Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that even though the Stam Mishnah is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, the Halachah follows Rebbi Yosi, as "his deep reasoning is always with him."

Proof #1: The "actions of the teacher (i.e. the Rav's wife)" in Eruvin (96a) regarding Michal bas Shaul putting on Tefilin and the wife of Yonah being Olah Regel supports Rebbi Yosi's position.

Proof #2: Similarly, the Gemara in Chagigah (16b) says that they brought a sacrifice brought by women to the Ezras Nashim so that the women should do Semichah to their sacrifice, in order to have the women feel good about bringing their sacrifice.

Opinion: They are allowed to make a blessing on a Mitzvas Asei she'Hazeman Gerama (positive Mitzvah done at a set time) even though they are exempt from having to do it. They are allowed to perform the Mitzvah just as Michal bas Kushi (Shaul) did so, and she also made a blessing.

Proof #1: This is clearly true from the Gemara in Bava Kama (87a) where Rav Yosef says that he originally said that if someone will say the law follows Rebbi Yehudah (that blind people are exempt from keeping Mitzvos, and Rav Yosef was blind), he will make a Yom Tov for the Rabbanan. This is because I am not commanded in Mitzvos, yet I am performing them anyways.

Proof #1 (cont.): If when someone is exempt from a Mitzvah and he does it he is not allowed to make a blessing, why would he make a Yom Tov for the Rabbanan? He would not be allowed to make the blessings on Tzitzis, Lulav, Tefilin, Megilah, Chanukah candles, Sukah, Havdalah, Kidush, Birkas Kriyas Shema in the morning and night, and all of the other blessings on Mitzvos! The Gemara says in Bava Kama (30a) that one who wants to be a Chasid should fulfill the laws of Berachos. (How could Rav Yosef be happy if he would have lost this opportunity?)

Proof #2: We also say in Pesachim (116b) that a blind person is exempt from reciting the Hagadah. The Gemara asks from Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshes who not only said the Hagadah in their house, but thereby had others listen and fulfill their obligation of reciting the Hagadah! If they did so, it must be they held they were obligated in reciting the Hagadah! The Gemara answers that they understand that Matzah nowadays is only a Rabbinic command.

Proof #2 (cont.): However, the Gemara did not deduce anything from the fact that they made a blessing. We see from here that one is allowed to make a blessing even though he is exempt from having to perform the Mitzvah.

Implied Question: There is no problem reciting a Berachah she'Ainah Tzerichah and thereby transgressing Lo Sisa. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because that derivation (from Lo Sisa) is actually Rabbinic in nature.

Proof: The Gemara in Berachos (21a) states that if one is unsure whether or not he read Emes v'Yatziv, he recites it again. We do not say that this is forbidden because it is transgressing Lo Sisa.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara in Temurah (3a-4a) forbids saying the name of Hash-m in vain because the Pasuk says, "Es Hash-m Elokecha Tira." (Why isn't this a problem of saying the name of Hash-m in vain?)

Answer: This prohibition only applies when one is not saying a blessing.

Implied Question: However, one cannot really bring proof from a blind person to a woman. Even though a blind person is exempt according to Torah law, he is obligated in Mitzvos according to Rabbinic law.

Proof #1: This is apparent from the Gemara in Pesachim that answers that Rav Sheshes and Rav Yosef hold that Matzah nowadays is a Rabbinic law. This is why they were able to cause others to fulfill their obligation. This teaches us that they too were obligated according to Rabbinic law. Since they were obligated in Rabbinic law, they could also make the blessings on Chanukah candles and on all other Rabbinic Mitzvos.

Answer: However, it is possible to push this question aside by saying that one who has the option to fulfill a Mitzvah can indeed cause others who are obligated according to Rabbinic law to fulfill the Mitzvah.

Proof: This is like a minor who makes a blessing for his father (i.e. to cause his father to fulfill his obligation) in Berachos (20b) and who can receive an Aliyah to the Torah. He also helps others fulfill their obligation of reading the Megilah according to Rebbi Yehudah, as stated in the Mishnah in Megilah (19a).

Proof #2: However, it is possible to deduce from the Mishnah in Megilah (24a) where Rebbi Yehudah says that whoever did not see natural light (i.e. from the sun) in his life cannot be Pores on Shema. This implies that if he did see light, even though he became blind afterwards, he can be Pores on Shema. Why is this so? Doesn't Rebbi Yehudah say that a blind person is exempt from all of the Mitzvos in the Torah as stated in Bava Kama (87a)? If Rebbi Yehudah holds that a blind person is still obligated in Mitzvos according to Rabbinic law, this is understandable.

Proof #2 (cont.): This is why Rav Yosef was happy that he was not obligated according to Torah law and he did the Mitzvos anyway. He was able to make the blessing on all of the Mitzvos and he could say, "And He commanded us" since he was obligated according to Rabbinic law. This is as the Gemara says in Shabbos (23a), "Where did He command us (to light Chanukah candles which are a Rabbinic law)? This is from the verse of "Lo Sasur" - "do not turn away (from what the Rabbis say)."

Proof #2 (cont.): However, a woman is not even obligated by Rabbinic law to perform Mitzvos that have a set time. This is apparent from the Gemara in Berachos (20b) regarding women being obligated in Kidush. The Gemara entertains that this is only in Rabbinic law. The Gemara therefore asks, if so women should be obligated according to Rabbinic law in all Mitzvos that have a set time!

Proof #2 (cont.): Regarding Sukah, it is clear (2b) that women are not even obligated by Rabbinic law to perform such Mitzvos. Accordingly, how can she say the (word of the) blessing, "v'Tzivanu" -- "And he commanded us?"

Implied Question: The Yerushalmi gives a different answer to the contradiction in the position of Rebbi Yehudah regarding whoever did not see light in his life. After the Yerushalmi asks the question, it answers that the case is when he is in a dark house. This teaches us that a person who is in a dark house should not be Pores on Shema. This implies that the Yerushalmi understands that Rebbi Yehudah is referring to someone who never saw light because he was born in a cave. He is not blind.

Observation (cont.): The Yerushalmi in Megilah also asks this question, but the texts of the Yerushalmi in Megilah and Makos are not the same. (According to the Yerushalmi, this statement of Rebbi Yehudah is not relative to our discussion, as he is not discussing a blind person. Perhaps it is not a good proof?)

Answer: However, our Gemara (Bavli) in Megilah (24b) does not seem to learn this way. Rather, it implies that Rebbi Yehudah is speaking about a person who is actually blind. The Gemara explains that the reason of Rebbi Yehudah is because the blind person does not benefit from natural light.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara explains that the Rabbanan understand that he does not have benefit from light, and illustrates this point with the incident involving Rebbi Yosi. Rebbi Yosi saw a blind person who was holding a torch. Rebbi Yosi asked the blind person, "Why are you holding a torch?" He answered, "As long as I am holding a torch people see me and they save me from the pits and thorns." If a person can see normally, but he was born in a cave and therefore never saw natural light, the reasoning of this story does not apply.

Implied Question: According to what we have established, that a blind person is obligated in Mitzvos according to Rabbinic law and a woman is totally exempt in Mitzvos that have a set time, it is possible to give a reason why the Rabbanan were more stringent regarding a blind person. (What is the reason?)

Answer #1: This is because he is a man, and men in general are obligated in the Mitzvos.

Answer #2: Additionally, we do not want him to appear to be a Nochri. If you say he is exempt from the Mitzvos, this will mean he is not acting as a Torah Jew at all! On the other hand, even if a woman is exempt from all Mitzvos that have a set time, there are plenty of Mitzvos that she is obligated to perform (that set her aside from a Nochris).

Opinion: The Rivam brings proof that women make a blessing on all Mitzvos that have a set time (even thought they are not obligated to do them).

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara in Megilah (23a) that says that everyone can get an Aliyah to the Torah, even a woman and a minor. This is despite the fact that a woman is not commanded to learn Torah, as stated in Kidushin (34a) and Eruvin (27a).

Question #1: Rabeinu Tam says this is not a valid proof, as the blessing made before and after reading the Torah is not because it is a Mitzvah to learn Torah. Even if someone already said the blessing of "Harev Na" or he was exempt from Ahavah Rabah he still says the blessings when getting an Aliyah.

Question #1 (cont.): This is clearly true, as in a place where there is no Levi the Kohen reads in place of the Levi and he recites the blessings again, even though he just did so when he received his first Aliyah.

Question #2: Additionally, it is possible to say that a woman only receives an Aliyah in the middle of the Torah reading during the time when the custom was that they did not make blessings in the middle of the reading (only at the very beginning and the very end). This is as the Gemara in Megilah (21a) states, "The Tana teaches that the first to read makes a blessing, and the last to read recites the blessing afterwards."

Observation: Nowadays everyone makes a blessing due to a decree that the people coming late and those leaving early will make a mistake. However, people who count for the seven Aliyos implies at the end of the seven.

Implied Question: There is no proof from the fact that a minor causes others to fulfill their obligation of Birkas ha'Mazon, even though he is exempt from having to do so, to a woman (being able to make a blessing). (Why not?)

Answer: This is because a minor will eventually be obligated fully and therefore it is an obligation to educate him to make blessings, and he is not commanded on Lo Sisa (saying the name of Hash-m in vain).

Text: There are two versions of the text in our Gemara.

Opinion #1: Rashi implies that his text read, "They are involved in it until they learn to blow Shofar, even on Shabbos. We do not stop children from blowing Shofar on Shabbos, and certainly on Yom Tov. This itself is difficult. The Beraisa says that they can be involved until they learn how to blow Shofar, even if they are doing so on Shabbos. This implies that we can tell them to blow Lechatchilah on Shabbos. The Beraisa then states, "One should not stop etc." implying that we do not stop them, but it is not Lechatchilah to tell them to go and blow Shofar!" There is no contradiction (between these statements in the Beraisa), as one is regarding a minor who is at an age that he is supposed to be educated, and one is younger than this age."

Opinion #1 (cont.): Rashi explains that children who are supposed to be educated can deal with the Shofar until they learn how to blow it, and certainly we do not stop them.

Question #1: This is very difficult. How can he say that a minor who is supposed to be educated can learn to blow a Shofar, even on Shabbos? There is no Mitzvah to blow a Shofar on Shabbos!

Question #2: Additionally, regarding a minor who is not yet supposed to be educated, the Mishnah says one does not stop him from blowing on Shabbos. However, Lechatchilah he should not do so. Why? Even if he is at an age when he is supposed to be educated it is permitted to learn how to blow the Shofar!

Answer: However, it is possible to answer for Rashi that the words, "However, Lechatchilah one should not do so" means we do not tell him to blow in general, as there is no need to teach him how to blow since he did not yet reach an age when he is supposed to be educated. However, there is no prohibition against doing so.

Opinion #2: It seems to me that the opposite is correct. If a minor reached an age when he is supposed to be educated, we do not stop him from blowing on Shabbos. However, Lechatchilah we do not tell them to blow Shofar since there is a Rabbinic prohibition against doing so.

Opinion #2 (cont.): Even so he is not obligated to stop him from blowing Shofar, as if it would not be Shabbos it would be a Mitzvah today (on Rosh Hashanah) to blow Shofar.

Opinion #2 (cont.): A minor who is not supposed to be educated can be involved in this, meaning even on Shabbos. This has nothing to do with him being obligated in learning how to blow Shofar.

Proof: There is a different text in various Sefarim that clearly reads like this explanation. They say, "Until they learn, even on Shabbos. And we do not stop the children from blowing on Yom Tov, implying that on Shabbos we do stop them. Didn't we say that in the first case we would not even stop them from doing so on Shabbos? This is not difficult, as one is referring to a minor who is of an age when he must be educated, and one when he is not yet at an age when he must be educated."

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Beraisa says in Yevamos (114a) that a person should not say to a child, "Bring me a key, bring me a seal," but he is allowed to let him uproot and throw things.

Implied Question (cont.): Abaye says that this is referring to a child uprooting a pot that does not have a hole in it and throwing it into a Karmelis, which is forbidden according to Rabbinic law. This is in order that you should not derive from here that Beis Din does not have to separate a minor from eating Neveilah. This implies that we do not even give him (to eat) something that is prohibited according to Rabbinic law!

Answer: Even so, it is permitted for him to learn how to blow Shofar even on Shabbos, since there are times when it is a Mitzvah to blow Shofar. This is unlike other prohibitions (that are always forbidden).

Proof: My explanation is supported in Erchin (2b). The Gemara there says that we stop minors from blowing Shofar if they have reached the age of education (regarding Mitzvos). We say there that when the Mishnah says, "Everyone is obligated in blowing Shofar" it includes a minor who is supposed to be educated in Mitzvos. This is as the Mishnah states, "We do not prevent children from blowing Shofar."

Opinion #1: Three "sounds" means three of the shortest sounds (Pnei Yehoshua - without an interruption in between the sounds).

Observation: The Gemara later (34a) says that Rebbi Avahu instituted that one should blow, "Tekiah - Shevarim - Teruah - Tekiah," "Tekiah - Shevarim - Tekiah" and "Tekiah - Teruah - Tekiah." This is because the word "Teruah" used by the Torah could be referring to what we call a Teruah which is many short bursts of crying, it could be referring to Shevarim which represents a short series of groans, or it could be Shevarim and Teruah because perhaps it is the groans together with the short cries.

Opinion #1 (cont.): One must be careful regarding the Shevarim that he should not sound each Shever equivalent to three Yabavos of three sounds each. If he does so, it becomes a Tekiah (Pnei Yehoshua - since a Tekiah is three short sounds without interruption according to Rashi) and not a Shevarim, as the amount of a Tekiah is like a Teruah, and a Teruah is the length of three Yabavos.

Opinion: It appears that a person must blow a lengthy Tekiah during the set, "Tekiah - Shevarim - Teruah - Tekiah" more than during the set of "Tekiah - Shevarim - Tekiah." He must blow a longer "Tekiah during the set of "Tekiah - Shevarim - Tekiah" than during the set of "Tekiah - Teruah - Tekiah."

Opinion (cont.): This is because the amount of a Tekiah is like that of an entire Teruah. We say one should blow Shevarim-Teruah because we are unsure if a Teruah is groans and short cries. Therefore, one should blow a Tekiah that is together with Shevarim-Teruah as long as the amount of three Shevarim plus three Yabavos.

Opinion (cont.): The Tekios of Shevarim must be as long as the three Shevarim, as the reason for this series is because a Teruah might mean a Shevarim of groans. The Tekios of Teruah must only be as long as a Teruah of short cries.

Opinion (cont.): However, there is no problem if one blows a lengthy Tekiah, like he blows by the set of Shevarim-Teruah, by all of the Tekios. He can blow as long of a Tekiah as he like, as the Mishnah states that if one blew a Tekiah that is as long as two Tekios he only fulfills his obligation of blowing one Tekiah.

Opinion (cont.): Similarly, there is no problem if one blows four or five Shevarim, as the Shevarim are in the place of a Teruah and it is like a long Teruah, similar to how we blow many Yabavos.

Opinion #2: The Riva and the Ri ben Rav Meir explain that a Yabava is three sounds (Pnei Yehoshua - with an interruption in between them, unlike Rashi). This means that a Teruah is nine such sounds, and so is a Tekiah.

Opinion #2 (cont.): According to their explanation, there is no problem blowing a lengthy Shevarim (since it does not sound like a Tekiah, as a Tekiah is without interruption and Shevarim are with interruption).

Opinion #2 (cont.): One must blow a Tekiah of "Shevarim-Teruah according to their explanation like the length of three Shevarim and nine sounds. Whoever does not blow a Tekiah that is this long, and he blows a long Shevarim, does not fulfill his Mitzvah according to Rashi or the Riva.

Observation: Rabeinu Chananel holds like Rashi.

Observation: The custom currently is to blow thirty sounds from the Shofar when people are sitting down after the reading of the Torah. We blow three sets of "Tekiah-Shevarim-Teruah-Tekiah," three sets of "Tekiah-Shevarim-Tekiah," and three sets of "Tekiah-Teruah-Tekiah." In Shemoneh Esreh, we blow "Tekiah-Shevarim-Teruah-Tekiah" during Malchiyos, "Tekiah-Shevarim-Tekiah" during Zichronos, and "Tekiah-Teruah-Tekiah" during Shofros for a total of forty sounds).

Implied Question: According to the Gemara, it would be fitting to blow during Shemoneh Esrei a set of each type (Shevarim Teruah, Shevarim, Teruah) by Malchiyos, and to do the same for Zichronos and Shofros. Alternatively, one should blow all of them after Shemoneh Esrei. (Why don't we do this?)

Observation: However, we would not think that one should blow Shofar before praying. This is as the Mishnah states here (33b) that if someone made a blessing (i.e. Davened Musaf) and then received a Shofar etc. (The Mishnah did not give an example of not having a Shofar beforehand, as clearly this is not the time to blow.)

Answer: However, we find earlier (16a) that the Gemara says, "Why do we blow Tekios and Teruos while sitting and then do so again while standing? This is in order to confuse the Satan." This is why we do what we do.

Opinion: Even so, it seems that we indeed should sound the Shofar during Shemoneh Esrei by blowing a set of each sound during Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros. This is in order to avoid the doubt of Rebbi Avahu (see a above).

Opinion (cont.): The Aruch explains that indeed this used to be done. He explains under the entry, "Arev" that those who are stringent and blow thirty sounds when they are sitting, thirty when they are saying the quiet Shemoneh Esrei, and thirty when the Chazan repeats Shemoneh Esrei. This alludes to the one hundred cries that were cried by the mother of Sisra. The other ten are blown at the end of Davening, a set of each (Shevarim Teruah, Teruah, Tekiah) in order to add up to ten sounds. This altogether is one hundred sounds.

Question: Rabeinu Tam did not understand our custom, as blowing Shevarim Teruah by Malchiyos and Shevarim by Zichronos and Teruah by Shofros contradict each other. If both groans and cries are needed, they should be sounded by all of them (Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros). If only groans are needed, they should be sounded by all of them, and if cries are needed they should be sounded by all of them!

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Tam therefore instituted in our area to blow a set of Shevarim-Teruah by Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros. This way we avoid any doubts, and there is only an interruption. This helps without changing the custom drastically. This is as we say that if one heard nine Tekios in nine hours of the day, he has fulfilled his obligation.

Opinion #2: It is possible to give somewhat of a reason for our custom. The custom is according to the opinion stated later that "one ("Teruah," see 34a) is for Torah law and two are Rabbinic law." Since they already blew the Shofar while sitting, enough to fulfill all of the possible opinions defining Teruah according to Torah and Rabbinic law, they did not deem it necessary to go back and do it again during Shemoneh Esrei. They only did enough to fulfill any doubt according to Torah law.

Proof: In the Kedushah of "Agan ha'Sohar" composed by Rebbi Shimshon ben Rebbi Yonah he writes, "beauty of forty sounds when we blow Shofar," which follows our custom. The same is stated in the Seder Rav Amram, but he adds that at the end one sounds a long Teruah without a Tekiah.

Question: How do we fulfill our obligation with the Tekios of sitting? The Beraisa states (34b) that the Tekios and Berachos of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are all needed to fulfill these obligations. This implies that the Shofar must be sounded during Shemoneh Esrei!

Answer: This is not a question, as even though Rashi implies that when the Gemara says, "if one recited the blessings but did not sound the Shofar or visa versa" that it is referring to Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros, it is impossible to say this.

Proof #1: This is as the Beraisa states later (ibid.) that if there are two different cities, and in one they are blowing Shofar and in the other they are Davening, he should travel to the one where they are blowing and not where they are Davening.

Proof #2: Additionally, the Mishnah states, "if someone Davened and afterwards found a Shofar" implying that without a Shofar he could make a blessing.

Answer (cont.): Rather, Tekios and blessing all being needed refers to all of the Tekios that need to be blown must be blown to fulfill the Mitzvah of Shofar, and all of the blessings of Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros must be said in order to fulfill Davening on Rosh Hashanah. If he cannot say all of them, he should not say any of them. The same applies to Tekios, Shevarim, and Teruos. If he knows how to blow all three, he should blow Shofar. If he does not, he should not.

Question: One must understand the following. When the thirty sounds are blown when everyone is sitting and he finishes the three sets of Shevarim Teruah and he starts sets of Shevarim, or when he finishes Shevarim and starts Teruah, why does he need to blow two Tekios in a row?

Question (cont.): It should be enough to have one Tekiah for both either way! If a Teruah is groans and cries and he blew Shevarim Teruah, he fulfilled his obligation! If Teruah is only groans, the last Tekiah of Shevarim Teruah can be used for the Shevarim! If Teruah is cries, the last Tekiah of Shevarim should be used for the set of Teruah!

Answer: It is possible that since the Tekiah was blown to be a Tekiah after a Teruah they did not want it to count for the Tekiah before (a Teruah).

Observation: However, we do find that a person who blows a Tekiah that is equivalent to two Tekios would be considered to have blown two Tekios were it not for the fact that we do not split a Tekiah.