2825 —שופר בשבת, מקורות תורה, וניתוח הלכתי

B"H, 21 Tammuz, 5714.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g vavac"h iy"a nu"n tzm"s chov etc. Yaakov HaKohen

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I acknowledge receipt of your letter from the 3rd of this month (with apologies for my delayed response due to many preoccupations, especially around the days before and after the liberation of the Previous Rebbe—days of awakening and farbrengen that follow his path and teachings as stated by our master the Alter Rebbe in Iggeres HaKodesh section 27). You mentioned in your letter the maamar of the Previous Rebbe from Sunday Rosh Hashanah 5703, where he writes: "We must say that when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbat there is no obligation for the mitzvah of shofar—not that it was pushed aside." You found difficulty with this from Yevamos 90b in Rashi's commentary where it says that shofar blowing is nullified on Shabbat by rabbinic decree. This seems to indicate that the mitzvah applies even on Shabbat. You also questioned why bring a proof from afar when this very sugya (which is where the Previous Rebbe begins his maamar—in Rosh Hashanah 29b) states that it is a rabbinic decree prohibiting shofar blowing on Shabbat (perhaps you are precise because in Rosh Hashanah it says "from the Torah it would be permitted," whereas in Rashi on Yevamos it uses "positive commandment." But even there Rashi does not say there is a positive commandment on Shabbat itself; thus one could explain that on Shabbat it is only permitted from the Torah). This maamar is based on a maamar of the Alter Rebbe in Likkutei Torah Devarim 56a and a maamar of his son, the Mitteler Rebbe, in Siddur Shaar HaTekios (as I noted in my comments to the Previous Rebbe's maamar).

According to our sages' principle that words of Torah are rich elsewhere as well, we can add explanation to the Previous Rebbe's maamar based on what is explained there: "On Shabbat itself...therefore there is no need for shofar...and so the positive commandment of shofar is deferred on Shabbat." It is explained even more clearly in Siddur Shaar HaTekios: "From a Torah perspective, the mitzvah of shofar is not nullified even on Shabbat—only by rabbinic decree." From all this it is clear that even in these maamarim, it does not mean there is no positive commandment at all for shofar on Shabbat; rather, its necessity differs from weekdays since on Shabbat these matters are drawn down without shofar. Therefore, before or without the decree they would blow shofar even on Shabbat; but with the rabbinic decree this was stopped.

It should be noted that even according to revealed law (nigleh), Rabbah's decree—lest one carry—alone would not have nullified shofar blowing on Shabbat as explained in Tosafos Rosh Hashanah there. See also carefully Rambam Hilchos Shofar 2:6: "Even though blowing...why do we not blow..." which seems unnecessarily lengthy unless understood according to Tosafos' view. See also what the Alter Rebbe writes in his Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 588:4 and see Machatzis HaShekel and other referenced places.

I have your books on tractates Rosh Hashanah and Makkos; if you honor me with your other published works I will be grateful. Of course you may exchange them for Kehot publications—the catalog will be sent separately.

With respect and blessing.

Since your above-mentioned letter came to me—and out of fondness for this matter—I glanced through your book on tractate Rosh Hashanah (though only briefly due to time constraints). As our sages say (Bava Metzia 84a): "One who asks questions...his learning benefits," so I noted some comments:

Page 1a: You were uncertain about a document dated according to kings but not from Nisan—as per Mishnah at start of Rosh Hashanah—if it's invalid after-the-fact. You resolve this from Baal HaMaor who says it's invalid. Clearly there's no doubt it's invalid as a legal document—as stated explicitly in Talmud there regarding such cases per Mishnah: early-dated loan documents are invalid. Thus Baal HaMaor's proof only applies to those cases (he comes only to reject Rashi's explanation and clarify Rav Chisda's intent per Mishnah after already explaining its legal application). The real question is whether such a document is entirely invalid—even as evidence for a loan or similar matters. This can be resolved from Bava Metzia (72a): according to Tosafos one cannot collect at all; according to Rashi one can collect from unencumbered property. Alternatively—to avoid dispute—even Tosafos would agree it's not entirely void; loan documents are different because we fear collection from an earlier date (not just because date wasn't written properly). This seems clear from Bava Metzia.

Section 108: The reading of Hashem's name from Torah by law—it seems odd since it's an enactment of prophets (Bava Kama 82a; Yerushalmi and Rambam—Moshe Rabbeinu)—except for Parshas Zachor and Parah. What Magen Avraham writes at end Orach Chaim 685 isn't relevant here.

At end vol I (65d): You answer Tiferes Yisrael's question—that according to Rabbanan/Rabban Gamliel (start Berachos) it's forbidden to recite Shema after midday if one hasn't yet prayed Maariv since it's like reading Torah before prayer per Rashi Berachos 5b—not like Tosafos there; see also Likkutei Torah by Alter Rebbe Parshas Berachah Tzav b. Although it's an insightful point, still we can't say there's a decree lest one forgets prayer in such learning since its whole purpose comes within prayer order—and it's better than what Berachos (31a) says: "from established halacha." It's similar to what our sages say (Pesachim 11a): "he himself..." Therefore Tosafos only asks about Rashi Berachos (31a) above.

Responsum S.A.: Regarding prostate surgery—(a) I've always wondered why people don't require consulting a halachic authority before such surgery since there's an issue of castration (at least close concern); (b) Even though sperm mainly originates from testicles—some substances are added by prostate; so perhaps without these substances—from prostate surgery—the fluid wouldn't have status of semen according to Torah; (c) This surgery prevents forceful emission but not emission itself (if we assume semen status applies)—so after consulting doctors about current surgical methods (since they vary), one should rule accordingly.

Responsum S.K.B.: Rambam holds eating terumah constitutes service—as he writes explicitly at end Hilchos Terumos; see also Yad Eitan there.

Chiddushim S.A.: See Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 328:3—that Sabbath override is lenient with no desecration at all; see also section 16—the Raavad's reason though Alter Rebbe rules Sabbath override not permitted but combines Raavad's reason with Ran's; further discussion omitted.

S.A.: Custom among Jews not to marry during Ten Days of Repentance—and don't ask from Yoma since that's an exceptional case. Many authorities hold one may set aside a mitzvah for its optimal fulfillment: Terumas HaDeshen, Maharil, Chacham Tzvi, Tur/Shulchan Aruch/Rema, Divrei Malkiel etc.; so too common practice—walking farther for synagogue aliyot etc.—especially here where extra preparation needed; many later authorities say optimal fulfillment doesn't apply here—see Sdei Chemed Pe'as HaSadeh klalim A-47. One should never cancel Jewish customs due to pilpul questions or answers—many customs exist precisely for optimal fulfillment as written "all fat belongs to Hashem." See Rambam end Hilchos Isurei Mizbeach. As Midrash Gadol Bereishis says: Because he brought his offering optimally with good intent his offering was pleasing before Hashem—as it says: "And pleasing will be Judah’s offering as in days of old."

Summary

This letter explores complex halachic issues regarding shofar blowing on Shabbat and other topics while highlighting how deep study across sources clarifies practice. The Rebbe emphasizes maintaining cherished Jewish customs despite scholarly debate or difficulties.