ראש השנה 34

¹ when there is no real occasion for the expression, "in the seventh month". Why then does it say, "in the seventh month"? To indicate that all the teru'ahs of the seventh month should be of the same character. How do we know that there must be three sets of three each? Because it says, Thou shalt make proclamation with the shofar of teru'ah, and again, a solemn rest, a memorial of teru'ah, and again, a day of teru'ah it shall be to you. And how do we know that we can utilize what is said in connection with one for purposes of the other and vice versa? The word "seventh" occurs twice to provide a gezerah shawah. How then is it carried out? There are three [sets] which are nine [blasts]. The length of the teki'ah is equal to that of the teru'ah. The length of the teru'ah is equal to three shebarim’. This Tanna first derives his inference from an analogy and now he derives it from a gezerah shawah! — He reasons thus: ‘If there were no gezerah shawah, I would derive the inference from analogy; now, however, that there is a gezerah shawah, I do not require the analogy’. The following Tanna derives the same lesson from a gezerah shawah [with the blowing of the horn ordained] in the wilderness, as it has been taught: And ye shall blow a teru'ah: this indicates that there shall be a separate teki'ah and a separate teru'ah. You say, there shall be a separate teki'ah and a separate teru'ah! But can it not be interpreted differently, namely, that the teki'ah and teru'ah are all one? When you come to the text, But when the assembly is to be gathered together ye shall blow a teki'ah but not a teru'ah, you must conclude that teki'ah and teru'ah are separate. And how do we know that a plain blast is to precede it [the teru'ah]? Because it says, And ye shall blow a teru'ah.’ And how do we know that a plain blast follows it? Because it says, a teru'ah shall they blow. R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: This is not necessary. For the text says, And ye shall blow a teru'ah a second time. Here the words a second time’ are unnecessary. Why then are the words ‘a second time’ inserted? This furnishes a general rule that wherever teru'ah is mentioned a teki'ah should follow it. So far I know this only of the wilderness. On what ground can I apply it to New Year also? Because we find teru'ah [in one place] and teru'ah [in another place] to provide a gezerah shawah. Three teru'ahs are mentioned in connection with New Year — ‘a solemn rest, a memorial proclaimed with teru'ah’; ‘a day of teru'ah’, and ‘thou shalt make proclamation with the shofar of teru'ah’. Each teru'ah is accompanied with two teki'ahs. We thus learn that three teru'ahs and six teki'ahs were prescribed for New Year. Two of these are ordained by the Torah and one by the Soferim: [The teru'ahs mentioned in] ‘a solemn rest, a memorial of teru'ah,’ and in ‘thou shalt make proclamation with the shofar of teru'ah’ are ordinances of the Torah; the text ‘a day of teru'ah it shall be to you’ is required for its own lesson. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: One is ordained by the Torah and two by the Soferim: [That mentioned in] ‘and thou shalt make proclamation with the shofar of teru'ah’ is ordained by the Torah. [The texts] ‘a solemn rest, a memorial of teru'ah’ and, ‘a day of teru'ah it shall be to you’, are required for their own lessons. What is meant by saying that ‘it [the latter] is required for its own lesson’? — It is required to show that [the blowing must be] in the daytime and not at night. Whence does the other authority derive the rule that the blowing must be by day and not by night? — He derives it from the expression On the Day of Atonement. But if he learns it from ‘On the Day of Atonement’, let him also learn from this text the rule that there is to be a plain blast before the teru'ah and a plain blast after it? — He does not accept the implication of the expressions ‘and thou shalt proclaim’, ‘ye shall proclaim’. How then does he expound these words? — [He expounds] ‘and thou shalt proclaim’ in the same way as R. Mattenah; for R. Mattenah said: ‘And thou shalt proclaim’: this means, in the usual manner of proclamation. The words ‘Ye shall proclaim’ mentioned by the All-Merciful indicate that the shofar should be taken in the hand, and the other, [what says he to this?] — The lesson of R. Mattenah you can learn from the fact that the text uses an unusual expression, but that the word means ‘taking in the hand’ you could not maintain, for one can compare the expression ‘passing’ here with the expression ‘passing’ used in connection with Moses. It is written here, And ye shall cause to pass a shofar of teru'ah, and it is written elsewhere, And Moses commanded, and they caused a voice to pass. Just as there the passing was of a sound, so here it is of a sound. And to the Tanna who derives the rule [regarding the teki'ah] from [the blowing commanded] in the wilderness, [it may be objected that] just as there trumpets were to be used, so here [on New Year] trumpets should be used? — Therefore it is written, Blow ye the shofar at the New Moon, at the concealment for the day of our festival. Which is the festival on which the moon is concealed? You must say that this is New Year; and the All-Merciful prescribed the shofar [to be used on it]. R. Abbahu prescribed in Caesarea that there should be a teki'ah, three shebarim, a teru'ah and a teki'ah. How can this be justified? If [the sound of teru'ah] is a kind of wailing, then there should be teki'ah, teri'ah and teki'ah, and if it is a kind of groaning, there should be teki'ah, three shebarim, and teki'ah? — He was in doubt whether it was a kind of wailing or a kind of groaning. R. ‘Awira strongly demurred against this procedure, saying, Perhaps it is a kind of wailing, and the three shebarim make an interruption between the teru'ah and the [first] teki'ah? — We assume that he afterwards blows teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah. Rabina strongly demurred against this, saying, Perhaps it is a kind of sighing and the teru'ah makes an interruption between the shebarim and the [second] teki'ah? — We suppose that he afterwards blows teki'ah, shebarim, teki'ah. What then is the point of R. Abbahu's regulation? If it is a groaning sound, it has already been made, and if it is a wailing sound it has already been made? — He was in doubt whether it does not include both groaning and wailing. If so, the reverse should also be carried out, namely, teki'ah, teru'ah, three shebarim, teki'ah, since perhaps it is wailing and groaning? — Ordinarily when a man has a pain, he first groans and then wails. IF ONE BLEW THE FIRST TEKI'AH AND PROLONGED THE SECOND SO AS TO MAKE IT EQUAL TO TWO. R. Johanan said: If one heard^{ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏ}

² nine blasts at nine different times of the day, he has performed his religious obligation. It has been taught to the same effect: ‘If one heard nine blasts at nine different times of the day, he has performed his religious obligation. If, however, he heard nine different people at once, he has not performed his obligation. If he hears a teki'ah from one and a teru'ah from another, he has fulfilled his obligation, even if the intervals extended over the whole day’. But could R. Johanan have said this, seeing that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadok: If in the midst of reciting Hallel and the Megillah one paused long enough to say the whole, he must go back to the beginning? — There is no contradiction: in one case he was giving his own opinion,in the other that of his teacher. But does not his own opinion [conflict with the above statement]? Was not R. Abbahu once following after R. Johanan reciting the shema’, and when he came to some dirty alley-ways he stopped, and after they had passed them he asked R. Johanan whether he should finish, and he replied, If you paused long enough to say the whole, you must start again from the beginning? What he meant to say to him was this: ‘I do not hold this view, but according to you who do hold it, if you have paused long enough to say the whole, you must start afresh’. Our Rabbis taught: ‘[On most days] the omission of one blast is no bar to another, and the omission of one blessing is no bar to another, but on New Year and the Day of Atonement the omission of one blast or one blessing is a bar to the others’. What is the reason? — Rabbah said: God proclaimed: Recite before Me on New Year kingship, remembrance and shofar verses; kingship verses to declare Me king over you; remembrance verses, that the remembrance of you may come before Me for good; and through what? Through the shofar. IF ONE HAS SAID THE [NINE] BLESSINGS AND THEN PROCURES A SHOFAR, HE SOUNDS A TEKI'AH, TERU'AH, TEKI'AH. The reason is that he had no shofar to begin with. This shows that if he had a shofar to begin with, when he hears the blasts he must hear them during the recital of the blessings. R. Papa b. Samuel rose to say his prayer, and at the same time said to his attendant, When I give you a sign, blow the shofar for me. Said Raba to him: This rule was laid down only for a congregation. It has been taught to the same effect: ‘When he hears the blasts, he must hear them in order, and during the recital of the blessings. When does this hold good? In a congregation; but when not praying with the congregation he must hear them in order but not necessarily during the recital of the blessings. If an individual has not blown [the shofar], another may blow it for him, but if an individual has not said the blessings another may not say them for him. It is a greater act of piety to hear the shofar than to say the blessings. Hence if there are two towns in one of which the shofar is being blown and in the other of which the blessings are being said, one should go rather to the place where they are blowing than to the place where they are saying the blessings’. Surely this is self-evident: the former precept is of Pentateuchal sanction, the latter [only] of Rabbinic! — It was necessary to state the rule, [to show that it still applies] even though he is certain of [finding an opportunity for] the latter and not certain of [finding an opportunity for] the former. JUST AS THE CONGREGATIONAL READER IS UNDER OBLIGATION, SO EVERY INDIVIDUAL etc. It has been taught: ‘They said to Rabban Gamaliel: Accepting your view, why do the congregation [first] say the [‘Amidah] prayer? He replied, So as to give the reader time to prepare his prayer. Rabban Gamaliel then said to them: Accepting your view, why does the reader go down [and stand] before the Ark? They replied: So as to clear from his obligation one who is not familiar [with the prayers]. He said to them: Just as he clears one who is not familiar, so he clears one who is familiar’. Rabbah b. bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: The Sages gave Rabban Gamaliel right. Rab, however, said: The difference of opinion still remains. Hiyya the son of Rabbah b. Nahmani heard the argument [reported] and went and repeated it before R. Dimi b. Hinnena. He said to him: Thus said Rab: The difference of opinion still remains. The other said to him: This is what Rabbah b. bar Hanah also said, that when R. Johanan made this statement, Resh Lakish joined issue with him, saying: The difference of opinion still remains. But did R. Johanan say this? Has not R. Hanah of Sepphoris stated that R. Johanan said that the law follows the view of Rabban Gamaliel, and since he said the law is so, we infer that there is a difference of opinion?^{ᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰ}