Explanation: This means he reads the Torah by himself, and after he is finished the translator translates what he has read by himself. Two people cannot read or translate together.

Implied Question: The Gemara says in Bava Basra (15a) that eight Pesukim in the Torah are read by one person. (This implies that nobody else should read with him. How is this different than other Pesukim?)

Answer: This does not mean that nobody else should read these Pesukim with him, as the same applies to all Pesukim in Torah! Rather, it means that they should not be split up into two different Aliyos, with each person reading four Pesukim.

Implied Question: The custom is that two people read at once. (This refers to the Ba'al Korei and the person who receives an Aliyah, who is supposed to read along with the Ba'al Korei. How can this be in light of our Gemara?)

Answer: They rely on the Mishnah in Bikurim (3:7) that says that in the beginning anyone who knew how to read did so, and whoever did not know how to read would be taught how to do so (he would repeat each word). People stopped bringing Bikurim (as they were embarrassed). They therefore decreed that they would read the Parshah both for people who did and did not know how to read it themselves. (However, the person who receives an Aliyah should not read loudly to the point that people hear his voice over that of the Ba'al Korei - Tosfos ha'Rosh.)

Question: This is difficult. We hold like Rebbi Yehoshua, as we said earlier (12a) that regarding the Tekufah we rule like Rebbi Yehoshua!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that we hold like Rav Eina who asks from our Mishnah's statement that equates Yovel and Rosh Hashanah (regarding Tekios and Berachos). Rav Eina means to ask as follows: Doesn't the prayer, "This is the day of the beginning of Your creations" apply to Rosh Hashanah but not to Yovel (which starts from Yom Kippur)?

Answer (cont.): Rather, it is clear that saying, "This day etc." is not because of the creation of the world, but rather because of the beginning of the act (Masecha meaning act, not creations) of judgment for that the world is being judged to see whether it will continue to exist. This is also relevant to the Yom Kippur of Yovel, as it is compared to Rosh Hashanah as stated later (34a).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rav Shmuel gave a good answer to Rav Eina. (Perhaps Rav Eina retracted his opinion?)

Answer: Rav Eina did not retract his opinion.

Question: However, this is difficult according to the other version (Rav Shisha). He says that the Mishnah is unlike the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. He could have answered that "This day is the beginning of Your Creations" does not refer to creations (as stated above).

Implied Question: Rebbi Eliezer ha'Kalir wrote his prayer for rain said on Shemini Atzeres in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer who says that the world was created on Tishrei, and he wrote his prayer regarding Pesach according to Rebbi Yehoshua (that the world was created in Nisan). (How can he write that it was created at both times?)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that these are both the words of the Living G-d. It is possible to answer that Hash-m thought to create the world in Tishrei, and He did not create it until Nisan.

Proof: We find a similar concept in Eruvin (18a) regarding Hash-m's though to create two people (Adam and Chava) and He ended up only creating one (Adam, and creating Chava afterwards from him).

Question: This is difficult. Yovel and Rosh Hashanah are obviously not equal in general! This is as the Beraisa states (30a) that Yovel is the same as Rosh Hashanah regarding Tekios and blessing, but regarding Yovel the Tekios are sounded in a Beis Din where the month was sanctified and in a Beis Din where the month was not sanctified. Additionally, every individual is obligated to the sound the Shofar. (Once we see that they are not exactly the same regarding Tekios, why is it a question that they are not exactly the same regarding Berachos?)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is like this Shofar is actually two different Shofaros. This implies that it is cracked into two separate pieces, as if it would be connected on one side it is not two different Shofaros.

Question: This is difficult, as if they split apart this is the same case as gluing together pieces of Shofaros!

Explanation #2: This is why it seems that the case is where there is a crack running down the length of the Shofar (on one side, not both, and this is why they are still connected). The problem is that this is not considered a Shofar. Certainly if one glues pieces of Shofar together it is not a Shofar! This is a case where one case is stated, and another case that certainly has the same outcome as the first case is stated afterwards.

Explanation #3: Alternatively, it is more likely to separate when it is cracked on one side and he then glues it together than in a case where he made a Shofar out of many pieces of Shofar. One would think that the latter case is more likely to be called a Shofar. This is why the second case is not as obviously invalid as the first case.

Implied Question: Connecting pieces of Shofaros together to make a Shofar is not invalid because it is two or three Shofaros. (Why not? It would seem that this is an additional reason the second case is invalid that does not apply to the first case. If so, (d) seems difficult.)

Answer #1: Rather, it is simply not a Shofar. (Tosfos ha'Rosh explains that each piece is not called a Shofar.)

Answer #2: Alternatively, this (the reason for both cases in the Mishnah) is invalid because the Pasuk states, "And you will pass" (Vayikra 25:9). This implies that the sound should pass through the Shofar in the normal path, similar to the ruling that turning a Shofar around and blowing in it is invalid because we require the sound to travel in the normal way.

Opinion #3: Even if it is invalid because it is considered two or three Shofaros, there is still no question (Rebbi Akiva Eiger - as there is still (c).

Implied Question: If we explain that the Tekiah being held back is after he has filled in the hole, and that since the hole has not been smoothed over correctly it does not allow the breath to go through it and it therefore holds back the Tekiah from coming out smoothly, this is difficult. All sounds that come out of a Shofar are valid, as stated in the Gemara. If so, why does it matter if the breath is being held back?

Answer: It appears that the Mishnah is referring to the case before the hole is smoothed over. Before it is smoothed over, the hole stopped the sound from coming out. The sound changed due to the hole, and when he filled it the sound went back to normal.

Observation: The Yerushalmi's text explicitly reads, "If it stopped (the sound) before he filled it, it is invalid when he fills it."

Explanation: The reason it is invalid is because this filling helps the sound, and the Torah says that only one Shofar can be used, implying that nothing else should help the sound that comes out. This is similar to the law regarding coating a Shofar with gold, where if it changes the sound it is invalid. However, if it would not hold back the sound, and the hole did not change the sound coming out of the Shofar, it is as if it does not have a hole and there is no problem if one seals the hole.

Explanation (cont.): If the hole was not filled, the Yerushalmi explicitly states the Shofar is still valid since all sounds emanating from a Shofar are valid.

Observation: Accordingly, when Rebbi Nasan says in our Gemara that if he fills it with Shofar material it is valid, but if he fills it with non Shofar material it is invalid, he must be referring to a case where the sound was being held back due to the hole. Even so, it is valid if it is filled with Shofar material.

Observation (cont.): This is evident from Rebbi Yochanan's statement in the Gemara, "And this is if most of it is left, and if most of it is lessened." It is impossible that such a huge hole (most of it) would not stop the Tekiah. Our Mishnah is therefore according to the opinion of the Rabbanan, or alternatively like Rebbi Nasan and in a case where he does not use Shofar to fill the hole according to the first version of Rebbi Yochanan.

Question: However, according to the other version of Rebbi Yochanan who says that it is invalid if it was filled with something other than Shofar material if most of the Shofar was missing, the implication is that it is valid if it is filled with Shofar material even if most of it was missing. This is difficult, as whose opinion does our Mishnah follow?

Question (cont.): It must be that when the Rabbanan said that whether it is filled with Shofar material or not it is invalid, Rebbi Yochanan would say that this is when most of it was missing. Why should there be a difference between Rebbi Nasan and the Rabbanan? Just as Rebbi Nasan understands that if most of it was not missing it is valid even if it is filled with non Shofar material, why shouldn't the Rabbanan similarly say that the entire Beraisa is regarding a case where most of it was missing? Even if only a small amount was missing it is impossible that it would not affect the Tekiah if it was not filled, and even so it is valid.

Answer: It therefore appears that the Mishnah certainly means that hole holds back the sound after it is filled. The Yerushalmi says regarding the position of the Rabbanan that whether it is filled with Shofar or non Shofar material, if it holds back the sound it is invalid and if it does not it is valid. This is the explanation of the Tosefta (ch. 2). Even so, the Yerushalmi states that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Nasan.

Conclusion: The conclusion of our Gemara and the practical Halachah appears to be that if a Shofar had a hole and it was filled with Shofar, and its sound reverted back to how it sounded before it had a hole, "there is no judgment nor judge" that it is valid (i.e. it is clearly valid). This is even if it held back the sound before it was filled. This is because the main explanation is that "if it held back the Tekiah" refers to after it was filled. If one does not fill the hole at all it is valid even if the hole holds back the Tekiah, as the Yerushalmi states that all sounds emanating from a Shofar are valid.

Explanation: The Beraisa had to tell us this so that one should not think it is invalid because the Pasuk says, "And you will pass (the sound through it naturally, one might think this means the sound must pass through the way it grew)."

Observation: It would seem this means that the thickness of the Shofar where he places his mouth is called, "the place where he places his mouth." "Not where he places his mouth" is outside of this area.

Question: If so, this is the same as the case where one coats his Shofar with gold from the outside!

Question (cont.): If we explain that "not where he places his mouth" means the wide end of the Shofar, we say later that if one added a little to the Shofar, whether it is from Shofar material or not, it is invalid!

Answer: We could explain that the case there (adding onto a Shofar) is where there is only the amount of one Shofar (altogether, including what has been added, and this is why it is invalid), but this is forced.

Explanation: This is because the sound that comes out is not the sound of a Shofar, but rather the sound of gold. The same applies to coating it outside, as it causes the sound to change.

Explanation: The sound comes out of the air that is between the inner Shofar and the outer Shofar, and this means that the sound is coming from between two or three Shofaros (as opposed to out of one Shofar).

Implied Question: It does not say here that if the amount of a Tekiah is left that it is valid as it did say regarding a Shofar that was cracked down its width. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because a Shofar with a crack down its length is not invalid unless the crack runs from the beginning until the end of the Shofar.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Eruvin (92b) says that if the public is in a small room and the Chazan is in the large room, they do not fulfill their obligation. (How can one fulfill the Mitvzah of Shofar if the one blowing the Shofar is in a different house altogether?)

Answer: The case in Eruvin (ibid.) is different, as there were not ten people in the small room if the Chazan was not included.

Question: We say in Pesachim (85b) that from the doorway and outside is considered outside. Rav says this is also true regarding Tefilah, and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that even a wall of metal cannot disconnect between Yisrael and their Father in Heaven.

Question (cont.): This is difficult. What is the case? If it is regarding combining such as the case of the public and the Chazan or nine people plus one (stated above), this means that the Gemara in Eruvin (ibid.) is unlike Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi!

Question (cont.): We rule like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi. This is evident from the women who are in their own domain, as is clear from the Gemara in Sotah (38b) that brings proof from them to Birkas Kohanim that a wall does not divide (between Yisrael and their Father in Heaven). If this is regarding fulfilling a Mitzvah, our Mishnah is a question on Rav!

Answer: The Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.) must be referring to answering Kedushah and Yehei Shmei Raba because we say in Berachos (21b) that any Davar shebi'Kedushah must be said with ten people. However, regarding Tekios and Megilah, they admit (that one can fulfill their obligation without being in the same domain as the person blowing).