More Discussions for this daf
1. Rashi D"H Choteh Bal Yakriv 2. The Torah's Shofar 3. Shofar is like Pnim
4. A HOLE IN A SHOFAR 5. Exotic Shofars 6. Comment on Insights
7. Gold on Shofar 8. Yael Pashut 9. Rabbi Akiva's Travels
10. Kateigor/Saneigor by Tzedakah
DAF DISCUSSIONS - ROSH HASHANAH 26

MICHAEL PLASKOW asked:

ALL SOUNDS EMANATING FROM A SHOFAR ARE KASHER. SO CAN A BAAL TEKIA PLUG THE HOLE WITH HIS FINGER WHEN BLOWING?

MICHAEL PLASKOW, NETANYA, ISRAEL

The Kollel replies:

I assume by "the hole", you mean an extra hole in the Shofar besides the mouthpiece and the exit of the Shofar. (If you plug either the mouthpiece or the exit of the Shofar you are not going to produce a Tekia.)

The Beis Yosef rules in the Shulchan Aruch (OC 586:7) that a Shofar with a hole in it is Kosher, but that if one plugs up the hole with a foreign material then the Shofar is rendered Pasul even if the sound of the Shofar remains the same. The question you are asking is whether plugging up the hole with one's finger is considered like plugging the hole with a foreign material? (By the way, according to the Rema (op. cit.), a Shofar with a hole is Pasul and should only be used if no other Shofar is available).

Why, in fact, is a "repaired" Shofar worse than a Shofar with a hole in it? The Beis Yosef (see Mishnah Berurah 586:29) explains that if one repairs the hole in a Shofar then the sound one hears now is a combination of the Shofar and the repair material; the Torah wants you to hear only Shofar. It would seem to follow then that if one covers the hole with his finger we have the same problem: we are hearing a combination of Shofar and finger.

There might be a difference, though. Maybe the problem of plugging up the Shofar is only when the material is bonded to the Shofar; now it is considered part of the Shofar and it produces invalid Tekios that are mixed in with the valid Tekios. But if you simply lay something on top of the hole, even though it might effect the sound of the Shofar, it is not considered a Shofar sound but rather an extraneous sound in the room similar to, let's say, someone coughing - and doesn't invalidate the Tekios.

This, however, doesn't seem to be the case. Here is one proof: A Shofar with a small length-wise crack is Pasul unless one binds the Shofar with a piece of string to keep it from cracking further. The Mishnah Berurah (586:41) adds, though, that the string shouldn't change the original sound of the Shofar. If it does, then again we are hearing Shofar and string together. From here we see that even if the repair material is not bonded to the Shofar, it can still invalidate the Tekios.

It would seem, therefore, that certainly if placing one's finger over the hole changes the sound of the Shofar from the way it sounded originally (without the hole) then the Tekios are Pasul.

Kol Tuv,

Yonasan Sigler

This reply is not intended as a Psak Halachah. The intention here is only to explore the issues involved in the question.

The Kollel adds:

The sound emanating from the Shofar has to come solely from the Shofar, not from any other cause. Blocking the hole with one's finger would make the finger an instrumental (excuse the pun) part of the sound emanating, as the sound would not be the same without the finger there - the sound would be coming out of the hole.

Regarding if the hole was blocked with a piece of Shofar - it is not an ideal Shofar to use, but may be considered kosher if there is no other Shofar.

We have included our Insights into the Daily Daf which relate to this issue.

Regards,

Rav Shmuel Bloom

==============================================================

Rosh Hashanah 27

1) HALACHAH: A HOLE IN THE SHOFAR

OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that a hole which was filled-in invalidates the Shofar only if the sound of the Shofar is altered as a result of the hole. If the Shofar produces the proper sound even with the hole, then the Shofar is valid.

The Gemara cites a Beraisa in which the Chachamim and Rebbi Nasan argue about the validity of a Shofar with a hole which was filled. The Chachamim maintain that the Shofar is invalid. Rebbi Nasan says that the Shofar is valid as long as the hole was filled with the material of a Shofar ("b'Mino"); if it was filled with some other material, the Shofar is invalid. Neither the Chachamim nor Rebbi Nasan relate to whether the sound of the Shofar is altered as a result of the hole.

In what case do the Chachamim and Rebbi Nasan disagree? If they discuss a case of a Shofar in which the sound of the Shofar is altered as a result of the filled-in hole, then Rebbi Nasan is adding a leniency to the ruling of the Mishnah because he maintains that the Shofar is valid even if the sound has changed, as long as the hole was filled with Shofar material. On the other hand, perhaps they argue about a case in which the sound is not altered as a result of the filled-in hole, and the Chachamim in the Beraisa are more stringent than the Mishnah because they maintain that the Shofar is invalid even though the sound is not altered. Moreover, even Rebbi Nasan rules more stringently than the Mishnah because he adds a condition that the Shofar is valid only when the hole is filled with Shofar material.

(a) RASHI (DH b'Mino), the RAMBAN (Derashah for Rosh Hashanah), and the RAMBAM explain that the Beraisa is more stringent than the Mishnah. A Shofar with a filled-in hole is valid only according to Rebbi Nasan and only when two conditions are fulfilled: its sound is not altered as a result, and the hole was filled with the same type of material as the Shofar. Rebbi Yochanan adds a third condition and says that the Shofar is valid only if a minority of the Shofar was punctured and filled-in.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Nikev) and the ROSH (3:5) explain that the Beraisa is more lenient than the Mishnah. Even the Chachamim in the Beraisa permit the Shofar to be used if two conditions are fulfilled: its sound is not altered as a result of the hole, and only a minority of the Shofar was punctured and most of the Shofar is intact in its original form (as Rebbi Yochanan adds). They do not differentiate between whether the hole was filled with Shofar material or with other material. Rebbi Nasan is even more lenient and rules that even if the sound is altered as a result of the puncture, the Shofar remains valid as long as it was filled with the same material as the Shofar.

HALACHAH: The Poskim rule in accordance with the view of Rebbi Nasan (primarily because the Yerushalmi (cited by Tosfos) asserts that he is the Tana of the Mishnah). In addition, a Shofar that was punctured can be valid only if most of it remains intact, as Rebbi Yochanan rules (according to the first, more stringent version in the Gemara). The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 586:7) rules that l'Chatchilah two other conditions must be fulfilled in order to permit the use of the Shofar: the hole must be filled with Shofar material, and its original sound must not be altered as a result of the hole (like the opinion of Rashi in (a) above).

However, b'Di'eved the Shofar is valid as long as most of it is intact and one of the two other conditions is fulfilled: either the hole was filled with Shofar material, or its sound is not altered (like the opinion of Tosfos in (b) above).

If the hole in the Shofar causes no change in the sound, then the Shofar is valid even if the hole is not filled-in (Mishnah Berurah OC 586:28). If the hole is not filled-in and the sound is altered, the Shofar should also be valid according to the Yerushalmi cited by Tosfos. However, the RITVA and others do not permit one to use such a Shofar. Therefore, one should not use the Shofar without first filling-in the hole (as described above).

This reply is not intended as a Psak Halachah. The intention here is only to explore the issues involved in the question.