by HaGaon Rav Shmuel Auerbach zt”l Darchei Shmuel Siman 17

Translated and Presented by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 27a) states: “A shofar that cracked and was glued together is pasul (invalid). If one glued together pieces of shofars, it is pasul. If it was perforated and the hole was plugged: if [the plug] interferes with the blowing, it is pasul; if not, it is kosher.” The Gemara (27b) adds a Beraisa: “If it cracked lengthwise, it is pasul. If it cracked crosswise: if enough remains for a blast, it is kosher; if not, it is pasul.” It also teaches: “If one placed a shofar inside a shofar — if he heard the sound of the inner one, he has fulfilled his obligation; if he heard the sound of the outer one, he has not.”

Two foundational principles run through the whole discussion. First, the Torah says “shofar” in the singular — “one shofar, and not two or three shofars.” Second, the Gemara rules that “all sounds are kosher in a shofar” — a thin sound, a thick sound, or a dry sound all count as the sound of a shofar. The Rishonim (early authorities) disagree about how these two principles apply to a shofar that has cracked, been glued, or been plugged, and the author carefully sorts out their positions and then examines how the Shulchan Aruch and the Mishnah Berurah ruled.

Section 1 — Rashi: “It Is Like Two Shofars”

What Rashi’s reason is meant to cover

The Mishnah (27a) reads: “A shofar that cracked [and was glued] is pasul … [glued] pieces of shofars … is pasul.” Rashi, in his comment on the word pasul, gives the reason: it is like two shofars. On the surface, this reason fits the second case — glued pieces of shofars — much better than the first. That is indeed how the Ramban reads Rashi, both in his commentary and in his Derashah for Rosh Hashanah, when he explains what Rashi meant (see below, Section 3), and the Pri Chadash (586) reads Rashi the same way.

Tosafos and the other Rishonim, however, understood Rashi’s comment as referring to the cracked shofar. And this seems to be correct. After all, Rashi has to explain why a cracked shofar is pasul, and the simplest reading is that his comment covers both cases — the cracked shofar and the glued pieces alike. Tosafos’ own careful wording supports this: they write that glued pieces of shofars are “likewise” not disqualified because of “two [shofars],” and the point of that remark is to reject the reasoning that would follow from Rashi, namely that the disqualification is because of “two shofars.”

Did Rashi mean a shofar that split completely in two?

In Tosafos HaRosh, the Rashba, the Ran, and others, Rashi is taken to mean that the “cracked” shofar split completely into two pieces. This is puzzling. A shofar split into two pieces is not “cracked” (nisdak); it is “divided into two” (nechlak lishnayim).  [ This is the lashon of the Mishnah in Keilim (chapter 4, mishnah 1, and chapter 16): “which was divided into two.”]

Furthermore, if Rashi had meant that, he should have written “cracked and divided into two parts” — and he did not. Tosafos and those who follow their approach were pushed into this reading of Rashi because without it a cracked shofar is not “two shofars.” Yet when Tosafos themselves come to explain why a cracked shofar is pasul, they say it is because the Torah requires “one shofar, and not 2 or 3.” They reject Rashi with the words: “This does not seem right, for if so, it should apply all the more to pieces of shofars, which really are two shofars.” That argument only works if Rashi’s “cracked” shofar is not actually split into pieces. So it is clear that Tosafos understood Rashi’s case as a shofar that did not come apart into pieces.

The same emerges from the Chiddushei HaRamban. He explains that, according to Rashi, the cracked shofar is pasul because even if one can blow it, the sound is nothing but a hollow echo (havarah); and in his Derashah he explains that it is simply not a shofar. The Ramban is speaking of the shofar even before it was glued, as he states explicitly there that the discussion applies to a cracked shofar on its own. It is therefore clear that this is not a shofar broken into pieces; it is a shofar that can still be blown. This fits best with a shofar cracked along its entire length on one side. And even if it is cracked on both sides, the shofar must still be holding its shape — meaning it did not crack all the way to the end — so that it can still be blown. [See also the Ramban’s language on 27b, s.v. nisdak l’rochbo. This will be explained below in Section 5.]

The Ritva likewise writes that perhaps even Rashi meant a crack on one side only. [The Ritva explains Rashi’s reasoning this way: just as gluing two shofars together does not help, so too gluing a crack does not help to make it a vessel and a shofar. Tosafos and the other Rishonim, however, did not see fit to make that comparison in Rashi.]

This is even clearer from Rashi on 27b. On the words “cracked [lengthwise],” he writes “entirely.” On “crosswise,” he writes that it means across its whole circumference. And on “if there remained [enough for a blast],” he writes: “from the place of the crack [downward] … it is considered as though the whole [lower part] was removed.” This must be describing a shofar that is still whole up to the place of the crack; it is “considered as though removed,” but in fact the entire shofar is still present. In the same way, “cracked along its whole length” can simply mean a crack running its full length. In any event, it certainly does not mean a shofar split into two pieces — contrary to how Tosafos and the Rishonim understood Rashi.

Can the Rishonim’s reading of Rashi be defended?

One could try to defend the reading of Tosafos and the Rishonim in the following way. The cracked shofar of the Beraisa — which was not glued — is pasul even if it cracked on one side only, and perhaps even with a mere crack. The cracked shofar of our Mishnah, where even gluing does not help, is a shofar that cracked and split in two. This is in fact the position of Rabbeinu Yerucham in explaining Rashi: a shofar cracked into two pieces is pasul even when glued, while a shofar cracked on one side is repaired by gluing. It is also the position of the “some explain” (that is, Rabbeinu Yehonasan) and of the Rosh’s ruling: “cracked lengthwise” means even partially, and as long as it did not crack entirely, gluing repairs it.

However, Rashi’s plain wording strongly implies that the Mishnah and the Beraisa are speaking of the very same kind of crack. This is also indicated in Tosafos and the Rosh (s.v. nisdak l’orko), in the Ramban, and in the Rashba; and the Ran and the Rosh explain Rashi’s view this way even more clearly. It is also precise in Rashi on 27b: a crosswise crack must run around the whole circumference, but a lengthwise crack need not run around the whole circumference — even one side is enough. [One could slightly force Rashi on 27b, s.v. nisdak kulo (“cracked entirely”), to mean “on both sides,” but the reading given here appears very clear.]

It may even be that a shofar cracked in this way never actually separated and was never glued. It may also be that the crack does not go all the way through the wall of the shofar but only nearly so. [The Pnei Yehoshua explains Rashi’s reasoning — that the cracked shofar is disqualified because of the glue — as meaning that the shofar did not separate completely; and he reads Rashi’s “crosswise” as not necessarily the whole circumference but most of it. Rashi’s wording does not read that way. See further below in the discussion of the Mishnah Berurah.]

And even if one takes the position that a crack running fully through the wall is no less pasul, it must still be that the shofar holds itself in its shape, even though the crack goes through the wall, as explained above.

Section 2 — Rabbeinu Yitzchak: A Cracked Shofar Produces Only a Poor Sound

Tosafos on our Mishnah cite the explanation of Rabbeinu Yitzchak: a “cracked shofar” is one that can produce only a small, weak sound. Although all sounds are kosher in a shofar, here the sound is an inferior one that does not resemble a blast at all. The Ramban, following his own understanding of Rashi in the case of the cracked shofar, likewise explains that even if one can blow it, the result is only an echo. [Meaning: it is not a full shofar sound, and it is regarded as a mere echo.]

In his Derashah, the Ramban retracted this, on the basis of the Yerushalmi that all sounds are kosher; he explained instead that the cracked shofar is pasul because it is not a shofar. [The Yerushalmi says so even of a shofar whose sound changed because of a hole.]

It is obvious that, even according to Rabbeinu Yitzchak, a poor sound fails to count as a shofar sound only in a case like a cracked shofar, where the sound is extremely poor because of the damage. In an ordinary shofar there is no such thing as a defect in the type of sound; every sound counts as the sound of the shofar.

Section 3 — The Rosh: Glued Pieces Versus a Cracked Piece

The Rosh’s treatment of Rashi

The Rosh in his Pesakim cites Rashi’s explanation of the cracked shofar and objects: if so, this is simply the case of glued pieces of shofars! He first explains that “cracked” means cracked on one side, as Tosafos do. At the end of his discussion, though, he concludes that there was never any difficulty: gluing pieces together along the length of the shofar is different, because the sound passes from piece to piece, and so it is fitting to disqualify it as “two shofars”; but here, where the whole length of the shofar is one piece, it is not comparable to pieces of shofars. The implication is that our Mishnah teaches us that even such a shofar is considered like two shofars, as Rashi explains.

The Rosh is only reconciling Rashi’s wording; he is not ruling this way for practical halachah, as the Korban Nesanel there and the Drishah (586) explain. According to the Rosh’s own view, a shofar cracked even on one side is pasul.

Author’s note: It is puzzling that the Rosh, in his Pesakim, would explain something that is not for practical halachah. Also, his phrase “from the outset there was no difficulty” implies that there was no need for him to add further explanation.

It seems more likely that the Rosh in his Pesakim holds — in keeping with the practical halachah of our Mishnah — that the disqualification of glued pieces of shofars is indeed because of “not two [shofars],” unlike Tosafos.

Author’s note: Though Tosafos too, at the end of their comment, write that even the cracked shofar is disqualified because of “two or three shofars.”

On this reading, the Rosh at first followed Tosafos, but ultimately he does not; rather, the Mishnah’s two cases — the cracked shofar and the pieces — are two distinct laws. The Rosh further explains that a shofar cracked lengthwise, even from both sides, cannot be derived from the case of pieces of shofars, and is a separate teaching. According to Rashi, the Mishnah teaches something new: even a cracked shofar counts as two shofars. According to the Rosh, a shofar cracked even on one side is pasul because it is not considered a shofar at all. It is even possible to say that according to the Rosh himself, in truth, a shofar cracked on both sides is not considered two shofars, following the Rosh’s reasoning, but is pasul because it no longer has the name “shofar.” This fits the Rosh’s wording better — “from the outset there was no difficulty.” With pieces of shofars, where the joining is stronger and there is less of a deficiency in the name “shofar,” the disqualification is only because of “not two,” as the Rosh explains. And Tosafos, who hold that the disqualification of pieces is not because of “not two,” add that a piece of a shofar does not carry the name “shofar.” That is Tosafos’ reasoning. In Rashi’s reasoning, pieces of shofars are included in “two shofars,” and a shofar cracked into two pieces is likewise “two shofars” — and the Mishnah teaches that even this counts as two shofars. It is possible that this is also the Rosh’s view: a shofar cracked into two pieces and glued is like two shofars. But it seems more likely that the Rosh’s view is as set out in Section 6, with Hashem’s help.

The Rosh’s distinction is itself difficult

The Rosh’s core reasoning — distinguishing between pieces of shofars and a cracked shofar whose whole length is a single piece — is not entirely clear. Seemingly, just as with pieces of shofars the gluing does not help and the sound passes from piece to piece, so that it is like “two,” the same should be true here, and all the more so according to Rashi’s cracked shofar that split into two pieces: since the gluing does not help, the sound is passing through two separate pieces of shofar. One might explain the Rosh as follows: only with pieces of shofars, where each piece is a full circumference of shofar, is it considered two shofars; not so with a cracked shofar, where there is not even half a full circumference. But this is not at all evident in the Rosh’s wording. His wording is only that the whole length of the shofar is one piece — and that requires much study, since the gluing does not succeed in making it one shofar, and the sound emerges from the start through two separate parts.

The explanation of the Rosh appears to be this. Since it is not literally two shofars, it resembles the Gemara’s case of a shofar placed inside a shofar, where Tosafos and the Rosh explain that the disqualification is because of “one shofar and not two.” A shofar that split and was glued resembles the Gemara’s case (26a) of a cow’s horn, which is built of layer upon layer and therefore appears like two shofars. [One could say that in the case of the cow’s horn the layering is from its natural formation, while here it merely appears so. See Tosafos in Sotah.]

In such a case, the Rosh’s reasoning is that only pieces of shofars, where the sound passes from piece to piece, are “two” — not a shofar whose whole length is one continuous piece.

A proposed understanding of Rashi

It seems that Rashi can be explained as follows. The Tosafos Yeshanim already understood Rashi’s “cracked” as a shofar that did not split in two, but simply cracked on one side, and that its disqualification is because of “one shofar.” So too the Ramban: Rashi’s cracked shofar is not one that split into two pieces, and it is even cracked on one side only, in keeping with the plain wording of Rashi, as explained. [The Ramban explains, according to Rashi, that the cracked shofar is pasul because it no longer carries the name “shofar,” and he makes no mention at all of Rashi’s “two shofars.”]

On this approach, the disqualification is indeed that it is “like two shofars” — and this is what Rashi means in his comment on the word pasul — namely, that wherever the shofar is held together by glue, there is no single solid piece of shofar, and this too falls under “one shofar and not two.” This is very precise in Rashi’s comment on the Mishnah, where he mentions no disqualification other than “two shofars,” and that reason applies to the whole Mishnah, both to the cracked shofar and to the pieces, as explained above. One can also explain why, according to Rashi, the Mishnah needed to state the disqualification of pieces separately and did not leave it to be derived from the cracked shofar: one might have thought that since the gluing there is strong, it is like a new face of shofar, and it does not matter how it came to be — unlike a cow’s horn, whose layering is from its very formation.

The Ramban: a cracked shofar is a broken vessel

The Ramban in his Derashah, as above, writes that a shofar cracked entirely along its length (following Rashi) is nothing but fragments of a shofar, for a vessel that broke leaves the category of “vessel,” both regarding tumah and regarding every other matter. Presumably he does not mean that all the halachic rules of a broken vessel becoming tahor apply here. Rather, the essential point is that it has left the category of “vessel” entirely, and a cracked shofar has left the category of “shofar” completely. [A shofar does not receive tumah, because it is not made to hold anything, as stated explicitly in the Tosefta (Keilim, Bava Metzia 6:1) and in the Rambam (Hilchos Keilim 5:2). As for the ruling that certain horns are tamei, the Kesef Mishneh (5:3) explains, following the Bartenura and the Mishneh LaMelech, that this is because people store coins inside them. The Mikdash David left unresolved the difficulty from the Gemara in Shabbos, which permits moving a shofar because one can draw water with it; the Rambam did not cite this law about moving a shofar, and this is not the place to elaborate. The Magen Avraham (308:4) rules that a shofar may be moved only for use of its body or its place; his source is the Hagahos Ashri; see also the Or Zarua (siman 86). As for what the Mikdash David raised from the Gemara in Shabbos — whether a use must resemble the object’s principal use — see the Rambam (Hilchos Keilim 8:6), where the plain reading is that it must resemble its principal use; and according to the view that this is not required, the case is a shofar that is not designated at all for such use. See there.]

Section 4 — One Side or Both Sides; Must the Crack Run the Whole Length?

Tosafos and the other Rishonim disagreed with Rashi and held that “cracked” means cracked even on one side. According to Rashi, Tosafos, the Ramban, the Rashba, and the Rivevan, a lengthwise crack disqualifies only when the shofar cracked entirely; if part of it remains attached, there is no disqualification of “cracked.” A question arises according to those who explained that the crack is on one side only (and, as noted above, one can say the same of Rashi): what is the law if it cracked on both sides? Perhaps in such a case even a crack running most of the length is pasul, since it comes from both sides. But the silence of the Rishonim implies that they drew no distinction between a crack on one side and a crack on two sides, and that in every case only a crack running the full length is pasul.

The Mishnah Berurah: a crack that goes through the wall

The Mishnah Berurah (586:35) writes that the disqualification of a cracked shofar applies only when the crack goes all the way through the wall; his source is in the poskim cited there. The implication of Tosafos and the other Rishonim also leans this way, since they departed from Rashi’s case of a shofar cracked on both sides into two pieces and spoke of a shofar cracked on one side only — implying that on that side it cracked and separated like a break. In the plain reading, the Mishnah Berurah’s intention is that the shofar split and separated; if the crack goes all the way through, it is no less pasul. But it was explained above from Rashi on 27b, regarding a crosswise crack, that the shofar is not truly split apart. The Ramban’s wording is likewise “as though [the lower part] was removed,” and the Rambam’s is “as if it were entirely cut off” — implying that it did not truly divide and separate. It is hard to say that this holds only when the shofar did not crack entirely. So too the Rosh’s wording: “we consider the part from the crack downward as though it was removed”; and even though he wrote that the case is one where most of the width cracked, it is hard to say that this was meant to exclude a crack across the entire width. If so, a cracked shofar is not necessarily one whose crack goes fully through the wall.

It may be that, as a general matter, a crack that goes through the wall also causes separation, and the Mishnah Berurah simply spoke in general terms. Even according to the Mishnah Berurah, there is room to consider a crack that runs through most of the thickness, very nearly all of it, and lacks only a bit from going fully through; it is even possible that in such a case gluing helps. May Hashem enlighten our eyes in His Torah.

Section 5 — The Views of the Rishonim on a Lengthwise Crack

Rashi and the Ramban

The view attributed to Rashi by the Rishonim — that “cracked” means split into two pieces — was rejected by the Rishonim themselves for halachah. According to Tosafos, the Ramban, and Rashi himself, “cracked” does not mean split into two pieces, and in the plain reading it means cracked even on one side. According to Rashi, the law of the cracked shofar, whether on one side or on both, applies only when it cracked entirely. So too the Ramban in his Derashah. In his Chiddushim on 27b, regarding a crosswise crack, the Ramban cites Rashi that the crack must run around the whole circumference, and he writes that presumably “the majority is like the whole,” as we find everywhere. One must ask why the Ramban did not say the same of a lengthwise crack. He then proves the point from the case of a shofar perforated over most of its area and plugged with its own kind, which is kosher — unlike one perforated entirely, which is pasul — and he explains that in that case the two ends remain whole. It follows that a shofar cracked lengthwise over most of its length is kosher only when both ends are whole. From the Ramban’s earlier words, however, this does not seem to be so, and the matter requires study.

The Ramban further explains that a crosswise crack over most of the width is pasul because the shofar is treated “as though [the lower part] was removed.” At first glance, this is not merely the general rule that “the majority is like the whole”; rather, the majority crack causes the shofar to be treated as if that part were removed, and through this the rule takes hold more firmly — a majority treated as removed is like the whole. One can explain: with a crosswise crack there is a real consequence, in that the part below is truly “as though removed” through a complete break, and from this the law extends to a majority crack, which likewise counts as a break. But with a lengthwise crack, the very foundation of the law is that a shofar cracked entirely has no shofar-form; that is not so where a minority remains attached, for then it is not entirely cracked. [Compare the law of a limb mostly detached, in Yevamos and elsewhere; this is not the place to elaborate.]

The Biur HaGra cites the Rokeach, who compares this to the treifah of a severed windpipe: a lengthwise split does not render the animal a treifah by majority, while a crosswise severing does. The Rokeach holds that a shofar cracked lengthwise is kosher, provided one does not glue it with something not of its kind; and a shofar cracked crosswise is treated as if cut, so that a handbreadth and a bit must remain.

Rabbeinu Yehonasan and the Raavad: even a tiny crack disqualifies

The view of Rabbeinu Yehonasan HaKohen, cited in the Ramban’s Derashah and in the Ran, and the view of the Raavad in his Derashah, cited in the Ran, is that a lengthwise crack of even the smallest size is pasul, because the shofar will eventually split apart. According to the Raavad and Rabbeinu Yehonasan, this falls under the Mishnah’s law that a shofar cracked and glued is pasul, as stated in the Raavad and the Ran. [The Ramban does not state explicitly, in Rabbeinu Yehonasan’s view, that gluing does not help; but in the plain reading, according to the Ramban as well, Rabbeinu Yehonasan’s view is that this is the Mishnah’s law of a glued shofar being pasul.]

Even a shofar with the smallest crack, if glued, still stands to split apart and is treated as though it cracked entirely. Only if one bound it tightly with a thread or a cord is it kosher, since this holds it so that it will not split, as stated explicitly in the Raavad and the Ran, and so too in the Ran in the view of Rabbeinu Yehonasan. And the Raavad adds that this is on condition that a shofar’s minimum measure remains.

The Rosh: a small crack disqualifies unless glued

The Rosh follows the “some explain” that he cites: the Mishnah’s law — that a cracked shofar is pasul even if glued — applies to a shofar that cracked entirely, from end to end. If it did not crack entirely, then once it is glued it is kosher. The Beraisa’s law of a lengthwise crack, where the shofar was not glued, disqualifies even the smallest crack; but whatever did not crack from end to end may be glued and is then kosher. [A later authority took pains to prove for the Rosh’s view that a shofar not entirely cracked may be repaired by gluing; but this is stated explicitly in the Rosh, who cites it from the “some explain” and rules that this is the primary view, and the Kesef Mishneh also took the Rosh’s view as primary.]

We also learn from the Beraisa that a crack disqualifies even without gluing; it is not the glue that causes the disqualification, as is clear from the Rosh’s first explanation and from the Ramban. This is to exclude the reasoning of the Rokeach concerning a crosswise crack. Regarding a crosswise crack, the Rosh (siman 6) states that a crack across most of the width disqualifies the whole shofar, and it is kosher only if the measure for a blast remains above the crack, since we treat the part from the crack downward as though it were removed. It seems that according to the Rosh and the “some explain,” binding with a thread or cord accomplishes nothing; only glue helps, since glue restores the body of the shofar, whereas tightening it from the outside leaves it still without the name “shofar.” [See further below in the discussion of the Shaar Ephraim.] The Ritva cites “some who are stringent” that even the smallest lengthwise crack is pasul. The implication is that gluing certainly does not help, and in the plain reading even binding with a thread and cord does not help. The Ritva himself disagrees with this.

The Maggid Mishneh: the majority is like the whole

The Maggid Mishneh (Hilchos Shofar 1:5) cites “many of the commentators,” and adopts their view as primary, that a lengthwise crack is pasul when it runs the whole length or most of it. He anchored this in the Rambam’s wording there, “if it cracked lengthwise it is pasul.” Note that the Rambam does not mention the Mishnah’s point that it is pasul even if glued. It seems he used the Beraisa’s general wording, which includes the disqualification in every case; and, as noted, the disqualification does not stem from the glue. In any event, the Mishnah’s law is that even a glued shofar is pasul. The commentators and the Maggid Mishneh are to be understood the same way: a shofar cracked over most of its length is likewise pasul, and neither a thread nor gluing helps, just as they do not help for a shofar cracked entirely. This is also how the Mishnah Berurah (586:43) explains the Maggid Mishneh’s view.

Section 6 — The 4 Positions and the Shulchan Aruch

The four positions

We thus find the following positions among the Rishonim:

• Rashi, Tosafos, the Or Zarua, the Ramban, the Rashba (as cited in the Ran), the Mordechai, the Semak, and the Rokeach: only a shofar cracked entirely is pasul, and it is pasul even if glued; a shofar not cracked entirely is kosher even without gluing. According to the Ramban, a crosswise crack over most of the width is pasul, and the two ends must remain whole.
• The Rosh: even a small crack disqualifies if left unglued; but if glued, it is kosher unless the crack ran the entire length. Rabbeinu Yerucham appears to share this view.
• The Raavad and Rabbeinu Yehonasan: even the smallest crack is pasul, even if glued, since it stands to split; it is kosher only if bound tightly with a thread or cord.
• The “many commentators” cited by the Maggid Mishneh, and the Ritva’s “some who are stringent”: a crack over most of the length is like a crack over the whole length, and it is pasul even if glued.

The wording of the Shulchan Aruch is difficult

The words of our masters, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch (586:8), require much study. The Shulchan Aruch brings two views. The first: “Some say that even if it cracked the smallest amount it is pasul, unless one bound it tightly with a thread or a cord.” It is puzzling that Maran did not cite, as is his practice, the view of the Rosh — that gluing helps and a thread is not needed. Indeed, in the plain reading, according to the Rosh a thread and cord do not help at all; that requirement is only the view of the Raavad, and of the Ran in the reasoning of Rabbeinu Yehonasan, who require specifically a thread and cord. Likewise, what the Rama adds — that the measure for a blast must remain above the place of binding — is only the view of the Raavad, not the view of the Rosh; and even the Ran did not mention this in Rabbeinu Yehonasan’s view. The Mishnah Berurah (586:41) and the Shaar HaTziyun (75) ruled that this requirement of a remaining measure is not needed.

The Shulchan Aruch then brings the second view: “And some say it is pasul only if it cracked over most of its length, and if one glued it, it is kosher.” This is very puzzling. The view of the Rishonim that a crack over most of the length is pasul means that such a crack is like a crack over the whole length, as is clear in the Maggid Mishneh and the Ritva — meaning that even gluing does not help, just as it does not help for a shofar cracked entirely. Nowhere in the Rishonim is there any mention of gluing being needed for a shofar cracked entirely. Nor is this the view of the Rosh, who holds that even the smallest crack is pasul and requires gluing; only the commentators cited by the Maggid Mishneh, and the Ritva, hold that a majority crack is like a whole crack — and if so, gluing does not help. Rabbeinu Yerucham’s view appears to be like the Rosh’s: even the smallest crack requires gluing, and gluing helps whenever the shofar did not crack entirely. The Beis Yosef indicates that Maran meant the commentators cited by the Maggid Mishneh — and that is very puzzling, as explained.

Section 7 — The Mishnah Berurah on a Majority Crack That Was Glued

The Mishnah Berurah (586:44) writes, regarding a shofar cracked over most of its length, that it is kosher if glued, and that it is specifically with glue that we validate it, because it then becomes as if whole; but if one tightened it with a thread or cord, this does not help, since it cracked over most of its length. The Shaar HaTziyun (80) writes that this follows the Pri Megadim, the Mateh Ephraim, and the Chayei Adam. The thrust of these words is that even those who say a thread and cord are required nevertheless agree that a majority crack is not helped except by gluing.

In truth, the Biur Halachah there (s.v. “and some say only if most”) notes that the Rokeach requires a crack over the entire length, and concludes that there is no need to be concerned. In this humble opinion, there is room to consider — in light of what has been explained above, in our poverty of understanding — that this is also the view of the Or Zarua and the Ramban, at least where the shofar cracked over only most of its length and both ends are intact, as above, and of the Rashba as well. [The Rambam’s view cannot be determined, as the Beis Yosef explains.]  Therefore, in a case of great pressure, where no other shofar can be obtained, perhaps one can say that a person who recites the blessing over such a shofar has not lost. This requires study.

Section 8 — The Biur Halachah on the Omitted View

The Biur Halachah there (s.v. “and some say only if most”) observes that the Mechaber did not mention at all the view of those who hold that only a shofar cracked entirely is pasul — namely Rashi, Tosafos, the Mordechai, the Semak, and the Rokeach — and writes that in a case of great need, where a shofar cannot be obtained even through a non-Jew, one may rely on the view of those who require a crack over the whole length, so long as a small part of the shofar remains attached; that is, even without gluing. He adds that if the two ends of the shofar remain intact and it is glued, one may rely on this even without such great need. As explained above, the Or Zarua, the Ramban, and the Rashba should be counted among those who hold that only a crack over the whole length disqualifies, which strengthens the Biur Halachah’s conclusion.

Section 9 — Gluing “With Glue”: When Is a Repair Considered “Not Its Own Kind”?

The Ramban and the Rosh

On Rashi’s phrase in our Mishnah, “he glued it with glue,” the Ramban explains that through glue the shofar is held together by something not of its own kind; and it is explained there that the shofar itself can be fused together when it is heated in fire. The Rosh writes that it is not feasible to fuse it by heating. He explains that “not of its own kind” applies chiefly where one plugged a hole with a different substance; but if one joined the crack with glue, the shofar has returned to what it was, and the glue is not noticeable between the edges of the crack. The Korban Nesanel there (note 20), cited in the Biur Halachah (586:8) — see also the Mishnah Berurah — explains that this is because a hole involves a missing piece, and the plug is noticeable.

The foundation of the Rosh’s view appears to be this: with a hole, the body of the shofar is filled in and completed by something not of its kind, whereas with a crack the shofar’s own body returns to what it was. The Rosh adds that the glue is not noticeable in a crack. It seems the point is that since gluing is necessary in order to join the crack, if the glue were noticeable it would change the form of the shofar. The Ramban’s reasoning, by contrast, appears to be that even with a crack, gluing counts as adding something not of its kind; and since the gluing is necessary in order for it to carry the name “shofar,” then even though the glue is not noticeable, the shofar is considered to have been repaired and completed by something not of its kind. It does not help unless the glue can be entirely removed, or unless the shofar was fused by fire, as the Ramban states there.

The Pri Megadim and the Biur Halachah on a tiny hole

The Biur Halachah there, citing the Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 14), leans somewhat toward the view that even a hole involving a missing piece, if it is small — the Biur Halachah means very small — and one can put glue there, counts as being of its own kind; the Biur Halachah explains that this is because it is not noticeable. Now, the phrase “put glue there” would seem in the plain reading to apply also to gluing a crack rather than filling a hole; but presumably the main intent is to fill the hole, even with something not of its kind, in a way that is not noticeable. [It is hard to learn from this that there is some special advantage to glue merely because the repair is made in an unnoticeable way; there is no source for such a distinction.]

According to what was explained, the essential point depends on whether the hole is a significant lack that needs to be filled. If it is, then filling it with something not of its kind does not help, even if the filling is not very noticeable. If the hole is so tiny that it does not count as a lack at all, then seemingly it would be kosher even without any filling or plugging whatsoever. But if even a very small hole counts as a hole, then, since the hole detracts from the shofar, any filling counts as the shofar having been completed by another substance; and it is not so sound to say that after the glue is put in, the status of “hole” is nullified on its own.

Section 10 — “Glued with Glue” Versus “Fused by Itself”

The Shulchan Aruch (586:8) rules: “If one glued it, it is kosher, even with glue; and there is one who says that it is kosher only when it was fused together by itself, through fire.” The Biur Halachah (s.v. “when it was fused by itself”) is puzzled by the Mechaber’s language, which implies that he holds all agree that fusing by itself is effective, whereas the Rosh holds that it is specifically glue that works, and if one heats the shofar in fire it cannot be joined well. See what he writes there. Maran’s words are indeed puzzling. The Rosh’s disagreement is over the factual reality — that the shofar does not fuse through fire alone. [The Mishnah Berurah’s phrasing, “if one heats it in fire it cannot be joined well,” is not the Rosh’s wording.]

And certainly, if the shofar did not fuse, there is nothing to discuss at all. The Shulchan Aruch’s ruling refers to a case where one fused it and it was actually joined through the fire. [The Ritva writes that this is done in the way that skilled craftsmen do it.] In such a case, a shofar fused by itself is better than one glued with glue, since glue counts as a different substance according to the Ramban’s reasoning.

Section 11 – A Plugged Hole-If It Interferes with the Blowing”

Rashi’s reading

The Mishnah states: “If it was perforated and plugged — if [the plug] interferes with the blowing, it is pasul.” Rashi does not comment on this phrase, and his silence supports the plain reading that it is the plug that interferes with the blowing. In his comment on the Gemara (s.v. “with its own kind, kosher”), Rashi writes: “if it does not interfere with the blowing.” This certainly refers to a plug of the shofar’s own kind — it is kosher only if it does not interfere, as will be explained.

Tosafos: why incomplete sound is a problem

Tosafos (s.v. “perforated and plugged”) write: if we explain the Mishnah as speaking of after the plugging — meaning that the plug was not smoothed and it obstructs the sound — it is difficult, since all sounds are kosher. They mean that the plug was not smoothed, and a bump from the plug remains protruding inside the hollow of the shofar, and this obstructs the spread of the sound, so that the shofar’s sound does not come out in its fullness. Their question is: what does it matter that the sound is not complete, if it is still the sound of a shofar, and all shofar sounds are kosher?

In their conclusion, Tosafos return to this reading — that “interferes with the blowing” means after the plugging — and yet they do not address at all their earlier question that all sounds are kosher. It follows that, in their final view, the problem is not that the plug’s obstruction leaves the sound incomplete, for that does not detract, since all sounds are kosher. Rather, the problem is that through the obstruction of the protruding plug, there is a change in the sound; and consequently the plug is itself shaping the sound of the shofar, so that it becomes a shofar together with another thing — like a shofar that was plated with gold. Tosafos had already mentioned earlier that if, through the plugging, the sound returned to what it was, the plug is nullified to the shofar. But the place of a plug that protrudes into the shofar is a thing that itself obstructs and alters the sound.

Since Tosafos in their conclusion did not explain at all that the obstruction consists of a change in sound, it seems that even in their conclusion the obstruction is what they described at the outset – that the plug was not smoothed — and the point is that such a plug is considered as shaping the sound of the shofar, as explained. This is what they mean by concluding that if it interferes after the plugging it is certainly pasul: in such a case the plugging did not repair the shofar. It is not because of a change in the sound, which comes about through the plug; rather, it is the very substance of the plug. Even if it is not noticeable on the shofar, and the change is such that the sound is still a shofar sound with only a slight alteration, since the plug is what governs it, any change is like gold plating on the mouthpiece, which is invisible from outside. Perhaps this is even worse, and it is forbidden according to all.

Section 12 — The Rosh: Interference Before or After the Plugging

The Rosh (siman 10) cites “some explain” that the Mishnah means: if the hole interfered with the blowing before it was plugged, and once plugged the sound returned to what it was — it is pasul, because this plug assists the sound, like a shofar plated with gold. According to this, if the plug interferes with the blowing after the plugging, the shofar would be kosher. See there. The idea is that a minute change is not considered “assisting the sound,” for there would be no end to the matter. [Presumably even a person who grips the shofar tightly in his hands while blowing affects the sound slightly, and the like.]

With gold plating there is a noticeable change in the sound; and likewise where one plugged the hole and the sound returned to what it was, the plug is a noticeable cause. But where a plug leaves a slight change compared to the sound before the plugging, that is different.

The Rosh’s conclusion is that “if it interferes with the blowing” means after the plugging: since the plug interferes with the blowing, it is like a shofar and another thing. See there. The Rosh’s wording does not spell out what the interference is. Maran in the Beis Yosef, cited in the Korban Nesanel, explains it as follows: even though the plug still interferes, nevertheless this is not like the sound of a plugged hole; the sound is not what it was at first, before the hole, when the shofar’s sound was complete, and it is also not the sound as affected by the hole; it emerges that the plug is itself conditioning the shofar’s sound. This explanation reads into the Rosh’s wording — that the plug interferes with the blowing — a meaning that the Rosh himself did not spell out. It does not seem at all that the Rosh means, as Tosafos do, that the plug’s protrusion itself obstructs the sound and causes a change in it. Rather, the Rosh’s words in his Pesakim are that the plug interferes with the blowing — meaning, in the plain reading, that the body of the plug interferes; as the Rosh explains, interference with the sound before the plugging is of no concern, since the sound returns to what it was, which means that the plug is nullified to the shofar. Only where the plug itself interferes does it govern the form of the sound, and then it is like a shofar and another thing, as explained.

Section 13 — The Rambam: “The Plugged Holes Did Not Interfere”

The Rambam (Hilchos Shofar 1:5) writes: “If one plugged it with its own kind … and the plugged holes did not interfere with the blowing, it is kosher.” The Rosh in his Pesakim and in his novellae explains that “interferes with the blowing” means after it was plugged, and concludes that this is also the Rambam’s view; and the Kesef Mishneh cites the Ran, who takes this as primary. This is unlike Rabbeinu Manoach and the Hagahos Maimoniyos, who understood the Rambam’s words as referring to interference before the plugging. See there.

It appears, however, that in the Rambam’s words there is a different approach, and it nearly amounts to a separate law. The Ramban, in the Milchamos and in his Derashah, explains that the disqualification of a plug that interferes with the blowing is because the plug is not fitted well and interferes with the sound; it stands to fall out, and consequently the entire plug is like another thing assisting the sound. The Rashba and the Ran explained as the Ramban did, but did not mention that it stands to fall out. On their view, since the plug is not fitted well, it does not repair the shofar, and it is worse than if one had not plugged at all: although the hole was mended by the plug, the body of the shofar itself was not completed, and with respect to the sound, the plug causes obstruction and assistance to the sound. The Rambam’s language — “the plugged holes did not interfere with the blowing” — likewise speaks of the state of the shofar after the plugging: the holes themselves, in their plugged state, must not interfere. This fits the reading of the Rosh and the Ran, and it is in keeping with the Ramban’s reasoning that a poorly fitted plug is itself a foreign element in the shofar.

Section 14 — Which Rishonim Require That the Plug Not Interfere?

The view of Rashi, the Rif (as the Baal HaMaor and the Ramban explained his words), the Rambam, the Ramban, the Rashba, the Ran, and the Ritva is that a plug of the shofar’s own kind is kosher only if it does not interfere with the blowing. The view of Tosafos, the Baal HaMaor, the Raavad, and the Rosh is that a plug of its own kind is kosher even if it interferes with the blowing, and they proved their view from the Yerushalmi, which states explicitly that even a plug that interferes with the blowing is kosher.

It appears that, according to the Rambam, a shofar that was perforated and not plugged is kosher; this also appears to be the view of Rashi and the Rif, and they hold this way in our Talmud, unlike the Yerushalmi. So too the Ritva (27b, on the Mishnah, s.v. “and plugged it”). If so, there is no proof from the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi follows its own approach: a perforated shofar is kosher because all sounds are kosher, and accordingly it is clear that a plug of its own kind is kosher even if there is still interference stemming from the hole, since it is no worse than before the plugging. But for us, who hold that a perforated shofar is pasul, as long as the sound is still obstructed because of the hole, the shofar has not yet been made kosher; and there is no proof at all from the Yerushalmi. The other Rishonim held that the halachah follows the Yerushalmi that a perforated shofar is kosher, and therefore even if interference from the hole remains, it is kosher. The Ramban and the other Rishonim who rule according to the Yerushalmi in this matter, and the Ritva, hold that the interference is a problem for another reason, as explained above.

Tosafos and the Rosh established that the interference must arise from the plug itself, not from the hole, because the sound of a shofar that was plugged is, in any event, altered — and yet the Mishnah teaches that a plug of its own kind that does not interfere is kosher. From this we see that the change in sound brought about by the plugging is not a problem, and only the plug’s own interference matters. The Raavad in both the Hasagos and  Derashah explains it the same way: the concern is with the plug, not with the sound before the plugging. The Ritva’s language, that the plug must be fitted so that it doesn’t interfere, is in line with this.

Section 15 — “One Shofar, and Not 2 or 3”: The Cow’s Horn

The Gemara does not mention the disqualification of “not two or three shofars” except in the case of a cow’s horn (26a), in explaining the reason of the Rabbis who disqualify it: since it is built of layer upon layer, it looks like two or three shofars. [This does not mean that it is disqualified merely because it looks that way; it is disqualified by Torah law, as the Gemara there states — “the Merciful One said ‘one shofar'” — and so too Tosafos there.]

The Rif and Rambam do not mention this reason of “looks like two or three shofars” in the case of a cow’s horn; they give only the Mishnah’s reason, that it is called a “horn” and not a “shofar.” [The Rambam does not mention this concept of “one shofar and not two” at all. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, likewise, he did not mention it in the psul of the cracked shofar, of glued pieces of shofars, or of a shofar inside a shofar.] According to the Rambam, then, the disqualification of glued pieces of shofars and of a cracked-and-glued shofar rests on the shofar’s not being whole and one in its own body, rather than on the derivation of “one shofar.” The other Rishonim, by contrast, used the principle of “one shofar and not two” to explain several of the Mishnah’s cases, and so the cases of the Mishnah and the case of the cow’s horn are understood as sharing a single principle.

Section 16 — A Shofar Inside a Shofar

The Gemara (27b) states: “If one placed a shofar inside a shofar … if he heard the sound of the outer one, he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rashi explains that the wall of the inner shofar interrupts the blast. That is, in this case the sound emerges from the outer shofar and not from the inner one. Ordinarily, the sound emerges from the shofar in the normal way, and only the shofar’s own shape and decoration make the sound thin or poor; but when one places a shofar inside a shofar, which interrupts the sound, the shofar’s sound does not emerge in its fullness. In the plain reading, since the shofar sound is the sound of the outer shofar, and the inner shofar interrupts the blast, there is no complete, proper blast here. Rashi explains according to the plain sense of the Gemara, that the sound emerges from the outer shofar alone — unlike the Rosh and Ran, who hold that the sound emerges from both shofars. On Rashi’s reading, the case is not one of “2 or 3 shofars,” since the inner one merely obstructs, and one can say this is why he placed the disqualification in the interruption of the blast.

Tosafos explain the case of hearing the sound of both the inner and the outer shofar as one in which the sound emerges through the hollow of both, and in such a case it is two shofars. The Rosh and Ran follow this approach: where the sound passes through both, the shofar is disqualified because of “one shofar and not two.” Where sound emerges from the inner shofar alone, the outer one is nullified to it and does not count, and he has fulfilled his obligation.

Section 17 — The Ramban: Two Sounds from One Person

The Ramban in his Derashah, regarding a shofar inside a shofar where one heard the sound of both, explains that these are “two sounds from a single person, which cannot be heard” — see there. It is self-evident to the Ramban that in such a case there is no problem of “two shofars,” since each shofar sound stands on its own and there is no deficiency in there being two. So too the Ritva in his Chiddushim. This is unlike the Rosh and the Ran, to whom it is self-evident that such a case is pasul because of two shofars.

Rabbeinu, in a further discussion, wondered at the Ran on grounds of logic: in such a case, two shofars should not detract, since each shofar sound is kosher on its own; and he raised a similar wonder against Tosafos. The comparison is to reading two megillos at once, or to two gittin — see there; this is not the place to elaborate. It appears that even if we were to say that two gittin can both take effect, that is because each get is stated fully on its own and is already complete. But here one hears a combined sound made up of two shofars together. [The Ritva there writes that if the outer shofar protrudes beyond the inner one at its end, it is certainly two shofars and is pasul.]

The Ramban’s words there require further study. He writes that we do not follow the shofars, which are two, but the sounds. If so, according to the Ramban, every sound of a shofar is judged on its own, and it is the mingling of two sounds that a person cannot properly hear that is the problem – not how manyshofars. On this approach, even one who heard the sound of both shofars has not fulfilled his obligation, but for a reason that has nothing to do with “one shofar and not two.” This is a fundamental difference between the Ramban’s approach and that of the Rosh and the Ran, and it also bears on the entire discussion above about whether a cracked or glued shofar is disqualified as “two shofars,” or because it has lost the name “shofar” altogether.

The translator can be reached at [email protected]