תקפו דיני שופר של ראש השנה ובו כ"ז סעיפים

The Laws of the Shofar of Rosh Hashanah

1. The mitzvah of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah is that it should be curved, so that people will bend their hearts to the Holy One, blessed be He, in prayer.

All curved shofars are valid, except for those from a cow or an ox, because these are not called a shofar but rather a horn, as it is written: "His firstborn ox... and the horns of a re'em are his horns."

The same applies to the horns of most wild animals, which are a single piece of bone and are not called a shofar. A shofar is only called such if it is a hollow horn, which has a membrane inside that can be peeled away from the horn, such as those of sheep, rams, and goats, for "shofar" is from the term "tube."

But the horns of most wild animals are a single piece of bone and are invalid even after the fact, just like those of a cow or an ox.

2. The preferred way to fulfill the mitzvah is to blow with a ram's shofar, so that the binding of Yitzchak will be remembered for us. But if one does not have a ram's shofar, one fulfills the obligation with other types, except for those of a cow or similar. Even with a straight shofar, if a curved one is not available, one fulfills the obligation, for the requirement of a curved shofar is only ideal. After the fact, if one blew with a straight shofar, one has fulfilled the obligation, and if a curved one is not available, it is considered after the fact.

3. A shofar from a non-kosher animal should be invalid even after the fact, for only those from kosher animals are fit for use in service of Heaven.

4. If one stole a shofar and blew with it, one has fulfilled the obligation, even if the owner has not despaired of recovering it. This is not like a stolen lulav, matzah, or tzitzis, with which one does not fulfill the obligation, because the mitzvah of shofar is only the hearing, and there is no law of theft in hearing a sound, since in hearing it one does not touch the shofar at all. Therefore, even though one blew with it in violation of theft, since the essence of the mitzvah, which is the hearing, does not involve theft, one has fulfilled the obligation. Nevertheless, since the mitzvah came to him through theft, one should not recite a blessing over it, as with any mitzvah that comes through a transgression, as explained in Siman 11 and Siman 649.

5. It is permitted to take another person's shofar without his knowledge in order to blow a mitzvah blast with it, and one may recite a blessing over it, for it is generally assumed that a person is pleased for a mitzvah to be performed with his property, when there is no financial loss, as explained in Siman 14.

6. If one blows with a shofar that was used for idol worship by a Jew, such as if one bowed to the shofar, one has not fulfilled the obligation, because a shofar must have a minimum length of a tefach, as will be explained. And this shofar is destined to be burned—for an idol of a Jew, even if a non-Jew nullifies it, it is not nullified, as explained in Yoreh Deah Siman 139, and it must be burned—and anything destined to be burned is considered as if it is already burned, and therefore does not have the required length of a tefach.

7. The same law applies if the crack is wide, and when glued together, the glue is visible between the cracks, because it seals the space between them. Its law is like sealing a hole with a material not of the same type as the shofar, as explained above.

8. If a minority of the shofar's length is cracked and the majority remains whole, and it was not glued or fused together (but if it was glued or fused, it is valid according to all opinions), there are those who say its law is like a hole: even if only the minimum length of a shofar remains from the end of the crack to the mouthpiece, it is valid, as explained. Others say it is not like a hole, which is a loss from the body of the shofar, where air from the blast can enter and exit through the hole, weakening the sound. But with a crack, there is no loss from the body of the shofar, and no place for air to escape, so the crack is more likely to spread along the shofar's length. Therefore, even a small crack invalidates it, since it is likely to split entirely, and it is no longer called a shofar. But if it is tightly bound with string or a band, it is valid, since the string holds it together and prevents further splitting. In practice, one should be stringent like the latter opinion, but in pressing circumstances, when no other shofar is available, one may rely on the first opinion.

9. If the shofar is cracked across its width, meaning around its circumference, if the crack is less than half the circumference and the majority remains whole at that spot, it is valid, even if its sound has changed from before the crack, for all sounds are valid for a shofar. Even if there is no loss from the body of the shofar at the crack, so there is no place for air to escape, since air only causes further splitting if the crack is along the length. But if the majority of the circumference is not whole, and from the crack to the mouthpiece there is not the minimum length of a shofar, it is invalid, for since most of it is cracked, it is as if it is entirely cut at that spot, and the shofar lacks the required length. Therefore, even if its sound has not changed, it is invalid. But if from the crack to the mouthpiece there is the minimum length of a shofar, even if its sound has changed, it is valid. Even though the sound comes from the part above the crack, it is not invalid because of "the sound of a shofar and something else" or "the sound of two shofars," because at the time the shofar was made, this part was attached to the main shofar and was never separated, so they are considered one shofar for this purpose, and it is not invalid because of two shofars. However, they are not considered entirely one shofar to complete the minimum length, since they have been cracked and separated from each other along most of the circumference.

10. If one glued together pieces of shofar to make a whole shofar, it is invalid, for this is not called a shofar. Even if the piece at the mouthpiece is the minimum length of a shofar on all sides, it is still invalid because of the additional fragments, since the sound comes out through them, and the Torah says: the sound must come from one shofar, not from two shofars.

The Laws of the Shofar of Rosh Hashanah

11. Similarly, for this reason, if one adds anything at all to the length of a complete shofar, in such a way that the sound comes out through that addition—whether the addition is of the same type as the shofar or not, whether it was added to the narrow end or to the wide end—it is invalid, for the reason explained above.

12. If one turned it inside out and blew it, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

Whether he turned it as one turns a garment, making the inside of the shofar its outside and its outside its inside, or whether he left it as it was but widened its narrow end and shortened its wide end with hot water, and blew from either the narrow end or the wide end that was originally narrow—he has not fulfilled his obligation.

As it is written, "And you shall cause the shofar to sound..."—in the manner of its sounding, as the ram carries it on its head in life, excluding one that has been turned inside out. See also Siman 590.

13. If it was long and he shortened it, if there remains the minimum measure of a shofar, it is valid.

And what is the minimum measure of a shofar? A tefach, so that the one blowing can hold it in his hand, that is, with his four average fingers, and the shofar is visible on both sides. For a tefach is four finger-widths.

This is so that people will not say, "He is blowing into his hand."

And even if the one blowing is a large person and the shofar is not visible from his hand, nevertheless, no more than a tefach of an average person, that is, four finger-widths, is required.

And the measurement is taken at the widest part of the finger, as stated in Siman 11, Section 5.

And the same law applies to all finger measurements in the Torah.

14. If he scraped it, whether from the inside or the outside, until he made it very thin like a membrane, it is valid.

And even though it is not exactly as the ram carries it on its head, nevertheless, since it is as it grows on the ram's head, it is called "in the manner of its sounding."

They only excluded a case where it was turned inside out, which changes it from the way it grows on the ram's head.

15. If one removed the core from the horn and made a shofar from it, such as by boring it out, it is invalid.

For only something that is naturally hollow is called a shofar, since "shofar" means a tube, and the core, since it is not naturally hollow, is not called a shofar.

But if he did not remove the core from the horn, but merely bored a hole in it, it is valid.

And even initially it is permitted to do so.

And even if the core separates between the sound and the naturally hollow part that is called a shofar, it does not matter, for something of its own type does not interpose, and it is as if the core were not there at all.

16. There must not be any separation between the mouth of the one blowing and the shofar.

Therefore, if he plated it with gold at the place where the mouth is placed, even if the plating is along the length of the shofar, if it is right next to the narrow end, it is invalid.

Because the one blowing puts part of it in his mouth, and his lip covers it, so the gold separates between his lip and the shofar.

But if the plating is distant from the mouth of the one blowing, it is valid.

When does this apply? When the sound is not changed because of the plating, or if it is not known whether it is changed—for generally, the sound is not changed by a small amount of plating.

But if it is known that the sound is changed because of the plating, even if the change is slight, it is invalid.

For it is not only the sound of the shofar, but the sound of the shofar and something else, namely, the plating.

17. When does this apply? When the plating is an addition to the thickness or width of the shofar.

But if it is an addition to its length, even at its wide end—if he put any amount of gold on the thickness of the shofar, so that the shofar was lengthened even a little—it is invalid, even if the sound was not changed at all, for the reason explained above.

18. Those who paint designs on the shofar to beautify it are not acting properly.

Even if the entire shofar is not covered with designs, sometimes the sound is changed.

But it is permitted to engrave designs into the shofar itself to beautify it, for even if the sound is changed thereby, it does not matter.

For there is no sound from anything else, but only the sound of the shofar, and all sounds are valid for the shofar.

19. If he distanced the shofar a little from his mouth and blew into it, he has not fulfilled his obligation, since there is a slight separation between his mouth and the shofar.

20. If he placed one shofar inside another, if he heard only the sound of the inner one—for example, at the narrow end the inner one protrudes more than the outer, and he put the inner one in his mouth and blew, and at the wide end the outer does not protrude more than the inner, but the inner protrudes more, or they are equal—so that in this blowing there is no mixture of sound from the outer, but only from the inner, then he has fulfilled his obligation, for there is only one shofar sound.

This is provided that its sound is not changed because it is inside the outer one.

But if its sound is changed, or the outer one at its wide end protrudes more than the inner, or at its narrow end they are equal—then it is impossible that he heard only the sound of both, and he has not fulfilled his obligation, for the Torah said the sound of one shofar, not the sound of two shofars.

21. Anything that invalidates the shofar on the first day also invalidates it on the second day, even if it is only a rabbinic prohibition.

22. The shofar of Rosh Hashanah does not override Yom Tov, because Yom Tov is both a positive and a negative commandment, as explained in Siman 498, Section 34, and the positive commandment of shofar does not override a positive and negative commandment.

Even in a case where the prohibition is only rabbinic, it is not overridden for the shofar, for the Sages equated their words to Torah law and upheld their words to override Torah law by instructing to refrain from action.

23. How so?

If the shofar was at the top of a tree or across a river, and he has no other shofar, he may not climb the tree or float on the water to bring it.

If a pile of stones fell on it, it is forbidden to move the stones to take it.

And one may not go outside the techum to hear the sound of the shofar.

And needless to say, one may not bring it from outside the techum.

24. When does this apply? When done by a Jew. But through a non-Jew, it is permitted to do anything whose prohibition is only rabbinic, such as climbing a tree, bringing it from outside the techum, and the like.

But it is forbidden to tell a non-Jew to perform a full melachah on his behalf.

The Laws of the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah

25. Nevertheless, if a non-Jew, on his own initiative, performed a complete act of labor, such as making a shofar on Yom Tov, it is permitted to blow it, even though he made it for a Jew.

And do we suspect that the Jew might tell the non-Jew to make it?

We are only concerned about this in matters that provide physical benefit to a person, but for mitzvos, which were not given for bodily enjoyment, we do not suspect that one would transgress in order to fulfill the mitzvah.

In what case does this apply? When the non-Jew made the shofar from his own horn. For there is no prohibition of nolad on Yom Tov in this case, since at bein hashmashos the horn was in the non-Jew’s possession, and the non-Jew did not remove his mind from making a shofar from it, as it was in his hand and under his control to do with as he wished.

But if a non-Jew made a shofar on Yom Tov from a Jew’s horn, since at bein hashmashos the horn was not designated to be made into a shofar—since it was not in the non-Jew’s possession—therefore, this shofar is considered nolad on Yom Tov.

And it is forbidden for a Jew to move it in order to blow it, for we do not override a rabbinic prohibition for the sake of blowing the shofar.

Nevertheless, if there is no other shofar available except for this one, it is permitted to blow it.

And one may rely on those who permit nolad on Yom Tov, so as not to nullify a positive mitzvah of the Torah.

26. If a non-Jew brought a shofar on Yom Tov from outside the techum for a Jew—even if he brought it from beyond twelve mil—it is permitted for even the Jew for whom it was brought to blow it.

—Even according to those who say that beyond twelve mil there is a Torah prohibition of techumin—

For an item brought from outside the techum is permitted to be moved, and is only forbidden for eating or deriving benefit from it, meaning to use it, as stated in siman 515 (se’if 1).

And blowing it for the mitzvah is not considered benefit at all, as explained above.

Nevertheless, one must be careful not to carry it beyond four amos, as explained in siman 515 (se’if 15).

See there at the end of the siman.

27. One may put water or wine inside it to polish it, and this is not considered as fixing a utensil on Yom Tov.

But urine is forbidden even on a weekday, out of respect.