The meaning of blowing the shofar

With God’s help

Rabbi Kraus' Book – 5700

Michael Abraham

A. Sources

The main commandment in the Bible is to blow the shofar. The Torah commands us to do this in Parashat Pinchas (Numbers 29:1):

And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, shall be a holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work: it shall be a sabbath unto you:

Immediately afterwards there are commands regarding the sacrifices of the day. The wording of the verse implies that the essence of the day is the trumpet blast, since that is the name of the day itself: 'Yom Terua'. Chazal learn from the trumpet blast on the Jubilee that that trumpet blast is the blowing of the shofar.

Maimonides writes in the commandment, "Do what is right" (and so he does inEducation Tea Mitzvah:

And the mitzvah 100 is that we were commanded to hear the sound of the shofar on the first day of the month of Tishrei, and it was said, “It will be a day of trumpet blasts for you” (Phines 29). The rulings of this mitzvah have already been explained in Tractate Rosh Hashanah (Josh 1:22-31, 33-342). And women are not obligated to do so (Kedushin 332, R.H. 331):

And in the Shofar chapter 15 he writes:

It is a positive commandment of the Torah to hear the sound of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, as it is said, "You shall have a day of sounding the shofar," and the shofar that is blown on Rosh Hashanah or Jubilee is the bent ram's horn, and all shofars are invalid except for the ram's horn. Even though the Torah does not explain blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, it says on Jubilee +Leviticus 25+ and the passing of the shofar, etc., you shall pass the shofar, and from hearsay they learned that the sounding of the shofar on Jubilee is also the sounding of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.

The Torah also mentions the blowing of the shofar in the parshat Amor (Leviticus 23:23-25) in the terminology of 'Zichron Terua':

And Jacob spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, on the first day of every month, shall be unto you a sabbath of remembrance, a sabbath of consecration, holy consecration: ye shall do no servile work, and ye shall offer a woman for Jacob:

B. The Law of God on Shabbat: Halachic Basis

And it is precisely against this background that what the Mishnah writes in Rabbi 29b is very surprising:

/Mishnah/. On the day of Rosh Hashanah that fell on a Sabbath, there were trumpeters in the Temple, but not in the city. After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai established that there be trumpeters in every place where there was a court of law. Rabbi Elazar said: Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai did not establish one except in Yavneh. They said to him: One in Yavneh and one in every place where there was a court of law. Moreover, Jerusalem was superior to Yavneh: every city that it could see and hear, was close and could come to – trumpeters, and Yavneh did not have trumpeters except in the court of law only.

When the Sabbath fell on a Sabbath, they would strike in the Temple, but not in the country. After the destruction of the Temple, the Rivaz decreed that they would strike before the Lord (there are many disputes about this in the Rishonim, and others). This is a surprising law, since as we have seen, we read in the Torah that striking is the main point of the day, and here when the day fell on a Sabbath, they do not strike. What is left of the Day of the Lord without striking? How would the Day of the Lord look without the main law that defines the intensity of a day?

onSafra In P. Behar P. 2 (and also in Rashi on the Torah in Parashat Yuval) a sermon appears as the source of this law:

(e) During the day and not at night, on Yom Kippur, even on Shabbat, you shall blow the shofar throughout your land. This teaches that every individual is obligated, even the sounding of the shofar of Rosh Hashanah will be abrogating the Sabbath. The Talmud says throughout your land. And the blowing of the shofar in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month, on Yom Kippur, that the Talmud does not say on the tenth of the month, on Yom Kippur, from the implication that it is said on Yom Kippur, I do not know that it is Yom Kippur on the tenth of the month. If so, why is it said on the tenth of the month, but on the tenth of the month, abrogating the Sabbath throughout your land, and the sounding of the shofar of Rosh Hashanah does not abrogate the Sabbath throughout your land, except in the court of law only.

This source cites a sermon from Torah that states that one should not blow the shofar on a Sabbath that falls on Shabbat. Is there no obligation to blow the shofar on a Sabbath that falls on Shabbat, or is there an obligation and for some reason it is postponed? The midrash clearly states that the problem is the postponement of Shabbat and not the irrelevance of the commandment to blow the shofar. In other words, there is a prohibition here to blow the shofar because of the laws of Shabbat, and not the absence of an obligation to blow the shofar. Another piece of evidence is that the Bible would have blown the shofar on such a day as well.

The problem that arises here is what kind of prohibition can there be on blowing the shofar? After all, according to the law, the poskim even disagreed on the question of whether there is a rabbinical prohibition on this. Although it is forbidden to play because of a decree lest one come to repair a musical instrument, with regard to the shofar some have written that this decree does not exist at all, and that if so, we should have prohibited blowing even on a regular day. Therefore, it is clear that the Sages did not rule on blowing the shofar, and certainly not on a day of rest itself. Thus, Maga Si' takfakh sekd. And even according to the law, most poskim permit blowing just like that on a regular day of rest, even after the yadah of blowing the shofar (in order to learn, or even just for fun).

And here, on the issue of the Jerusalemite, another source is cited (see Pd. 4:1):

The day of Rosh Hashanah, Rabbi Abba bar Papa, Rabbi Yochanan and Rashbal Havan, will understand the difficulties of saying, "The day of Rosh Hashanah, which falls on a Sabbath, is sounded, but not in the temple. There is no Torah speech, even within the borders. There is no Torah speech, even in the temple. It will not be rejected." The priest said, "Ha, Gevra Rabbah, Denisaul, asked him, "Ashlon," and he said, "One scripture says, 'Day of Trumpet,' and another scripture says, 'Zichron Terua.' How is it that when it falls on a weekday, Day of Trumpet, when it falls on a Sabbath, Remembrance of Trumpet, is mentioned, but not sounded?" Rabbi Zeura, the commander of the Olon community, and Shimon Kalya, Rabbi Levi, taught a sermon on Dalit, allowing him to produce a parashit without an ulpan, and he said, "One scripture says, 'Day of Trumpet,' and another scripture says, 'Zichron Terua.' How is it that when it falls on a weekday, Day of Trumpet, when it falls on a Sabbath, Remembrance of Trumpet, is mentioned, but not sounded?" From now on, even in the temple, Tanna will not reject the first of the month, from now on, even in a place." They know that on the first of the month, Rabbi Ben Yochai will reject the offerings and sacrifice them in the place where the sacrifices are offered.

If so, the Jerusalemite explains that there is a contradiction between two verses: 'Yom Terua' and 'Zichron Terua'. He reconciles and states that one deals with a regular Sabbath and the other with a Sabbath that falls on Shabbat.

At the end of the Yerushalmi there is a hint of a connection to the spiky in the determination of dirha (and so we see from the Maharan that theMGA According to this, things become clearer, since they truly did not abrogate a deed of the Torah, but only where we are in doubt, in which case there is no clear obligation.[1] Ostensibly, according to these things, in a place where the exact date is known, one should knock even on Shabbat, but we do not practice that.

Even the intention of the Yerushalmi himself is difficult to interpret in this way, since he is dealing with a regular rabbi who falls on Shabbat, and learns from the verse that the takiya does not postpone Shabbat. If so, Rashbi's words are probably an independent and not agreed upon statement.

In any case, surprisingly, even the Jerusalemite sermon, which is also a source from the Torah, states that blowing the shofar is forbidden because it does not postpone Shabbat, and not that in the first place we are not obligated to blow the shofar. In other words, the Jerusalemite states that there is a prohibition on blowing the shofar on Shabbat, and not just that there is no obligation to do so. Here too, the question arises, what prohibition is there in blowing the shofar? As stated, from the language of the Bible that the Sages expounded, it appears that on Shabbat that falls in the year of the Lord, there is no obligation at all to blow the shofar, but only to remember the blowing. For some reason, the Sages understand that this is in the sense of being 'delayed' and not 'permitted'.

And I urge you to say that the methodSafra And the Yerushalmi is that Shvut is from the Torah (from the Ramban, p. Amor, also cited by the Ritva, 5:33), and that because of this the mitzvah is rejected (and in the Temple of the Lord, very well, since there is no Shvut in the Temple). According to the Ramban, too, the term 'Shvut' does not refer to any ordinary rabbinical offense, but rather to the desecration of public defilement. Perhaps the tak'iya that is done in public constitutes the offense of Shvut from the Torah. In any case, this law of Shvut from the Torah is not agreed upon, and therefore this is not the accepted interpretation in the Yerushalmi.

And now, in the Jerusalemite dilemma, the possibility arises that this is the law of the rabbis, but it is rejected because if this were the case, there would be no justification for rejecting the law of the Torah from him (this is further evidence that the Jerusalemite is not hung up on fixing the dirha). His conclusion is that this is the law of the Torah, and its origin is from the sermon hung up on the contradiction of the verses.

In contrast, the Babylonian Gemara concludes the halakhic law as follows:

Gemara. Where is this from? Rabbi Levi bar Lachama said that Rabbi Hama bar Hanina said: One scripture says +Leviticus 23+ Shabbaton Zichron Terua, and one scripture says +Bamidbar 29+ You shall have a day of terua. No question; here – on a holy day that begins to fall on Shabbat, here – on a holy day that begins to fall on a weekday. Rava said: Is it not from the Torah – in the Temple you shall blow them? And further: Is it not a work that the Tztreich called to the Meuti, the data of the Dewi Shmuel: +Bamidbar 29+ You shall not do any work of a servant – except the blowing of the shofar and the blowing of the Hafat, which is wisdom and not a work. Rather Rava said: From the Torah from the Mishrah of Shari, and our rabbis are the degressors of the house, according to the rabbi. Rava said: Everyone is obligated to blow the shofar, and not everyone is proficient in blowing the shofar, a decree lest he should take it upon himself and go to the expert to learn, and move us four cubits in the public domain. And we were the same as

The first explanation that arises in the Gemara is the contradiction in the verses, as in Yerushalmi. This explanation is immediately rejected because if it is truly from the Torah, then why did they put them in the Temple? Yerushalmi also asked this, and it is not entirely clear what he answered. Here there is an assumption that there is a prohibition from the Torah here, and not just that there is no obligation, because if there was only a cancellation of the obligation, what is the problem with them being put in the Temple? Maybe there is an obligation there. The language of the Gemara means that the sermon teaches us a prohibition and not just a cancellation of the obligation. Furthermore, this is not a prohibition of Shvut, because even if it were a prohibition of Shvut, the issue is not difficult, since according to the Halacha, there is no Shvut in the Temple.

What did the Jerusalemite answer to this question? It seems that this is exactly what he answered: that there is no prohibition here, but only the cancellation of an obligation.[2] Therefore, there is no difficulty as to why they would knock in the Temple. Although in Yerushalmi there is a second formulation of the sermon, and there it seems that there is a special reason why they would knock in the Temple. There may be a dispute here as to whether the sermon is based on a prohibition or on the absence of an obligation.

Therefore, even at the stage where the Babylonian brings the sermon of the Jerusalemite, he does not study it like the Jerusalemite (at least in the first formulation). For the Jerusalemite, this is the abrogation of the obligation, while for the Babylonian, it is actually a Torah prohibition. Of course, the question we raised above returns with greater force: What prohibition from the Torah (and perhaps even from the rabbinic) is there in blowing the shofar?

The Babylonian himself raises this question, and on the strength of it he rejects the above sermon, and offers another explanation: The law that is not stuck in the country is the law of the rabbis, for fear that he will go to an expert and pass us the four thousand years of the Rabbis, as we noted regarding the lulav and the scroll.

Now, we are certainly talking about a prohibition, not an absence of obligation. There is a rabbinical prohibition that may cause us to transgress, and by virtue of it, the obligation to blow the shofar on a Sabbath was abolished. The latter pointed out that the usual rabbinical prohibitions (such as lest one tune a musical instrument) cannot form the basis for this prohibition, because if that were the basis, then we would not blow the shofar on a regular Sabbath.

Are the sermons cited above a reference? It does not seem so. After all, the GKN offers the rabbinical explanation as an alternative to the sermon, and does not state that it is a reference. Therefore, in Yerushalmi, the sermon remains in its conclusion as in the Torah.

C. Intellectual-Halakhic Significance

Ultimately, the Babylonian, who believes that this is from the Rabbis, must deal with the same difficulty that the Yerushalmi have: how the Sages, by virtue of a technical consideration, uproot the essence of a day. After all, we saw that the Sha'ar called it 'Yom Teru'ah', meaning that it is the essence of a day.

It is worth noting that several other rabbinical prohibitions are postponed to allow the blowing of the shofar, such as the supervision of the wind in order to take out a shofar to blow it (although the Rishonites were divided on this, and a distinction must be made between the offense at the time of blowing and the preparation of the shofar for a mitzvah). In other words, in simple terms, we do not allow the rabbinical prohibition to displace the solemnity of the day.

Some wanted to say that not blowing the shofar because of the Sabbath is itself a fulfillment of the mitzvah of blowing the shofar (Wisdom Duration, Leviticus 23:24, and more). And some said (see These are my deadlines., 15) that thanks to keeping the Sabbath, we receive the benefit of the Sabbath even without actually performing the Sabbath, but only from remembering it.

However, all of these are explanations on intellectual levels. What about the halakhic law? How was the obligation to strike the takiya abolished, and what remains of the middle of the day without it? The meta-halakhic answer, unlike the intellectual one, must be rooted in the sermon. The conclusion is that in some sense the sermon remains intact even in the conclusion of the Babylonian.

D. 'Zichron Terua' according to Halacha

It is seemingly proven from this that the Babylonian also believes that the Sabbath that falls on Shabbat is not the same type of day. Something has changed in the essence of the day. Perhaps for this very reason there was room to be stricter and not to flout the prohibition. In any case, the option of remembering the trumpet also exists in the Babylonian. The source for this must be only the sermon, which was apparently rejected in the Babylonian. Something of it also remains in the halakha.

According to the Yerushalmi, this is Torah law. And in the Babylonian, although according to Halacha he believes that this is the law of the rabbis, we leave a memorial to the Yerushalmi sermon, and refer to the R. that falls on Shabbat as a day of 'remembrance of the trumpet blast'.

And here, from a simple observation it appears that the verse 'Zichron Terua' also renews the homily, and not just the khula (see the footnote above). It not only exempts from the takiya in the Lord that falls on Shabbat, but it also requires remembering the takiya. This is a law of the Torah that obligates us in the Lord that falls on Shabbat. Does this law remain in our eyes according to the law (when the sermon was rejected, or is it only a reference)?

Rashi, in the book of Remembrance of Terua, 29:1, writes that from this verse we learn that in every Remembrance there is an obligation to say Malchoyot, Zichronot, and Shofar. And in Remembrance that falls on Shabbat, there the obligation to blow the trumpet is abolished and only this obligation remains.

Indeed, in Ramban, Leviticus 23:24, he disagrees with Rashi and says this:

Zichron Terua – verses of remembrance and verses of shofars to remind you of the binding of Isaac, who offered a ram in his place, according to Rashi. And the Rabbi should have also brought verses of the Malkiot from the Midrash, because it is impossible for the Scripture to mention verses of remembrance and shofars and not mention the Malkiot, and they were already required from a verse, and they were to be for you a memorial before the Lord your God (Numbers 10:10), that you should not learn to say, “I am the Lord your God,” and why should you learn to say, “I am the Lord your God,” but this is the foundation of the Father. Wherever you say “remembrances,” you are entrusting them with the Malkiot, as is appropriate in the Tractate of Rosh Hashanah (Lev. 1). But all this is based on their words, and they explicitly said (ibid. 342) that they go to a place that is cursed and not to a place that is blessed, a clear statement from the Torah and not from the Rabbis, there is no need for a certain and doubtful statement. But "a remembrance of trumpet blasts," as in the day of trumpet blasts for you (Numbers 29:1), it says that we will sound trumpets on this day and it will be for us a remembrance before God, as it is said below (ibid. 10:10) and you will blow the trumpets and they will be for you a remembrance before your God.

The Ramban writes that this is only a rabbinical obligation, and the Hilputa is a reference to the Talmud. His view is from the issue of R. 5:34b, where the Gemara says that the obligation to recite the verses is rabbinical (therefore it is better to go to a place where they are condemned than to a place where they recite the verses).

And the Rashi method must be reconciled (Fanfare Day To the beloved, and see From lessons, Rabbi Y.S. Elyashiv, p. 16a) that only in the case of a Sabbath that falls on Shabbat is there an obligation from the Rabbis to remember the takiya instead of the takiya. The Gemara that the Ramban brought speaks of a regular takiya, and there the obligation to say is from the Rabbis. It is clear that where it is possible to takiya, it is better to takiya, and then the obligation to say verses is only from the Rabbis.[3]

And in fact, the rabbi of the rabbinic era 28:22 states that blowing the shofar requires intention, even for the mitzvot that do not require intention, reading: "Zichron Terua." This is a different intention, not an intention to leave the house. It turns out that this is an intention to remember what the shofar reminds us of. Although this is rejected, according to us, the rejection is that when blowing the shofar, there is no need for an accompanying intention (beyond the intention to leave the house), but on Shabbat, when there is no actual blowing, the obligation of the additional intention, to remember "Zichron Terua," exists from the Torah. And these are the words of Rashi.

And perhaps the words of theZohar Volume 3 (Leviticus), Parashat Leviticus, page 18b, which reads as follows:

For this reason, I have forgotten in the book of the hymn, the great sage Saba, in Anon, the son of Zelotes Dinah left by the hand of Alma,

theZohar It is accurate to say, "Know the trumpet," know and do not shout. The purpose of shouting is also to reach knowledge, and this must be remembered.

And also in theory, we find inShulchan Arba'ah O.H. 6, 1977, which writes thus:

If it falls on a weekday, one says: A holy day of trumpet blasts; if it falls on a Shabbat, one says: Zichron trumpet blasts.

In other words, we see that there is a remnant of this sermon in practical terms. Indeed, the Day of the Lord that falls on Shabbat is a 'remembrance of the trumpet' in practice as well.

And here it isMishnah Berura There, Skit writes:

Saying "Yom Terua" etc. – And even in the night prayer or in the Kiddush of the A"G, which is not blown at night, because today is a day of trumpet blasts, tomorrow they will certainly blow. And the later scholars wrote that if he said on a weekday, "Zichron Terua" and finished the blessing, he does not repeat it [this is what the Torah says: Zichron Terua"A"G from the Torah, which is a blow that is heard on Shabbat], and on Shabbat, if he said "Yom Terua" (day of trumpet blasts), he does not repeat it:

That is, on a Sabbath it is appropriate to say 'Zichron Terua' and on Shabbat it is appropriate to say 'Terua'. Ostensibly, this means that the sermon has been abrogated, since we interpret 'Zichron Terua' also for regular Shabbat (which falls on a Sabbath). But according to us, this is not the case, since as we have explained, in fact, every Shabbat has an issue of 'Zichron Terua', but it is fulfilled in the act of blowing the trumpet. On Shabbat that falls on Shabbat, we only observe this, because the decree forbade us from blowing the trumpet.

The origin of theMB He is inNew fruit C. Takfeb, and there he writes thus:

(G) Says Yom Terua, etc. – And what is the point for me if he said Zichron Terua that it is not repeated, since in the Torah it is written that Zichron Terua is a day of resounding on Shabbat and as it should be in the R.P. on the day of the Lord's Prayer. But what is the point here for me, whether on Shabbat he said a day of resounding on Shabbat, whether it is repeated or not? And it is clear that any Dachion of the 20th day that is fixed and close to the Sabbath in Israel, is repeated on Shabbat on a day of resounding on a random day and is not repeated. A.N. 11 Dachion, which in other years is a day of resounding, even though this year it is not a day of resounding, has nothing to do with it.

You see that it is clear to him that if he said on Shabbat, "Zichron Terua," it is certainly good. And if the opposite is true, then he is doubtful.

If so, we see that the sermon remains halachic, at least in terms of the text. In addition, we see that the matter of 'remembering the trumpet' also applies to the world, as we explained in Rashi. Now we will return and see the significance of this fact for our case.

E. Synthesis

There are some opinions among commentators who try to connect the Babylonian with the Jerusalemite, and thus see the sermon as also existing in its conclusion, not only in terms of the text.

The simple way is to see the sermon as a reference to the rabbinic law rooted in "lest they lead us astray" (see Panama andKa'a There is a question there.) Although there are commentators who go the opposite way (thepenny AndHarvesting crops).

husband Without the collection In the book of C. Racd, he writes:

It is a law for a shofar to postpone the Sabbath or to have the wave of the Yotut wave over it or to transfer the boundary to it and remove it from the tree or to cut it down and repair it.

On the day of Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbat, in the Temple they would blow the shofar, but not in the country. After the destruction of the Temple, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai established that there should be blowing the shofar in every place where there is a court of law. And in accordance with the regulation of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, in all places in Israel, it is a simple custom not to blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbat. And we say in the Gemara, from the source, that Rabbi Levi bar Hama said that Rav Hanina said, "One text says, 'Sabbath is a memorial of the sound of the trumpet,' and another text says, 'You will have a day of the trumpet,' which is not a question here on the day of Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbat, here when it falls on a day of rest.' And in conclusion, we say that Rava said from the Torah, from the opinion of the Shari and his rabbis, he is a degzari of the house, because of the rabbi who said, 'Rabba, everyone is obligated to blow the shofar, and not everyone is proficient in blowing the shofar.' A decree lest he should take it in his hand and go to a knowledgeable person and have it carried four cubits in the public domain.

Some wonder why there is a decree of the rabbi, "Do you read the letters of Zichron Terua and the day of Terua, and they are placed one on Shabbat and one on a weekday?" And the interpreter should say, "Darbi Gopiya interprets it to read, what is the reason that the Torah said Zichron Terua because of a decree that he should go to a scholar to learn, etc.:

husband Harvesting crops Explains that the rabbinical reason of Rabba is the basis for the sermon from the Torah of the Jerusalemite. But it should be noted that he does not say that the sermon is a reference, but rather the opposite: the explanation, which is ostensibly rabbinical, is the reason for the law from the Torah.

And they have already pointed out that these things contradict the Gemara. After all, in the Gemara, the sermon was rejected because of the question of why they are being stuck in the Temple? And perhaps his intention was to say that this question does not reject the sermon, since its simple meaning is that there is no obligation and no prohibition. Therefore, perhaps there is a hidden excuse that in reality they were stuck in the Temple because of the obligation to remember, and in the state they were not stuck because of Rabbi's fear.

In other words, his claim that the sermon is based on the rabbinic decree that the Sages would not have abrogated the mitzvah from the Torah. From the Torah, the intensity of the day has truly changed. The obligation to blow the shofar still remains, but its main purpose is to remember (except that when it is possible to blow, the obligation to remember is also fulfilled in this way). The rabbis abolished the obligation to blow and left only the obligation to remember, and this obligation is fulfilled by reciting the verses. But everything is based on the law of the Torah, which states that on Shabbat, the main duty is to remember and the law of blowing the shofar is abolished, in contrast to regular Shabbat.

Therefore, the change in the essence of today compared to the regular Rosh Hashanah is from the Torah. Only the cancellation of the takiyah is from the Torah. The absence of the obligation is from the Torah, but it was still possible to takiyah and thereby fulfill the obligation of remembrance. The prohibition is from the Torah, and this is because it is possible to fulfill the obligation from the Torah even by silence.

And this is what we found difficult: how the Sages annul the day's decree by virtue of such a side and marginal reason. And according to our words here, they truly did not annul the day's decree, but rather the opposite: they established it.

In another version: Above we saw that in every Rah there is an obligation to remember the trumpet (perhaps from the rabbis or perhaps from the rabbinate) and the trumpet. In Rah that falls on Shabbat, the obligation to remember remains. The intensity of the day has not changed but has been reduced. Perhaps this can be explained in another way: There are two ways to reach the Rah's goal: by striking the trumpet and by remembering the trumpet. In a regular Rah we do this by actually striking the trumpet, but in Rah, because of the Rabbi's concern, we choose a different way of 'remembering the trumpet.' Indeed, both methods appear in the Torah, and therefore both are useful in reaching the goal of the day. Again, this ruling does not harm the intensity of the day.[4]

F. A voice that rises from the silence

We have learned that for both the Babylonians and the Jerusalemites, the combination of Shabbat with God creates a third type of day. This is a day in which another way of God's reign is expressed: reign through silence.

These words remind us of the chapter in which Elijah, in his flight, meets the Blessed One (1 Kings 1:19, 11-12):

And he said, Go out and stand on the mountain before Jacob, and behold, Jacob passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces rocks before Jacob. Jacob did not walk by a wind, but after the wind a noise, but after the noise a fire, but not by fire, but after the fire a still, still sound.

The deeper manifestation of God is through silence. His kingdom is discerning Him through silence. When we silence all the noise that surrounds us, only then can we discern God.

How is it possible that God does not perform it on Shabbat? It should be noted that even then the noise has a very special character. A song is an object that consists of words and melody. When you strip it of the words, only melody remains. This is a more subtle phenomenon. When you strip the melody of the nuances that modulate it, you are left with a sound without a melody: the sound of the day, and nothing more. This is the blowing of the shofar. So, the blowing of the shofar is indeed a sound, but it is a simple and abstract sound, without all the noisy characteristics that accompany the everyday sounds that we encounter. And on Shabbat, we undergo one more abstraction: there we erase even this simple sound. Not only is there no erasure of the intensity of the day here, but there is a purer and more complete manifestation of it.

And we have no fuller expression of this matter than Rashi on these verses in Kings, who writes:

The sound of a thin silence – It is easy to discern in secret, but in the prophets of God, He says, “I will hear silence, but I will hear a voice” (Job 4:16). Silence was praiseworthy. And I heard a voice coming from the silence, a determination in a language, and no one actually hears the voice:

Even in the creation of God, the sound of the shofar on Shabbat exists. It comes out of the silence, and you have no greater sound than this. And this is why it is said (regarding the shofar of Mount Sinai): "A great sound, and no cessation" (see Deuteronomy 5:18), and the translation is "and no cessation" (Onkelos, ibid.).

In conclusion, I would like to wish my friend Rabbi Kraus, the new rabbi of the community, much success in his position. May God succeed through him, and may his voice be heard from the end of the world to its end, and his memory will not perish from his descendants.

[1] And there is still doubt about the homura, but with regard to the mitzvah, there are already 20 rekas that do not necessarily say spiqa for the homura – because even if we are clean, it is not certain that we have left the homura.

[2] It should be understood that this sermon, if interpreted literally, is not only a kola but also a homrah: not only is there no obligation to blow the trumpet – which is a kola – but there is an obligation to remember the trumpeting – which is a homrah. The Jerusalemite we saw understands that there is only a kola here, since the obligation is postponed due to the prohibitions of Shabbat, and not that there is an alternative obligation. Perhaps because of the postponement there is also an alternative obligation. And see on this below.

[3] Although the G.I.D.Harari Kedem C. 29 suggests that the statement together with the takiya is from the Torah. The Gemara states that the takiya was in another place and the statement in another place. The statement alone is from the Rabbis. And indeed, from the Gem. 33:1 it means that there is an obligation from the Torah ("Rahmana Amer Idchar").

[4] And perhaps this is the basis for the disagreement among the poskim regarding the question of what the ruling is for someone who transgresses and stumbles upon a bar that falls on Shabbat: did he fulfill the commandment from the Torah and only transgress a rabbinical prohibition, or did he not transgress the Torah at all? See on this inNeed and renewal To Reka (in the campaign for celebration, where he shares this with theMGA). And simply, according to our way, whoever sticks will have fulfilled the obligation of the Torah, since this is also a way to reach today's goal. Indeed, one must reject according to the words of the Tod'ah, 'Damer', Sukkah 3:1, and so on.