentary of Rabbi Ovadya of Bertinoro:

When the Bet Mikdash was in existence they could eat from the new crop from the moment it was offered in the Temple… When the Bet Mikdash was destroyed it was permitted [according to the simple meaning of the text of the Torah] from first light [on 16th Nisan], for the Torah says "until this very day".

The commentary goes on to explain that the text of the Torah offers two possibilities: when there is a Bet Mikdash the new crop becomes permitted by the act of offering it in the Temple courtyard; but when it is not existent is becomes permitted by the incidence of "this very day". Now, how are we to understand the meaning of the Torah "this very day"? Does it mean that the moment dawn breaks on that day the new crop is permitted, or does it mean that the whole day has to pass before the crop may be used? Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai preferred the latter understanding of the Torah text and, which the destruction of the Bet Mikdash, instituted that the new crop could be used only from the evening that heralds the 17th Nisan; thus the whole day of the actual waving, Nisan 16th, is prohibited.

Originally testimony concerning the new moon was accepted all day long. Once the witnesses came late and the Levites got the song wrong, so they instituted that testimony would be accepted only until the afternoon [offering]; if witnesses should come forward from the afternoon [offering] onwards, that day and the following day would be observed as holy days. After the Bet Mikdash was destroyed Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai instituted that testimony would be accepted throughout the day. Rabbi Yehoshu'a ben-Korĥah said that Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai also instituted that even if the President of the Sanhedrin should be elsewhere the witnesses should only go to the [regular] meeting place [of the Sanhedrin].

1:
The Me'iri (Rabbi Menachem ben-Shelomo, Provence, early 14th century) in his commentary on our mishnah (the work is known as Bet ha-Beĥirah) admits that our mishnah seems to be out of place here. He suggests that the only reason why it has been inserted at this point in the tractate, and not in the first part that dealt with Rosh Ĥodesh, is the fact that it recounts yet another reform introduced by Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai (actually, two reforms). At first glance this does seem to be a logical approach, but it has flaws. The Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 32b] lists nine reforms instituted by Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai, "six that are dealt with in this chapter, one that is dealt with in the first chapter…" We recall that the third mishnah of chapter one was concerned with the months when messengers were dispatched from the Sanhedrin to the rest of the Jewish world in order to announce which day – the 30th or the 31st of the outgoing month – had been declared Rosh Ĥodesh. The Gemara there [Rosh ha-Shanah 21b] notes that after the destruction of the Bet Mikdash Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai instituted that messengers would be dispatched for Nisan and Tishri only. This rather knocks the wind out of the sails of Me'iri, for if our present mishnah is out of place in its present context it could have been brought in a more appropriate context, just as the reform concerning the messengers was mentioned at an appropriate place.

2:
Rashi (and most other commentators) see the present context as the most appropriate one for our mishnah since he interprets it as referring only to the end of Ellul. The witnesses to the new moon at the end of Ellul in fact establish the date of Rosh ha-Shanah, since Rosh ha-Shanah is also Rosh Ĥodesh Tishri. As we have learned, the Sanhedrin would already know by astronomic calculations the precise moment of the molad [conjunction] and thus approximately when the moon should be visible afterwards. But they could only declare the new month on the basis of the ocular evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, they would await the arrival of the witnesses throughout the thirtieth day since the month of Ellul had been declared. If the witnesses came forward in good time that day would be declared Rosh Ĥodesh – i.e. Rosh ha-Shanah. If no witnesses arrived during that day the following day was declared to be Rosh ha-Shanah. (Here there is nothing new since we covered all this in the earlier part of the tractate.)

3:
Our mishnah is concerned with a situation that once arose during the time when the Bet Mikdash and its ritual were still extant. The Sanhedrin waited throughout the thirtieth day of Ellul for witnesses, but none arrived until very late in the afternoon. The Minĥah, the afternoon sacrifice, was offered in the Bet Mikdash every day during mid-afternoon. (The actual time varied, depending on the length of that particular day. If we can imagine a day on which sunrise is at 6 am and sunset at 6 pm, then the Minĥah would have been offered on that day at 3.30 pm.) Every offering had to be accompanied by a musical rendition by the Levitical choir and orchestra. Each weekday had its special psalm for the morning and the afternoon offering, and there were special psalms for each of the holy days. On the occasion in question by the time of the offering of the afternoon sacrifice no witnesses had yet come forward and the choir did not know which song to sing – that appropriate for the last day of Ellul or that appropriate for Rosh ha-Shanah. So they sang no song at all – which was a grave breach of the regulations. It was therefore decided that "that day and the following day would be observed as holy days". In other words, Rosh ha-Shanah was deemed to begin on the thirtieth of Ellul regardless of whether the witnesses had already come forward or not. This meant that "if witnesses should come forward from the afternoon [offering] onwards" – late in the afternoon of the thirtieth of Ellul – there would be no doubt as to how the day was to be observed.

4:
Now our mishnah reaches the reform of Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai. The peshat [surface, obvious meaning] of our mishnah seems to imply that Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai canceled the reform described in the previous paragraph. It seems to imply that Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai, after the destruction of the Bet Mikdash, saw no point in not accepting the witnesses all day, since there was now no Levitical Choir and Orchestra to get confused. However, it transpires that this was not the case. In a discussion on a completely different topic in the Gemara [Betzah 5b] it becomes apparent that Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai did not do away with the observance of two days of Rosh ha-Shanah and that his reform of the reform was only in connection with the accepting of the testimony of the tardy witnesses. In other words, by accepting the testimony of tardy witnesses Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai assured that the first of the two days on which Rosh ha-Shanah was observed would be dated the first day of Tishri and not the thirtieth of Ellul.

4:
Rosh ha-Shanah is the only festival in the calendar which falls on Rosh Ĥodesh. This is seen as being adumbrated in the verses in Psalm 81:4-5:

Sound the Shofar on the new moon, on our festival on which it is covered: this is a law for Israel, a judgment for Jacob's God.

The only festival on which the moon is covered, i.e. not visible, is Rosh ha-Shanah. For this reason to this day Rosh ha-Shanah is observed for two days, even in Eretz-Israel where the festivals are observed for one day only, for this was how the festival was observed in the Bet Mikdash and subsequently. In any case, as we recently pointed out, a reform of the sages can only be annulled by a caucus greater in wisdom and number than the original caucus that instituted the reform.

5:
The Seifa of our mishnah quotes yet another reform introduced by Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai. I wrote:

Once the court has deemed the evidence of a pair of witnesses as being acceptable the President of the Sanhedrin declares, "It is sanctified!" – a the new month is deemed to have started and that day is the first day of the new month.

All things being equal it was the privilege and duty of the President of the Sanhedrin to declare that "it [the new month] is sanctified". This would seem to suggest that the witnesses should repair to any place at which the President of the Sanhedrin happened to be, since without his declaration their evidence would be of no value. When the Sanhedrin met in the Gazit Chamber on the Temple Mount there was no problem where the President would be – he even had an office in the precincts of the Bet Mikdash. But after the destruction of the Bet Mikdash the President might be anywhere. Witnesses who did not know of his whereabouts might then decide that it was not worth the bother of finding out where he was and getting there – probably too late anyway. Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai instituted that the witnesses should always go to the regular meeting-place of the Sanhedrin, even if the President was not there. He could depute another to declare the new month in his name.

The order of the blessings: he recites Avot, Gevurot and Kedushat ha-Shem, includes Malkhuyot with them and does not sound the Shofar. [Then follows] Kedushat ha-Yom and he sounds the Shofar; Zikhronot and he sounds the Shofar; Shofarot and he sounds the Shofar. Then he recites Avodah, Hoda'ah and Birkat Kohanim. This is the view of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben-Nuri. Rabbi Akiva said to him, "If he does not sound the Shofar for Malkhuyot why does he mention them [at all]? Rather, he should recite Avot, Gevurot and Kedushat ha-Shem, combine Malkhuyot with Kedushat ha-Yom and sound the Shofar, Zikhronot and sound the Shofar, Shofarot and sound the Shofar, and then recite Avodah, Hoda'ah and Birkat Kohanim.

1:
Our mishnah now turns to a different topic: one aspect of the liturgy of Rosh ha-Shanah. More than any other festival of the calendar, with the exception of Yom Kippur, the religious and emotional impact of the day impresses itself on the individual through the ritual of the prayers. Apart from the prayers there is really only one Mitzvah that characterizes the day: the sounding of the Shofar – and even that is inextricably bound up with the prayers. With the exception of one mishnah this is the subject of our tractate until the end of this chapter.

2:
In order to understand our mishnah we must recall certain technicalities that we recorded when we studied tractate Berakhot. In rabbinic literature the term "Tefillah" (literal translation: prayer) serves to indicate what we now call the "Amidah" (literal translation: standing). This refers to the core ritual of every service, where the worshipper stands, faces Jerusalem, and recites his or her prayers directly to God. The framework of this ritual was set down by the sages in earliest times and varies, depending on the occasion. The Amidah consists of a series of blessings [Berakhot]. The first three and the last three in the series are constant. On weekdays thirteen Berakhot are sandwiched between the first and last groups, making a total of nineteen blessings. (Originally there were only eighteen, and this is why an alternative designation of this ritual is "Shemonah-Esreh" – The Eighteen [Blessings]. On Shabbat and Yom Tov these thirteen are replaced by one blessing only. The sole exception to this rule is the Musaf [Additional] service of Rosh ha-Shanah, which has three Berakhot in the centre, and not just one.

3:
Our mishnah uses the technical names to indicate the Berakhot. The first three are called Avot [Founding Fathers], Gevurot [Power] and Kedushat ha-Shem [the Sanctification of God's Name]. The last three are called Avodah [the Ritual], Hoda'ah [Gratitude] and Birkat Kohanim [the Priestly Blessing]. The sole additional Berakhah on Shabbat and Yom Tov is called Kedushat ha-Yom [the Sanctity of the Day]. [For a detailed discussion of the content of these Berakhot see our study of Tractate Berakhot.]

4:
Our mishnah adds three new terms: Malkhuyot, Zikhronot and Shofarot. These are the three central sections of the Musaf Amidah of Rosh ha-Shanah. Malkhuyot celebrates God as supreme sovereign of the universe. Zikhronot celebrates God as "remembering". Shofarot celebrates God in connection with the sounding of the Shofar. The "celebration" is effected by the quotation of a series of biblical verses that reflect the topic: ten verses reflecting God's sovereignty, a further ten verses reflecting God's remembering, and the last ten verses reflecting God and the Shofar. Each group of ten is separated off by a concluding Berakhah.

5:
The origin of Malkhuyot, Zikhronot and Shofarot is so ancient that the institution of these Berakhot is lost in the mists of hoary time. The sages considered them to be adumbrated in the Torah, but the discussion in the Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 32a] shows that the derivation is so implausible that even the sages did not know how and when these Berakhot were instituted. Alternatively, of course, one could argue that the Malkhuyot, Zikhronot and Shofarot were a novel institution after the destruction of Jerusalem and that is why the sages were at a loss as to how to explain their connection with the text of the Torah. This argument has, indeed, been put forward. Personally, I do not subscribe to it since other aspects of our mishnah are better explained as deriving from tradition, as we shall see as we move forward into our discussion of this mishnah.

I wrote: The only festival on which the moon is covered, i.e. not visible, is Rosh ha-Shanah. For this reason to this day Rosh ha-Shanah is observed for two days, even in Eretz-Israel where the festivals are observed for one day only, for this was how the festival was observed in the Bet Mikdash and subsequently. Jay Slater queries:

Is this because the assignment of the correct day (the 30th or the 31st day of Ellul) is ambiguous because of the testimony of the moon's disappearance? Would the testimony of a full moon be more accurate and reliable? If so, why did not the Jews (and other peoples) choose to demarcate the beginning of the month from the date of the full moon rather than no moon?

I respond:

The Molad, the moment when the moon is completely opaque to the spectator on Earth, is the moment when the moon renews its cycle. As we have mentioned earlier in this tractate, the moon revolves on the Earth's axis and one revolution indicates one lunar month. From the moment it begins to be visible – a few hours after the actual Molad – it appears to grow [wax] from a thin sliver of light until it reaches what we call a full moon. From that moment on the visible part of the moon appears to decrease [wane] until once again it reaches full occlusion. It seems natural that the full occlusion of the moon is seen as its birth [Molad] from which it grows, reaches maturity and then declines into rebirth. This certainly was always the view taken by the sages as epitomized in their exposition of Exodus 12:2. However, we should note that the other parts of the month are recognized in the Torah's calendar. The first day of Pesaĥ is always on the day of the full moon and the last day of that festival is when the moon enters its last quarter. The same applies to the festival of Sukkot. Shavu'ot falls on the day on which the moon is about to enter its first quarter. Rosh Ĥodesh and Rosh ha-Shanah fall at the moon's full occlusion. The only day that does not seem to have any lunar connection is Yom Kippur.

6:
Our mishnah posits that the seven constant Berakhot of the Yom Tov Amidah (Avot, Gevurot, Kedushat ha-Shem, Kedushat ha-Yom, Avodah Hoda'ah and Birkat Kohanim) remain also in the Musaf Amidah for Rosh ha-Shanah. To these must be added the special sections for Rosh ha-Shanah, Malkhuyot, Zikhronot and Shofarot. However, even a child will immediately see that this would produce ten Berakhot, not nine. Therefore, for our mishnah is is axiomatic that one of the three special Berakhot must be combined with one of the constant ones. In theory a rather large number of permutations is possible, but from our mishnah it would seem that only two possible combinations were ever in practical use: Malkhuyot could be combined with Kedushat ha-Shem or it could be combined with Kedushat ha-Yom. The former combination is that favoured in our mishnah by Rabbi Yoĥanan ben-Nuri and the latter combination is the one that has the blessing of Rabbi Akiva.

7:
In order to clarify matters let us state here and now that the view eventually followed in all rites is that of Rabbi Akiva – that one recites Avot, Gevurot and Kedushat ha-Shem, then one combines Malkhuyot with Kedushat ha-Yom, then one adds Zikhronot and then Shofarot, and then one concludes with Avodah, Hoda'ah and Birkat Kohanim. Before we continue with the exposition of the Musaf of Rosh ha-Shanah permit me to clarify one point that has puzzled several correspondents. Their query in a nutshell is "how come the last Berakhah is Birkat Kohanim? It should be Sim Shalom, with Birkat Kohanim attached to Hoda'ah." My clarification: Sim Shalom is the continuation of Birkat Kohanim and is a part of it. The last word of the actual priestly blessing is "Shalom" and in true liturgical tradition Sim Shalom is concatenated to it. There is no thematic connection between Hoda'ah (gratitude) and the priestly blessing; there is an obvious thematic connection between the priestly blessing and Sim Shalom – the ultimate blessing of all blessings is peace.

8:
According to Rabbi Akiva Malkhuyot is combined with Kedushat ha-Yom and its culminating Berakhah reflects this combination: "Sovereign of the whole world, who sanctifies Israel and the Day of Remembering". (On the other festivals the ending would be "Who sanctifies Israel and the Festivals", with no mention of God's sovereignty and no mention of the specific festival.) We shall return to the view of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben-Nuri later on.

9:
Each of these three sections consists of biblical verses (whose nature is the subject of the next mishnah), which are preceded by a thematic introduction and concluded with a thematic peroration; and each section is followed by the sounding of the Shofar. (In some rites the Shofar is sounded in both the silent Amidah and the Reader's Repetition, while in other rites it is sounded only during the Reader's Repetition.) At present Malkhuyot is introduced by the well-known liturgical gem "Alenu". This doxology is familiar to us because it concludes all services every day of the year. However, originally it was intended to be the grand introduction to Malkhuyot on Rosh ha-Shanah. As such it is truly overpowering. Unfortunately its constant daily repetition has made us somewhat blasé to the power of the passage, so I unashamedly here offer a translation that is more colloquial than verbatim, and ask you to consider its message as the introduction to Malkhuyot:-

It is our duty to praise the Master of All, to ascribe greatness to the Architect of Creation, who did not make us like the various other nations and did not set us like the other families of the world; who did not make our lot like theirs or our fate like that of all their millions. For they worship something that is nothing and pray to a deity that cannot save, but we kneel and worship and confess the supreme King of all kings, the Holy One, praised be He. It is He that stretched out the heavens and founded the earth, whose glorious throne is in the heavens above and whose powerful essence is in the highest heights. It is He that is our God and no other. In truth He is our King; there is none besides Him – as is written in his Torah: "You must understand this day and become convinced that God is the Deity in the heavens above and on earth beneath and there is no other". That is why we hope, Dear God, that we shall speedily witness Your glorious might, when idolatry shall be removed from this world and idols completely obliterated; when the world will become perfected as the Kingdom of the Almighty and all humankind will call upon Your name; when all the wicked of the earth will turn towards You. All people dwelling on earth will recognize and know that to You shall every knee kneel, every tongue swear allegiance. May they kneel and prostrate themselves before You, Dear God, and honour Your glorious Name. May they all accept the yoke of Your sovereignty, for then You will reign over them eternally. For the sovereignty is Yours and in glory You will reign eternally, as is written in Your Torah: "God reigns for evermore".

This is a magnificent thematic introduction to Malkhuyot. As regards its authorship: it is described as "Tekiyata de-bei Rav", which can be understood either as "the Sounding of the Shofar by Rav" or "the sounding of the Shofar from the Bet Midrash". Rav was a student of Rabbi Yehudah the President of the Sanhedrin; after the latter's death in 217 CE Rav returned to his native Babylon and there established a Yeshivah in the town of Sura. It is more than possible that this greatest of the Amora'im of the first generation penned this magnificent piece. At any rate, one thing is abundantly clear from the general tenor of the passage: it was written at a time when the predominant non-Jewish religion was paganism with which the monotheistic message of Judaism is contrasted.

10:
The conclusion of Malkhuyot (and both the introductions and the conclusions of Zikhronot and Shofarot are much more pedestrian in contrast to Alenu, and serve merely as bridging passages between these sections.

Recently I responded to a question by Jay Slater: why does the month begin at a point when the moon is quite invisible; surely it would be more appropriate to start the month at the full moon, when the moon is at its most visible. I gave my serviceable response. Since then I have received this truly magnificent suggestion which i must share with you. Dani Bustabad writes:-

Maybe Rosh Hashanah is celebrate despite the moon is invisible to teach us this lesson: pagan people worship the moon, stars, etc., and make of them the center of their ritual lives. Not with us. We celebrate the creation, "the world's birthday" when there is no moon, because God created from the vacuum, where there was no-thing. Neither the moon, nor the son, nor anything that may have helped God. We are not submitted to the power of any deity nor helper, except to the perfectly holy, ethical God. So the feast of the world is connected to the pure holiness and ethical standards given by HaShem.

In this same connection I mentioned that Psalm 81:4-5 is traditionally taken as referring to Rosh ha-Shanah. Daniel Burstyn writes:

I would offer a different translation of Psalm 81:4-5: Sound the shofar on the new moon, the "covering" before our festival … (Sukkot, known as HeHag, the Festival). This seems more in keeping with the modern notion that Rosh HaShana as a major festival dates from the Babylonian exile, previous to which it was only a minor observance.

I respond:

This is certainly a novel approach. Of course, it runs counter to the burden of rabbinic tradition. Some time back we discussed the antiquity of Sukkot as opposed to Rosh ha-Shanah.

And, still on the subject of the Molad of Tishri [when the moon is 'covered'] – Rémy Landau writes:

According to the halachic calculations for the time of the molad, the molad of Tishrei can, and does occur, at all of the 181,440 possible values for the molad. Each value for the molad of Tishrei will be repeated either 3 or 4 times during the full Hebrew calendar cycle of 689,472 years. It is possible that some of the Tishrei moladot will occur too late during the day to have the first visibility of the moon on that day. On the other hand, it is also possible for the moladot to occur sufficiently early during the day, say right at the beginning of the day, to then be seen within the next few hours of the day. It therefore seems to me, that the visibility of the moon, based on the halachic calculation point of view, sometimes might not happen on the day of the molad of Tishrei, and then just as well could happen on the day of the molad of Tishrei. Would it therefore not be more correct to suggest that "the only festival on which the moon is sometimes covered is Rosh Hashannah"?

I respond:

First of all, many thanks to Rémy for the technical data. I think that Rémy is missing the point. The rabbinic understanding of the verse in psalms under consideration is that that the Molad of Tishri always falls on Rosh ha-Shanah: we have already established that the sages knew perfectly well how to calculate the exact time of the Molad and knew that the Molad of Tishri might be at such a time as it did not fall of the 30th Ellul, as it were. What they did say as regards this verse is that Rosh ha-Shanah must be the festival that it is referring to since it is the only one that occurs at a time when the moon is 'covered' – i.e. at the time of Rosh Ĥodesh, which approximates to within 30 hours the time of the actual Molad.

We do not recite less than ten [verses] for Malkhuyot, ten for Zikhronot and ten for Shofarot. Rabbi Yoĥanan ben-Nuri says that if he recites three for all he has fulfilled the Mitzvah. We do not recite verses for Malkhuyot and Shofarot that have a negative content. He starts with the Torah and concludes with the prophets. Rabbi Yosé says that if he concludes with the Torah he has fulfilled the Mitzvah.

The second prayer-leader on Yom-Tov is the one who causes the Shofar to be sounded; but when Hallel is said it is the first who leads Hallel.

We do not cross the Shabbat boundary because of the Shofar, nor do we remove rubble, climb a tree, ride an animal, or sail on water. Nor do we cut it – neither with an implement which involves [an infringement of] Shevut nor with one which involves [an infringement of] a negative Mitzvah. But if he wants to fill it with water or wine he may do so. We do not prevent children from sounding it, but indeed we supervise them until they have mastered it. One practising has not fulfilled the Mitzvah nor has one listening to another practising.

1:
I have combined three mishnayot in this one shiur since they are each quite straightforward and need little explanation. Let us start with mishnah 6. After the introduction to Malkhuyot, which we have previously discussed, comes the moment when ten verses from the Bible must be inserted, each of which celebrates God's sovereignty. Alan Marcus wrote to me with a very pertinent question:-

I am confused by use of the pronoun "he" (i.e. "he recites the Avot," etc.) in the mishnayot of your most recent shiurim. Is this a reference to: (1) the shel'iach tzibur; (2) the chazzan, (3) the rabbi; (4) the individual congregant who is participating in this service by following the shel'iach tzibur; or, (5) a generic reference to the congregation at large? Or, could it be a general reference term that does not designate any specific individual or group of individuals?

I knew this question would turn up and yet have hoped it would not! First of all let us reduce Alan's options to two: the mishnayot can only be referring either to the prayer-leader (and it does not matter whether we call him Sheliaĥ-Tzibbur or Ĥazzan) or to the individual worshipper. (If the rabbi is leading the service he is a Sheliaĥ-Tzibbur and if he is not he is an individual worshipper; rabbis, alas, have no special privileges or status in prayer. The congregation at large either consists of individual worshippers during the silent Amidah or it is a corporate body during the Repetition of the Sheliaĥ-Tzibbur.) We shall see when we reach the very end of the last mishnah of this tractate that there is a Maĥloket [difference of view] between Rabban Gamli'el and the rest of the sages. Without pre-empting that discussion let me briefly explain that the issue is whether the individual worshipper can fulfill his or her duty of reciting the Amidah by listening to the SheliaΛ-Tzibbur and responding Amen to the Berakhot. My own guess is that originally the custom was that there was only what we now call the "Repetition", with no "silent Amidah" for the individual worshippers. All the more so am I convinced that this was originally the case during Rosh ha-Shanah.

2:
It seems reasonably clear that originally Malkhuyot, Zikhronot and Shofarot were part of the Amidah for all of the Amidot of Rosh ha-Shanah, and not just for Musaf. The Shofar was originally sounded during the Shaĥarit Amidah in the morning. This is logical, since when a Mitzvah is to be performed on a certain day it is praiseworthy to fulfill that Mitzvah as early as possible [Zerizim Makdimim le-Mitzvot]. (We count the Omer, for example, already after nightfall; we take the Lulav during Shaĥarit – and so forth.) The Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Rosh ha-Shanah 59c] describes how on one occasion (probably after the Bar-Kokhba uprising) when the Romans heard the Jews sounding the Shofar early in the morning, they assumed that this was the signal for a revolt and all the worshippers were massacred. So it was decided to postpone the sounding of the Shofar until Musaf by which time it would be abundantly clear that the sounding of the Shofar had a ritual intention and not a military one.

3:
Now, to return to Alan's question, imagine the worshipper having to recite the Amidah several times during Rosh ha-Shanah and on each occasion to improvise thirty verses from the Bible, each set of ten on a set theme – and all this from memory, without benefit of prayer-book! This is why, it seems to me, that the original intention of our mishnayot was to indicate the Sheliaĥ-Tzibbur by the designation "he". Only the Sheliaĥ-Tzibbur would be able to recite such a Amidah from memory, and the rest of the worshippers would fulfill their duty by responding Amen to his Berakhot. Nowadays, of course, Malkhuyot, Zikhronot and Shofarot are added only in the Musaf Amidah, and the use of a standard printed text permits all the worshippers to recite the Amidah for themselves. We shall revisit this issue when we reach the end of the last mishnah of the tractate.

4:
It is impossible to recover the origin of the introduction of a series of Biblical verses into the Amidah of Rosh ha-Shanah. The Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 32a] makes a very feeble attempt to explain why ten verses (according to Tanna Kamma). Furthermore, the Maĥloket between Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Yoĥanan ben-Nuri suggests that even the number ten was not sacrosanct. (Indeed, in the Ashkenazi prayer ritual there are only nine verses in Zikhronot and Shofarot, there being ten only for Malkhuyot.) The restriction to verses that have no negative connotations prompts the Gemara to point out that there are only three possible verses for Malkhuyot in the whole of the Torah, so how could Rabbi Yosé add another one with his requirement that three verses each from Torah, Writings and Prophets should be concluded with another verse from the Torah? (The solution is to recite the verse Deuteronomy 6:4 – the Shema – which is Kabbalat Ol Malkhut Shamayim (accepting the yoke of Divine Sovereignty).

5:
Mishnah 8 lists a series of actions that are forbidden on Shabbat and Yom-Tov, for a variety of reasons. The purpose is to indicate that the sounding of the Shofar does not supersede the sanctity of Shabbat or Yom-Tov. Therefore it may not be fetched from outside town, it may not be recovered from underneath a pile of rubble (because it was kept in a house that fell down – quite a regular occurrence it would seem!) [and the stones are Muktzeh; i.e. it is forbidden to touch them], it may not be retrieved from the top of a tree (!?) because climbing a tree is Shevut. Sailing is also a Shevut.

6:
However, all these prohibitions are not intrinsic to the Shofar itself, and in theory it may be sounded on Shabbat. Therefore we do not prevent children from trying to sound the Shofar on Shabbat – indeed, we may even supervise them (i.e. coach them) and show them how to do it. This leads our mishnah (mishnah 8) to the issue of practice. When someone is sounding the Shofar for practice no one can fulfill the Mitzvah by listening – neither the person himself or anyone else. For the Mitzvah to be fulfilled it must be done with that intention.

The order of the Teki'ot [Shofar blasts] is thrice three times three. The length of a Teki'ah is three times as long as a Teru'ah. The length of a Teru'ah is three times as long as a Yebavah [wail]. If he [the one sounding the Shofar] blows [regularly] the first Teki'ah but twice as long for the second one it only counts as one. If someone recited and only later a Shofar came into hand, he should sound Teki'ah-Teru'ah-Teki'ah three times. Just as the Sheli'aĥ Tzibbur [Prayer Leader] has the duty to perform so does each individual. Rabban Gamli'el says that the Sheli'aĥ-Tzibbur can be the congregation's facilitator.

1:
This is the last mishnah of our tractate. Our mishnah divides into two parts, traditionally denominated Reisha and Seifa respectively, and each part also subdivides into two parts. The Reisha is concerned with the order of actually sounding the Shofar, while the Seifa is concerned with the prayer ritual. In my translation of this mishnah I have tried to maintain the unclear language of the original.

2:
The first part of the Reisha [Reisha de-Reisha] is concerned with categorizing the various Shofar blasts, while the second part of the Reisha [Seifa de-Reisha] is concerned with the relative length of each kind of Shofar blast to the others. The first part of the Seifa [Reisha de-Seifa] is concerned with the actions of someone who has already recited the Amidah, but only later during the day comes into possession of a Shofar. The last part of the Seifa [Seifa de-Seifa] is unconnected with the Shofar and is concerned with the role of the prayer-leader.

3:
We have already discussed the original Biblical command concerning the sounding of the Shofar. The sages noted in the Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 34a] that the expression "Teru'ah" appears three times in the Torah context of the ritual sounding of the Shofar: twice in connection with Rosh ha-Shanah [Leviticus 23:24 and Numbers 29:1] and once in connection with Yom Kippur in the Jubilee year [Leviticus 25:9]. (We have already noted that when the Shofar was sounded on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year the ceremony was exactly the same as that on Rosh ha-Shanah.) Thus the basic sound of the Shofar is what the Torah calls "Teru'ah" – indeed, the Torah calls Rosh ha-Shanah "Yom Teru'ah". By a convoluted exegesis the sages [also Rosh ha-Shanah 34a] determine that each Teru'ah must be sandwiched between a different sound called "Teki'ah". The very fact that the exegesis is so convoluted suggests that the sounding of a Teru'ah sandwiched between two Teki'ot was a custom from the hoary past which the sages sought to justify by means of Biblical exegesis. Be that as it may, the Gemara accepts that we should sound a Teki'ah, then a Teru'ah and then another Teki'ah. The Gemara also accepts that the Teki'ah is one simple blast, one unchanging tone. (There are many people who, when sounding the Shofar, turn the Teki'ah into two tones – a short introduction followed by a sustained rising tone. Not all the Poskim [decisors] are prepared to accept such a sound as Teki'ah.)

4:
If the Gemara determines that the Teki'ah is one simple blast it is not nearly as certain as to the nature of the Teru'ah – which is, after all, the main sound to be made. Let us note that our mishnah uses three different terms in its discussion: Teki'ah, Teru'ah and Yevavah (which we now customarily call "Shevarim"). The Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 33b] notes that there is a discrepancy between the terminology of our mishnah (that the measure of a Teru'ah is equal to three Yevavot) whereas in a Baraita this same measure is given as equal to three "Shevarim". The official Aramaic translation of the Torah uses the term "Yevavah" – a wailing sound – to translate the Biblical word "Teru'ah". The term also appears in the Bible [Judges 5:28] where it is the sound made by Sisera's mother as she awaits the return of her son from his war against Deborah, filled with anxiety at his overlong delay. (Of course, he did not return at all: he had already been done to death by Ya'el, the wife of Ĥever the Kenite.) Was Sisera's mother sighing or wailing as she sat by the window watching out for her son? One assumption is that she was heaving heavy, drawn out sighs; another is that she was ululating – that high-pitched trembling sound (or even wobbling sound) which is produced from the throat of the women in oriental communities when setting up a wailing. Nowadays we would expect a clear-cut decision accepting one or other of the two suggested possibilities. However, true to the rabbinic tradition of inclusiveness, the Gemara accepts both assumptions!

5:
It was Rabbi Abahu [Rosh ha-Shanah 34a] who instituted that the Teki'ah would be followed by a sighing-moaning sound (Shevarim, Yevavah) coupled with a ululating sound (Teru'ah). This order, Teki'ah, Shevarim-Teruah, Teki'ah, is to be repeated twice, making three times in all, since the term Teru'ah is used by the Torah three times in this connection as we have seen. However, maybe the Torah intended just a moaning sound? Or maybe the Torah intended just a ululation? Since this is a Mitzvah of the Torah – indeed it is the Mitzvah of the day! – we'd better play safe! So Rabbi Abbahu further instituted that after the threefold Shevarim-Teru'ah there should be a three-fold Teki'ah-Shevarim-Teki'ah, and then there should be a similar threefold Teki'ah-Teru'ah-Teki'ah. One of them will be right.

6:
Thus we are now able to understand the enigmatic prescription of the Reisha of our mishnah: "The order of the Teki'ot is thrice three times three." Ideally, of course, this order should be followed during the recitation of the Musaf Amidah, and the Shofar should be sounded after Malkhuyot, then after Zikhronot and then after Shofarot. So how did we arrive at a whole set of Shofar blasts after the Torah reading? You will recall that we mentioned above that originally the Shofar was sounded at each of the Amidot of the day and that each Amidah consisted of all nine Berakhot. This arrangement was altered because of the tragic misunderstanding of the Romans that we mentioned, as a result of which it was decided to postpone the sounding of the Shofar to the Musaf service. Later, when the emergency was forgotten, it was noted that this new arrangement presented two problems. First of all, it contravened the custom of "Zerizim Makdimin le-Mitzvot" – that it is praiseworthy to perform a Mitzvah as soon as it becomes operative. Under the original dispensation the Shofar was sounded during the Shaĥarit Amidah at the beginning of the day. Now, everyone had to wait until Musaf. The other problem was that of the invalids and the aged. They wanted to perform the Mitzvah of hearing the sounds of the Shofar, but it was very difficult to wait for so long. So, the sounding of the Shofar was pulled back to the end of Shaĥarit for their benefit, but the original custom of sounding the Shofar together with the recitation of Malkhuyot, Zikhronot and Shofarot was not discontinued. Thus the whole ceremony ("thrice three times three") is performed twice. The first set is termed "Teki'ot di-Meyushav" and the second set is termed "Teki'ot di-Me'umad". These terms mean, respectively, the Teki'ot when seated and the Teki'ot when standing. This is confusing, however, since it is customary to stand for both ceremonies! All it means is that the second ceremony is performed during the Amidah, the Standing Prayer; so the former ceremony is performed when people are not standing for prayer, as it were.

7:
The relative values of the sounds, put as simply as possible would be as follows. The length of a Teki'ah must be the same as the length of the three "sighs" of the Shevarim; and these, in turn, must collectively be the same length as the wobbling-warbling sound of the Teru'ah. And all these lengths are relative to each other. Thus, when sounding Shevarim-Teru'ah the Teki'ah coming before and after them should be relatively longer.

8:
The second part of the Reisha ("If he blows the first Teki'ah but twice as long for the second one it only counts as one") is also enigmatic. Let us say that the person sounding the Shofar first sounds a Teki'ah, then a Shevarim and then a Teki'ah. But since he knows that he is now going to have to sound another Teki'ah he decides to cut corners and just make one Teki'ah double – half to serve as the Teki'ah after the Shevarim and the other half to serve as the Teki'ah that must come before the next Shevarim. Our mishnah states that if he acts thus he has only produced one overlong Teki'ah, not two.

9:
The first part of the Seifa is equally simple. If someone has no access to a Shofar or to the sound of a Shofar they are unable to fulfill the Mitzvah. But they must still recite the Musaf Amidah – without benefit of Shofar. But if, later in the day, the opportunity to hear the Shofar presents itself all they need do is to sound the Shofar "thrice three times three" and they do not need to recite Malkhuyot, Zikhronot and Shofarot over again to accompany the sounding of the Shofar.

In our previous Shiur we learned that it is permitted to let a Shofar soak in water or wine on Rosh ha-Shanah. Bayla Singer writes:

I am overcome by curiosity as to who would wish to fill a shofar with wine or water, and for what purpose!

I respond:

To clarify the sound. The sound will be clearer if the Shofar has been cleaned by soaking in water or wine, thus removing dust and other impedimenta. The Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 33a] is aware that a certain well-known fluid, excreted from the human body, would be an even better detergent than water or wine – but its use is prohibited in this regard "because it is not appropriate"!

10:
The Seifa [last section] of our mishnah introduces a Maĥloket [difference of view] between Rabban Gamli'el and Tanna Kamma. (For the purposes of our discussion here we can identify the term Tanna Kamma as indicating all the rest of the sages. While the discussion obviously is immediately connected with Rosh ha-Shanah it nevertheless has implications for every single time during the year when the Amidah is repeated out loud.

11:
The sages state that "just as the Sheli'aĥ Tzibbur [prayer leader] has the duty of reciting the Amidah so does that same duty rest upon each and every individual comprising the congregation". The sages are referring to the custom whereby the Amidah is repeated out loud by the prayer-leader after everybody has had the chance to recite it for themselves. The implication here is that someone who has already recited the Amidah does not need the prayer-leader's repetition. It is with this that Rabban Gamli'el disagrees – and all the more so on Rosh ha-Shanah when the Amidah is very long and, in the days before there was a standard liturgy printed in prayer-books, it requires the worshipper to include thirty verses from the Bible, ten each for Malkhuyot, Zikhronot and Shofarot. This is obviously something that the average worshipper is incapable of doing and needs the assistance of the prayer-leader.

12:
Let us recall what we discovered concerning the role of the Sheli'aĥ Tzibbur when we studied tractate Berakhot:

It is not clear whether the Amidah was originally intended to be a unit of corporate communal worship that subsequently also became private (as is the opinion of liturgical scholars) or whether it was originally intended to be a unit of private devotion that subsequently also became public and corporate (as is the opinion of the sages in the Talmud). One thing is clear: for approximately the past two thousand years the Amidah has been initially recited by each individual worshiper as private communion and after that – if there is a "Minyan" [public quorum] present – the Amidah is repeated out loud by the Cantor as an item of corporate communal worship. This matter is discussed in the Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 34b – 35a}. In the mishnah [folio 33b] the sages state that "Just as the Cantor must [recite the Amidah] so must each individual worshipper". Rabban Gamli'el demurs: "The Cantor [by his recitation of the Amidah out loud] enables the public to fulfill their duty [by answering 'Amen' to his Berakhot]". In a Baraita [34b] the sages object: "According to you (Rabban Gamli'el), why does the public recite the Amidah at all" [if the Cantor can do this for them]?. The response of Rabban Gamli'el: "Their recitation [prior to his own] affords him an opportunity to rehearse his prayer beforehand" – remember that the Cantor had to pray extempore, making up the text as he went along according to the general rubrics set out by the tradition. Rabban Gamli'el now attacks: "According to your claim [that each individual must recite his own Amidah], why does the Cantor recite it at all?" The response of the Sages: "He does so in order to enable those who cannot recite the Amidah by themselves [because of lack of skill] to fulfill their duty". Rabban Gamli'el retorts: Just as he can enable to unskillful to perform his duty so can he enable the skillful to do so!'

Although this disagreement is reported in the Talmud under the rubric of the Musaf Amidah for Rosh ha-Shanah (which is inordinately lengthy and halakhically complicated), it seems to have been accepted as a paradigm for all occasions when the Amidah is repeated. Rabban Gamli'el appears to hold that the essential Amidah is that which is recited out loud by the Cantor whereas the sages appear to hold that the essential Amidah is the personal devotion of the individual worshiper – what we nowadays are accustomed to term "Tefillah be-laĥash" [the "silent" Amidah].

13:
Initially the discussion of the Gemara concerning this Maĥloket seems to leave the matter unresolved. It is reported in the name of the great Amora of Eretz-Israel that "the Sages admitted the claim of Rabban Gamli'el". However, the great Amora of Babylonian Jewry, Rav, says that "the Maĥloket still stands" unresolved. The Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 35a] eventually establishes that the Halakhah is according to Rabban Gamli'el on Rosh ha-Shanah, but follows the opinion of the rest of the sages on all other occasions.

Subsequently we summarized as follows:

At any rate, the opinion of the sages is the "working hypothesis" of the later Poskim [decisors]. According to the sages in the Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 33b, 35a] every individual has a duty to recite the Amidah; the Cantor repeats the Amidah out loud only for the benefit of those in the congregation who were not able (due to their lack of skill) to fulfill their duty by themselves: the Cantor recites the Amidah out loud and everyone answers 'Amen' to the Berakhot, which is tantamount to saying "I identify with what you have just said, it is as if I had said it myself". It would be unthinkably callous if, after everyone has had the opportunity to recite their own Amidah, a general question were asked: "Is there anyone here who needs the Cantor to repeat the Amidah out loud?" No one would respond because of the shame involved! Therefore it was established that it must always be assumed that it is necessary for the Amidah to be repeated – except at the evening service – when, [for reasons that need not concern us here] no one would have been derelict in their duty if they did not recite the Amidah (and therefore a repetition of the Amidah for the benefit of the unskillful would be a waste of the congregation's time [Tirĥa de-Tzibbura]).

Thus it is that, at all services except Arvit [the Evening Service] the Amidah is first recited by everyone personally and then repeated out loud by the Cantor. It is strange, therefore, that in our contemporary congregations there seems to be a groundswell for ignoring the "Private Amidah" ["Tefillah be-laĥash"] and proceeding directly to the Cantor's Repetition (which would accord – somehow – with the opinion of Rabban Gamli'el). One would have expected that in our age people would be jealous of their personal right to recite the Amidah themselves, and not to have to resort to the services of the Cantor to do so.

14:
This concludes our study of Tractate Rosh ha-Shanah.

Joel Evans has sent me the following synopsis of a relevant article published in a journal called Sidra, Vol IX, which I pass on to you. The title is: The Changes in the Liturgy of Rosh Hashana: M. Rosh Hashana 4, 7, Meir Bar-Ilan

The synopsis follows:

The Mishna states: "When a man passes before the chest [ to lead the prayer] on the Rosh Hashana holiday, [not he but] the second blows the shofar; but at the times when the Hallel is recited, the first recites the Hallel." (Rosh Hashana 4, 7). This Mishna presents two major problems: the identities of "the first" and "the second", and the implication of the plain meaning of the text, that there may be times when the Hallel is read on Rosh Hashana, an otherwise unknown practice. Meir Bar-Ilan, in "The Changes in the Liturgy of Rosh Hashana: M. Rosh Hashana 4, 7)", prposes a new interpretation of the Mishna. The first phrase is explained in light of a known practice in the Land of Israel (particularly on fast days, with Rosh Hashana being thought of as at least half a fast day), to have three Hazanim pass before the congregation. The tanna taught that on a day like Rosh Hashana three man ought to come before the congregation (in its honor), with the second guiding the third as to what notes should be blown on the shofar. This is similar to the common practice today. Bar-Ilan suggests that the second phrase refers to an old custom of reciting the Hallel on Rosh Hashana, ruling that the first Hazan read the Hallel, as is the usual practice, and not the second, whose role was described in the first phrase. R. Abbahu’s explanation as to why Hallel is not to be said on Rosh Hashana was given in the context of his rejection of the old custom, just as the Hallel which had been recited earlier on other occasions, perhaps in accordance with Temple custom, was rejected for various reasons.

Chapter 1| Chapter 2 | Chapter 3

To RMSG Archive