Siman 590

Three teruot were stated in the Torah regarding the seventh month, two on Rosh Hashanah: one in "Emor" (Leviticus 23:24), "In the seventh month, on the first of the month... a memorial of teruah"; and the second in "Phinehas" (Numbers 29:1): "And in the seventh month, on the first of the month... it shall be a day of teruah for you." And the third regarding the Jubilee, in the portion of "Behar" (Leviticus 25:9) it is written: "Then you shall sound the shofar of teruah in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month... you shall sound the shofar..." And this phrase "in the seventh month" is superfluous, for it should have written "Then you shall sound the shofar of teruah on the tenth of the seventh month." Rather, it is to teach you that all the blasts of the seventh month are equal to one another (Gemara 34a and Torat Kohanim). And from where do we know to apply that which was stated regarding the Jubilee to Rosh Hashanah, and that which was stated regarding Rosh Hashanah to the Jubilee? The verse states: "In the seventh month," "In the seventh month," for a gezerah shavah (Torat Kohanim and Gemara ibid.).

And according to this, there are three teruot on Rosh Hashanah. And we learned that one must blow with a shofar on Rosh Hashanah from the Yovel, as it is written: "shofar teruah." And every teruah has a simple sound before it and a simple sound after it, as it is written: "And you shall pass a shofar teruah" etc., "you shall pass a shofar" etc. And "passing" is a simple sound: a tekiah. And the teruah—it is between two passings. And since there are three teruot, it follows that there are three simple sounds before them and three simple sounds after them, and behold they are together nine sounds: tekiah, teruah, tekiah; tekiah, teruah, tekiah; tekiah, teruah, tekiah. And this is its obligation from the Torah. However, what is this that we blow thirty sounds three times: Tashrat, Tashat, Tarat? For the matter is as follows: behold the term "teruah" is a cry of brokenness, for therefore it is written in Parashat Behaalotecha (Numbers 10:9): "And when you go to war... and you shall sound a teruah with the trumpets... and on the day of your gladness... and you shall sound a tekiah with the trumpets..."—behold that for gladness it is the term "tekiah," and for a time of war it is the term "teruah."

And because we are in doubt as to how the teruah is: whether it is the wailing that women wail when they sob, and these are staccato wails one after another, as we do for the "teruah"? Or is it the moaning in the manner that a person moans time after time when his heart worries from some great pain; and they are not staccato, but rather break after break. And this is as we do for the "shevarim". Or perhaps specifically both of them together, moaning and wailing, for such is the way of one who worries: he moans first, and afterwards he wails, and this is "shevarim-teruah". But the opposite – it is not the way of people to wail first and afterwards to moan. Therefore, one does not need to do "teruah-shevarim". And therefore, regarding distinguished people, the language of "moaning" is written: "And the children of Israel moaned from the labor" (Exodus 2:23); "her priests moan" (Lamentations 1:4) – because it is not their way to raise a voice of staccato wails. And regarding light-minded people, the language of "wailing" is written – "Wail, all you drinkers of wine" (Joel 1:5); "Lament like a virgin" (ibid. 8); "A voice of the wailing of the shepherds" (Zechariah 11:3). (And Micah the prophet who said "Woe is me" (Micah 7:1), and likewise "I will lament and wail", concluded "I will go stripped" (ibid. 1:8), meaning: as one lacking sense. And likewise according to this idea in Joel: "Wail, you ministers of the altar" (Joel 1:13), because he said previously "Lament like a virgin" etc. And likewise according to this idea in Zephaniah (1:10): "and a wailing from the second quarter", and likewise in several places. Examine and you will find it simple.)

Therefore, because of these doubts – they instituted to rectify all the doubts, namely: in every teruah to blow shevarim-teruah together, and shevarim on its own, and teruah on its own, and in each of them a peshutah before it and a peshutah after it. It emerges that in place of three sounds – tekiah teruah tekiah – one must blow ten sounds: Tashrat, Tashat, Tarat. And three times so, behold thirty sounds. And the Rosh brought in the name of Rav Hai Gaon at the end of Rosh Hashanah, that these are not absolute doubts, for by Torah law – all of them are teruot: also the shevarim, also the teruah, and also both of them together. Rather, because some of Israel were performing the shevarim, and some were performing the teruah, and some were performing both of them together, and it is not fitting before us in a fixed mitzvah for generations that these should do thus and those should do thus, therefore Rabbi Abbahu instituted that all of Israel should perform one custom equally (and aside from this there is a great matter in this).

And there is a question regarding this: why do I need the first tekiah of Tashat? For since it is because of doubt, then in any case: if the primary requirement is Tashrat, he has already fulfilled it? And if the primary requirement is Tashat, let the final tekiah of Tashrat count as the first tekiah of Tashat? And similarly, why do I need the first tekiah of Tarat? For if the primary requirement is Tashat, he has already fulfilled it; and if the primary requirement is Tarat—let the final tekiah of Tashat count as the first tekiah of Tarat. However, in such a case an error would occur, as they would say that one does not need a tekiah before the teruah, for the masses will not understand that the reason is because the preceding final tekiah counts for this order (Tosafot). Furthermore: for ab initio, since he intended it for the tekiah that is after the teruah, it is not proper to consider it as the tekiah that is before the teruah (Rosh). Furthermore: for it will be explained later that the tekiah of Tashrat is longer than that of Tashat, and that of Tashat longer than that of Tarat, and therefore one should not consider the tekiah of Tashrat for Tashat, nor that of Tashat for Tarat (Taz subsection 1). And it further appears to me: since it is difficult for the blower to blow thirty sounds in one continuous sequence, and he must necessarily rest a bit, as is our custom to rest a bit between Tashrat and Tashat and between Tashat and Tarat, and if so, it is automatically impossible to consider the preceding final one for the future first one because of the interruption. And even though post facto he has fulfilled the obligation, for even if he heard nine tekiahs over nine hours—he has fulfilled it, nevertheless ab initio the matter is not beautiful.

We have learned in the Mishnah and Gemara (33b) that the measure of a tekiah is like the measure of a teruah, and the measure of a teruah is like three yevavot, or like three shevarim. And three yevavot is that which is a wailing sound, what we call "teruah." Rashi explained: three sounds of any length at all. According to this, whether shevarim or teruah, they are only three each: either three groans or three wails. Only the groans are long, and the wails are short. And so it appears is the opinion of the Ra'avad in the third chapter, see there. According to this, since the measure of a tekiah is like the measure of a teruah, the tekiah of Tashat is longer than the tekiah of Tarat, and the tekiah of Tashrat is longer than the tekiah of Tashat. However, this is so that he should not diminish from the measure. But to lengthen the tekiah – he may lengthen it as much as he desires, for it has no upper limit. And so too he may make more than three shevarim, and he may make four or five shevarim or more. And so too he may make more than three yevavot, as we truly practice making many "trometin" in the teruah. And the strict requirement is not to diminish from the measure.

However, according to this view, one must be careful with the shevarim, that he should not lengthen each shever to the measure of three tromitin; for if so, it departs from the category of shevarim, and each shever becomes like a tekiah, and the three shevarim become three tekiot, for the measure of a tekiah is like a teruah, and a teruah is only three tromitin. And some say that regarding shevarim there is no concern in this, for if the shevarim are the teruah—the measure of a tekiah is like three shevarim, and not like three tromitin. And one only needs to be careful not to lengthen each shever to the measure of the three shevarim, for then it departs from the category of a shever and enters the category of a tekiah. And in TaSHRaT even this is not a concern, and there one must be careful not to lengthen each shever to the measure of three shevarim and three tromitin, as is understood. Our teacher Chananel also explained according to Rashi.

But the method of our teachers, the Tosafists, and to this the Ramban, the Rashba, and the Maggid Mishneh agreed, is that when they said the measure of a teruah is like three yebavot—this is its explanation: that every yebava is three forces of any size; and three yebavot are nine forces. And their reasoning appears to me: that with one force of any size—the sound of a yebava is not heard at all, unless three tromitin are joined together, for then it is like the sound of wailing. Therefore, three yebavot are nine tromitin. And according to this, the measure of a tekiah is always as long as nine tromitin. And so too one can simply lengthen each shever to the measure of three tromitin, only he should not lengthen it to nine tromitin. And according to this, the measure of the three shevarim—they are like the measure of the nine short tromitin. However, according to this method, he must be careful to lengthen the tekiah of Tashrat to the measure of eighteen tromitin, which is the measure of shevarim and teruah, as I have written. And one who did not lengthen the tekiah of Tashrat to this measure, and lengthened the shevarim so that each shever was like three tromitin—he has not fulfilled his obligation, not according to this master and not according to that master. And this is according to the first opinion in the previous section. But according to the "there are those who say"—we have no concern with it, as I have written there.

And it appears in my humble opinion that the dispute of these, our teachers, is a dispute in the Yerushalmi (Chapter 4, Halacha 10) regarding the Mishnah, that the measure of a teruah is like three yevavot; it says there: What is the haruah? Rabbi Chananya and Rabbi Mana—one said: this trimota, and the other said: three dekiqin. Thus far his words. And this is its explanation: That the Mishnah says that the measure of the duration of the teruah is like three yevavot. But what is the essence of the teruah? Meaning: each part of the teruah, which is the yevavah, what is it? One said: this trimota, meaning: one trumita, and the measure of a teruah is like three trumitot. And the other said: three dekiqin, and that is: each yevavah is like three dekiqin. And it turns out that a teruah is like a duration of nine dekiqin. And the Rosh and the Ran wrote that in the Yerushalmi it is proven like Rashi and our teacher Chananel, who says: What is the haruah? Three dekiqin, see there. And they explain that it refers to the entire teruah. And I do not understand, for if so, that which he said "this trimota"—would the entire teruah be one trimota? It is a wonder. And it appears that before them there was a different version in the Yerushalmi. But according to our version—just like the dispute of our teachers, so is the dispute in the Yerushalmi, and its explanation is as I have written. (And "ahan" in the Yerushalmi means "one", as at the end of the first chapter of Nazir "hen achat". See there, and in Bava Batra 164b.)

The words of the Rambam are perplexing, for he wrote in chapter three, law 4: The measure of a teruah is like two tekiahs; the measure of three shevarim is like a teruah. Thus far his words. And the Ra'avad wrote that this is an error, and the commentators labored over his words; see there. And it appears that his intention is as follows: Behold, we learned in the Mishnah that the measure of a tekiah is like three teruahs, and it asks: But was it not taught in a Baraita: the measure of a tekiah is like a teruah? And it answers: Abaye said – our Tanna is counting the tekiahs of all the sets and the teruahs of all the sets. The external Tanna is counting one set and no more. And according to the explanation of Rashi and Tosafot, they do not disagree, and the measure of a tekiah is like a teruah. But the Rambam explains that they disagree, for the Baraita holds that the measure of a tekiah is like one teruah, but the Mishnah, which counts all the sets, is as if it says: the measure of all the tekiahs is like all three teruahs. And there are six tekiahs, and consequently a tekiah is like half a teruah, and a full teruah is like two tekiahs. And afterwards he says that the measure of the three shevarim in duration is like a teruah, for the teruah is nine short sounds, and the shevarim are three long sounds. (And it appears that this is the intention of the Maggid Mishneh; see there. And the Lechem Mishneh elaborated on his intention and remained in need of further study. And also the Ma'aseh Rokeach did not find his way. And according to what I have written, it works out well. And examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And with this, it has been explained that the measure of a tekiah depends on the teruah according to most poskim. Therefore, the tekiah of Tashrat is longer than that of Tashat, and that of Tashat is longer than that of Tarat, according to Rashi and Rabbeinu Chananel. The opinion of the Ra'avad there is not so, and he wrote that the tekiah does not depend at all on the teruah, and the measure of a tekiah is always like nine tromitin. According to this, there are three opinions regarding the measure of the tekiah: according to most poskim it depends on the teruah, and its measure is according to the teruah in that same seder. In Tashrat its measure is eighteen tromitin, in Tashat nine, and in Tarat—according to Rashi and Rabbeinu Chananel three tromitin, and according to the Tosafot, the Ramban, and the Rashba nine tromitin. And according to the Rambam its measure is like half a teruah, and according to the Ra'avad its measure is always nine tromitin. And we are stringent like all the opinions, which is to say that it is always no shorter than nine tromitin, and in Tashrat eighteen, for such is the opinion of the Geonim. And so too regarding the teruah, we always make it no less than nine tromitin. And regarding shevarim there is no dispute, for according to everyone it is three.

Every tekiah, or every shevarim, or every teruah—one must perform it in one breath. And if not—one must repeat and perform it. And regarding "shevarim-teruah" of tashrat, which is due to doubt, that perhaps both of them are the teruah—there are also those who say that one must perform both of them in one breath, since it is a single sound, like the shevarim of tashat and the teruah of tarat. And there are those who say that it is not necessary, for since this is due to the doubt of whether it is moaning and wailing as one—it is not the way to wail after the moaning in one breath, but rather with a slight pause. Only that he should not linger in the pause more than the duration of a breath. And it is proper to be stringent according to the first opinion, and such is the custom. And all this is ab initio. But ex post facto—there is no disqualification even if he performed the shevarim or the teruah in two breaths (Taz, subsection 5). And it appears to me that regarding a tekiah it is a disqualification even ex post facto, since it is a simple sound, and if there is a pause—it is no longer simple.

And know that there is one who says that regarding "shevarim-teruah," not only is it unnecessary to perform them in one breath, but it is forbidden to perform them in one breath, and specifically in two breaths (Terumat HaDeshen siman 142). And based on this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote at the end of section 4 that a God-fearing person fulfills the requirements of all opinions, and in the shofar blasts of "sitting" he should perform them in one breath, and in the shofar blasts of "standing" he should perform them in two breaths; thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And the simple custom is to perform everything in two breaths, and one should not change; thus far his words. And the matter is puzzling to say that it is forbidden in one breath (and the proof from the end of the first chapter of Chullin is no proof at all, as the Taz wrote in subsection 6. And the Bach also wrote that those who practice in one breath should not change, see there. And it seems to me that also many of the blowers in our time do so, and therefore the prompter prompts "shevarim-teruah" as one.)

The Tur wrote that if one sounded a tekiah, a teruah, and a tekiah in one breath—seemingly he has not fulfilled his obligation, for there is neither a beginning nor an end here. However, in the Yerushalmi it does not imply so, for we learn there: If he performed them in one breath—he has fulfilled his obligation; thus far his words. And his conclusion is that he has fulfilled his obligation. But Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote in the name of the Rosh that he has not fulfilled his obligation. And so we learned in the Tosefta (chapter two, halacha 12): If he sounded a tekiah, a teruah, and a tekiah in one breath—he has not fulfilled his obligation; see there. And behold, even if the Tosefta disagrees, it appears that the halacha follows the Yerushalmi in a matter that was not mentioned in our Shas. And also from our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 5, it appears so, as he wrote: If he sounded a tekiah-teruah-tekiah in one breath—he has fulfilled his obligation. And there is one who says that he has not fulfilled his obligation; thus far his words. Behold, he wrote the one who holds that he has not fulfilled his obligation in the name of "there is one who says," and the primary view is like the first opinion, as his way is known in the Shulchan Aruch.

If one prolonged the final tekiah of tashrat for the duration of two tekiahs, in order that it should count as the final tekiah of tashrat and as the first tekiah of tashat – it only counts as one tekiah for him, for one does not divide one tekiah into two. And there are those who say that it does not count for him even as one, for since he intended the first half for the sake of tashrat – it cannot count for tashat. And likewise the final half which he intended for the sake of tashat – it cannot count for tashrat. It turns out that the tashrat has no end, and the tashat has no beginning. And every tekiah must have a beginning and an end, and if one is missing – he has not fulfilled the obligation, and he must return to the beginning of the tekiah. However, within one set, such as in the first tashrat, where he intended the final tekiah for the sake of the tekiah that follows shevarim-teruah, and for the sake of the tekiah that precedes shevarim-teruah – according to everyone it counts as one tekiah, since they are within one set (Levush). And there are those who say that even in such a case it does not count even as one according to the "there are those who say" (Magen Avraham end of subsection 5, see there). But the primary ruling is according to the first opinion, that even between tashrat and tashat – it counts as one, namely for the final one of tashrat, and he should blow another for the sake of the first of tashat. (Eliyahu Rabbah subsection 11 in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham and Tanya and Shibbolei HaLeket. And so it implies explicitly in the Mishnah and Gemara. And also the Yerushalmi brought by the Rosh and the Tur, that it does not count even as one – is a wonder, for how could it disagree with the Mishnah? And to explain that it refers to the preceding tekiah, as the Rosh wrote, is a wonder. And in truth, the Ramban wrote that the Yerushalmi refers to one who acts without intent, and the essence of the Yerushalmi is in the third chapter, halakhah 3, regarding the law of one who acts without intent. And the Yerushalmi says that one should not compare one who acts without intent to our Mishnah, of "he prolonged the second like two," for if so, he would not even have one. Rather, certainly they are not similar, and incidentally the Yerushalmi brings this in the fourth chapter, halakhah 10, regarding the Mishnah of "he prolonged the second like two," as is the way of the Yerushalmi as is known. And with this, that which the Ran questioned against the Ramban in the fourth chapter is answered, see there. And as the Pnei Moshe wrote in the third chapter, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6: If one sounded one tekiah between two orders, and stipulated that whichever of the orders is correct, that tekiah shall count for him—he has fulfilled his obligation. Thus far his words. That is to say: that which we said, that it does not count for two, and according to the "there are those who say" it does not even count for one—this is when he sounded without specification, but intended for it to count for two, as I have written. However, with an explicit stipulation—meaning, since our sounding of Tashrat, Tashat, Tarat is due to doubt, as has been explained, and he stipulated that this tekiah shall count for that order which is the primary one—according to the law, whichever way you look at it, he has fulfilled his obligation, for he did not intend it for two tekiot. And why did the sages not institute this initially? Because of the reasons we explained in section 5, see there. But if he stipulated—what he has done is done. And this is regarding tekiot between one order and another, and this is not relevant to tekiot within a single order, as is understood.

If he began to blow, and blew a tekiah, and was required to perform afterward three shevarim and a teruah, and he erred and performed only two shevarim, and performed a teruah—if he remembered immediately, he should perform the third shevarim, and afterward blow the teruah. This is when he did not finish the teruah. But if he finished the teruah—he must perform all three shevarim, and afterward the teruah. However, he did not lose the first tekiah through this interruption, since he did not interrupt with another sound that does not belong to the shofar. And there are those who disagree, and hold that he lost the first tekiah as well, and must begin the tekiah anew, and afterward shevarim teruah. And similarly, one who holds that he must perform all the shevarim in one breath, even if he did not finish the teruah—he must return to the beginning of the tekiah, or to the beginning of the shevarim according to the first opinion. And this is all regarding Tashrat. But regarding Tashat when he erred in the shevarim, or regarding Tarat when he erred in the teruah, and began the tekiah that follows them, even if he did not finish it—he must return to the beginning of the shevarim or the beginning of the teruah, even according to the first opinion, since he interrupted with something not of the matter of the teruah. And according to the "there are those who disagree," he returns to the tekiah that precedes the shevarim, or the teruah in which he erred. And if the error was in the second Tashat, or in the second Tarat—he does not need to return to the first Tashat or Tarat, but rather to the second. And if it occurred in the third—he returns to the third. And similarly regarding Tashrat when he must return to the beginning—so it is. And this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 9, and this is his wording: If he blew two Tashrat, or two Tashat, or two Tarat properly, and erred in the third—he only needs to return to the last one in which he blew; thus far his words. And the same law applies if he erred in the second—he returns to the second, and if he erred in the first, he returns to the beginning of the first.

The Tur wrote: If one performed two teruot one after the other, or if he sounded a tekiah after the teruah like one who is acting aimlessly, without the intent for a tekiah, and paused with it between the teruah and the tekiah; or after he sounded three shevarim he remained silent and paused, and afterwards sounded other shevarim – some say that it is not considered an interruption unless he interrupts with a teruah between shevarim and a tekiah (in TaShaT), or if he interrupts with shevarim between a tekiah and a teruah (in TaRaT). But in a case such as this where he sounded two teruot one after the other (and similarly two shevarim), or sounded a tekiah in the middle like one who is acting aimlessly – it is not an interruption requiring him to return to the beginning. Rather, he finishes and fulfills his obligation, and the order was not ruined. But the Ramban wrote that in all of these it is an interruption. And he brought the Tosefta: If he sounded a tekiah and a teruah, and returned and sounded a teruah, and returned and sounded a tekiah – he has in his hand only one. The explanation: the final tekiah, but the first one he lost because of the teruah that he sounded in the middle. And this is not a difficulty for what we wrote, that even if he finished the teruah by mistake – it is not an interruption (this is what was in the previous section according to the first opinion), for there it is in TaShaRaT, where the teruah of the mistake is of the same type as the teruah that he must sound. But in TaRaT, where he finished the teruah – that which he sounds as a teruah afterwards is an interruption; thus far his words. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 8 rules like the Ramban, see there, for he wrote that even one shever is an interruption and he loses the first tekiah as well. Thus far his words.

And there is one who says that the Ramban only disagreed regarding one who blows for the sake of the mitzvah in the interim, but regarding one who blows as a metasek—why should it be disqualified? For it should be no more than if he performed labor in the interim. For we hold: if one heard nine blasts over nine hours in the day—he has fulfilled the obligation. Is it then dealing with a case where he sat all day and did not speak in the interim, or did not hear another sound from a person or an animal? And this too, since as a metasek he has not fulfilled the obligation—it is like another sound, and even though he diverted his attention—he has fulfilled the obligation (Ran ibid.). Therefore, it seems appropriate to be lenient in this, since there are those who disagree with this entire law, as the Tur wrote (Magen Avraham subsection 10). And according to the opinion of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, it could be said that it is not comparable to nine hours in the day, where there is no connection to the shofar in what he heard, but here where he blows in order—it constitutes an interruption even as a metasek. (And the distinction we wrote in the previous section between Tashrat and Tashat or Tarat—is only when he sounds the teruah within the shevarim, which in Tashrat is similar to what he must blow. But regarding a teruah before the shevarim, or two shevarim one after the other—even in Tashrat it is disqualified, as the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 11, see there.)

And that which we said that two teruot, or two shevarim one after the other are invalid—this is when he blew the first one properly. But if he began to blow, and it did not emerge properly—he must return and blow this sound another time, for the first is not considered a count in its own right, and it is all considered as one sound, as the Tur wrote, see there (ibid.). And if he is standing in tashat, and remembered that he erred in tashrat—he finishes the order, and afterwards blows tashrat one time (ibid. subsection 12). And there is no concern regarding the fact that he interrupted with the order of tashrat, and likewise that which he preceded with tashat—for each one is a matter in its own right. And know that in all these laws—there is no difference between the tekiaot of sitting and the tekiaot that are over the order of the blessings, for in everything where one must return to the beginning—even in the tekiaot of sitting one must return. And we do not rely on the tekiaot that are over the order of the blessings, since he recited the blessing over the tekiaot of sitting. However, in the tekiaot that are after the prayer, one need not be exacting (ibid.).

And we have already explained in siman 586 that one must blow the shofar from the narrow side, and not from the wide side. And your mnemonic is: "From the straits I called out to God." And that one should not say any supplication in the middle of the blowings, between tashrat and tashat, and between tashat and tarat. And after the blowings, the blower says the verse "Happy is the people that knows the teruah" and the congregation answers after him, and they say "Ashrei...", "Yehalelu...", and they return the Sefer Torah to its place, and they pray Musaf.

The Rambam wrote in the third chapter of Laws of Repentance, law 4: Even though the sounding of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah is a decree of the verse – there is a hint within it, as if to say: Awake, you sleepers, from your sleep, and arise, you slumberers, from your slumber, and search your deeds, and return in repentance, and remember your Creator. These who forget the truth in the vanities of time, and err all their year in vanity and emptiness, which will not avail nor save – look to your souls, and improve your ways and your actions. Let each one of you abandon his evil way, and his thought which is not good.