Q&A: On the Commandment of Blowing the Shofar
On the Commandment of Blowing the Shofar
Question
I would appreciate your help with a short question. I am studying the commandment of blowing the shofar (at the beginning of chapter 4 of tractate Rosh Hashanah). From what emerges there (especially from the Jerusalem Talmud and from Nachmanides in his homily), it seems that the essence of the commandment is remembrance and the sounding of the teruah blast, whereas the use of the shofar is secondary / merely instrumental. This has practical implications for fulfilling the commandment on the Sabbath and for the relationship between the Temple and areas outside it, and for the very definition of shofar-blowing as a positive commandment. I seem to recall having seen in your writings a conceptual distinction between the means (shofar) and the end (remembrance). If it is not too much trouble, I would be grateful for a reference.
Thank you in advance
Answer
I don’t remember having written explicitly about the shofar as means versus end. I’m sending a something I wrote that touches on this issue. Maybe that’s what you meant. I assume you surely remember the inference in the Tur (by the Bach) regarding remembrance in sukkah. It seems that there is at least such a possibility in Rosh Hashanah regarding shofar—that there is a special intention that is indispensable. But there it is presented as intention, not as end versus means. There is a connection, but it is not identical.
All the best,
Michi
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
It may be that this is the article of yours I had in mind, since Rabbi Kraus was the rabbi of the community where I pray. Even so, I would like to sharpen my question: have you dealt with the relationship between the spirit and principle of the commandment as opposed to its practical performance? This distinction sometimes appears in a way opposite to the Brisker distinction between fulfillment and act. For example, in the commandment “Love your fellow as yourself,” the commandment is the love, whereas the act, as defined by Maimonides and the Sages, is visiting the sick and the like. This is, as noted, the opposite of rejoicing on a festival, where the fulfillment is through eating meat (the act). In other words, sometimes the Torah instructs a physical act/object, and sometimes a mental state. As I understand it, another distinction is needed beyond fulfillment and act—one that distinguishes between value/end and the mode of performance, which is only a condition and the like. I would be happy for a more precise philosophical conceptualization.
With thanks in advance
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I hope I’ll find time to go into a bit more detail regarding the conceptualization of the distinction between fulfillment and the act of the commandment, which for some time has been causing me dissatisfaction. In my view there is an ambiguity there that conceals a conceptual vacuum.
People have always distinguished between the commandment and its reason, and over this the Tannaim disputed with regard to deriving law from the reason of the verse. The reason is usually the end that the commandment is meant to achieve. The Torah imposes an act on us, but its goal is the end that the act achieves. Why did it choose דווקא this act? Good question. Either because it has additional goals, or because that is not the reason (and therefore we do not derive law from the reason of the verse), or for technical considerations (since it is hard to create a non-uniform body of Jewish law that is entrusted to each person in his own way).
In this terminology, I would formulate your suggestion—which I am not sure I agree with—as follows: remembrance is the reason, and the commandment is the blowing. In the end, that means that what is imposed on me is the blowing, but the goal is remembrance.
But the Brisker distinction apparently wants to say that this is not only the reason, but the very endpoint of fulfilling the commandment—meaning that if it was not achieved, the commandment was not fulfilled. But I do not see a real difference between these formulations, for if this end is really in my hands (that is, it can be achieved), then why impose on me only the act as the halakhic obligation? Then the obligation is the act plus the end (and perhaps only the end). And if it cannot be achieved except through the act and the result is not in my hands, what is the point of defining it as the fulfillment of the commandment?
As for love of one’s fellow (end of chapter 14 of the Laws of Mourning), I understood it differently. In my opinion, the Torah commandment is the love in the heart, and the bodily obligations are rabbinic. But one who loves while accompanying the dead or bringing in a bride certainly thereby also fulfills the Torah-level commandment. And perhaps one could say that the rabbinic obligations are intended to achieve the end (the reason) of love, in the sense that hearts are drawn after actions.
Discussion on Answer
Even if there are two commandments that come to achieve the same end, it seems that the commandment is the act and not the end. If the commandment were the end, there would be no reason to do דווקא these acts (for example, I could have written myself a note telling me to remember the commandments).
But if I put on tefillin, how exactly do I remember? What does remembrance have to do with tefillin? (Regardless of what is commandment and what is reason.) The remembrance is really part of the commandment.
Actually, you are exempt from the note, because it says “and you shall teach them diligently to your children,” and that is in the section of tefillin. And when you said “note,” I was immediately reminded of mezuzah and tefillin, where we really do put everything onto parchment. But how does that help remembrance?
Fine, tzitzit helps one remember, but besides that…?
“And you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over your sacrifices of peace offerings, and they shall be for you as a remembrance before the Lord your God”—that’s what the responsum is talking about, and I still don’t understand.
If I blow, is that so that God will remember me? That doesn’t sound good.
You remember what is written inside the tefillin. That is no less than the remembrance brought by tzitzit. The trumpets are not for our remembrance but so that God will remember us. The Holy One, blessed be He, acts toward us in response to what we do toward Him—not only with trumpets but also with prayer and the like.
The Holy One, blessed be He, doesn’t have a forgetting problem!
Indeed, but it is not about remembering; it is about bringing our remembrance before Him. He will bring our remembrance before Him only if we do what is incumbent upon us.
So the very act of remembrance is what leads to performing every commandment, and therefore remembrance is automatically present in doing it; so how is the command “And it shall be for you as a sign upon your hand and as a memorial between your eyes” expressed in practice? In other words, what is the connection between the remembrance—“for with a strong hand the Lord brought you out of Egypt”—and the commandment of actually putting them on? For after all, later on it promises, “so that your days and the days of your children may be multiplied on the land…” (It doesn’t say that He will remember us.)
And when we pray, we bring our remembrance before Him, as you said, so again—what is the point of the trumpets? There is something superfluous here. Maybe “and they shall be for you as a remembrance before the Lord your God”—what does that teach us, then?
What you said worries me, because it comes out as though His remembrance depends on our remembrance, if I’ve understood you correctly.
I hope I’m not overburdening you, because your time is valuable, and maybe the problem is only in my understanding.
In any case, you reminded me of the blessing Ya'aleh VeYavo, whose purpose is also to bring our remembrance before Him, and I don’t understand why. Besides that, the very blessing “who causes the horn of salvation to sprout” already includes the building of the Temple, because first he will come and afterward the Third Temple will be built (come down from heaven ready-made), so it’s as if saying Ya'aleh VeYavo is unnecessary.
There are several kinds of remembrances of us that rise before Him, and each kind of act brings up a different kind of remembrance: trumpets, prayer, Ya'aleh VeYavo, etc. Indeed, His remembering depends on our actions, and I do not see any difference between this and the reward we will receive depending on our actions. There are actions of His that are a response to what we do. What is the problem here? You need to remember that our remembering is not a state but an action. When you remember someone, it simply happens to you. But bringing someone’s remembrance before you is an action that you do by your will. You will remember someone if he is worthy of it (for example, if he did something for you). Like Ahasuerus, who ordered that the book of remembrances be brought before him. The remembrance was written in the book, but bringing it before Ahasuerus depended on his decision and action. And as is well known, the Sages already said that every “king” in the Megillah is the King of the universe. Examine this carefully.
Alright, maybe we can really sum it up this way: whatever we do, whether accompanied by remembrance or not, we must understand that everything needs to be connected with prior thought, to understand who commands us, and to intend that everything be for the good, and to ask on behalf of all the Jewish people that there be a complete redemption! More power to you!
Regarding the challenge:
King and “king”: there is only one problem—the Holy One, blessed be He, hates “send,” while Ahasuerus doesn’t hate “send.”
We already find that the Lord said: “Then those who feared the Lord spoke one with another, and the Lord listened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared the Lord and who thought upon His name.”
Does the Holy One, blessed be He, need a book of remembrance? Rather what? The Torah speaks in human language! (I’m sure the two of us were just written in it this very moment!).
“I know that whatever God does, it shall be forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it; and God has done it, that they should fear before Him. That which is, already has been; and that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks that which is pursued. And moreover I saw under the sun: in the place of justice, there was wickedness; and in the place of righteousness, there was wickedness. I said in my heart: God shall judge the righteous and the wicked.”
So it doesn’t have to be that God is the one remembered in the Megillah, and there’s no need to replace it with “king”; the moment you see true justice, you will find God! Everything was turned upside down there, and for the Jews there was light and joy and gladness and honor—so may it be in our days, joy and gladness and the building of the Third Temple speedily in our days this year!
I’ll keep looking..
And meanwhile, let Your Honor look for some “book” called “Horns.”
Rabbi, I haven’t gone deeply into your fine words, but maybe what I say will help a bit in the analysis (and maybe you’ll decide whether you agree with the questioner’s view).
What is the distinction between the goal and the reason for it? If the goal is the blowing and the reason for it is remembrance, then if someone heard the blowing but did not remember, has he fulfilled his obligation? Or is it doubtful, or not at all?
I need another example involving remembrance in order to understand better. For example, with tefillin, both the placing is the commandment and the remembering is the commandment, whereas the goal is “so that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth.” So if he put on tefillin but did not remember, has he fulfilled the obligation of placing them? Or is it doubtful, or not at all?
“And it shall be for you as a sign upon your hand, and as a memorial between your eyes, so that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand the Lord brought you out of Egypt.”
In my opinion this whole matter is a bit confused—it should have been written like this: “And it shall be for you as a sign upon your hand, and as a memorial between your eyes, for with a strong hand the Lord brought you out of Egypt, so that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth.” Does that work? I don’t understand what is wanted from me with “for with a strong hand” and “so that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth.”
Exactly like I don’t understand what remembrance has to do with blowing the shofar.
And if there is already a commandment to remember all the commandments when wearing tzitzit, what is the point of an additional remembrance of the commandments through blowing or putting on tefillin or any other commandment that requires remembrance? Why is there a duplication of commandments of remembrance, even though you distinguished between the commandment and its reason and sat and explained that completing the commandment includes both parts—the commandment and the reason!
Is there any support from Jewish law that the obligation of the commandment also requires remembrance in addition?