Siman 589

Everyone is obligated to hear the sound of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, except for women, slaves, minors, a deaf-mute, and an imbecile. For women are exempt because it is a positive time-bound commandment, and slaves are compared to women: for any commandment that a woman is not obligated in – a slave is not obligated. And minors are not subject to commandments, except for a minor who has reached the age of chinuch, whom the father is obligated to train in commandments. And a deaf-mute and an imbecile – it is obvious, for they are not included in commandments, nor are they included in chinuch. And a deaf-mute is one who does not hear and does not speak. But one who hears and does not speak – he is like any other person, and is obligated. And a tumtum and an androgynos – are obligated out of doubt, perhaps they are males. But one who speaks and does not hear, since he is not capable of hearing – he is exempt.

And anyone who is obligated in shofar—he can fulfill the obligation for others with his blowing, and even if he has already fulfilled his obligation of blowing, according to the law of all blessings of the mitzvot, that even though he has fulfilled his obligation—he may fulfill the obligation for others. And anyone who is not obligated in shofar—he cannot fulfill the obligation for others with his blowing either, for how can he fulfill the obligation for others in a matter for which he himself has no need at all? And it is not similar to one who is obligated and has already fulfilled his obligation, and fulfills the obligation for others, for that is due to the reason of responsibility, as all of Israel are responsible for one another. But this one who is not obligated in this mitzvah—behold, he has not entered at all into the responsibility for this mitzvah.

Therefore, the woman, the slave, the minor, the deaf-mute, and the mentally incompetent—do not discharge others with their blowing. However, one who hears but does not speak—discharges others, and the others shall recite the blessing. And even without a blessing—the blessing is not indispensable to the mitzvah. But one who speaks but does not hear—does not discharge others, since he himself is exempt. However, the essence of this law that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, innovated in section 2, that a deaf person who speaks but does not hear is not subject to the obligation. And in his great book he brought this from the Kol Bo and the Rashbatz, that since the essence of the mitzvah is the hearing, and he is unable to hear—he is exempt. Therefore, he also does not discharge others, see there, and it is difficult to me.

And behold, in the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah (29a) we learned: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor cannot fulfill the obligation for others, etc. And at the beginning of Hagigah where it is taught: All are obligated in the appearance-offering, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, and it is stated in the Gemara there: It teaches "deaf-mute" similar to "imbecile and minor" etc., as we learned: The deaf-mute of whom the sages spoke everywhere is one who neither hears nor speaks. But one who speaks and does not hear, or hears and does not speak—is obligated, etc., see there. And if so, this very inference exists in our Mishnah as well, and that which they wrote that the primary element is the hearing—this is so that you should not say that each individual is obligated to blow for himself, as is implied by the language "All are obligated in the blowing of the shofar" that we learned there in the Baraita. Rather, one also fulfills the obligation through hearing. Therefore, the Rambam was precise at the beginning of the second chapter to write: All are obligated to hear the sound of the shofar, see there. But certainly the blowing is also the essence of the mitzvah, and hearing is impossible without blowing. But to say that because of the absence of hearing he should be entirely exempt—the Mishnah and the Gemara should have explained any such matter, and in none of the poskim is this found.

And even though we learned in the Mishnah in Megillah (19b): Everyone is fit to read the Megillah except for a cheresh, a shoteh, and a katan, and there perforce its meaning is also one who speaks but does not hear, as is proven in Berakhot (14a), in truth the Tosafot wrote there and this is their wording: An unspecified cheresh is one who does not hear and does not speak; but the cheresh here—he is a speaker, since he reads the Megillah etc.; thus far his words. And if so, he did not need to explain, for behold, he explained that he speaks since he reads the Megillah. But here he should have explained, and the proof is: why did the Tosafot not write here as well what they wrote in Megillah.

And I have a further difficulty, for behold in Berakhot (14a) Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yossi disagree regarding one who recites Shema and did not make it audible to his ears. For Rabbi Yehuda holds that he has fulfilled his obligation, and Rabbi Yossi holds that he has not fulfilled his obligation, because he expounds "Shema" – make it audible to your ear. And they likewise disagreed regarding Birkat HaMazon, see there. And according to this, based on the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef: according to Rabbi Yossi, a cheresh who speaks but does not hear would be exempt from the recitation of Shema and from Birkat HaMazon. And this is something we have never heard. Rather, it is certainly so that even according to Rabbi Yossi, the Torah only required making it audible to one's ear for one who is able to make it audible to his ear. But one who is unable is not exempted because of this, and he recites with his mouth even though he does not make it audible to his ears. And here too, regarding the blowing of the shofar, it is so. Therefore, in my humble opinion, this law requires further study. And the cheresh who speaks but does not hear is obligated to blow the shofar himself, but he should not recite the blessing, since according to our teacher, the Beit Yosef, he is entirely exempt.

A tumtum and an androgyne – they do not discharge the obligation for men, for perhaps they are female, and a woman does not discharge the obligation for a man. A tumtum does not even discharge the obligation for another tumtum, for perhaps he is female and the other is male. However, an androgyne discharges the obligation for another androgyne, because the entire species is equal. And it is simple that when they blow for themselves, they should not recite the berakhah, for perhaps they are female. And even though it will be explained that women also recite the berakhah, it is different there because they recite the berakhah with the intent of it being optional, and not with the intent of it being an obligation. Unless they also intend for it to be optional, if they are women. And a blind person recites the berakhah and discharges the obligation for others. And even though Rabbi Yehuda holds (Bava Kamma 88a) that the obligation of a blind person is only rabbinic, and a rabbinic obligation cannot come and discharge a Torah obligation—we do not rule accordingly. And the Radbaz ruled that if he is established as a blower, they should not remove him when he becomes blind. (Magen Avraham subsection 1; and even though in siman 473 our teacher, the Beit Yosef, cited that Rabbeinu Yerucham was concerned for this, we do not rule accordingly, see there.)

There is one who says that according to the one who holds that an androgynos is half male and half female—he does not even discharge his own obligation, and certainly not that of another androgynos. This is like one who is half slave and half free, as will be explained, that the side of slavery cannot come and discharge the side of freedom. And here too: the side of femaleness cannot come and discharge his own side of maleness (the Ra'avad in the glosses at the beginning of the second chapter). However, the Rambam, who ruled that he discharges the obligation of his own kind, as we have written—follows his own reasoning in the first chapter of Issurei Biah, that he is a distinct creation unto himself. But some say that even if he is half male and half female—he discharges his own obligation and that of others like him. For it is not similar to one who is half slave and half free, which depends on the hand of man to make him thus or thus—they are properly considered like two bodies. But an androgynos is entirely one kind, and it is impossible to change—he properly discharges the obligation and discharges the obligation of others like him (Maggid Mishneh). And there is one who says that an androgynos is sometimes male and sometimes female, and if he is currently female—he does not discharge the obligation of another who is currently male (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). And this is a wonder, for no one at all is found who holds thus, and there are many contradictions to this (and also the Machatzit HaShekel and the Ba'er Heitev wondered about him).

And one who is half slave and half free person—he does not fulfill the obligation even for himself, and certainly not for others, because the side of slavery within him cannot come and fulfill the obligation for the side of freedom within him. And even though we hold that we compel his master and they make him a free person—nevertheless, as long as he has not been emancipated, he is half like a slave. And one should not ask why the side of freedom within him should not fulfill the obligation through the shofar blasts, in that this side is blowing, for it can be said that in every blast there is a half from a slave, and one does not fulfill the obligation with half a blast. But when another blows—the half that is the side of freedom within him hears a valid blast.

And even though women are not obligated in the blowing of the shofar, nevertheless they may blow and recite the blessing. For it has already been explained above in siman 17 that women may recite the blessing over all positive time-bound commandments, as we maintain that women may perform semikhah as an optional act. And likewise, after one has already fulfilled his obligation—he may blow for them to fulfill their obligation; but he shall not recite the blessing for them, rather they shall recite the blessing for themselves if the blower has already fulfilled his obligation. And he only blows for their sake alone, and therefore if he wishes to recite the blessing: either he should blow for them before the prayer, and he himself fulfills his obligation with this blowing of his, or one of the listeners should be an adult male. And according to what I will write below in siman 591, that it is not proper to blow in private during the first three hours of the day, he should not blow before the prayer, but rather either at the time they blow in the synagogue when he has another shofar, or he should intend not to fulfill his obligation with the blowings in the synagogue, and he shall blow for them after the prayer, and recite the blessing for himself. And if not, they shall recite the blessing, as I have written. (See Magen Avraham subsection 4, who investigated whether the walking constitutes an interruption, see there.)

And so too, minors who have reached the age of chinuch—the father must bring them to the beit knesset to train them to hear the shofar blasts. And he shall warn them not to cause confusion, and that they should hear the blasts and answer "Amen" to the blessings. But many minors—he should not bring them to the beit knesset, for they confuse the minds of those listening. And the Tur wrote at the end of the previous siman: And even though Shabbat is not a time for shofar blasts, it is permitted to tell a minor who has not reached the age of chinuch to blow on Shabbat in order to learn how to blow. But if he has reached the age of chinuch—it is forbidden to tell him to blow. And if he blew on his own—one does not prevent him. Thus far his words. And so too on Yom Tov, one should not tell one who has reached chinuch to blow (Bach), after he has already heard the blasts. But the Rambam in chapter two, law 7, wrote, and this is his wording: Children who have not reached the age of chinuch—one does not prevent them from blowing on a Shabbat that is not the Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah, so that they may learn. And it is permitted for an adult to occupy himself with them in order to teach them on Yom Tov, whether it is a minor who has reached chinuch or a minor who has not reached chinuch. For the shofar blast is only forbidden because of shevut. Thus far his words. That is to say: that on an ordinary Shabbat one does not prevent a minor who has not reached chinuch from blowing. But on a Shabbat that is Rosh Hashanah—one does prevent him, so that the listeners do not say that one must blow on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbat. And so it is in the Yerushalmi. And so too with one who has reached chinuch—it is forbidden even on an ordinary Shabbat, and one prevents him. And even though we hold: a minor who eats neveilot—the beit din is not commanded to separate him, as I wrote in siman 343—shofar blasts are different because they are heard by the public, and there is a degradation of Shabbat when he has reached chinuch. And on Rosh Hashanah itself that falls on a weekday—one occupies oneself with them and teaches them to blow, whether they have reached chinuch or have not reached chinuch. And even if they already blew, since today is the time for blowing. And the dispute of the Rambam with the Tur depends on the version of the text in the Shas in Rosh Hashanah (33a), see there.

One who is forbidden by a vow from deriving benefit from his fellow—it is permitted for him to blow for him a blowing of a mitzvah, for mitzvot were not given for enjoyment. And specifically when he blows of his own accord to fulfill his obligation, but it is forbidden to say to him: "Blow for me and fulfill my obligation," for that which he listens to his words constitutes a benefit. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7: And if he said, "Konam, his blowings are upon me"—in any case it is forbidden. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that this is its explanation: that he says, "Konam, from the shofar for its blowing that he shall blow"—this is upon me, for if not so, behold blowing is a thing that has no substance, and the konam does not take effect; and as I wrote in siman 586, see there. And so too if he said: "Konam, the blowing of the shofar that Ploni shall blow is upon me"—it is also forbidden, for since he mentioned the shofar—it is like the shofar for its blowing, which has substance, and that is in the shofar.

One who occupies himself with the blowing of the shofar in order to practice has not fulfilled his obligation, since he did not intend for the sake of the mitzvah of blowing. Likewise, one who hears from one who is practicing has not fulfilled it, even though the listener intended to fulfill it, since the blower was merely practicing and did not intend to fulfill it. Likewise, one who blows for the sake of song and not for the sake of the mitzvah has not fulfilled it. For we hold that mitzvot require kavanah; that is to say, at the time he performs them, he must intend for the sake of the mitzvah, as I have written above in siman 60, see there. And some say that even according to the one who holds that mitzvot do not require kavanah, this applies to a mitzvah of action, such as eating matzah, for ultimately he is eating the matzah. But a mitzvah of speech, such as the recitation of Shema, or of hearing, such as shofar, when it is without kavanah to fulfill the obligation, he has done nothing. And this appears to be the opinion of the Rambam, who in the sixth chapter of Chametz U'Matzah ruled regarding matzah that it does not require kavanah, yet in the second chapter of Shofar he ruled that it requires kavanah. (As the Maggid Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh wrote there, halacha 5. And see what I wrote in siman 475, and above in siman 60, and from the Gemara it implies that they are similar to one another.)

Therefore, if the listener intended to fulfill his obligation, but the blower did not intend to discharge him—even though he intended to fulfill his own obligation—or if the blower intended to discharge him but the listener did not intend to fulfill the obligation with his blowing, he has not fulfilled his obligation, until both listener and blower intend. In what case are these matters stated? That the blower must intend to discharge this specific person, when he blows for one or two people. But one who blows for many, such as in a beit din, does not need to intend specifically for this person or that person; rather, he should intend to discharge anyone who hears and intends to fulfill the obligation, even if he does not know him at all. And even if he is not in the beit knesset, but is standing outside the beit knesset, for the shaliach tzibbur's intent is for everyone—for anyone who hears and intends to fulfill the obligation. Therefore, one who was walking on the way, or sitting inside his house, and heard shofar blasts from a shaliach tzibbur, has fulfilled his obligation if he intended to fulfill it, for the shaliach tzibbur intends to discharge the many of their obligation. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 5, who cited the Yerushalmi: Regarding one walking on the way, they only taught this regarding one who is passing by. But regarding one who is standing—it is a presumption that he intended; that is to say, if he forgot whether he intended or not, since for one passing by there is a presumption that he did not intend, and for one standing there is a presumption that he intended, see there.)