Difficulty in Maimonides’ Method Regarding the Shofar Mitzvah

שו”ת › Category: Talmudic study › Difficulty in Maimonides’ Method Regarding the Shofar Mitzvah

asked 5 years ago

Hello Rabbi. The Rambam’s method is well known (in the reply of Rambam, in Hala Shofar 51:33, and more) that the mitzvah of the shofar is hearing the sound of the shofar and not blowing it. And so there are those who disagree (questions, geunim cited in Meiri, Sam. 3, and perhaps Ra’t) and believe that the mitzvah is to blow it (and then the Tz’al who depart from the ruling “hearing as blowing it”). However, I have a hard time with the Rambam’s method from the G’m Rosh Hashanah 29:1, where it is explained (and the Rambam ruled this) that the one blowing it must intend to expel those who hear it 18, and if he blew it with the intention of expelling only the people in his synagogue, and a person passed by in a hurry and intended to leave, he did not leave, because the one blowing it did not intend to expel him. In Shlomo, if the mitzvah is to blow it, it is fine, but if the mitzvah is to hear, why should the one blowing it intend to expel that person? It is reasonable that he intended to expel his synagogue, and thus blowing it is blowing it. Mitzvah. The Chazo”a wants to say that everyone needs to “make a mitzvah”, but this is not reasonable in my opinion. I would be happy if the rabbi had an explanation.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 5 years ago

Hello Sagi. This is an old question, and I don’t remember anything beyond the accepted answers that were given to it (I assume that you will find many references in the book “Kitab” on the website). I think the accepted explanation is that even if the mitzvah is to hear, it is about hearing a teqiya that was made for me. Although according to this, the intention is not exactly to perform an obligatory act (because there is no obligation to perform an teqiya), but to direct the teqiya towards me or for me. In general, as is known in the Sugiya there is a great confusion between the intention of the law of the mitzvahs requiring intention and the intention of performing an obligatory act. According to what I wrote, the intention of the teqiya according to the Rambam is closer to the mitzvahs requiring intention than to the intention to perform a teqiya.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

בנימין גורלין replied 5 years ago

What is the difference between the above and the mitzvah to sanctify or hear kiddush?

שגיא מזוז replied 5 years ago

What you said is about the same as the hazwa. In my opinion, it is narrow, because I felt that the taqiya had to be for me and it was not enough that the taqiya was for the sake of a mitzvah.

מיכי replied 5 years ago

The explanation may be that hearing something is too passive. Something that happens naturally and randomly. Therefore, it was more likely that this was a tapping that was done so that he would hear (or at least that it was done for the sake of a mitzvah. Then it is an intention of the second type).
I will elaborate a little more. Even if the intention in question is not to remove but rather because of the law of mitzvot, which requires intention, there is a possibility that it is a tapping to remove someone else. Even if the one tapping does not need the tapping for himself, because he has already removed or will remove later, his tapping still requires intention for the mitzvah, so that the listener will fulfill a mitzvah by hearing it. Therefore, it is something between an intention to remove and an intention from the law of mitzvot, which requires intention.
It does not sound urgent to me.

בתוך הגולה replied 5 years ago

See Rabbi Hirsch, Leviticus 23:24.