This is a topic what we discussed last year a little bit before Rosh Hashanah also, so some of it will be review and then we'll try to add a couple of new points with beezrat Hashem. The mishna says on לג עמוד ב, four lines up from the end of the mishna, that מי שבירך ואחר כך נזדמן לו שופר תוקע ומריע ותוקע שלש פעמים.
Someone who said the Shemoneh Esrei, Rashi: Mi sheberach התפלל תפילת מוספין ובירך תשע ברכות. He said the Musaf Shemoneh Esrei and said the nine brachot. Just incidentally, Rashi here and perhaps Rashi knows of this and is dismissing that opinion, but either way Rashi is staking out his position that the Baal HaMaor espouses the view that me'ikar hadin was supposed to say nine brachot in all the Shemoneh Esreis of Rosh Hashanah, not just in Musaf, but in each of the Shemoneh Esreis of Rosh Hashanah, Maariv, Shacharit, Musaf, and Mincha was supposed to say nine brachot. Rashi clearly is le'afukei from such an opinion from saying התפלל תפילת מוספין ובירך תשע ברכות that that's only the case in Musaf. If you take a look in the Dapei HaRif on יב עמוד א, va'ani omer hiti hamoer hakatan. The Baal HaMaor says here on the bottom on יב עמוד א, va'ani omer כי משורש ההלכה אין בראש השנה שבע ברכות אלא תשע הן מעולם.
Me'ikar hadin the Baal HaMaor says, the Baal HaMaor is well aware of the fact that what he's saying is against the minhag, so mishoresh hahalacha meaning in contrast to the prevailing minhag, I am of the opinion says the Baal HaMaor that me'ikar hadin the Rosh Hashanah Shemoneh Esrei always consists of nine brachot, בין בערבית בין בשחרית בין במוסף בין במנחה. What suggests that, what prompts that idea? כמו שפרק תפילת השחר. You see in the Gemara in Berakhot in the fourth perek, הני שמנה עשרה כנגד מי. הני שבע דשבתא כנגד מי.
The Gemara says that every Shemoneh Esrei we have, the number of brachot is not incidental. It wasn't that Chazal figured out they went through the shopping list and then however many items happened to end up on the shopping list, that's how many brachot we have. No, they have to be significant to the number, it has to correspond to something. So the Gemara asks, what does eighteen correspond to, when birkat haminim or velamalshinim was added, what was the justification for that, what does nineteen correspond to, what is the seven of Shabbos and Yom Tov correspond to? And then in that context, the Gemara says here in the third line of the Baal HaMaor, הני תשע ברכות דראש השנה כנגד מי. The Gemara refers to the nine brachot of Rosh Hashanah. So the Baal HaMaor says, it doesn't say demusfa derosh hashanah. נראה לנו מכאן שאין לנו לחלוק בתשע ברכות בכל תפלות היום כמו שאין לך לחלוק בשמנה עשרה של חול ובשבע של שבת.
He says the same way when the Gemara says shiva deshabata and doesn't modify it, it reflects the fact that each of the Shemoneh Esreis on Shabbos consists of seven, similarly with the eighteen or nineteen of the weekday, so too he thinks the implication is the same. Then he goes on and makes the point that Eli made before that doesn't mean that they blew shofar in every tefillah. ואף על פי שאין תוקע אלא במוסף כדתנן as the Mishnah says העובר לפני התיבה ביום טוב של ראש השנה השני משקיע
that the tekios accompany tefillas musaf. הוא לעניין ברכות זה וזה תשע. He thinks that that Mishnah also implies that the only contrast between the Shacharis and the Musaf is in terms of tekiah shofar. Okay. What's what's so suggestive about this is a very much a da'as yachid obviously. This opinion of the Baal HaMaor. What's so suggestive about it is that the idea which it suggests is one which even though this application is not accepted but the idea is very much in the mainstream. And that is let's shift gears and consider a different question for a moment. In the middle brachah in our seven brachah Shemoneh Esrei for Arvis, Shacharis, and Mincha concludes מלך על כל הארץ מקדש ישראל ויום הזיכרון. That's the chasima of the brachah. That's also the chasima of kiddush. It's also the chasima of the first of the middle brachos of Musaf. Fine. But what happens if you omit the phrase מלך על כל הארץ? What happens if you say Baruch Atah Hashem and sort of on a in a Yom Tov train of thought so mekadeish Yisrael and in this case veyom hazikaron and you leave out the phrase מלך על כל הארץ? So some acharonim say that with the exception of Musaf it's not me'akeiv. That since only Musaf has Malchiyos integrated, only Musaf has Malchiyos integrated so in Musaf where the chasima is summing up a brachah not only of kedushas hayom but it's summing up a brachah of Malchiyos also so then the phrase מלך על כל הארץ is me'akeiv. But in kiddush, Arvis, Shacharis, and Mincha where it's only a summation of kedushas hayom, it's not a summation of Malchiyos, so then מלך על כל הארץ is not me'akeiv. And the Rav used to quote Rav Chaim that Rav Chaim said no that מלך על כל הארץ is always me'akeiv. It's me'akeiv in all other occasions also. Ah you don't have Malchiyos? So Rav Chaim said no you do have Malchiyos because Malchiyos is the kedushas hayom of Rosh Hashanah. It's true that the mitzvah of the long exposition so that we only do once. We only do that in Musaf with the Aleinu, Al Kein Nekaveh, and the ten pesukim so that we only that we only do once. But Malchiyos is synonymous with the kedushas hayom of Rosh Hashanah and again that's why we certainly maintain the paragraph in all the Shemoneh Esreis of מלוך על כל העולם כולו בכבודך. That entire paragraph. So Rav Chaim said therefore the מלך על כל הארץ is always me'akeiv. And Rav Chaim held that one would be again if you catch yourself toch kidei dibbur obviously it's no problem but if you didn't catch yourself toch kidei dibbur Rav Chaim's opinion was that you would have to be chozeir on all occasions for omitting that phrase of מלך על כל הארץ. So did the reverse of that that he paskens that No, but others disagree. Others the the poskim I hear is the Matteh Efraim says no that it's only only by Musaf. Only by Musaf. So you see if you say mekadeish Yisrael veyom hazikaron it's sufficient. I mean according to the yeah according to the others right. According to the others right. So what this Baal HaMaor so what's interesting about this Baal HaMaor is again so obviously the Baal HaMaor goes much further but the Baal HaMaor really highlights this idea, right? The fact that according to the Baal HaMaor you said Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofros in each Shemoneh Esrei and that the nine brachah Shemoneh Esrei is the standard Shemoneh Esrei as opposed to just the Musaf Shemoneh Esrei so what that expresses is this idea of Rav Chaim that it's not just that in Musaf we sort of digress to talk about the Malchiyos, Hakadosh Baruch Hu's sovereignty, Zichronos, hashgacha pratis, sachar va'onesh, and Shofros, gilluy shechina specifically at ma'amad Har Sinai ve'le'asid lavo. It's not just that in Musaf we digress to talk about these things but these things are really they they comprise the essence of the kedushas hayom. That's what this this view again albeit in terms of this application very much a da'as yachid but that's the idea which it underscores. Okay. Be'chol panim mistama that's what Rashi here is. is indicating to us, again, whether such an opinion had been espoused already before the Baal HaMaor, I don't know. But the Rashi clearly is dismissing that opinion. Okay. So in terms of the nine Malchiyos, Zichronos, Shofaros, the whole in other words, the essence of the day is comprised of all three. Right, because in many ways, the extension of the Ruchniyos, which is right, because in many ways Zichronos and Shofaros, and maybe we'll talk a little bit more about this yet tonight, in many ways Zichronos and Shofaros are sort of aspects of Malchiyos. They're sort of applications of Malchiyos in the sense that Malchiyos, the fact of sovereignty, also implies relationship, which is what Zichronos and Shofaros deal with, right? Those are aspects of Malchiyos that HaKadosh Baruch Hu, as Melech, so exercises divine providence and Sachar V'Onesh and holds us to judgment, and that HaKadosh Baruch Hu, as Melech, again implying relationship, which is what Malchiyos implies, that it implies relationship, so then there is Giluy Shchinah. So basically, Zichronos and Shofaros are really aspects of Malchiyos as well, which again, in the Mussaf Shmoneh Esrei, so we spell those out, we make explicit these aspects. But basically they're, you know, if you want to have the Chutzpah, if the Ger came to Shammai and Hillel and said, "you know, I want one theme for the three Brachos, not three themes, Al Regel Achas," so the Al Regel Achas is that Zichronos and Shofaros really are simply aspects of Malchus as well. Okay, fine. So what does the Mishna say? So the Mishna says that Mi SheBirach, Rashi says Birach means he Daven Mussaf. At the time, he had no Shofar. So what does he do? So subsequently afterwards, when he gets a hold of a Shofar, when he gets a hold of a Shofar, so then at that point he'll blow the requisite nine Kolos. Right, the Mishna, which is before the Takkanah of Rabbi Abbahu, which the Gemara quotes in Daf Lamed Daled, is just reflecting what we, according to most Rishonim, Pasken that the basic Mitzva D'Oraisa on Rosh Hashana is nine Kolos. Right, three Teruos, each of which have פשוטה לפניה ופשוטה לאחריה, preceded and followed by a Tekiah. Fine. Rashi: תוקע ומריע ותוקע שלש פעמים, תוקע ומריע ותוקע בשביל מלכיות,
V'Chein Bishvil Zichronos, V'Chein Bishvil Shofaros. So Rashi, interestingly, right, Rashi, interestingly, correlates the fact that there are nine Kolos, or three lines, right, a Tekiah, Teruah, Tekiah, as one line of Shofar, Rashi says that that directly corresponds to Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros, right, directly corresponds to Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros, right? Which is interesting, right? Rashi doesn't say that the Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros correspond to the Shofar; he says that the Shofar corresponds to the Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros. How can how can something D'Oraisa be said to correspond to a D'Rabbanan? Right, isn't it isn't it the case, if you take a look on למד דלד עמוד בית for a moment, the third line after they branch out, the third line after they branch out, so the Gemara says מצווה בתוקעין יותר מן המברכין. It's more of a Mitzva to hear Shofar than it is to Daven Mussaf. Why do we have to rank them? כיצד שתי עיירות באחת תוקעין ובאחת מברכין. A person lives more or less equidistant or Lav Davka equidistant, but there are two two cities within walking range. So he can go to one, so they have a Shofar and a Baal Tekiah, but they don't have anyone who knows the Mussaf Shmoneh Esrei, so he won't be able to Daven Mussaf. In the other one, they have someone who knows the Mussaf Shmoneh Esrei, but they have no Shofar, so באחת תוקעין ובאחת מברכין. So where do you where do you buy your Rosh Hashana ticket, right? Halacha L'Maaseh, in point of fact, where do you buy your where do you buy your Rosh Hashana ticket? So the Gemara says הולכין למקום שתוקעין ואין הולכין למקום שמברכין, that you should go Daven where they can blow Shofar, you don't Daven, you don't go where they'll say Mussaf, says the Gemara. Answers the Gemara: Lo tzericha, לא צריכא דאע"ג דהוה וחספיק, meaning that there's greater chance of the Ba'al Tekiya getting stuck and not being able to produce the kolos properly than there is of the Ba'al Musaf to get the Shemoneh Esrei. That's more of a sure bet that he's going to remember the Musaf and be able to say it properly is more of a sure bet than that the Ba'al Tekiya will succeed with t'kiyas shofar. So maybe you should go for the d'Rabbanan, which is more, which is a safer bet, rather than the d'Oraisa, which is not as safe a bet? Kamashma lan, no, that you go for the t'kiyas shofar, you go for the d'Oraisa. So the Ramban al haTorah says, Rashi al haTorah, if you take a look in the Gemara earlier in דף ל"ב עמוד א', the Gemara has a couple of drashas here, if you see where it says Bamidbar Yud in between the Rashi lines and the Gemara lines, right near where it says Gemara in the Rashi lines, the Gemara here has a couple of drashas for how you know we say Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros, right? How do you know we say Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros? So one of them, for instance, the Gemara darshans from Parshas Beha'aloscha. I think this is where the Rashi is. I don't know if the Rashi's in Emor or Beha'aloscha. I think it's in Beha'aloscha. So the Gemara quotes רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר אינו צריך, הרי הוא אומר והיו לכם לזכרון לפני אלהיכם,
and then it says ani Hashem elokeichem. שאין תלמוד לומר אני ה' אלהיכם, it's not needed, ומה תלמוד לומר אני ה' אלהיכם? זה בנה אב לכל מקום שנאמר בו זכרונות יהיו מלכויות עמהן.
So the Gemara associates Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros with pesukim. So Rashi in the Peirush al haTorah quotes this drasha. So the Ramban is masig and the Ramban says, no, you shouldn't quote this in the Peirush al haTorah, these are clearly only asmachtas, and hi zu re'ayah, the Gemara says, hi zu re'ayah, one of the two is this Gemara here on דף ל"ד עמוד ב', that the Gemara says that מצוה בתוקעין יצא מן המברכין, הא דאורייתא והא דרבנן. So clearly the pesukim of Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros are only d'Rabbanan, right? That's the clear upshot of the Gemara on דף ל"ד עמוד ב'. So in light of that, the Gemara on דף ל"ב עמוד א' is just an asmachta. That's the way it should be understood. So why is Rashi al haTorah quoting that asmachta? So the truth is that not only from Rashi al haTorah, but I think the Rav pointed this out as well, but be-emes, you see Rashi here in Rosh Hashanah as well consistently, consistently implies that Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros are d'Oraisa. Where do you see it? Because again, to say that the three lines of tekiyah-teruah-tekiyah, each of those three lines correspond to Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros, so again, you can't say a d'Oraisa corresponds to a d'Rabbanan. You can say it in the opposite direction, right? You can say the d'Rabbanan was introduced to correspond to a d'Oraisa, but you can't say that the d'Oraisa is corresponding to a d'Rabbanan. Yet that's clearly what Rashi is saying. Rashi said it earlier in the Mishnah as well on the opening line of our Mishnah here on דף ל"ג עמוד ב' where the Mishnah says סדר תקיעות שלש של שלש שלש. So Rashi says what are all these three three shalosh-es that we're counting for, right? So one shalosh is tekiyah-teruah-tekiyah. That's one shalosh. Another shalosh is that you have to repeat that sequence three times. So that's two of them. What's the third shalosh here? שלש של שלש שלש? So Rashi says אחת למלכויות אחת לזכרונות ואחת לשופרות. And again, the d'Oraisa is for Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros. So Rashi consistently seems to be saying that Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros are d'Oraisa, right? That's what Rashi is indicating in the Peirush al haTorah by quoting these drashas, and that's what the Rashi's here indicate as well. So what do you do with the Ramban's kasha? Right? The Gemara does seem black on white against Rashi. if I'm not mistaken, I hope I'm not interchanging these two. The answer the Rav used to give is as follows, again, but what was the context in the Gemara on למד זין עמוד ב that you have two cities, right? In one they only have a shofar and a Ba'al Tekiah, and in the other they have a Ba'al Tefillah, right? In the other they have a Ba'al Tefillah. So in that context, where malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros are being said without shofar, so the Gemara says it's d'rabanan, right? But what about when malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros are said as a commentary on shofar? If malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros like the Gemara says back on טז עמוד א, right? The famous Gemara back on טז עמוד א, the second line after they branch off to the right, on the bottom, אמרו לפני בראש השנה מלכויות זכרונות ושופרות מלכויות כדי שתמליכוני עליכם זכרונות כדי שיעלה זכרונכם לפני לטובה ובמה בשופר.
So the malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros are a commentary or an introduction to shofar. So together with shofar, malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros are a mitzvah d'oraisa. The Gemara says malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros are only d'rabanan because the Gemara is talking about a case in the city where they're only mevarchin, they have no tekiah shofar. Without tekiah shofar, so malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros standing alone are only d'rabanan. But malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros b'makom she'toke'in would have been d'oraisa as well. The difference is this, that tekias shofar even without malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros is d'oraisa, but malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros without tekias shofar is not d'oraisa. That's one mahalach for Rashi. A second mahalach, this one I heard from a zakein, zecher tzadik livracha, the exact opposite in Rashi, suggests that m'deoraisa you can be m'kayem the mitzvah of malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros through tekias shofar as well. That tekias shofar, since it expresses malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros, on a d'oraisa level satisfies both obligations. The chiyuv to say malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros even though you blew shofar is only d'rabanan. The chiyuv to say it, again, in addition to blowing shofar, is only d'rabanan. Okay, but I think the Rav said the other mahalach. Okay. What was the second mahalach? So you're saying that you can be yotzei m'deoraisa the mitzvah of malchuyos just by blowing shofar. Right, right, that the themes of malchuyos, zichronos, and shofros are expressed through the shofar. If you don't have shofar, so then it would be d'oraisa to say it. And what does the Gemara mean that it's d'rabanan then? What the Gemara means that it's d'rabanan is that you should go bedafke to be able to say them and not rely on having them expressed through tekias shofar, that is d'rabanan. Okay, and so those are the two mahalachin. I think the Rav used to say the first mahalach, that it's a commentary on tekias shofar. So with tekias shofar, it's d'oraisa. Without tekias shofar, that's what the Gemara says הא דאורייתא הא דרבנן. Okay, that's also just parenthetical. But the connection of the Daf is very worth reading the Rav's Shiurei Shofar as a way of tefillah. Yeah, ee nami. Ee nami. Yeah, but tefillah, it's me-ein ha-tefillah, it's not exclusive of tefillah. Right. I mean to say that it's exclusive, I don't see it as being yotzei shofar, it's me-ein ha-tefillah, it's part of tefillah, it's not exclusive of tefillah. Okay. Good. Fine. So let's see the Gemara here on למד דלד עמוד ב. Around seven, eight lines before they branch out. מי שבירך ואחר כך נזדמנה לו שופר תוקע ומריע ותוקע.
So what does the Mishna say? If he davened Musaf and only later did he procure a shofar, so then you blow shofar afterwards. So clearly the implication is טעמא דלא הוה ליה שופר מעיקרא. Why didn't you blow shofar already? Because you didn't have a shofar initially. הא הוה ליה שופר מעיקרא, if he would have had a shofar initially, so then כי שמע להו בסדר ברכות שמע להו. Okay, incidentally, the the just the phraseology of the Gemara here is certainly supports the shita of the Rambam that the mitzvah on Rosh Hashanah is lishmoa kol shofar, right? Not- not to blow, but rather to- to listen. Because otherwise, right, mistama the Gemara would- is- would have used the idiom of ki taka lo. Okay, it's not a- absolute ironclad ra'aya, but that's- that's the mashma'us. רב פפא בר שמואל, who for whatever reason was not able to be davening b'tzibur on Rosh Hashanah, got up to daven. אמר ליה לשמאי, he said to his attendant, ki nahana lach, when I signal you, taka li. So you blow. And his- his- his attendant Shammai served as his ba'al tokeia. So he said, "I'll- I'll signal you and- and then you'll blow." So Amar leh Rava, who was present apparently- lo- or- or maybe Rava heard about it subsequently, but it sounds like he was there at the time. Amar leh Rava, לא אמרו אלא בחבר עיר. No, no, no. The Mishna, which suggests clearly that you blow al seder habrachos, that Malchiyos v'tokeia, Zichronos v'tokeia, Shofros v'tokeia, is לא אמרו אלא בחבר עיר. That's only if you're b'tzibur. However, shelo b'chever ir, you don't do that. So you shouldn't have him blowing shofar for you in the middle of Shmoneh Esrei. Tanya nami hachi. The Gemara quotes a Baraisa which corroborates Rava. Kshehu shome'an, when you hear the tkias, shome'an al haseder, you have to hear them in sequence—t'kia, t'rua, t'kia; t'kia, t'rua, t'kia—v'al seder brachos: Malchiyos, t'kia; Zichronos, t'kia; Shofros, t'kia. B'meh devarim amurim, that you have both these dinim, b'chever ir, when you're davening with a minyan. אבל שלא בחבר עיר, if you're not davening with a minyan, so then shome'an al haseder. However, ושלא על סדר ברכות. You still have to hear the correct sequence of kolos, t'kia, t'rua, t'kia, shome'an al haseder. However, ושלא על סדר ברכות, but you don't hear it al seder habrachos. You don't hear it in the middle of Shmoneh Esrei. And- and that of course is the din that a yachid would not blow shofar in the Shmoneh Esrei. So when does he blow shofar? When does he blow shofar? Again, so- so practically, obviously, it- it often boils down to when the ba'al tokeia can come. But let's say optimally, let's say a person is in a position to- to arrange that the ba'al tokeia should come any time that- that- that he wants. So the Rema says in Shulchan Aruch that basically you do it in- in the same point in davening that the tzibur does it, dahinu, after Shacharis before Musaf. That's when- that's when you blow shofar. The Vilna Gaon there says- he says in the parentheses there- tells you the Rema is quoting a Kol Bo, and the Vilna Gaon says that Rashi says differently. And the impression you have from the Vilna Gaon is- is that he seems to be siding with Rashi. Why? Because if you take a look in the Rashi here in our sugya, dibur hamas'chil, ela b'chever ir, so Rashi first of all tells us, what does the phrase chever ir mean? Chaburas tzibur. That's what chever ir means. Fine. אבל יחיד מברך את כולם, but a- a yachid should say the entire Shmoneh Esrei, ואחר כך תוקע תשע תקיעות. And after he davens Musaf, right, after he davens Musaf, so then he blows the nine kolos. Then he blows the nine kolos. That's- that's shitas Rashi. That's shitas Rashi. Well, what's the issue here between Rashi and the Rema as to when optimally a yachid is going to blow? Well, what's the issue? So the issue would seem to be as follows. This- this explanation also from the Rav Zatzal as follows. How do we, let's say, b'tzibur when we do blow al seder brachos? So how do we- how do we effect that kiyum of תקיעה על סדר ברכות? First you say the bracha, then you blow, right? Meaning that by articulating Malchiyos, so then the Malchiyos resonates in the shofar as well. And by articulating Zichronos, so then when you blow shofar, it- it- it resonates in the- the- the shofar as well, u'chulu. Okay, so that's- that's how it's done. And you can't do it the other way, right? We don't blow Malchiyos- we don't blow shofar right before Malchiyos, but it's rather Malchiyos v'tokeia, Zichronos v'tokeia, Shofros v'tokeia. Now what Rashi seems to be saying is that in principle this kiyum of תקיעה על סדר ברכות—and again, Rashi l'shitaso—I don't- I don't know if he added this, but Rashi l'shitaso, it makes a lot of sense. But what Rashi seems to hold is that this kiyum... I think that we actually discussed this a little bit last year, but for whatever reason, Rashi for whatever reason, not just Rashi, but the pattern we have is that a tzibur can insert things into the Shmoneh Esrei proper which a yachid has to relegate to the end of Shmoneh Esrei. Let's say Viduy on Yom HaKippurim, right? So the yachid says it at the end of the Shmoneh Esrei, the tzibur integrates it into the Shmoneh Esrei proper. Okay, so for whatever reason that's the model, that's the pattern we have. So a yachid also has this mitzvah, this kiyum of תקיעות על סדר ברכות, but the way the yachid fulfills it is different, right? He goes about it differently than the tzibur. So again, once you hear that, so then clearly what's the implication of the Rema? What's the implication then of the psak of the Rema? That the Rema says that we blow shofar before Mussaf. So what's the implication? The implication is clearly that the Rema thinks that there is no... it's not... when Rava taught לא אמרו אלא בחבר עיר, Rava wasn't only telling him that you can't insert it in the Shmoneh Esrei unless you're a tzibur, he was telling him this whole mitzvah of תקיעות על סדר ברכות doesn't exist for a yachid. It only exists for a tzibur. If it doesn't exist for a yachid, so why should he unnecessarily postpone tki'as shofar until after Mussaf? Let him have the tki'as shofar already after Shacharis. Now if you take a look in the Ran for instance, you find a couple of Rishonim who say this meforash, that the תקיעות על סדר ברכות is only for the tzibur. If you take a look, again back on that same daf we were before in the Dappei HaRif, yud-beis amud-alef. The Ran here is actually commenting on a Gemara a little bit further down on lamed-dalet amud-beis. The Gemara quotes, what is it? A beraisa, Tosefta, which tells us of an exchange between Rabban Gamliel and the chachamim as to what the function of chazaras hashatz is. So the chachamim are of the opinion that one who knows how to davven is not allowed lechatchila to simply rely on chazaras hashatz and say that I'll be yotzei my chiyuv tefillah through chazaras hashatz. So Rabban Gamliel says to them, so according to you, why do you bother having a chazaras hashatz, right? That's the line which the Ran is commenting on here. לדבריכם למה שליח צבור יורד לפני התיבה, says the Ran, פירוש בשאר ימות השנה. Rabban Gamliel's question to the chachamim of why do you bother having a chazaras hashatz since no one is supposed to rely on it anyway, his question wasn't about Rosh Hashanah, his question was about the rest of the year. דאילו בראש השנה מאי קמהדר להו, this would be no response on Rabban Gamliel's part to ask this question. שהרי צריך לירד לפני התיבה כדי שיתקעו על סדר ברכות שלא אמרו אלא בצבור.
Very interesting. The Ran says there's a special reason and a special mechayev to have chazaras hashatz on Rosh Hashanah, which is in order to have תקיעות על סדר ברכות. You have to have a chazaras hashatz on Rosh Hashanah if for no other reason than otherwise we couldn't have תקיעות על סדר ברכות because, again clearly, this is like the what underlies the Rema, right? That the whole mitzvah of תקיעות על סדר ברכות is limited exclusively to tzibur, right? Is it limited to tzibur or is it limited to t’fillas hatzibur? It's limited to—oh, so that's a good point, that's a good point, meaning the difference being whether or not the tzibur, you blow during the silent Shmoneh Esrei. Exactly. The Ran would hold not, I guess. The Ran clearly, 100%, 100%, the Ran clearly holds not like the Aruch, that you would not blow during the silent Shmoneh Esrei with a tzibur. Right, you're absolutely correct. It's limited to chazaras hashatz. Can I just ask a question? Is the Ran saying that t’filla b’tzibur, I mean I'm assuming taking it a step further, that t’filla b’tzibur means only with chazaras hashatz? In other words—No, well, well, that sort of depends upon why we're limiting it to chazaras hashatz. So we have to—let's—that's—that's an important question, but let's—let's reserve judgment on that. Okay, so we have basically here a—well, maybe we'll just add the—add the Rambam to the equation here before we comment on it. The Rambam... The Rambam in פרק ג הלכות שופר הלכה ז says as follows: הצבור חייבין לשמוע התקיעות על סדר הברכות. Right? And it's quite clear from the Rambam, it's not that the yachid and the tzibbur have the same mitzvah but go about it differently, it's quite clear that the tzibbur has this added mitzvah, this special mitzvah which a yachid does not have. Okay. So what we have then is an explicit machlokes rishonim. If we had time, maybe we'll have time later we'll see, we'll add the Ba'al HaMa'or to the mix. But we have then a machlokes in the rishonim. The Rambam and the Ran say explicitly that the whole mitzvah of תקיעות על סדר הברכות only exists b'tzibbur and moreover the Ran says quite clearly that he is of the opinion that and even in the presence of a tzibbur, it's limited to chazaras hashatz, right? It's limited to chazaras hashatz. Rashi on the other hand, this is not explicit, but given the mahalach in Rashi, so Rashi is then implying that the mitzvah of תקיעות על סדר הברכות exists for a yachid as well, but the only thing is that the yachid goes about it differently than the tzibbur, where the tzibbur again actually integrated it into the Shmoneh Esrei proper, the yachid blows immediately afterwards. Okay. So let's try to understand what this is about. Specifically, I mean, Rashi is certainly the easier position to understand, right? תקיעות על סדר הברכות, so we understand תקיעות על סדר הברכות, again, is because tkias shofar is also a kiyum tefilla. In addition, tkias shofar also hints at the themes of Malchuyos, Zichronos, and Shofros. So that's what Chazal said, so the two should be integrated. They enhance each other, they enhance each other. So Rashi says okay, so if for whatever reason our model is, or the pattern is, that a yachid can't insert it into the Shmoneh Esrei proper, but there's no reason that he shouldn't have this enhanced kiyum of תקיעות על סדר הברכות by saying Malchuyos, Zichronos, and Shofros and then and then blowing. So again, so it makes the Malchuyos, Zichronos, and Shofros resonate in the tkias shofar. By blowing shofar in the context of tefilla, so it underscores the fact that shofar is a form of tefilla. So why shouldn't you have this b'tzibbur as well? I think Rashi is the easier opinion to understand. But why shouldn't you have this b'tzibbur as well? So I'd like to present two explanations. Answer number one, the Rav said very interesting answer, very, very interesting answer. He said you know why the Rambam thinks you can't have תקיעות על סדר הברכות except b'tzibbur and Shalom, what would you observe? That the Ran says that even b'tzibbur, right, unlike the Aruch, so just to review very quickly, if you take a look in the Tosafot on למד גמל עמוד בית, when Tosafot is actually not interested in this question per se, but Tosafot quotes kiyaduah the famous view of the Aruch, take a look in the fourth line after the broad shore here on למד גמל עמוד בית in the Tosafot: ובערוך פירש שהיו עושין כן שפירש בערך ערב דהלין מאה דמחבבי ועבדי.
This is the Aruch records the custom that he knew of. Avdai shloshim kide'yashvin. Okay, so they blow 30 kolos tkias d'me'yushav ושלשים בלחש ושלשים על הסדר כנגד מאה פעיות דפעיא אימא דסיסרא.
That's very cryptic, very enigmatic. Why exactly we have to commemorate... Sisera's mother's wailing, it's true that the Gemara quotes the psukim of Eim Sisra in terms of helping us figure out whether it's a Teruah, a Shvarim, what we call a Teruah. Okay, whatever that's tzarich iyun what it means. And then he says and then we're mashlim the hundred, but הלין עשר אינון כשגומרין כל התפילה that we have another ten after the chazaras hashatz. But clearly the Orech had the custom in the Shtilla Shmoneh Esrei as well. So why is it again that even in the Orech, where he's talking about them, he says, when he says, when he talks about the thirty in the Chazara, that's where he says al haseder. And then when he first refers to the thirty belachash, he says shloshim belachash. And then he says shloshim baseder. So he may not be disagreeing with the Ran. When he talks specifically about the mitzvah of tekiyos al haseder. So then shloshim belachash, what would they be then? It's another kiyum of shofar, but it's not the kiyum of shofar al haseder. That's an interesting observation. That's a very interesting observation. See, yediuk is fascinating. The problem, though, is that if it's not a kiyum of al haseder, then stam you certainly have no right to put them into the Shmoneh Esrei. I mean, you can't, I don't know, it's a good thing to, I mean there's lots of good things to do, but you can't do them in the middle of Shmoneh Esrei if they have nothing to do with Shmoneh Esrei, right? The only reason we can have duchaning in the middle of Shmoneh Esrei, to have a duchaning in the middle of Shmoneh Esrei, because the context of duchaning is supposed to be avodah, and the avodah context that we have for duchaning outside the Beis Hamikdash is davening. But you can't stam... so I don't know, you're, it's... unless he just, unless a very boring answer, unless he just, unless he just wants to indicate somehow or other, to indicate once he said belachash, it's clear that the next shloshim al haseder means chazaras hashatz. So maybe he doesn't necessarily mean to imply that because I don't know conceptually how that could be that that blow, that you'd be allowed to blow it belachash without it being a kiyum of al seder berachos. I think otherwise you couldn't do it. Okay, so the Orech has it. So what we want to know is, again, even in the Orech, right, it could be that he would disagree with Rashi. But so we want to know two things. A, why should it be that according to the Rambam and the Ran that it's limited to tzibur? And number two, even within tzibur, the Ran and... for reasons that if we have time we'll see, it's definitely the case that the Rambam would agree with this as well, that it's only in the chazaras hashatz. So the Rav gave a very fascinating explanation. He said that for instance if you look just read a halacha from Hilchos Tefillah in Perek Hey of Hilchos Tefillah. So in Perek Daled of Hilchos Tefillah the Rambam lists חמישה דברים שהם מעכב את התפילה, which are indispensable, they're absolutely me'akev. In Perek Chamishi, the Rambam has shmonah devarim which you're supposed to be nizaher l'chatchila, but b'diavad it's okay. So one of them is hashvayas hakol, is modulating one's voice. What does that mean? כיצד לא יגביה קולו בתפילתו, on the other hand lo yispallel belibo, you can't just think the words of the Shmoneh Esrei, אלא מחתך הדברים בשפתיו ומשמיע לאוזנו בלחש. When a yachid davens, so the tefillah is supposed to be a tefillah belachash. ולא ישמיע קולו אלא אם כן היה חולה או שאינו יכול לכוין את לבו עד שישמיע קולו,
so then harei zeh mutar. And even then you shouldn't do it be'tzibur not to disturb everyone else. So when a yachid davens, he's supposed to daven belachash, right? When a yachid davens, the mitzvah of tefillah is belachash. And again, I think it's easy to understand what that represents, but whatever it does, the mitzvah for a yachid is to daven belachash. So says the Rav, תקיעות על סדר ברכות is only possible when the tzurah of tefillah, when the tzurah of tefillah is be'kol ram. But if the tzurah of tefillah is belachash, so then you can't have תקיעות על סדר ברכות. The two are antithetical. The two are antithetical. That's a fascinating explanation. So that's one explanation meaning that be'emes the chilluk is not really between yachid and tzibur. Ein hachi nami, the question we asked, wouldn't it be equally meaningful for a yachid to get tkeios haseder brachos? The answer is yeah, in theory, in terms of the connection, thematic, conceptually, between the tkeios and the brachos, yeah, but there's something else which prevents it. And that's that again the the modality of tefillah, the tzurah of tefillah for a yachid is belachash. Is belachash. That precludes, by definition, tkeios haseder brachos. Okay, so obviously the question is then what about how can you have according to the Rosh, how could you blow according to the Rosh, how could you blow during Shmone Esrei if the chiddush the Rambam describes Shmone Esrei is for a yachid, right? So how could you ever according to this shitta blow blow during Shmone Esrei? So that's the problem with a good explanation. Then what you thought you understood now becomes shver, right? That's a good teretz but now those who have the Ein hachi nami, Ein hachi nami, okay. So, I don't know, so maybe maybe belachash just has to be the words. But maybe a kol which has no no words to it, maybe maybe that's not antithetical. But Ein hachi nami, Ein hachi nami, okay, so in that case you could do both yachid also. Okay, so that that's one mahalach. That's one mahalach. But let let's explore a a second mahalach. And I think the second mahalach would allow for the the minhag of the Rosh as well of that the distinction between tzibur and yachid is even within the silent Shmone Esrei that betzibur. And that is we'll begin, don't really need this, but we'll begin with a Gemara in Brachos here on daf vav. תניא אבא בנימין אומר אין תפילה של אדם נשמעת אלא בבית הכנסת.
There's a special mailah, a special sgulah to davening in a beit knesset even if you can't daven with a minyan. Even if for whatever reason you can't, let's say you you're going on a trip, you can't wait until the tzibur's going to daven Mincha at at 7 o'clock, but you can get to you have to daven Mincha at 4 o'clock. There's no minyan around, if you can get into a shul, it's better to daven Mincha in a shul even when you're going to be davening beyichidus. תניא אבא בנימין אומר אין תפילה של אדם נשמעת אלא בבית הכנסת שנאמר
from tefillas Shlomo לשמוע אל הרינה ואל התפילה במקום רינה שם תהא תפילה.
In the place which is designated for consecrated by rina, right? Rina is the song, במקום רינה שם תהא תפילה. That's where you should daven. So how does that so there's a gap here, no? So why can't why does makom rina limit it to beit knesset? Right, there's a logical gap here, right? במקום רינה שם תהא תפילה, so how does that translate into beit knesset? So Rashi fills in that gap. Rashi says bemakom rina means beit haknesset, by virtue of what? ששם אומרים הציבור שירות ותשבחות בנעימת קול ערב. Because that's where the tzibur, right? Together say shiros vesishbachos, again with with sweet melodies. Okay, so why can't I have a makom rina, let's say where a yachid davens, and a yachid says his shiros vesishbachos? How how did we fill in the gap here? It's a little bit of a subtle point Rabosai, but but listen, it's it's there's there's wonderful things behind this. It's clear from Rashi, clear from the Gemara, that rina, right? Shira to Hakadosh Baruch Hu in its fullest sense is only betzibur. Right, that's the missing, that fills in the logical gap, right? That shira in its fullest sense, rina in its fullest sense, is only betzibur. Meaning, not just that there's an added kiyum of אינם דומים מעטים עושים רצון שבשמים למרובים עושים רצון שבשמים,
but rina, true rina, means it's betzibur. Why does true rina mean that it's betzibur? Why is that? So so it's like this. We say we say in in Adon Olam, right? אדון עולם אשר מלך בטרם כל יציר נברא. that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is absolute and and therefore he ruled even before anything was created, בטרם כל יציר נברא. However, לעת נעשה בחפצו כל, right? When at his will, becheftzo, na'asa kol, everything was created, then אזי מלך שמו נקרא. That Hashem didn't kivyachol become a melech until we were created. Or, as we quote, there's a saying from Rabbeinu Bachaye, right, which really expresses it most directly for our context. The phrase is אין מלך בלא עם. You can't have someone who's a king, you can't have someone who's a king who doesn't have a people. You can't have a person can build himself a palace, and he can build himself a throne, and he can and he can buy himself a scepter. If he doesn't have a people, he's not a king. אין מלך בלא עם. Oh, so kivyachol, and look, we say it, אזי מלך שמו נקרא, again, it was only when Hakadosh Baruch Hu created the world, and again, in creation was tole ve'omad until Vav Sivan, right, Yom Hashishi, until Vav Sivan, until we accepted Hakadosh Baruch Hu. So only then did Hakadosh Baruch Hu become a melech. Now, what that implies is that the mitzvah of Malchuyot in its fullest sense, or in its truest sense, can only be fulfilled betzibur. Because as a yachid, so a person can say, I pledge, I pledge my loyalty. I'll be a loyal subject. However, each one of us qua yachid can't, again, in the fullest sense of the word, ממליך הקדוש ברוך הוא in the fullest sense, because אין מלך בלא עם. That אין מלך בלא עם. It's only when you have a Malchuyot betzibur that you have a complete Malchuyot. Again, משל למה הדבר דומה, a similar concept Rashi here has in Berachot, that it's only when the tzibur says rinah for the same reason, because then it's rinah to a melech. When the tzibur says the shirot vetishbachot, so then it's rinah to a melech. When a yachid says it, again, a yachid, no matter how great, even Moshe Rabbeinu, doesn't have the standing, doesn't have the standing to make Hakadosh Baruch Hu a melech, because אין מלך בלא עם. He can't be a melech over a yachid. Malchut implies over an am. So then there is a dimension to Malchuyot which you only have betzibur. So then that's the pshat, that it's davka betzibur that you have tekiot aseder berachot, because Chazal said, ein hachnami, tekiot aseder berachot is the most perfect form of Malchuyot and the most perfect form of tekiat shofar is to integrate, to juxtapose the two. But precisely because it's the most perfect form of Malchuyot, that's reserved for the tzibur because it's only the tzibur that you have a full kiyum of Malchuyot. Now, that explanation can allow for Malchuyot, again, there are other variables which we haven't discussed, but that also itachen would allow for Malchuyot even in the silent Shemoneh Esrei as well.