אִיכַּוַּון וּתְקַע לִי אַלְמָא קָסָבַר מַשְׁמִיעַ בָּעֵי כַּוּוֹנָה
Have intent to sound the shofar on my behalf and sound it for me. The Gemara infers: Apparently, Rabbi Zeira maintains that he who sounds the shofar for others is required to have intent to discharge the hearer’s obligation.
מֵיתִיבִי הָיָה עוֹבֵר אֲחוֹרֵי בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בֵּיתוֹ סָמוּךְ לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְשָׁמַע קוֹל שׁוֹפָר אוֹ קוֹל מְגִילָּה אִם כִּוֵּון לִבּוֹ יָצָא וְאִם לָאו לֹא יָצָא וְכִי כִּוֵּון לִבּוֹ מַאי הָוֵי הַיְאךְ לָא קָא מִיכַּוֵּין אַדַּעְתָּא דִּידֵיהּ
The Gemara raises an objection from the mishna: If one was passing behind a synagogue, or his house was adjacent to the synagogue, and he heard the sound of the shofar or the sound of the Scroll of Esther being read, if he focused his heart to fulfill his obligation, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. It may be asked: And, according to Rabbi Zeira, even if the hearer focused his heart, what of it? The other one, i.e., the one sounding the shofar, did not focus his intent to sound the shofar with him in mind? If indeed the intent of the one sounding the shofar is required, how does the passerby fulfill his obligation?
הָכָא בִּשְׁלִיחַ צִיבּוּר עָסְקִינַן דְּדַעְתֵּיהּ אַכּוּלֵּיהּ עָלְמָא
The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with the representative of the community, i.e., one who sounds the shofar for the entire congregation and has everyone in mind. He does not sound it for a specific individual, but rather on behalf of the entire community, and therefore anyone who hears him sound the shofar fulfills his obligation.
תָּא שְׁמַע נִתְכַּוֵּון שׁוֹמֵעַ וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּון מַשְׁמִיעַ נִתְכַּוֵּון מַשְׁמִיעַ וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּון שׁוֹמֵעַ לֹא יָצָא עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּון שׁוֹמֵעַ וּמַשְׁמִיעַ קָתָנֵי מַשְׁמִיעַ דֻּומְיָא דְשׁוֹמֵעַ מָה שׁוֹמֵעַ שׁוֹמֵעַ לְעַצְמוֹ אַף מַשְׁמִיעַ מַשְׁמִיעַ לְעַצְמוֹ וְקָתָנֵי לֹא יָצָא
The Gemara raises another objection: Come and hear that which was taught in a baraita: If the hearer of the shofar had intent, but the sounder of the shofar did not have intent, or if the sounder of the shofar had intent, but the hearer did not have intent, he has not fulfilled his obligation, until both the hearer and the sounder have intent. The baraita teaches the halakha governing the sounder of the shofar in similar fashion to the halakha governing the hearer. From this it may be inferred that just as the hearer hears for himself, having intent to fulfill his own obligation, so too, the sounder sounds for himself, having intent to fulfill his own obligation, and not that of others. And the baraita teaches that if the sounder did not have this intent, the hearer has not fulfilled his obligation. But this indicates that if the sounder had intent to sound the shofar for himself, he need not have intent to sound it for others, therefore contradicting Rabbi Zeira’s opinion.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא דְּתַנְיָא שׁוֹמֵעַ שׁוֹמֵעַ לְעַצְמוֹ וּמַשְׁמִיעַ מַשְׁמִיעַ לְפִי דַּרְכּוֹ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּשְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר אֲבָל בְּיָחִיד לָא יָצָא עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּין שׁוֹמֵעַ וּמַשְׁמִיעַ:
The Gemara answers: This is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The hearer hears for himself, and the sounder sounds the shofar in his usual way, i.e., he need not intend to sound it for the sake of the hearer. Rabbi Yosei said: In what case is this statement said? It was said in the case of a representative of the community. But in the case of an ordinary individual, the hearer does not fulfill his obligation until both the hearer and the sounder have intent to discharge the hearer’s obligation, as argued by Rabbi Zeira.
מַתְנִי׳ וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים מֹשֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳ וְכִי יָדָיו שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה עוֹשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה אוֹ שׁוֹבְרוֹת מִלְחָמָה אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם הָיוּ מִתְגַּבְּרִים וְאִם לָאו הָיוּ נוֹפְלִים
MISHNA: Incidental to the discussion of the required intent when sounding the shofar, the mishna cites the verse: “And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed” (Exodus 17:11). It may be asked: Did the hands of Moses make war when he raised them or break war when he lowered them? Rather, the verse comes to tell you that as long as the Jewish people turned their eyes upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they prevailed, but if not, they fell.
כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף וְשִׂים אוֹתוֹ עַל נֵס וְהָיָה כׇּל הַנָּשׁוּךְ וְרָאָה אוֹתוֹ וָחָי וְכִי נָחָשׁ מֵמִית אוֹ נָחָשׁ מְחַיֶּה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם הָיוּ מִתְרַפְּאִין וְאִם לָאו הָיוּ נִימּוֹקִים
Similarly, you can say: The verse states: “Make for yourself a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he sees it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8). Once again it may be asked: Did the serpent kill, or did the serpent preserve life? Rather, when the Jewish people turned their eyes upward and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were healed, but if not, they rotted from their snakebites.
חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הָרַבִּים יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן זֶה הַכְּלָל כׇּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּיָּיב בַּדָּבָר אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן:
Returning to its halakhic discussion, the mishna continues: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor who sounds the shofar cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of the community. This is the principle with regard to similar matters: Whoever is not obligated to do a certain matter cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of the community.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בִּתְקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים גֵּרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשׁוּחְרָרִים וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין
GEMARA: The Sages taught the following baraita: All are obligated to sound the shofar: Priests, Levites, and ordinary Israelites; converts; freed slaves; a tumtum, i.e., one whose sexual organs from birth are concealed or are so undeveloped that it is impossible to determine whether the individual is male or female; a hermaphrodite [androginos], i.e., one with both male and female reproductive organs; and a half-slave, half-freeman.
טוּמְטוּם אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לֹא אֶת מִינוֹ וְלֹא אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס מוֹצִיא אֶת מִינוֹ אֲבָל לֹא אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לֹא אֶת מִינוֹ וְלֹא אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ
A tumtum who sounds the shofar cannot discharge the obligation of one of his kind, i.e., a fellow tumtum, since men are bound by the obligation, whereas women are not, and it is possible that the sounder is female and the hearer is male, nor can he discharge the obligation of one who is not of his kind, an ordinary man or woman. A hermaphrodite can discharge the obligation of one of his kind, a fellow hermaphrodite, since if the sounder is treated as a female, the hearer is also considered a female, but he cannot discharge the obligation of one who is not of his kind. One who is half-slave and half-freeman cannot discharge the obligation of one of his kind, as the slave component of the sounder cannot discharge the obligation of the free component of the hearer, and he certainly cannot discharge the obligation of one who is not of his kind, i.e., a completely free individual.
אָמַר מָר הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בִּתְקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים פְּשִׁיטָא אִי הָנֵי לָא מִיחַיְּיבִי מַאן מִיחַיְּיבִי
The Master said above in the baraita: All are obligated to sound the shofar: Priests, Levites, and ordinary Israelites. The Gemara asks in astonishment: Isn’t that obvious? If these people are not obligated to perform the mitzva, who then is obligated to perform it?
כֹּהֲנִים אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב יוֹם תְּרוּעָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם מַאן דְּלֵיתֵיהּ אֶלָּא בִּתְקִיעָה דְּחַד יוֹמָא הוּא דְּמִיחַיַּיב וְהָנֵי כֹּהֲנִים הוֹאִיל וְאִיתַנְהוּ בִּתְקִיעוֹת דְּכׇל הַשָּׁנָה דִּכְתִיב וּתְקַעְתֶּם בַּחֲצוֹצְרוֹת עַל עוֹלוֹתֵיכֶם אֵימָא לָא לִיחַיְּיבוּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן
The Gemara answers: It was necessary to say that priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva, for it may enter your mind to say as follows: Since it is written: “It is a day of sounding the shofar to you” (Numbers 29:1), you might have said that with regard to one who is obligated to sound only one day, he is obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana. But with regard to these priests, since they are obligated to sound all year long, because they sound trumpets when they offer the sacrifices in the Temple, as it is written: “And you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt-offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings” (Numbers 10:10), you might say that they are not obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana. Therefore, the baraita comes to teach us that this is not true, and that even priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva.
מִי דָּמֵי הָתָם חֲצוֹצְרוֹת וְהָכָא שׁוֹפָר אֶלָּא אִצְטְרִיךְ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הוֹאִיל וּתְנַן שָׁוֶה הַיּוֹבֵל לְרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַתְּקִיעָה וְלַבְּרָכוֹת מַאן דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּמִצְוַת הַיּוֹבֵל אִיתֵיהּ בְּמִצְוָה דְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְהָנֵי כֹּהֲנִים הוֹאִיל וְלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּמִצְוָה דְּיוֹבֵל דִּתְנַן כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם מוֹכְרִין לְעוֹלָם וְגוֹאֲלִין לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא בְּמִצְוָה דְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לֹא לִיחַיְּיבוּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן:
The Gemara asks: Are these things comparable? There, the priests sound trumpets, and here, we are dealing with the sounding of a shofar. Rather, it was necessary to say that priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva for a different reason, for it may enter your mind to say as follows: Since we learned in a mishna: Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year is the same as Rosh HaShana, with regard to both the shofar blasts and the additional blessings that are recited in the Amida prayer, I might have said: One who is fully included in the mitzva of the Jubilee is also included in the mitzva of Rosh HaShana. But these priests, since they are not fully included in the mitzva of the Jubilee, as we learned in a mishna: Priests and Levites may sell their fields forever and they may also redeem their lands forever, and they are not bound by the halakhot of the Jubilee Year, I might say that they should also not be obligated to fulfill the mitzva of Rosh HaShana. Therefore, the baraita comes to teach us that this is not so, and that even priests are obligated to fulfill the mitzva.
מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לֹא אֶת מִינוֹ וְלֹא אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא וּלְעַצְמוֹ מוֹצִיא
§ It was taught in the same baraita: A half-slave, half-freeman cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of one of his kind, and he certainly cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of one who is not of his kind. Rav Huna said: Even though he cannot discharge the obligation on behalf of others, he can discharge the obligation on behalf of himself.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא מַאי שְׁנָא לַאֲחֵרִים דְּלָא דְּלָא אָתֵי צַד עַבְדוּת וּמַפֵּיק צַד חֵירוּת לְעַצְמוֹ נָמֵי לָא אָתֵי צַד עַבְדוּת דִּידֵיהּ וּמַפֵּיק צַד חֵירוּת דִּידֵיהּ
Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: What is the difference whereby he may discharge the obligation on behalf of himself but not on behalf of others? Because his slave component cannot come and discharge the obligation on behalf of the free component of the other. If so, with regard to himself as well, his slave component should not be able to come and discharge the obligation on behalf of his free component.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אַף לְעַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין אַף לְעַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא
Rather, Rav Naḥman said: Even on behalf of himself he cannot discharge the obligation. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: A half-slave, half-freeman cannot discharge the obligation even for himself.
תָּנֵי אַהֲבָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא כׇּל הַבְּרָכוֹת כּוּלָּן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא מוֹצִיא חוּץ מִבִּרְכַּת הַלֶּחֶם וּבִרְכַּת הַיַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא יָצָא מוֹצִיא וְאִם יָצָא אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא
Continuing the discussion of performing an obligation on behalf of others, Ahava, son of Rabbi Zeira, taught the following ba-raita: With regard to all the blessings, even if one already recited a blessing for himself and has consequently fulfilled his own obligation, he can still recite a blessing for others and thereby discharge their obligation, as all Jews are responsible for one another. This is true with regard to all blessings except for the blessing recited over bread and the blessing recited over wine, both before and after their consumption. With regard to these blessings, if he has not yet fulfilled his own obligation, he can discharge the obligation of others as well, but if he already fulfilled his own obligation, he cannot discharge the obligation of others, as these blessings are recited in appreciation of physical enjoyment, and can only be recited by one who is actually deriving pleasure at the time.
Rava raised a dilemma: