Siman 586

The Rambam wrote at the beginning of the first chapter of Shofar: The shofar that we blow, whether on Rosh Hashanah or in the Jubilee year, is the curved horn of rams. And all shofars are invalid except for the horn of a ram. Thus far his words. This means: a horn from the male of the sheep, which is a ram that has a horn. And it is curved, for such is its nature. But a female sheep has no horn, as it is stated in Rosh Hashanah (16a): Rabbi [Abahu] said: Why do we blow with a shofar of a ram? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Blow before Me with a shofar of a ram, so that I will remember for you the binding of Isaac the son of Abraham. And I will account it to you as if you had bound yourselves before Me. Therefore, even though we learned in a Mishnah at the beginning of the third chapter of Rosh Hashanah that all shofars are valid except for that of a cow, and afterwards we learned in a Mishnah: The shofar of Rosh Hashanah was of a mountain goat, straight—the halacha is not so, but rather like Rabbi Yehuda who says in the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah: We blow with those of males. And in the Baraita there it explains further: On Rosh Hashanah we blow with those of curved males. And as for why he did not mention "curved" in the Mishnah—it is because every shofar of a ram is curved (and so wrote the Beit Yosef). And the Baraita's way is to explain further. And "males" are rams, as we learned in a Mishnah at the beginning of the fifth chapter of Shabbat: Males may go out "levuvin," and the intent is regarding rams, see there. And it seems to me: because in the species of sheep the difference is great between males and females, for males have horns, and females do not have horns, and this is not found in all species. Therefore the rams were called by the plain name "males." And in the Gemara there the halacha was decided like Rabbi Yehuda, as we say there: Rabbi Levi said: The mitzvah of Rosh Hashanah and of Yom Kippur is with curved ones, for the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda, see there.

And when Rabbi Levi says "curved," perforce he refers to a ram, for he ruled according to Rabbi Yehuda. And when he says "curved" – it is as if he said "rams," as Rashi explained there. This is his wording in Rosh Hashanah: The more a person bends… the more it is superior – in his prayer, his face bowed to the ground, it is more preferable… Therefore, on Rosh Hashanah, which is for prayer, and comes to mention the binding of Yitzchak – we require curved… Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that it is of a ram, since it comes to mention the binding of Yitzchak. And that which he says only "curved" – is because those of rams are only curved for the most part. (And according to what I have written, that which Rabbi Yehuda mentioned in the Mishnah only "males," and in the Baraita he mentioned "curved males," and Rabbi Levi mentioned only "curved," and Rabbi Abbahu mentioned only "ram" – is well-settled, because it is all one, for the ram – its shofar is curved, and it is not found in females. Therefore, one time he employs this language, and one time that language. And this is a great support for the approach of the Rambam, and examine closely and you will find it simple.)

And behold, according to the opinion of the Rambam, Rashi, Tosafot, the Semag, and the Hagahot Maimoni there also ruled. For behold Rashi: since it is written "curved" also to mention the binding of Yitzchak, it is explained that it must specifically be of a ram. And the Tosafot (16a, s.v. "Beshofar") wrote, and this is their wording: But we hold like Rabbi Yehuda, that we blast with curved rams' horns, as we ruled there in the Gemara; thus far their words. And so wrote the Semag in commandment 42, and this is his wording: We learn in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah: Rabbi Abbahu said: Why do we blast with a ram's shofar... even though we learned "all shofars are valid except that of a cow"? Rabbi Abbahu holds like Rabbi Yehuda and like Rabbi Levi, who hold that the mitzvah of the shofar of Rosh Hashanah is with curved males, meaning "rams," which we translate as "dikhrin," and such is the halacha; thus far his words. And so wrote the author of Hagahot Maimoni in letter 2, and this is his wording: Like Rabbi Yehuda etc., and so said Rabbi Levi etc., and so said Rabbi Abbahu, and not like our Mishnah etc. And so he ruled in the Sefer HaMitzvot. And so he ruled in Sefer Yereim etc.; thus far his words. And according to this, I am very wondered at our teachers the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, that they did not bring the opinion of the Rambam at all. And it seems that because they saw that the Tur brought the opinion of the Rambam and wrote that everyone took issue with him, see there—therefore they did not bring his opinion. But in truth, even though the Ra'avad, and the Rosh, and the Ran, and the Tur ruled not like his words, as will be explained, nevertheless, since Rashi, Tosafot, Semag, Hagahot Maimoni, and the Yereim ruled like the Rambam, that no shofar is valid except of a ram and curved—it is obvious that we must be concerned for their words, and particularly regarding a Torah prohibition, not to validate any other type of shofar. And so all of Israel have practiced. (See Taz, what he wishes to say regarding the intent of the Rambam. And all his words are puzzling, and an error emerged from his holiness, to exchange "ayil" with a chirik for "ayal" with a kamatz. And already the Chacham Tzevi, and the Pri Megadim, and the Grib challenged him. And his primary grammatical points have no meaning. And the foundation is that a ram's horn is curved, and the Beit Yosef also mentioned this. With this, all the grammatical points are settled well, as I have written. Examine and you will find it easy.)

The Rosh in the third chapter wrote in the name of the Ramban that there are three levels regarding shofarot: that all shofarot, even if not of a ram, are valid post facto, whether straight or curved, except for that of a cow, because it is a horn and not a shofar. And only ab initio is the mitzvah with curved ones, and for the choice performance of the mitzvah it is of a ram, in order to remember the binding of Yitzchak. And the Rosh, and the Ran, and the Tur agreed with his words. And so wrote the Ra'avad, see there. For these, our teachers, maintain that the halacha is like the anonymous rulings of the Mishnayot, that all shofarot are valid except for that of a cow, and like the second Mishnah that the shofar of Rosh Hashanah was of a straight mountain goat. However, in this the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda: that for the mitzvah it is curved, like the words of Rabbi Levi, and for the choice performance of the mitzvah it is of a ram, as Rabbi Abbahu said. And the words of Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Abbahu are not indispensable, but rather that of Rabbi Levi is for the mitzvah, and that of Rabbi Abbahu is for the choice performance of the mitzvah.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1: The shofar of Rosh Hashanah – its mitzvah is with that of a ram, and curved. And post facto, all shofars are valid, whether straight or curved. And the mitzvah is greater with curved ones than with straight ones. And that of a cow is invalid in all cases. And similarly, the horns of most animals which are a single bone, and do not have a marrow inside – are invalid. Thus far his words, and it must be said that this is the explanation: that the choice mitzvah is a ram and curved, and post facto everything is valid. And curved ones are more of a mitzvah than that of a ram, which is only a choice mitzvah, as I have written (and so wrote the Taz, subsection 1). And it is further possible to say the opposite, that he holds that of a ram is more of a mitzvah than curved, because regarding that of a ram everyone agrees it is better, in order to remember the binding of Yitzchak. But regarding curved, the first Tanna disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda, and holds that specifically straight. And granted that the halacha is not so, nevertheless, ultimately it can be said that it is only for a choice mitzvah. This excludes that of a ram, where everyone agrees. And the measure of his words is thus: The shofar of Rosh Hashanah – its mitzvah is with that of a ram and curved, meaning: this is the choice mitzvah in all respects. And post facto everything is valid. And do not say that ab initio the requirement is only for that of a ram, because no one disagrees on this; to this he says: And the mitzvah is greater with curved ones than with straight ones, meaning: that in this too there is a beautification of the mitzvah. And we have already written that the opinion of the Rambam, and Rashi, and Tosafot, and the Smag, and the Hagahot Maimoni, and the Yereim – is that even post facto it is not valid except for that of a ram and curved. And even if the ram was a treifah, or became a nevelah – it is valid, since it is a pure species.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And similarly, a shofar from an impure animal is invalid; thus far his words. That is to say: even according to the poskim who hold that a shofar from all species is valid, nevertheless, from an impure animal—it is invalid. For only a pure animal was permitted for the work of Heaven, as we say in Shabbat (28b) regarding the work of the Mishkan, see there. That is to say, anything where the mitzvah is only from a living creature—requires a pure living creature. This excludes when the mitzvah does not require a living creature, such as the walls of a sukkah, where wood and stone are also valid—it is obvious that it is permitted to set up even an impure living creature as a wall. As it is found in Sukkah (23a) that it is permitted to set up an elephant as a wall of a sukkah, see there, because it is no worse than wood and stone. And know: that even though it is implied explicitly from the Mishnah in Niddah (51b) that an impure animal does not have horns, see there, and if so, you would not find this law—this is not the opinion of everyone, and the Rabbis disagree with this Mishnah, as it is found in Chullin (59a). Furthermore, the Rambam explains there that it refers to its life, but regarding an animal, there can be horns even in an impure one (see in Be'er HaGolah, and Magen Avraham, and Eliyah Rabbah).

One who robbed or stole a shofar and blew it—he has fulfilled his obligation, even if the owners have not despaired of it, for there is no robbery regarding sound. For even regarding consecrated items we say that sound, appearance, and scent—there is no law of me'ilah in them. And even though there is nonetheless a prohibition, as is found in Pesachim (26a), certainly here too it is prohibited ab initio. And he should not recite a blessing over it (Magen Avraham subsection 4), for how can one recite a blessing over a stolen object? Nevertheless, regarding the positive commandment of shofar—he has fulfilled his obligation. And it is permitted to take the shofar of his fellow without his knowledge and blow it, for certainly it is pleasing to him that a mitzvah be performed with his property in a matter where there is no loss. And as I wrote in siman 11 regarding a tallit, see there. And one should not ask: Why regarding lulav do we require on the first day that it be truly his, and he does not fulfill his obligation with that of others? Because it is written (Leviticus 23:40): "And you shall take for yourselves"—from your own, as I will write in siman 658. If so, also regarding shofar we should require it to be truly his, for behold, regarding shofar it is also written (Numbers 29:1): "it shall be a day of sounding for you"? However, it is not comparable, for there "for yourselves" is written regarding "And you shall take," and it implies "And you shall take from your own," but here it refers to "a day of sounding." And thus it is found in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of "The Stolen Lulav" (Yerushalmi Sukkah Chapter 3 Halacha 1), see there. (And see Beit Yosef, and Taz subsection 2. And with this the objection of the Ra'avad against the Rambam in the first chapter regarding this law is answered, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.) (And in the Hagahot Ashri he disqualifies a stolen shofar based on the Yerushalmi. But the Rishonim interpreted this regarding lulav, and such is the primary view, for regarding lulav the language of "shaping" is applicable. See there at the end of the third chapter, and examine it and you will find it simple.)

We say in the Gemara (28a) that one should not blow ab initio with a shofar of an olah or shelamim. And if he blew with them – he has fulfilled his obligation, for mitzvot were not given for benefit. That is to say: that any mitzvah which contains no physical benefit, but only the benefit of the mitzvah – it is not relevant to say regarding this that he benefits from the hekdesh, for mitzvot were not given for benefit. But were it not for this reason – he would not have fulfilled his obligation with them. And even though sound is not subject to me'ilah – this refers to hearing the sound of hekdesh. But to take an object of hekdesh and blow with it – he immediately commits me'ilah by its taking, for there is me'ilah in hekdesh even in a thing that is not damaged, as we learned in Me'ilah at the beginning of the fifth chapter, see there. And even though it is required that there be a benefit worth a perutah, as we learned there – it can be said that here too, granted that mitzvot were not given for benefit, nevertheless any person would give a perutah to fulfill the mitzvah. (Thus I am compelled to explain, for if not so, how does R. Isaac say there that he committed me'ilah? See there, and examine and you will find it simple.)

It is forbidden to blow a shofar of idolatry, such as one that was worshipped or is an accessory of idolatry, for it is loathsome to the Most High to perform a mitzvah with it. And if one blew it—he has fulfilled his obligation. And this is not considered as benefiting, for mitzvot were not given for enjoyment, as I have written. And these words apply when it belongs to a non-Jew, for nullification is effective for it, and therefore even before it was nullified—he has fulfilled his obligation. But when it belongs to an Israelite, for whom nullification is not effective, as I have written in Yoreh Deah siman 146, and it requires burning; and a shofar requires a minimum size so that he may hold it in his hand and it will be visible on this side and that side, as will be explained later, that its size is four thumb-breadths; and since it requires burning—we view it as if it were burned, and its size is considered crushed. But that of a non-Jew, even before nullification, since nullification is effective for it—we do not say its size is considered crushed. However, this is specifically when the Israelite did not intend to acquire the shofar. But if he intended to acquire it—behold it has become the property of an Israelite, and it has no nullification. And even though the shofar has a non-Jewish owner, and if so, what benefit is there in his wanting to acquire it, since the non-Jew does not transfer it to him. And in truth, there is one who says so: that specifically with a shofar of ownerless property does it become an Israelite's when he intends to acquire it, and not a shofar of a non-Jew (Bach)—it is not so, as is proven in several places. And the reason: for in truth he intended to steal it, and the responsibility for it is upon him, and therefore regarding this matter it is considered as belonging to an Israelite (Taz subsection 3, and Magen Avraham subsection 5, and so wrote the Beit Yosef). And besides this, there is a simple reason here, for perforce we are dealing with the time before nullification, for after nullification—behold it is completely permitted. Rather, we do not consider it as crushed because the non-Jew is able to nullify it. And since the Israelite intended to acquire it—behold he will not hand it over to the non-Jew, and how will he nullify it? And automatically its size is considered crushed.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3 that there are those who are stringent that even with that of a non-Jew one does not fulfill the obligation, unless it was nullified from the eve of the festival; thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: For Rabbeinu Tam holds that this which we fulfill the obligation with that of a non-Jew—this is only after nullification, as is explained in the Tosafot to Chullin (89a). But before nullification, since it requires burning—its measure is considered crushed. And if so, it automatically requires nullification from the eve of the festival. For if not so, since it was rejected at the beginning of the day—it does not return and become fit. And it is not similar to what will be explained in siman 646 regarding a hadas, where when its berries are more numerous than its leaves—it is invalid, but if he picked them—it is valid. And it is effective even when he picked them on the festival, see there. This is because it is in his hand to repair it, and it is not considered a rejection. What is not so here, it is not in his hand to nullify it (Magen Avraham, subsection 6). And even though we hold in Yoreh Deah siman 28 that there is no rejection regarding mitzvot, see there, however in Sukkah (33a) we say that this is a legal doubt. And since it is a doubt—it follows automatically that he has not fulfilled the obligation, for this is like "seen and rejected," which does not return and become fit, as is proven in several places. For behold, before they worshipped it, it was fit for a shofar, and when they worshipped it—it was rejected from being a shofar, and when they returned and nullified it—it returns and becomes fit. (See Magen Avraham ibid., and according to what I have written it works out well. Examine and you will find it easy.)

A shofar of an offering to idols, even that of a non-Jew—one has not fulfilled the obligation when he blew it, for this has no nullification ever, as he wrote in Yoreh Deah there in siman 146. Similarly, a shofar of a subverted city—one has not fulfilled the obligation, for its required measure is considered crushed (Rosh Hashanah 28a). And it appears to me that a shofar of idols is only when one bowed down to the shofar itself. However, if one bowed down to the ram—the shofar is not forbidden, for living creatures are not forbidden, as he wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 145. It further appears to me that regarding that which we said, that it requires nullification from the eve of the Yom Tov, the same law applies even on the night of Yom Tov; since it is before the time of the blowings, it is like the eve of Yom Tov.

One who is forbidden by a vow from deriving benefit from a shofar, such as if he said, "the benefit of a shofar is upon me" – it is permitted for him to hear the blasts when another person blows this shofar, for this is not a benefit, as mitzvot were not given for enjoyment. However, he himself should not blow it ab initio, because there are people who derive enjoyment when they blow. Nevertheless, if there is no one else – he may blow it himself, for this is not a benefit at all, as was written in Yoreh Deah in siman 221 (Magen Avraham subsection 7). Rather, ab initio it is better that another person blow. And this is when he said, "the benefit of this shofar is upon me." But if he said, "this shofar is konam for its blowing upon me" – it is forbidden to blow it himself, and also to hear from others a blowing of a mitzvah, and certainly a voluntary blowing. And it is not similar to one who swears not to blow a shofar, where we lash him and he blows, because an oath does not take effect upon a matter of a mitzvah. But nedarim take effect upon a matter of a mitzvah, as was written in Yoreh Deah siman 215, and there the reason is explained. And even though a neder does not take effect upon a thing that has no substance, and a blowing has no substance, this is when he said, "the blowing of this shofar is konam upon me" or "blowings" in general. But if he said, "this shofar is konam for its blowing upon me" – behold, in the shofar there is substance. And like this distinction is explained there in siman 213, see there.

All sounds are valid for a shofar. Therefore, if its sound was very thick or very thin, or very dry – it is valid. However, it seems to me that all this is specifically a loud sound, but if the sound is a whispered sound – he has not fulfilled his obligation, even when another person adjacent to him hears it. For a whisper is not a sound at all, and we require "to hear the sound of the shofar." And likewise, the primary meaning of the term "teruah" is a loud sound, as in "he shall shout, he shall even cry out." And therefore, it is true that all sounds are valid for a shofar, however, in any event, a sound is required (so it seems to my humble opinion).

The Rambam wrote in the first chapter, halacha 5: The measure of the shofar is so that he may hold it in his hand, and it will be visible on this side and on that side. If it was split along its length – it is pasul. Along its breadth, if there remained the required measure – it is kosher, and it is as if the place of the split was severed. If it was perforated, if he plugged it with a material not of its kind – it is pasul. If he plugged it with its own kind, if the majority of it remained whole, and the plugged holes did not hinder the sounding – behold, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote, "so that he may hold it in his hand, and it will be visible on this side and on that side" – the intention is not that we measure this by the one sounding it, such that there would be a practical difference between when the one sounding has a thick hand and when he has a thin hand. For they have already explained in the Gemara Niddah (26b) that we follow an average person, and its measure is a tefach, which is four thumb-breadths. And there is one who requires a "smiling" tefach (the Tur in the name of the Ri Ghayyat), for with this there is enough so that it will be visible on this side and on that side. But the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not require this, rather, even exactly a tefach is kosher. For even with this there is enough so that it will be visible on this side and on that side, for the one sounding it holds it with his four fingers, and they do not amount to four thumb-breadths, and consequently a bit remains on this side and a bit on that side (the Ran in the third chapter). And the reason why it must be visible on this side and on that side – is so that they should not say that he is sounding into his hand (the Rosh, third chapter, siman 6).

And that which he wrote, "if it is cracked along its length it is pasul" – he did not clarify how much of the length is cracked, whether in its entirety or in part. And there are different opinions regarding this: for some say even in any amount – it is pasul, because when the crack is along the length – it continues to increase due to the strength of the blowing, until it will be cracked in its entirety, and it is worse than a hole, and than a crack along its width, and we view it as if it is entirely cracked (ibid. in the name of "some explain"). And it is obvious that even according to this opinion, nevertheless it requires some duration, and that it must be cracked through the entire thickness of the wall until the cavity, for if not so – it is no worse than a hole. And there is no difference in one cracked along its length between whether it hinders the blowing by means of the crack, or does not hinder, for even if it does not hinder – it is pasul, since the reason is that it is destined to crack in its entirety. And it appears to me that according to this system the disqualification is only midrabbanan, for from the Torah there is no reason at all. For it is impossible to say it is because of the reason that "anything destined to be cracked is considered as if it is cracked," like that which we say elsewhere: "anything destined to be redeemed is considered as if it is redeemed"; for behold even in this we do not rule so. And it is Rabbi Shimon who holds so throughout the Shas, and the Rabbis disagree with him, and as we have written concerning similar matters in Yoreh Deah siman 35 section 6, regarding a sircha that is not in order, see there. Rather the disqualification is midrabbanan, lest it crack in its entirety during the blowings and he will not notice.

And behold, the Rosh agreed with this opinion, and therefore the Tur also wrote accordingly. This is the wording of the Tur: If it was split along its length, even in the slightest—it is pasul. And these words apply when he did not join it, but if he joined it—it is kosher. And this is provided that he joined it with its own kind. And the Ramban wrote that sealing with glue is not considered with its own kind, unless he heated it with fire until it melted, and joined its edges one to another. And my father, our teacher, wrote that glue is considered with its own kind, and it is only considered not with its own kind when he seals the hole with another piece. But when he joins it with glue—it returns to how it was. And the glue is not noticeable between the cracks. Thus far his words. And behold, in any event, even according to the opinion of the Rosh who permits it with glue because it is not noticeable, if he joins it with something noticeable that is another kind—it is pasul.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not rule so in section 8, and this is his wording: If it split along its length – it is pasul. Some say even in any amount – it is pasul, unless he tightened it significantly with a thread or with a cord. Thus far his words. And behold, this is with a material not of its own kind. And behold, in truth the Ran disagrees with the Rosh, and this is the wording of the Ran: For according to the opinion of the commentators that it is disqualified in any amount, if he tightened it significantly with a thread or with a cord – it is kosher, for the thread supports it so that it will not split open. And so is the opinion of the Ra'avad in his sermon, etc.; thus far his words. Nevertheless, it appears in my humble opinion that the Rosh and the Ran do not disagree. For behold, the Kol Bo wrote regarding this that this is specifically when the minimum measure for blowing remained, from the place of the binding and upward toward the side of the mouth; thus far his words. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, also wrote in this wording: And the minimum measure for blowing remained, etc.; thus far his words. And according to this, I say that in such a case, even the Rosh and the Tur would admit to this. And that which they wrote that we require its own kind – that is when the measure did not remain. And the reason is simple, for when the minimum measure for blowing did not remain until its top – it can be said that it is pasul according to the Torah, because it is considered as separated. Therefore, it must be joined specifically with its own kind. This is not the case when the minimum measure for blowing remained, for certainly its disqualification is only rabbinic, for the reason we have written, and therefore binding with a thread or cord is sufficient, for with this the concern that perhaps it will split entirely is removed. (And this is the depth of the intention of the Rema, except that he was brief. Examine it carefully and you will find it easy.) (And with this, the difficulty of the Magen Avraham, subsection 11, and the Taz, subsection 12, is answered.)

But from the wording of the Rambam (chapter one, halacha 5) it is implied: that specifically when it is cracked entirely along its length—it is pasul. And so it is explained from the wording of Rashi, see there, who wrote "cracked entirely." And so our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote there (27b, starting with the words "cracked") that along its length it is not invalidated unless it is cracked along the face of its length from its beginning to its end. Thus far their words. And also the Rambam, if he had held that even in part of it or in most of it it is pasul, he should have specified, and it is clear that his intention is like Rashi and Tosafot, that specifically when it is cracked entirely, and the reason is: that it is like two shofars. And therefore even joining it with its own kind is not effective, just as it is not effective for two shofars, for the Merciful One said "one shofar," and not two or three shofars (Gemara).

And some say that if it is cracked across most of it, it is invalid (Maggid Mishneh in the name of commentators). This is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote there: And some say specifically across most of it, and if he joined it—it is valid, even if he joined it with glue. And there is one who says that it is not valid unless he joined it by itself, such that he heated it in fire until it softened and joined its edges one to another. And if it is cracked in its entirety even on one side—it is invalid, even if he heated it in fire and joined its cracks one to another. Thus far his words, and the reason is simple: for as long as a minority of it is attached even a minute amount—it is not considered as two shofars, and therefore joining is effective. This is not the case when it is cracked in its entirety. And the Maggid Mishneh there wrote that even across most of it—joining is not effective, see there. And the poskim disagreed with him. And it is a simple matter that even when cracked in its entirety—it is not called cracked unless it is cracked until the hollow. But when the crack did not pass through the entire wall—it is valid without any repair, and this is common in several shofars. And all this is regarding a crack along its length.

And if it was cracked across its width, they said in the Gemara there that if there remained in it the measure of a tekiah—it is kosher, and if not—it is invalid. Rashi explained "across its width"—the entirety of its width in its circumference, see there. But the Rosh and the Tur wrote that even in the majority of its circumference—it is invalid, and consequently, even in half-and-half it is invalid, for it is impossible to be exact to a hairsbreadth. Furthermore: for in a Torah prohibition, half-and-half is like the majority, if the majority is for stringency. And behold, even for leniency— there is one who holds that it is like the majority, as is explained in Chullin (Chullin 28b), but we do not hold accordingly. And for stringency, everyone holds that it is like the majority. And we also hold that it is impossible to be exact (ibid.), and such is the halacha. And here too, it must reach until the hollow, and so even if it does not hinder the tekiah and is in its minority—it is completely kosher without any repair. For across its width, it will not crack entirely through the strength of the tekiah as it would along its length, for the sound goes and tears lengthwise and not widthwise.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 9: If it cracked across its width in its minority—it is kosher; in its majority—it is pasul, unless there remains from the crack toward its mouthpiece the measure of a tekiah, which is four thumb-breadths. And when such remains in it—it is kosher, even if it hinders the tekiah. And there are those who permit when it remains even if not toward its mouthpiece. Thus far his words, and the reason is simple: for since there remains the measure of a tekiah—we do not require the remainder at all. And it appears to me that according to the "there are those who permit" when it remains even if not toward its mouthpiece—we require in any event that it does not hinder the tekiah, for if not so, since he blows in the upper part, it is not the manner of its blowing. And therefore our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote the opinion of "there are those who permit" after "even if it hinders" etc., meaning: that in such a case we certainly require that it does not hinder the tekiah. However, the primary ruling follows the first opinion, as such is the opinion of most of the poskim (see Beit Yosef). And know that the thumb-breadth is measured by the width of the thumb at its middle (Magen Avraham subsection 18).

And if a hole was made in the shofar, that is, a hole in the hollow and not a crack, we have already written in section 14 that the Rambam wrote that if one plugged it with a material not of its kind—it is pasul. And if one plugged it with its own kind, if the majority of it remained whole, and the plugged holes did not hinder the blowing—it is kosher, see there. Behold, he only permits it through three conditions: that the plugging be specifically with its own kind, and if it is not of its kind—it is pasul even in the minority, and even if it does not hinder the blowing. And that the majority of it remains intact, for if the majority of it was perforated—it is pasul in all manners. And that the plugged holes do not hinder the blowing. But when they hinder it, in all manners—it is pasul. And the explanation of "hinders the blowing"—that is, that the sound was weakened after the plugging from what it was before it was perforated (Maggid Mishneh). But if the sound changed before the plugging—we are not concerned with it, and it does not add or detract. And the main point depends on the change after the plugging (Kesef Mishneh), and this is the opinion of the Rif in the third chapter, see there, and the Geonim (Tur).

But the opinion of the Tosafot and the Rosh (chapter three, siman 5) is: that if one plugged it with its own kind, and the majority of it remained, even if it hinders the blowing such that its sound did not return to what it was—it is kosher. And if one plugged it with a different kind, if it hinders the blowing such that its sound did not return to what it was when whole—it is pasul, even if the majority of it remained, and even if its sound now is like the sound it had when it was perforated—it is pasul, since it did not return to what it was before the perforation (Tur). But if it did not hinder the blowing, meaning that its sound after the plugging is like its sound before the perforation, even though he plugged it with a different kind—it is kosher, since the majority of it that was not perforated remained. And in the Yerushalmi it is brought that if one did not plug it at all—it is kosher, even though its sound changed from what it was, for all sounds are kosher in a shofar. And according to this, the plugging is not a necessity, unless it is impossible to blow without plugging. But as long as it is possible to blow—they should blow thus. And the Ra'avad also cited this Yerushalmi, see there. And even if there did not remain in it the measure of a blowing from the hole and upward (Taz, subsection 7). And so ruled the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, section 7. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this that when there is another shofar—one should not blow with this one, for some say that one should not blow with a perforated shofar. Thus far his words, and it is a wonder: and who is it that has the power to disagree with the Yerushalmi in a matter where our Shas does not disagree with it? And from the Rif and the Rambam there is also no proof, for they only wrote the laws that are in the Gemara. And it appears to me that their reason is because for the most part, when the hole is large, it is not possible to blow it without plugging, for the air exits from the hole, and the sound will not be heard. And if it is a small hole, and it will not hinder the blowing—it is obvious that it is permitted to blow with it. And therefore they did not concern themselves with mentioning this. And regarding the dispute of the Rif and the Rambam with the Tosafot and the Rosh—certainly one should be stringent like the Rif and the Rambam, but when there is no other shofar, one may rely on the Tosafot and the Rosh, and recite the blessing over it. And so it appears from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 7, see there.

If one joined fragments of shofars to one another and made a shofar from them, it is pasul, for the Merciful One said one shofar, and not two or three shofars (26a). And even though in all matters joining makes it as one, such as in the batim of tefillin and the like, nevertheless, perforce the Torah which disqualified two shofars meant even with joining. For if not so, behold it is impossible to blow it without joining. And one cannot say that the intent of the Torah was not to blow in two actual shofars at once, for it is impossible to say so: first, that this is something that is impossible. And to blow one after the other—it is obvious that it is permitted, and such is the daily practice. Furthermore: for this that verse is not needed, and we would know this from the prohibition of "bal tosif" according to the opinion of the Rambam in the seventh chapter, that one who takes two lulavs violates the prohibition of bal tosif, see there, and the same law applies to two shofars. And according to the opinion of the Ra'avad there, and the Tosafot in Rosh Hashanah (28b), that there is no bal tosif except with a different species, see there—in truth there is no prohibition in two shofars. Rather, certainly the Torah warned that the shofar should not be from two joined pieces. (And even Rabbi Yose who said at the beginning of the third chapter 26b: since they are joined to one another, it is one—he only said this regarding a cow, where it stands layer upon layer, for from its creation it is one, see there. And be precise and you will find it simple.)

Therefore, it is forbidden to make a shofar by joining two pieces, one above and one below, and even if there is the required measure of a shofar in the upper piece that is toward his mouth. And even with a large shofar, if one joined even a small amount from another shofar above or below—the shofar is invalid, because of the scriptural decree that the Merciful One said "one shofar," and not two or three shofars. Therefore, if one added any amount to the shofar, whether of its own kind or not of its own kind—it is invalid. For with not of its own kind—it is obvious that it is invalid, just as with a lulav when one adds another species. And one should not ask that if so, how does plugging a hole with its own kind help, for is that not two shofars? For it is not so, as there he only fills the deficiency of the hole, and this is not in the category of an addition. And the proof: for according to the opinion of the Tosafot and the Rosh in section 23—even with not of its own kind it is permitted, when it does not change the sound. And surely another species is obviously forbidden, rather there, since it is to plug the hole—it is nullified to the essence of the shofar, and the plugging has no independent status at all.

If one inverted it and sounded it—he has not fulfilled the obligation, whether he inverted it in the manner that one inverts a shirt, where he turned the inner side to the outside and the outside to the inside, or whether he left it as it is, but widened the narrow part and narrowed the wide part; as it is said: "And you shall pass the shofar"—we require the manner of its passing (27b), in the manner that the ram passes it on its head in its horn while alive (Rashi). And there are those who wish to validate it when inverted like a shirt, since the narrow and the wide parts remain in their places. But in the Yerushalmi it is explicitly stated that it is invalid, for we require that the inner side see the hollow space. And the Rosh in the third chapter (siman 4) brought from the Yerushalmi: From where do we know that one must sound from the narrow side? As it is written: "From the straits I called," etc. Therefore, even if he did not change the shofar, but rather sounded from the wide part—it is invalid. However, if the shofar was long, and he shortened it from above, in that he cut some of it off—it is valid, since the minimum measure of a shofar remains. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if he cut it from below, and cut away the entire wide part—it is invalid, for we require that there be a narrow and a wide part in the shofar, in the manner that it is in life. But if he cut some of the wide part—it is valid, since there is still a wide part. And likewise if he scraped it, whether from the inside or from the outside, until it became thin as a membrane—it is valid, for there is no measure for the thickness of a shofar. And since he did not change it—it is valid (and inversion is invalid even on one side).

The shofar is hollow, as is known, but while it is on the ram it is not hollow, for a bone from the head enters into its horn. The bone is not hollow, but when they take it from the ram – they push the bone out, and it remains hollow. And even if one did not remove the bone from it, but rather bored through it while it was inside – it is kosher, and it is even permitted to do so ab initio, for "kind with its own kind" does not create an interposition (Magen Avraham subsection 20), since this is the way of its creation. Nevertheless, it is more elegant to remove the bone from there, and such is the simple custom, and one should not change it. If one removed this bone from the horn, and bored through the bone, and blew in it – it is invalid, for this is not a shofar at all, as a shofar must be hollow, and it is not hollow; it only does not create an interposition, but it cannot be the shofar itself. (And in the Yerushalmi, third chapter, halacha 6, there were those who would blow ab initio by boring through the bone while it was in it, see Beit Yosef.)

It is stated in the Gemara (27b): If one overlaid it with gold at the place of the placement of the mouth—it is invalid; not at the place of the placement of the mouth—it is valid. If one overlaid it with gold on the inside—it is invalid. On the outside, if its sound changed from how it was—it is invalid, and if not—it is valid. See there. And the Rishonim inferred that this "not at the place of the placement of the mouth"—certainly refers to the outside, for if it were on the inside—it is invalid, and if so, it is the same as "on the outside" (Tosafot and the Rosh). Therefore, there are those who explained that everything refers to the upper thickness. And "at the place of the placement of the mouth" is called the part of the thickness toward the hollow, for there he places his mouth. And "not at the place of the placement of the mouth" means the part of the thickness toward the outside (Ran there). And at the place of the placement of his mouth—it is invalid due to a chatzitzah, for the gold intervenes between his mouth and the shofar. And there is one who explained that "not at the place of the placement of his mouth" is on the outside, on its upper half, and we hold that in this case even if its sound changed slightly—it is valid, for the primary change depends on its second half, the wide place, for there is the primary expansion of the sound (the Rosh in the name of our teacher Yonah). And it is a great leniency (ibid.), and it is difficult to rely on this.

The Rosh explained that it certainly refers to the outside, and its sound does not change because of a partial plating; and if it were to change – it would be pasul. And first we maintain that this is not like a shofar within a shofar, and afterwards we maintain that there is a distinction between whether its sound changed or did not change. And so it is explained from the words of the Rambam, that when it is not in the place of the placement of the mouth and is on the outside – it is the same matter. For he wrote in the first chapter, law 6: If one plated it with gold on the inside, or in the place of the placement of the mouth – it is pasul. If one plated it on the outside, if its sound changed, etc.; thus far his words. Behold, he did not mention "not in the place of the placement of the mouth," because that is "on the outside." And so it is explained in the Yerushalmi (chapter three, halacha 3), which says there: If one plated it with gold on the inside – it is pasul, on the outside – it is kosher. If one plated the place of the placement of his mouth, or if its sound was thick due to the plating – it is pasul; thus far his words, and he did not mention "not in the place of the placement of his mouth."

And behold, the reason for its invalidity in the place where his mouth is placed, we have explained that this is due to the reason of chatzitzah, for his mouth must be attached to the shofar. And according to this, if he blew with a gap of air between his mouth and the shofar, such that he did not attach his mouth to the shofar – it is invalid. And there are those who explained the reason because the sound emanates from the gold, and not from the shofar. And according to this, there is no proof that it would be invalid without attaching his mouth to the shofar (see Taz, subsection 18). And one should not ask: why would it be valid from the outside, for we maintain in section 25 that an addition of a different species is invalid in any amount? For it can be said that it is called an "addition" when it exceeds the shofar in its length, and not in a plating that is from the inside or from the outside. Therefore, if he placed gold on the thickness of the shofar on the wide side, that is, he added to it any amount, it is invalid. And all the more so if he added to the thickness on the short side, for in this there is also the invalidity of an interruption between his mouth and the shofar. And we have already written that if he distanced the shofar from his mouth, and blew into it and sounded it – it is invalid. And the Ramban wrote: that those who draw forms on the shofar with types of colors – they do not do well, for perhaps the sound is changed because of the dye. And even if the dye did not spread over the entire shofar, for perhaps the sound will change through this (Tur). But it is permitted to engrave designs in the shofar itself in order to beautify it, for without dye the sound will not change.

If one placed a shofar inside a shofar and blew, if he heard the sound of the inner one—he has fulfilled his obligation, and if he heard the sound of the outer one—he has not fulfilled his obligation (Gemara ibid.). That is to say: if he heard the sound of the inner one alone, such as when it extends beyond the outer one on both its sides, and he placed the inner one in his mouth and blew into it—it is kosher, because the sound emerges only from the inner one. And even if it only extends from the top toward the side of the mouth, and on the wide side it is level with the outer one—it is also kosher. But if the outer one protrudes—it is pasul, because the sound emerges from it as well, and it is the sound of two shofars. And likewise, if it does not extend from the top beyond the outer one—there is concern that the sound emerges from both of them, and it is pasul. And certainly if the sound emerges from the outer one and not from the inner one—it is pasul, for there is an intervention between the sound of the shofar and the shofar itself. And know that even if he heard the sound of the inner one alone—we require that its sound not be altered by the outer one, for if it was altered—it is pasul, as I have written. And even according to those who permit it ordinarily when it is of its own kind, even if it was altered as I wrote in section 25, nevertheless here it is pasul because of the rule of two shofars (Magen Avraham subsection 22).

The shofar of Rosh Hashanah—one may not desecrate Yom Tov for its sake. And we do not say that the positive commandment of shofar comes and overrides the negative commandment of Yom Tov. For it has already been explained in siman 495 that Yom Tov is a positive and a negative commandment, and a positive commandment does not override a negative and a positive commandment. And even in a case where the positive commandment is removed—the positive commandment of shofar does not override the negative commandment of Yom Tov, for the shofar does not override even a rabbinic prohibition. Because the sages equated their words to those of the Torah, and they upheld their words regarding the shofar which is through "sit and do not act," just as they upheld their words not to blow on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbat for the reason of a decree, as I wrote in siman 588. And as we say in Yevamot (90b), that regarding "sit and do not act"—they upheld their words in several matters such as shofar, and lulav, and more. See there.

Therefore, if the shofar was at the top of a tree, or across a river, and he has no other shofar but that one – he may not climb the tree, and he may not float upon the water in order to bring it. Similarly, if there was a heap of stones upon it – it is forbidden to move the stones in order to take it. And one may not go outside the techum in order to hear the sound of the shofar, and certainly one may not bring the shofar from outside the techum. And it is a kal vachomer that one may not cut the shofar, whether by hand or with a tool, for with a tool it would be a Torah prohibition as he is fixing a vessel, and by hand, which is fixing in an atypical manner, it would be a rabbinic prohibition. And in the Gemara (33a) it is explained that with a knife it is a Torah prohibition, and with a sickle it is a rabbinic prohibition, for it is fixing in an atypical manner. See there.

In what case are these words said? By means of an Israelite. But by means of a non-Jew – it is permitted to do anything whose prohibition is only from the words of the scribes, for it is a shevut d'shevut in a place of a mitzvah, and it is permitted. But regarding a Torah prohibition, it is forbidden to tell him to do it. And even according to the words of our teacher, the Rema, above in siman 276, that for a great matter they permitted telling even regarding a Torah prohibition, see there – nevertheless, regarding a mitzvah of "sit and do not act," they did not permit it. Furthermore: even there we do not rule accordingly, as I wrote there. Therefore, we tell a non-Jew to climb a tree, and to go outside the techum to bring a shofar. And this is outside of two thousand cubits, and not outside of twelve mil, according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam that a techum of twelve mil is from the Torah. And it is possible that in this one may rely on the majority of the poskim that this too is rabbinic, and so it appears primary (and so wrote the Eliyahu Rabbah, subsection 29). And know that from the plain meaning of the wording of the poskim, it implies that even on the second day of Rosh Hashanah, when the blowings are rabbinic – nevertheless, it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to perform a rabbinic prohibition for its sake. For since on the first day it is permitted – it is permitted on the second day as well. For ultimately it is only a shevut d'shevut, and they did not decree in a place of a mitzvah, even if it is rabbinic. For it is no worse than a loss, where they did not decree in such a case. (And so it appears from the words of the Maharshal in Responsa, siman 1. And I wonder at the Eliyahu Rabbah, subsection 29, who wishes to hesitate on this, see there.)

And if the non-Jew performed a complete labor of his own accord, such as if he made the shofar on Yom Tov—it is permitted to blow it, even though he made it for the sake of the Israelite. And it is not similar to a non-Jew who performed labor for the sake of an Israelite on Shabbat or Yom Tov, where it is forbidden for the Israelite to use it, for there are two reasons there: that he should not benefit from the labor of Shabbat or Yom Tov, and also lest he tell him to perform it for him. But regarding a shofar this is not applicable, for there is no benefit here, as mitzvot were not given for benefit. And likewise, we do not decree lest he tell him to perform it for him, for we only decree this regarding a matter in which there is benefit—we fear that he will commit a transgression for the sake of his benefit. But regarding a matter in which there is no benefit, only a mere mitzvah, why would he do so to commit a transgression for the sake of a mitzvah?

However, this is when the non-Jew made the shofar from his own ram or from his own horn, for there is no prohibition of muktzeh in it. For there is no muktzeh regarding that which belongs to a non-Jew, as I wrote in siman 252. And even though this is also nolad as is understood, and regarding nolad it is forbidden even with that which belongs to a non-Jew, as I wrote in siman 325, in this case one may rely on the poskim who permit nolad on Yom Tov, as I wrote in siman 495 (the HaGra"z section 25, and see Magen Avraham subsection 25). But if he made a shofar on Yom Tov from the horn of an Israelite—it is forbidden to blow it, for during bein hashemashot it was not fit to be blown, and since it was set aside during bein hashemashot, it is set aside for the entire day. Furthermore: it is nolad, and it is forbidden to move it in order to blow it. (And the HaGra"z wrote that one may rely on those who permit nolad on Yom Tov, and so it is implied from the Magen Avraham there. And it requires further study, for it is also muktzeh during bein hashemashot, and since it was set aside etc. And examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

One may place water, vinegar, or wine inside the shofar in order to rinse it, so that it will sound well. There is no concern of "fixing a vessel" in this, for it is merely for additional improvement. But urine—even on a weekday it is forbidden, out of respect. (And know that if it was brought from outside the techum—it is forbidden to move it outside.)