Chapter 9: The laws of a Kosher Shofar

1. Which animal horns may be used for blowing Shofar on Rosh Hashanah?[1]

Introduction: Only those horns that are defined as a Shofar as opposed to Keren are valid to be used for blowing Shofar. The following will discuss the definition of a Keren and which horns are thus invalid to be used.

The horn of a cow:[2] The horn of a cow and ox[3] [despite them being Kosher animals and containing cartilage[4]], are invalid.[5]  If one used this horn to blow Shofar, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

Horns with cartilage:[6] The term Shofar refers specifically to hollow horns which have cartilage growing inside filling their hollow space.[7] This negates the horns of majority of non-domestic animals of which their horn grows as a single bone without cartilage and hence their horns are not considered a Shofar. If one used such a horn, he has not fulfilled his obligation just as is the law regarding one who used the horn of a cow or ox.

Horns of non-Kosher animals:[8] The horns of non-kosher species of animals are invalid even Bedieved.[9]

Example of animals with Kosher horns:[10] The horn of a sheep, ram and goat are valid as they contain cartilage and are hence called a Shofar.

The horn of a ram:[11] It is a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar to blow the Shofar using the horn of a ram.[12] If, however, one does not have a ram’s horn available he fulfills his obligation with the other Kosher horns [mentioned above].

A curved horn:[13] It is a Mitzvah to blow on Rosh Hashanah with a curved shaped horn.[14] If, however, such a horn is not available one may blow with a straight horn.[15]

 

Summary: Initially one must use a curved horn of a ram for blowing Shofar. If one does not have such a horn available than the following are the laws of other Kosher horns:   A Kosher horn must contain the following: Cartilage. Derive from a Kosher species. Not be from a cow or ox.   The ideal Kosher horn is to also contain in addition to the above: Curved shape Come from a ram   List of Kosher animal horns: Ram Goat Sheep Q&A Must the animal be slaughtered for its horns to be valid? No. The horns are valid whether they were cut off a live animal or dead animal, and whether the animal died naturally or was ritually slaughtered.   From what age is a ram considered an “Ayal” rather than a sheep?[16] When a sheep reaches the age of 13 months it is considered an Ayal. If it is below this age then it is still considered a sheep. Are the horns of female rams [Ewe] initially valid?[17] Yes. The horns of a female ram are considered valid ram horns. Is the horn of a mix breed animal Kosher?[18] If the mix breed comes from both a male and female animal of which their species of Shofar is valid, then it is valid. If, however, the male or female parent is from a species that their Shofar is invalid, then this Shofar is likewise invalid. Are the horns of a buffalo valid?[19] No.[20] Must one purchase a Shofar that contains a Hashgacha [Rabbinical supervision]?[21] Yes, as one must verify that the horn comes from a Kosher animal and has fulfilled the above-mentioned requirements.

If one only has either a curved non-ram horn or a straight ram horn available, which one is better to use to blow Shofar?[22] Some Poskim[23] rule it is better to use the curved horn.[24] Others[25] rule there is no advantage of one over the other in such a case and one may hence use whichever horn he chooses.[26] Practically, it is best to use the curved horn in place of the straight horn of a ram.[27]   May a Shofar maker heat and alter the shape of a curved Shofar? See Halacha 4 Q&A!   May a Shofar maker curve a Shofar which has grown straight? See Halacha 4 Q&A!

Using a Yemenite Kudu Shofar for the Mitzvah of blowing Shofar Question: [Tuesday, 17th Elul, 5782] I am looking to purchase a new shofar for my Shul to use this Rosh Hashanah and would like to know if I can purchase the Yemenite Kudu shofar which is most beautiful in both appearance and sound and I would really like to use it for our shuls Shofar blowing from now on. Is there any issue with using the Yemenite Shofar for the Mitzvah??   Answer: The Yemenite Kudu shofar should not be used for the mitzvah of blowing shofar on Rosh Hashanah, even by Yemenites, and while certainly we do not have the protests against those Yemenite communities who still do so, no other communities whether they be Sephardi or Ashkenazi should use it and they are rather to use a regular shofar that comes from a ram.   Explanation: Before we begin the halachic discussion surrounding the Yemenite kudu shofar, we must explain what this shofar is. Traditionally, many if not most communities in Yemen were accustomed to use the horn of the male kudu antelope which is native to the Saharah desert in Africa [the females do not have horns]. This is traditionally considered the Dishoin animal mentioned in scripture. Their horns are both beautiful, long, and naturally curved, and also gives out a wonderful and loud sound. The halachic question surrounding this horn is as follows: As is known, not all horns of animals are valid to be used for the mitzvah of blowing shofar. For example, horns that come from nonkosher animals are biblically invalid. Likewise, horns that do not contain cartilage but are rather one single bone are biblically invalid. Likewise, all horns that Scripture defines as a Keren in contrast to a Shofar are biblically invalid, and hence the horn of the cow is biblically invalid to be used. The kudu Shofar contains questions on all of these three invalidations. Some question whether the kudu antelope is a kosher animal as although it chews its cud and has split hooves, some Poskim require a Kosher animal to also have a tradition/Mesorah, and it is unclear as to whether the Kudu antelope contains such a Mesorah. It is also not clear that the horn contains cartilage with some claiming that it does and others claiming that it does not. Likewise, some question that perhaps this horn is actually defined as a Keren and not as a Shofar, and is similar to the horn of a cow. Due to all these issues, some Rabbanim, including Yemenite rabbis who lived in Yemen, have spoken out against this tradition of using the kudu horn for shofar, and stated that one does not fulfill his obligation with it. Rav Shlomo Machpud, for example, stated that even in Yemen it was only the ignoramouses who used the kudu Shofar while everyone else used the ram Shofar. Other rabbis, however, defend the age old tradition of Yemenite jewry, claiming that aside for the kudu being a kosher animal, its horn contains cartilage, and is not defined by Scripture as a Keren, and it is hence valid for the mitzvah shofar. Nonetheless, even according to these defenders of the tradition, they agree that it should not initially be used, as the Poskim rule that initially one should only use a ram’s horn for the blowing in order to remind God of Akeidas Yitzchak which involved sacrificing a ram in place of Isaac. Furthermore, this law especially applies to Yemenite Jewry, as Yemenite jury have especially accept upon themselves the rulings of the Rambam, and according to the Rambam, in fact the only kosher shofar is the shofar that comes from the ram, and all other horns are invalid even if they come from a kosher animal and contain cartilage and are called Shofar in Scripture. Now, while the accepted ruling in the Shulchan Aruch is unlike this opinion of the Rambam, Yemenite Jewry should certainly suspect for it initially. Accordingly, while in previous times that respectable ram horns were not commonly found in Yemen, the Yemenite tradition was to use the kudu horn, in today’s times that ram horns are readily available, Yemenite communities at large are no longer custom to blow the kudu horn for shofar, and rather use a ram’s horn, and those who still want to abide by the tradition simply blow the kudu horn after prayer.   Sources: See Even Sapir p. 11; Kinyan Torah 3:78; Hashofar Vehilchosav  5; Shofar Kehalacha; See regarding the invalidation of a non-Kosher animals horn: Admur 586:3; Rama 586:1; M”A 586:3; See regarding the need to have a Mesorah to be allowed to eat a Kosher animal: Rama Y.D. 82:3; Shach Y.D. 80:1; Chochmas Adam 31:1; Even Haezra Devarim 14:5; P”M 80 S.D. 1; Chazon Ish Y.D. 11:4-5; Koveitz Igrosav 1:99; 2:83; Kinyan Torah 3:78 invalidates the kudu horn due to it not being Kosher; However, see article of Harav Yitzchak Ratzabi that Davida the shofar manufacturer claims that the antelope they use for the Yemenite Shofar does have a Mesorah as its eaten by Chareidi Jews in South Africa; See regarding the invalidation of a horn without cartilage: Admur 586:3; Rama 586:1; Rav Yaakov Yosef z”l invalidates the Kudu horn due to it not containing cartilage; However, see article of Harav Yitzchak Ratzabi that he completely negates this from reality See regarding the invalidation of a Keren called horn: Admur ibid; Levush; M”A 586:2; P”M 586 A”A 2; Chayeh Adam 140:2; M”E 586:1; M”B 586:6; Kaf Hachaim 586:10; See regarding the initial requirement to use a rams horn: Admur 586:2; Michaber 586:1; Tur 586:1; Yearos Devash 2:5; See regarding the Rambams opinion to invalidate all horns other than a ram: Rambam Shofar 1:1; Tosafus Rosh Hashanah 26b; Siddur Rav Sadya Gaon

2. Shiur Shofar-The minimum length of the Shofar:[28]

The minimum length of a Shofar is one Tefach [approximately 3.16″ or 8 cm[29]].[30]

3. A damaged Shofar:[31]

A. A Shofar with a hole that is not patched:[32]

Some Poskim[33] rule that a Shofar that contains a hole[34] on its side is valid to use for blowing on Rosh Hashanah. Other Poskim[35] rule that the Shofar is invalid [unless it is properly patched as explained in the next Halacha]. Practically if another Shofar is available one may not use this Shofar.[36] However if no other Shofar is available then it may be used.[37] This allowance applies even if the sound of the Shofar has changed due to the hole.[38] [This allowance applies even if the hole is within one Tefach from the narrow hole of the Shofar.[39] However, it only applies if majority of the Shofar remains intact. If, however, majority of the Shofar length contains a hole then it is invalid even after the fact.[40] If the Shofar has a hole which covers majority of its circumference in that area then it is required to have Shiur Shofar (8 cm) remain from the narrow end until the hole for the Shofar to remain Kosher.[41]]

Summary: A Shofar that has a hole on its side may only be used if there is no other Shofar available. Even then it is only valid if the hole does not cover majority of the length of the Shofar and if the hole covers majority of the circumference of that area then there must be 8 cm. from the narrow end of the Shofar until the hole. Q&A Must one check a Shofar in water to verify it does not contain a hole?[42] Some are stringent to do so in order to verify that it does not contain any hole at all.[43] Is the Shofar initially valid if it has a very small hole? If the sound of the Shofar has changed then the Shofar is initially invalid as explained above. If the sound has not changed then this matter is disputed in Poskim and it is proper to initially be stringent.[44]

B. A Shofar with a patched hole:[45]

A Shofar that contains a patched hole is only initially valid to be used if it was patched with similar horn material[46] and the patch does not envelop majority of the [length[47] of the] Shofar[48] and the sound of the Shofar is the same as it was originally before it received the hole[49] [or is the same as it was before it was patched[50]]. If however these three conditions are not fulfilled the Shofar is invalid.[51] Nevertheless in a time of need such as when there is no other Shofar available one may be lenient so long as [the patch does not envelop majority of the length of the Shofar[52]] and one of the other two conditions are fulfilled, such as one used horn material to patch the horn[53], or the sound remains the same as it was originally.[54]

Summary: If the hole or crack was patched it may only be used if the following three conditions are all fulfilled: 1. The patching is of horn material 2. The patching does not make up majority of the Shofar 3. The sound of the Shofar has not changed due to the patch. In time of need, one may use the Shofar if condition 2 and either condition 1 or 3 are fulfilled. If condition 2 is not fulfilled the Shofar is invalid even in a time of need.    Q&A May one place his finger on a Shofar that contains a hole while blowing it?[55] If one is using a Shofar that contains a hole it is best not to cover it with one’s finger while blowing.[56] If the hole of the Shofar in the narrow end is too large and prevents one from blowing properly may one narrow the hole by inserting material inside?[57] No.

C. A crack in the length:[58]

A Shofar that contains a crack along its length may not to be used even if the crack is very small in size. If there is no other Shofar available then if the crack extends to only a minority of the length of the Shofar it may be used.[59] [However, if later on another Shofar becomes available then one is to re-blow the sounds without a blessing.[60]] [If, however, the crack extends throughout majority of the length of the Shofar, it is invalid and hence may not be used even if there is no other Shofar available.[61] This applies even if a Tefach remains from the narrow end until the crack.[62]]

Tying a string around the crack: If the Shofar is only cracked in minority of its length it can be fixed and validated through tying a string very strongly around the area of the crack.[63] [If however the crack extends to majority of the length of the Shofar tying the area does not validate it.[64]]

Summary: If there is a crack in the Shofar’s length it may not be used unless there is no other Shofar available or one tied a string strongly around the area of the crack. [Bedieved, if one used such a Shofar he is to repeat the blows if an valid Shofar becomes available.] If the crack extends through the majority of the Shofar’s length, it is invalid and may not be used even if no other Shofar is available. Q&A What is the law if the crack does not extend through the full thickness of the Shofar?[65] An external crack that has not penetrated the thickness of the Shofar from one side to the other is not considered a crack at all and the Shofar hence remains initially valid. [Nevertheless, care must be taken not to bang the Shofar as doing so can cause the crack to penetrate to the other side.]   What is the law if the Shofar is slightly cracked on its upper lip by the wide end? One is not initially to use such a Shofar, as explained above.[66] However, some Poskim[67] rule that Bedieved if such a Shofar was used one is not required to repeat the blows.[68] Furthermore, some[69] rule that if this Shofar is easier to blow than other Shofros that are available, then it may be used even initially.    What is the law if the Shofar is slightly chipped at its ends? If the Shofar is chipped at one of its ends, as commonly occurs by the narrow end in the area of the lips, then one is initially to fix it prior to R”H.[70] Nevertheless if one did not do so the Shofar remains valid.[71]   If after the blowing one noticed a small crack must he redo the sounds that were blown? This matter requires further analysis. See next Q&A!   If the Shofar cracked and became invalid in the process of blowing what is one to do?[72] All the blows that were sounded until the crack occurred are valid. However, the current blow in which the Shofar cracked in is only valid if one stopped blowing as soon as the crack occurred. If, however, one continued blowing then that sound is invalid.[73] It goes without saying that if the Shofar was used after the invalidating crack occurred, all the sounds that were blown from that point and on are invalid.

D. A crack in the width:[74]

A Shofar that contains a crack along its width, around its circumference, remains valid if the crack extends to only a minority area of that[75] circumference while majority of that circumference remains intact.[76] This applies even if the sound of the Shofar has altered due to the crack.[77] If the crack extends throughout majority of that circumference then one is required to measure from the end of the Shofar that is entered into ones mouth until the area of the crack and if there is one Tefach[78] [8 cm] in length from that end until the crack the Shofar remains valid.[79] This applies even if the sound of the Shofar has altered due to the crack.[80] If there remains less than a Tefach from that end until the crack then [since the crack extends through the majority of that circumference] it is invalid.[81] This invalidation applies even if the sound of the Shofar did not alter due to the crack.

Summary: If there is a crack in the width of a Shofar then if from the crack until the mouth of the Shofar [i.e. the area in which one places his lips] there remains 8 cm, the Shofar remains Kosher. If there remains less than 8 cm then if the crack extends through the majority of the circumference of that area of the Shofar, it is invalid.

E. Is there a way to fix the crack?[82]

One can fix and validate a crack through gluing[83] or welding it together. [This applies whether the crack extends through minority of the Shofar’s length[84] or majority of the Shofar’s length[85], nevertheless if one glued or welded the crack it is valid. If however the crack extends throughout the entire length of the Shofar then even if it is glued or welded together it is invalid.[86] This invalidation applies even if there is only one full crack on the Shofar.[87]] Nevertheless when using glue, the glue must be placed in a way that it is not recognizable on the Shofar. If however the glue is recognizable, such as if the crack is very wide and hence there is a hole being covered with glue, then it is considered as if its hole has been patched with a non-horn material in which case the Shofar is initially invalid as explained in Halacha B.[88]

Summary: The crack can be fixed by gluing or welding it together. This applies even if the crack extends to majority of the length of the Shofar, although not to a case that the crack extends throughout the entire length of one side of the Shofar. Likewise, glue is only valid if it is not recognizable within the crack.

F. A Shofar that was made through welding together pieces of horn:[89]

If one glued [or welded] many pieces of Shofar together and made it into a complete Shofar, it is invalid.[90] This applies even if the Shofar contains a single piece of horn which is a Tefach in length from the narrow end of the Shofar.[91]

The job of the Rav:[92] The Rav of the town is responsible for checking prior to R”H that the Shofar is valid without any question or doubts of cracks and chips and the like.

4. A Shofar that was heated and shaped:[93]

Turned inside out: A Shofar that was turned inside out[94] is invalid and if one blew with it he has not fulfilled his obligation.[95]

Widened narrow end and narrowed wide end: A Shofar that had its narrow end widened and wide end narrowed through boiling it in water is invalid and if one blew with it, he has not fulfilled his obligation. This applies whether one blew from the currently narrow end or from the wide end which was originally narrow.[96]

Q&A May one heat and change only a single end such as to widen the narrow end or narrow the wide end? Some Poskim[97] rule that if one changes either end of the Shofar, even if the other end remains intact, the Shofar is invalid.[98] Practically most Poskim[99] are lenient in this matter and so is implied to be the opinion of Admur.[100]   May a Shofar maker widen the narrow end of the Shofar to make the blowing hole bigger? This follows the same ruling as above, hence practically it is allowed.[101] However some Poskim[102] rule that it is best to avoid doing so in order to suspect for those Poskim[103] that rule the Shofar is invalid. According to Admur one may be lenient.[104] According to all it is forbidden to widen the narrow end and narrow the wide end, as explained above.   May a Shofar maker heat and alter the shape of a curved Shofar? This follows the same ruling as above, hence from the letter of the law if the Shofar was grown curved it may be heated and molded into a variant curved shape.[105] Nevertheless, some Poskim[106] rule it is a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar to purchase a naturally curved Shofar that has not been changed at all through heat. Practically most Shofros on the market today are heated and formed into nicer curves and only the original Yemenite Shofros retain their natural curved shape.   May a Shofar maker curve a Shofar which has grown straight? Some Poskim[107] rule that if a Shofar was naturally straight and was then heated and curved, it is invalid. Other Poskim[108] however learn it is valid.

5. A shortened Shofar:[109]

If a Shofar had part of its length cut off it remains valid so long as there is a Shiur Tefach [8 cm] that remains.

6. A thin Shofar:[110]

If the Shofar was sanded down, whether on its inside or outside, until it became very thin similar to the thinness of a scab, nevertheless it remains valid.[111] 

7. Removing the cartilage from the Shofar:[112]

A Kosher Shofar contains removable cartilage. It is not required to remove this cartilage and even initially it suffices to puncture a hole through the cartilage rather than remove it.[113] 

Forming a Shofar from the cartilage: The cartilage that is removed from a Shofar is invalid to be used for blowing even if one punctures a hole through it.[114]

8. A plated Shofar:[115]

It is forbidden to have any intervention between the mouth of the blower and the Shofar material. Therefore if one plated a Shofar with gold[116] in the area where the mouth rests, in order to beautify it, the Shofar is invalid.[117] This applies even if the gold only covered the external part of the Shofar along its length, nevertheless if the gold covers the narrow end the Shofar is invalid.[118] [This applies even if the area of the mouth is covered with external Shofar material.[119]]

The area covered by the mouth is not plated: If the plating is distanced from the narrow end of the Shofar and hence the lips of the blower do not rest on the gold plating, then the Shofar is valid so long as the plating did not alter the sound of the Shofar. However, if one knows that the sound has been altered due to the plating then the Shofar is invalid even if there was only a slight change in sound.[120]

If one is unsure if the sound altered: If one is unsure whether the sound of the Shofar has altered due to the coating the Shofar remains valid as most probably the sound of the Shofar did not change simply due to a mere coating.

If the plating extends past the length of the Shofar:[121] All the above refers to a coating which was placed over the thickness[122] or width of the Shofar and does not extend past the end of the Shofar. If however the coating extends past the end of the Shofar then the Shofar is invalid as will be explained in the next Halacha.

Summary: The Shofar is invalid if the plating covers the area of the Shofar that the lips of the blower rests, or if one notices that the coating has changed the sound of the Shofar. If the sound has not changed and the coating is not within the area that the lips rest, it remains valid. Q&A If the inside of the Shofar is plated is it valid?[123] If the inner part of the Shofar is covered with gold or the like the Shofar is invalid even if the sound did not change.[124] May one even initially coat a Shofar in a valid way?[125] Seemingly, one should not coat a Shofar with any material, even if the Shofar will remain valid, as at times the sound of the Shofar changes due to the coating and one will not be aware of this change. This certainly applies to gold material of which some Poskim[126] write is improper to be placed on a Shofar due to its use in the sin of the golden calf.

9. Adding material to lengthen the Shofar:[127]

If any material was added to lengthen the size of a Shofar in a way that the sound passes through this addition, the Shofar is invalid.[128] This applies even if the Shofar was already Kosher, containing the minimum required measurement, prior to adding the material to lengthen it. It applies whether the added material is made of horn or of other matter. It applies whether the material was added to the narrow end or the wide end. [It applies even if the sound of the Shofar did not change at all due to the addition and even if the material was only added to the thickness of the end of the Shofar in a way that it slightly added to its length.[129]]

From the Rav’s Desk Question May/should one blow Shofar with a mask on due to worry of spread of Covid which can be blown into the air at much further distances when blowing.   Answer: I am unaware of the medical research on the matter of blowing with versus without a mask, however, certainly blowing with a mask, or any item attached to the Shofar especially by its end or between the mouth and the Shofar is a potential invalidation. If one blows the Shofar while wearing a mask, it is invalid. If one blows it with a mask on top, it is possibly invalid due to the clause that prohibits adding to the end of the Shofar, as well as the clause which invalidates a Shofar whose sound as changed. I am aware of the guidelines issued by some Rabbinical bodies that one should blow the Shofar with a mask on it, although I am unclear as to the basis of their ruling as it is clear from the Poskim that no material may be added to the end of the Shofar, otherwise it is invalid. Thus, in my opinion it should not be done, and as an alternative, the Shofar should be blown outside the Shul. However, in Elul when Shofar blowing is just a custom, certainly one may blow with a mask if such is required due to Covid.   Sources: See Michaber 586:7 regarding attaching non-Shofar material to the Shofar, and if the sound alters; Admur 586:16 regarding the invalidation of a plated Shofar if it is between the mouth of the person and the Shofar, and regarding the invalidation of a plating that changes the sound of the Shofar; Admur 586:11 and 16 and Michaber 586:11 that the Shofar is invalid if any material is added to the end of the Shofar even if the sound does not change.

10. A Shofar with engravings and drawings:[130]

One is not to draw pictures on a Shofar [even if done] in order to beautify the Shofar.[131] However, it is permitted to engrave drawings within the body of Shofar in order to beautify it.[132] This allowance applies even if the engraving will alter its sound.[133] [Nevertheless, the custom is to avoid engraving anything on a Shofar.[134]]

Q&A May one place a sticker with his name on his Shofar?[135] No. One is initially to avoid doing so.   Must one remove the manufacturer label from the Shofar? Yes. One is initially to avoid blowing with it on the Shofar. May one remove a sticker from his Shofar on Rosh Hashanah?[136] One may do so although not in the presence of an ignoramus.

11. Placing one’s lips on the Shofar while blowing:[137]

If one slightly distanced the Shofar from his mouth and blew from it, he has not fulfilled his obligation.[138]

12. One who blew from the wide end of the Shofar?[139]

If one blew from the wide end of the Shofar, he does not fulfill his obligation.[140]

13. A Shofar within a Shofar:[141]

If one enters a Shofar within a Shofar then it only remains valid for blowing if the inner Shofar protrudes further out on the narrow end, and either protrudes further out or is equal on the wider end, and the sound of the inner Shofar has not changed due to the outer Shofar.[142] If however both Shofros are equal on their narrow end or the outer Shofar extends further out on the wider end, or the sound of the inner Shofar has changed due to the outer Shofar then the Shofar is invalid.[143]

14. Is there any difference in law between the first and second day of Rosh Hashanah?[144]

All matters which invalidate a Shofar on the first day of Rosh Hashanah apply likewise on the second day of Rosh Hashanah even though it is a merely Rabbinical holiday. 

15. May one desecrate Yom Tov for the sake of hearing the Shofar blowing?[145]

One may not desecrate Yom Tov for the sake of blowing or hearing Shofar.[146] This applies even regarding performing Rabbinical prohibitions for the sake of hearing Shofar as even in such a case the Sages forbade desecrating Yom Tov.[147]

Examples of attaining a Shofar through performing prohibitions:[148] Based on the above if a Shofar is on top of a tree or across a river and there is no other Shofar available nevertheless one may not climb the tree or cross the river to retrieve the Shofar. Likewise, if a Shofar became buried in stones one may not remove the stones in order to uncover the Shofar [unless one moves the stones with an irregularity[149]]. One may not leave the city limits [Techum] in order to hear Shofar. It goes without saying that one may not carry the Shofar from outside the city limits [in order for it to be blown in the city].

Asking a gentile to desecrate Yom Tov to attain a Shofar:[150] The above law which prohibits performing even a Rabbinical prohibition applies only to having a Jew perform the prohibited action. However, a gentile may be asked to perform any Rabbinical prohibition for the sake of attaining a Shofar. Thus, one may ask a gentile to climb a tree or bring it from outside the city limits [Techum] and cases of the like. However, it is forbidden to tell the gentile to perform Biblical prohibitions on his behalf. However, if the gentile went ahead on his own and performed a Biblical prohibition in order to attain a Shofar then it is permitted to use it.

A Shofar that was made by a gentile on Yom Tov:[151] Thus if a gentile made a Shofar on Yom Tov it is permitted for a Jew to use it for the blowing.[152]  Nevertheless this only applies when a gentile made a Shofar using a horn that he owns.[153] If however he made the Shofar using the horn of a Jew then it may not be used[154] unless there is no other Shofar available[155].

A Shofar that was brought by a gentile from outside the Techum:[156] If a gentile brought a Shofar from outside the city limits on behalf of a Jew it is permitted to be used for blowing Shofar even by the actual Jew that it was brought for on his behalf. This applies even if the gentile traveled a distance of twelve Mil until he reached the city.[157] Nevertheless one must beware not to move the Shofar more than four Amos from the area that he received it from the gentile [unless there is an Eruv in the city].[158] [Likewise even if there is no Eruv in the city if one received it in his house he may carry it anywhere within his house although he may not carry it outside.[159]]

Summary A Jew himself may never desecrate Yom Tov in order to attain a Shofar, even if it only involves a Rabbinical prohibition. However, one may ask a non-Jew to perform a Rabbinical prohibition for the sake of attaining a Shofar. If a non-Jew went ahead on his own and did a Biblical prohibition in order to attain a Shofar, one may nevertheless use the Shofar. Q&A May a woman ask a gentile to perform a Rabbinical command for the sake of her hearing Shofar?[160] No as a woman is not obligated to hear Shofar. May one walk past the Techum to blow Shofar?[161] No. All the laws of Techum apply equally on Yom Tov as on Shabbos.   In an old age home or hospital, may one in need use an elevator to come to Shul to hear the Shofar? Asking a gentile to press the button: If there is no other way to hear the Shofar some Poskim[162] rule that a man may ask a gentile to press the buttons of an elevator for him/her to go down or up.[163] It however requires further analysis if one may ask the gentile to press the button for him to go back down. A woman may not ask a gentile to press the button for the sake of hearing Shofar as explained above.

16. Blowing with a stolen Shofar:[164]

One who used a stolen Shofar to blow with to fulfill the Mitzvah has fulfilled his obligation.[165] Nevertheless one may not say a blessing over the blowing when using a stolen Shofar.[166]

17. Borrowing someone’s Shofar without permission:[167]

It is permitted to use someone’s Shofar without permission in order to blow it to fulfill the Mitzvah.[168] One is to say a blessing over the blowing in such a case. [However, it is forbidden to remove the Shofar from the room if one did not receive permission to do so, and the above allowance is only to use the Shofar in the same room that it was left.[169] If the owner explicitly states that he does not give permission for his Shofar to be used then it is forbidden to use it.]

Q&A How many sounds may one blow with a Shofar borrowed without permission?[170] One may blow the 100 sounds that are accustomed to being heard even though one fulfills his obligation with 30 sounds.   May one borrow a Shofar without permission for the sake of blowing for women or children?[171] Yes. May one borrow a Shofar without permission for the sake of practicing?[172] No.

If one borrowed a Shofar and damaged it, must he pay the owner for the damages? Negligence:[173] If the Shofar was damaged due to negligence then the borrower is obligated to pay for the damages. Process of blowing: If the Shofar was damaged in the process of using it, such as it cracked, , then if he borrowed it with permission of the owner, then he is exempt from paying for the damages.[174]   If, however, he borrowed it without permission [as stated in the above Halacha that doing so is allowed] then some Poskim[175] rule he is liable for all damages.[176] Other Poskim[177] however rule he is exempt from damages just like one who borrowed it with permission.[178] Not in process of blowing and no negligence:  If one borrowed a Shofar [whether with or without permission] and it became damaged not in the process of using it, although not due to any negligence on the person’s side, then he is nevertheless liable to pay for damages[179], although some Poskim[180] suggest being lenient to exempt him from paying for damages if he was indeed not negligent.

                                              

18. A Shofar that was used for idolatry:[181]

One who blew with a Shofar that was used for idolatry[182] does not fulfill his obligation.[183] However this only applies if the Shofar is owned by a Jew.[184] If however the Shofar is owned by a gentile who worships it and one borrowed the Shofar from the gentile then although initially it is forbidden to use it for the Mitzvah[185], nevertheless Bedieved one fulfills his obligation.[186]

Q&A If someone worshiped a cow with an attached horn, is that horn invalid? It is forbidden to use such a Shofar whether the cow was worshiped by a Jew or gentile. Is it permitted to purchase horns from countries that idolize animals? This matter requires further analysis. May a Shofar used for church or Temple prayers be used on Rosh Hashanah? It should not be used.

19. A Shofar which one vowed against using:[187]

If one vowed not to use a certain persons Shofar[188] it is permitted for another person to blow with that Shofar and have him listen to the blows and fulfill his obligation.[189] If one vowed not hear the sound of a certain Shofar[190] then it is forbidden for him to blow even one sound with this Shofar even if he intends to fulfill his obligation. [Furthermore, it is forbidden even for another person to blow using this Shofar and have him fulfill his obligation.[191]]

Mudar Hannah-One who vowed against receiving benefit from his friend:[192] If one vowed against receiving benefit from a certain individual it is forbidden for him to ask that individual to blow Shofar for him. Nevertheless, it is permitted for that individual to blow Shofar for him on his own initiative without having been asked by the person who made the vow.[193] The above however only applies if one forbade receiving benefit from that individual. If, however, he forbade hearing Shofar from that individual then it is forbidden for him to hear the blowing from that person even for the sake of fulfilling the Mitzvah.[194]

20. Cleaning out a Shofar:[195]

One may polish the inside of his Shofar using water or wine.[196] One may not use urine to polish the Shofar even during the week as this is not respectable towards the Shofar.

________________________________________________

[1] Admur 586:1-3

[2] Admur 586:1; Michaber 586:1

[3] Admur ibid; Levush; M”A 586:2; P”M 586 A”A 2; Chayeh Adam 140:2; M”E 586:1; M”B 586:6; Kaf Hachaim 586:10

[4] Peri Megadim 586 A.A. 2

[5] The reason: The reason for this is because the horn of a cow and ox is referred to as a “Keren” and not as a “Shofar” as it says in the verse “Bechor Shoro.. Vekarnei Reim Karnav”, and only horns which the Torah considers a Shofar are valid for the blowing. [Admur ibid; M”A 586:2] Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol as the rams horn is also referred to as a Keren [in the Parsha of Akeidas Yitzchak] and nevertheless not only is it valid but it is the best type of Shofar to use. See Rosh Hashanah 26a that explains that indeed all horns are called a Keren, but of a cow is only called a Keren and not a Shofar while by a ram its called a Keren and a Shofar. Vetzaruch Iyun why Admur made nomnetion of this in his ruling.

[6] Admur 586:1; Michaber 586:1

[7] The reason: As the word Shofar comes from the term Shofaros which implies that there are many horns [i.e. Cartilage] within the horn that are able to be peeled off, such as the horns of a ram and goat. [Admur ibid]

[8] Admur 586:3; Rama 586:1

Other Opinions: There are opinions that rule that Bedieved horns of non-Kosher species are valid. [see Peri Megadim 586 A.A. 3]

[9] The reason: The reason for this is because only Kosher items are allowed to be used to perform Heavenly commands. [Admur ibid; M”A 586:3] This is learned from the law by Tefillin that only Kosher items may be used to make the Tefillin and the entire Torah is connected to Tefillin. [M”A ibid]

[10] Admur 586:1

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule to invalidate all horns other than a ram. [Rambam Shofar 1:1; Tosafus Rosh Hashanah 26b; Siddur Rav Sadya Gaon]

[11] Admur 586:2; Michaber 586:1 Tur 586:1; Yearos Devash 2:5; See opinions who rule to invalidate all horns other than a ram: Rambam Shofar 1:1; Tosafus Rosh Hashanah 26b; Siddur Rav Sadya Gaon

[12] The reason: The reason for this is because [the ram was substituted as a sacrifice during Akeidas Yitzchak and thus] we blow using a rams horn to invoke memory of Akeidas Yitzchak. [Admur ibid; M”A 586:1] This implies that we do so to arouse Hashem’s memory of Akeidas Yitzchak and hence bring a merciful judgment. See Gemara R”H 16a “Rebbe Avahu stated: Why do we blow with the horn of a ram? Hashem said, “Blow before me the horn of a ram in order so I remember the Akeida of Yitzchak the son of Avraham and consider it as if you also sacrificed yourselves by the Akeida.”

[13] Admur 586:1; Michaber 586:1

[14] The reason: This is in order to affect the listeners, to subjugate their hearts to G-d through prayer. [Admur ibid; M”A 586:1]

[15] Admur 586:2; As the requirement to use a curved horn is only initially, and Bedieved if one blew using a straight horn he has fulfilled his obligation, and in a case that there are no curved horns available it is defined as Bedieved and one may hence use a straight horn. [ibid]

[16] Kaf Hachaim 586:2; Mishneh Parah 1:3

[17] M”B 586:2 in name of Taz; Elya Raba; and Mateh Efraim

[18] Siddur Yaavetz; Kaf Hachaim 586:15

[19] Sheilas Yaavetz 1:50; Shaareiy Teshuvah 586:3; Kaf Hachaim 586:11

[20] The reason: As the Buffalo is considered a species of oxen which is invalid due to being part of the cow species. [ibid]

[21] Piskeiy Teshuvos 586 footnote 5

[22] Kaf Hachaim 586:4

Opinion of Admur: On the one hand Admur 586:2 records the ruling of the Bach that initially one may not use the horns of other animals, and hence it seems a non-ram horn and a straight horn have an equal disadvantage. On the other hand, Admur writes that not only are non-ram horns valid Bedieved but even curved horns are valid Bedieved hence implying that curved horns are a greater disadvantage than a ram horn. This is also implied from the fact Admur records that using a ram horn is only a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar and not an initial requirement from the letter of the law. Vetzaruch Iyun

[23] Taz 586:1

[24] The reason: As a ram’s horn is only required for a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar while a curved horn is initially required from the letter of the law, hence we see that a curved horn is of greater advantage than a ram’s horn which is straight. [Taz ibid]

[25] Mamar Mordechai 586:1; Peri Megadim 586 A.A. 1

[26] As the Michaber lists both the issue of having a ram’s horn and a curved horn in a single sentence with the same level of command. Hence according to the Michaber in Shulchan Aruch [as opposed to the Beis Yosef] there is no advantage of one over the other. This follows the ruling of the Bach that it is only Bedieved allowed to use a non-ram horn and it is not simply a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar. Hence both a straight horn and non-ram horn are equally initially prohibited and Bedieved permitted, and there is no advantage of one over the other. [Kaf Hachaim ibid]

[27] M”B 586:5; Kaf Hachaim ibid

The reason: Most Poskim rule a curved horn is required from the letter of the law while a ram horn is merely a custom. [M”B ibid] Alternatively, since everyone agrees that there is no problem to use the curved horn, and the Taz holds that one must use the curved horn in such a case one should therefore use the curved horn in order to avoid dispute. [Kaf Hachaim ibid] 

[28] 586:13; Michaber 586:9 [4 fingers]

Other opinions: Some Rishonim rule that the Shofar is to have a minimum Shiur of three Tefach. One Tefach of the hand and one Tefach protruding from each end. [Rabbeinu Gershom Maor Hagoleh Chulin 89a; Kol Bo p. 69] Some Poskim write based on this that that initially it is proper that the Shofar be at least three Tefachim of length in order to fulfill one’s obligation according to all opinions. [Piskeiy Teshuvos 586:8; Rivivos Efraim 4:144 in name of Emek Bracha; Yalkut Yosef Moadim p. 43]

[29] Gra”ch Naa”h in Shiureiy Torah p. 249

Other Poskim: The Chazon Ish rules that a Tefach is 9.6 cm.

[30] The reason: The reason for why the Shofar must have a minimum length of one Tefach is because it is required to be of a size that when the blower holds it in his hands, which means within his four fingers, the Shofar will be visible [i.e. protruding] from both sides of his hand. Now a Tefach is four thumb widths and hence when held within four fingers a Shofar of one Tefach will slightly protrude from both sides of his hand and be visible. The reason for why the Shofar is required to protrude from either side of his hand is because otherwise it appears as if one is blowing from inside his hand. This measurement of one Tefach applies to all people and hence even if the blower has big hands which are larger than a Tefach, and hence a Tefach long Shofar is not visible when covered by his four fingers, nevertheless the Shofar is valid, as the measurement was given in accordance to the common hand of a person. [Admur ibid; Beis Yosef in name of Rosh and Ran; Levush 586; Mateh Yehuda; Kaf Hachaim 586:89]

Is this measurement Biblical or Rabbinical? Some Poskim rule that the above Shiur of one Tefach is only Rabbinically required, however Biblically any measurement suffices. [Peri Chadash; Levush 586; Kaf Hachaim 586:89]

[31] 586:7-10

[32] Michaber 586:7; Gemara R”H 27b; This Halacha is missing from the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch

[33] Michaber ibid; The Michaber ibid rules like the Yerushalmi that if the hole was not stuffed or patched with material then it remains valid to use for blowing on Rosh Hashanah.

[34] This is in contrast to a crack which receives different laws. [Taz 586:8] See Halacha C!

[35] Kol Bo and Teshuvos Harosh [Klal 24:8] brought in Rama ibid forbid using a Shofar with a hole that was not patched up. [See Kaf Hachaim 586:53] So rules also Ritva brought in kaf Hachaim 586:52

The reason: The reason for the stringent opinion is because the sound of the Shofar is damaged when it has a hole. [M”A 586:8 based on Kol Bo; Elya Raba 586:10; Chayeh Adam 140:11; M”E 586:10] Another reason recorded for invalidating a Shofar with a hole is that just like Hashem blows with a complete Shofar similarly our Shofar is to also be complete without holes. [Yifei Laleiv 2:1 based on Pesikta brought in Kaf Hachaim 586:55; Biur Hagr”a; Rokeiach 203; Sheivet Halevy 8:133]

If a Tefach remains of the Shofar remains without a hole: This stringent opinion prohibits the Shofar even if there is one Tefach remaining from the hole until the narrow end of the Shofar. [M”A 586:8 based on Kol Bo; Elya Raba 586:10; Chayeh Adam 140:11; M”E 586:10]

The law if the sound of the Shofar did not change: It is implied from the Rama, Rosh and the first explanation in the Kol Bo,  that the Shofar is invalid even if one knows that the sound did not become damaged and even if a Tefach has remained. Practically, one must initially be stringent in this matter. [Kaf Hachaim 586:52, 53, 54] Some are accustomed based on this stringency to check whether a Shofar has a hole by placing it in water. [See Sheivet Halevi ibid] However some Poskim rule that if the sound did not change due to the hole then it may be used according to all, even initially. [M”B 586:28; Sheivet Halevy 8:133; Piskeiy Teshuvos 586:6]

[36] Rama ibid

If the sound did not change: This stringency applies even if the sound of the Shofar did not change and even if there is a Tefach remaining from the narrow end until the hole [Kaf Hachaim ibid], although some Poskim are lenient. [See previous footnote]

A small hole: Based on the above stringent opinion of the Kaf Hachaim ibid even if the hole is very small and the sound has thus not changed the Shofar should not be initially used. This certainly applies according to the reason recorded above from the Peskita. See Sheivet Halevy ibid

[37] Rama ibid

Ruling of Sephardim: The Michaber rules that it is valid even initially to use this Shofar even if other Shofars are available. Practically even Sefaradim are to be stringent in this matter like the Rama. This especially applies regarding Shofar being that it is a positive command and one thus should try to fulfill his obligation according to all opinions. [Kaf Hachaim 586:52-53]

[38] Michaber ibid

The reason: The reason for this is because all sounds that come out of a Shofar are valid. [M”B 586:27; Kaf Hachaim 586:51 in name of Tur and Yerushalmi] In truth however this matter is disputed amongst Poskim as the Ritva rules that if the sound changed the Shofar is invalid. Practically in any event Lechatchilah we do not allow using the Shofar even if the sound did not change, although when no other Shofar is available one may use it even if its sound changed. [Kaf Hachaim 586:52]

[39] Taz 586:7 based on Reim brought in Beis Yosef; Elya Raba 586:10; Peri Chadash; Meaning that even if there does not remain the minimum Shiur of a Shofar from the area of the hole, nevertheless it remains Kosher. [M”B 586:27]

[40] Peri Chadash; Bach; Kneses Hagedola 586:6; brought in Peri Megadim 586 M.Z 7; M”B 586:27; Kaf Hachaim 586:52; This applies even if there is a Shiur Shofar remaining from the narrow end until the hole, nevertheless if majority of the Shofar’s length contains a hole it is invalid. [Shaareiy Tziyon 586:55] See Biur Halacha “Af Al Piy” for a discussion on this matter and the novelties he concludes.

[41] Peri Chadash ibid; Shaareiy Tziyon 586:56

[42] See Sheivet Halevi 8:133

[43] This follows the stringent ruling of the Kaf Hachaim 586:53-54 that the Shofar is initially invalid if it has a hole even if the sound has not changed. See footnotes above.

[44] See Kaf Hachaim 586:53-54; footnotes ibid regarding the law if the sound did not change according to the stringent opinion.

[45] Michaber 686:7; This Halacha is missing in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch

Background: The Gemara R.H. 27b brings the Mishnah which states that if one sealed the hole of the Shofar and the sound altered the Shofar is invalid. The Gemara then brings Rebbe Nasan who rules a Shofar that contains a patched hole that was sealed with horn material is valid while if it was sealed with non-horn material it is invalid. The Rambam rules that this statement of Rav Nasan is in addition to the condition of the Mishnah and hence even when the sound has not changed it is only valid if the seal is a horn material. However the Rosh rules that Rebbe Nasan’s statement is an alternative to the Mishnah’s condition and hence whether the Shofar was sealed with horn material it is valid even if the sound changed and if its sound has not changed it is valid even if it was sealed with non-horn material. Nevertheless, the Gemara establishes that the Shofar must always contain a majority of its length intact. The Michaber rules like the Rambam although he rules one may be lenient like the Rosh in a time of need. [Taz 586:6; M”B 586:26; Kaf Hachaim 586:50]

Other Opinions: The Peri Chadash is lenient even Lechatchilah like this opinion of the Rosh although the Achronim negate his view. [Kaf Hachaim 586:59]

[46] If, however, it was patched with other material, the Shofar is initially invalid even if the sound of the Shofar has not changed and the patch does not cover majority of the Shofar. [Michaber ibid] The reason for this is because its sound is a result of two different materials one of them being a material that is invalid for Shofar. [M”B 586:29]

Must the horn material be of the same species of horn as the Shofar? Some Poskim rule that the material is only considered the same material if it is the same species of horn. Thus, a hole in a ram horn must be patched with material from a ram’s horn. However, it is not necessary for the horn material to be taken from that same horn, and rather any ram horn suffices for the making of this material. [Leket Yosher p. 125; Piskeiy Teshuvos 586 footnote 17] 

A very small hole: Some Poskim rule that a very small hole may be patched even with non-horn material since it is not recognizable and is considered like Min Bemino. [Peri Megadim brought in Biur Halacha 586 “Afilu”]

[47] M”B 586:32; Kaf Hachaim 586:58; This means that majority of the length of the Shofar is not made of patched material.

[48] The reason: The reason for why majority of the length must be the original Shofar is because otherwise it is similar to a Shofar that was made through welding together many pieces and the sound that comes out of the Shofar is considered the sound of a Shofar and of also non-Shofar material. This applies even if there remains a Shiur Tefach from the narrow end of the Shofar until the patched hole. [Taz 586:9; M”B 586:31] On the other hand if majority of the length is not patched then it is valid even if the patched hole is within one Tefach from the narrow hole of the Shofar. [Kaf Hachaim 586:58]

[49] This means that the sound has not altered at all, neither for better or worse. [Ritva brought in Kaf Hachaim 586:63] If one is in doubt whether the sound of the Shofar has altered from its original form then some [Ritva] rule the Shofar is invalid although others [Erech Hashulchan 586:6] rule it remains valid as we assume the sound has returned to its original state unless one hears otherwise. [Kaf Hachaim 586:63] The Mishneh Berurah 586:36 rules like the Ritvah that one is to be stringent.

[50] M”B 586:30

[51] Thus, even if one already blew with a Shofar that does not fulfill all three conditions, if another Shofar becomes a available he is to blow again without a blessing even if the first Shofar fulfilled two of the three conditions. [Elya Raba 586:11; Peri Megadim 586 A.A. 9; M”B 586:34] This is unlike the Levush which rules one may be lenient Bedieved if only two conditions were fulfilled. [Kaf Hachaim 586:60]

This invalidation applies even if the sound of the Shofar did not change from the way it was prior to the hole. [Peri Chadash; Kaf Hachaim 586:57]

May one remove the patching on Yom Tov? It is forbidden to remove the filling from the hole if it is tightly inserted. [M”A 586:9] If however the filling is loose then it may be removed, although even in such a case we are stringent like the Rama not to initially use the Shofar if other Shofar’s are available. [Kaf Hachaim 586:61]

[52] This condition is required even in a time of need and hence the leniency applies only regarding whether one must fulfill both of the other two conditions. Thus, even if the Shofar was filled with horn material and its sound has not altered from its original form, if the majority of the length is made of the filling, its invalid even in a time of need. [Elya Raba 586:11; Peri Megadim 586 M.Z. 6; M”B 586:31 and 36 based on Gemara Rosh Hashanah 27b]

[53] Although the sound has changed. [Michaber ibid]

[54] Although one used non-horn material to patch the hole. [Michaber ibid]

[55] Kitzei Hamateh 586:12

[56] As if the sound is altered due to this the blow is invalid, as explained above.

[57] Piskeiy Teshuvos 586:6 in name of Yad Yitzchak 3:48

[58] Admur 586:8

Background: If minority of the Shofar cracked along its length while majority of it remained intact and one did not fix the cracked area through gluing or welding it together there are opinions which rule that the Shofar remains Kosher. This applies even if a Tefach of length does not remain from the start of the crack until the mouth of the Shofar that is placed in one’s mouth, as it is similar to the law of a Shofar with a hole. Others however rule the Shofar is invalid being that the crack will eventually spread until it reaches the entire length of the Shofar. Thus, even the smallest crack in the length of the Shofar renders it invalid being it is no longer considered a Shofar as it will eventually completely crack. This is not similar to a Shofar with a hole as the hole allows the sound to escape and hence the hole is not pressured by the sound to spread further. However, by a crack being that no part of the Shofar is missing it does not give the sound an area to escape and this sound pressures the crack to spread until the Shofar is fully cracked.  Practically Admur concludes that one is to be stringent like the latter opinion although in a time of need when there is no other Shofar available one may be lenient like the first opinion. [ibid]

[59] This applies even if the Shofar does not contain a Tefach from the narrow end until the crack. [M”A 586:12 and so is implied from Admur which does not mention this stipulation]

Bedieved, if one blew with a cracked Shofar: If one blew with a Shofar that contains a minority crack then if another Shofar becomes available one is to blow again without a blessing. [Birkeiy Yosef 586:11; M”B 586:43; Kaf Hachaim 586:76]

[60] Birkeiy Yosef ibid; M”B ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid

[61] Michaber 586:8 that even according to the lenient opinion if majority is cracked it is invalid.

Other opinions: It is implied from the Mordechai; Aguda; Smak, Tosafus that even if majority has cracked it is valid so long as it has not cracked from end to end. [Elya Raba brought in Shaareiy Tziyon 586:76]

Bedieved if one blew with such a Shofar: One is to blow again from a valid Shofar but without a blessing in order to suspect for the other opinions. [Shaareiy Tziyon 586:79]

[62] Mateh Efraim brought in Shaareiy Tziyon 586:74

[63] As this prevents the crack from spreading to majority of the length [Admur ibid] and hence it would be valid even according to the second opinion mentioned in Admur. [see background]

Must a Shiur of a Tefach remain from the narrow end until the string? The Rama [586:8] stipulates that it is only valid to use a string if there remains a full measurement of 8 cm from the narrow end until the crack. The Levush explains the reason for this is because otherwise the sound of the Shofar comes as a result of the string and not as a result of the Shofar, and so rules the Nahar Shalom and Kaf Hachaim 586:73. However the Taz 586:12 argues that if the sound of the Shofar did not change there is no need for there to be a Tefach from the narrow end until the string. [See also M”A 586:11 who questions the Rama] So rules also Elya Raba 586:14; Peri Chadash; M”B 586:40 and many other Achronim. If the sound changed then if there is 8 cm from the narrow end until the crack the Taz ibid and Elya Raba are lenient to validate the Shofar although the Peri Chadash and Nehar Shalom are stringent. [Shaareiy Tziyon 586:72; Peri Megadim 586 M.Z. 12] Regarding the opinion of Admur in the above: Admur omitted both stipulations; he does not stipulate that there must be a Tefach remaining as rules the Rama and he also does not stipulate that the sound of the Shofar may not change. This does not follow any of the opinions above. 

[64] M”B 586:44 in name of Peri Megadim; Mateh Efraim and Chayeh Adam

[65] M”B 586:38

[66] Sheivet Halevy 8:133; As the Poskim ibid do not differentiate between where the crack occurred and hence one must be stringent initially.

[67] Beis Av 83; Sdei Chemed R”H 2:33; Sheivet Halevi ibid based on Ritva R”H 27a

[68] The reason: As we see through experience that a small crack on the top does not cause it to continuously crack and thus the entire reason of the stringent opinion above is inapplicable. Thus, perhaps the above Poskim that are stringent only referred to a crack on the narrow end. [ibid]

[69] Yabia Omer 5:42

[70] M”E 586:17; Kaf Hachaim 586:68

[71] Elya Raba 586:12; Chayeh Adam 140:15 brought in Kaf Hachaim ibid

The reason: As only a crack has suspicion of spreading, however a mere chip will not spread. [ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that a chipped Shofar has the same status as a cracked Shofar [and even worse] and is hence initially invalid unless another Shofar is not available. [brought in Elya Raba 586:12; Kaf Hachaim ibid; See also M”E ibid that is stringent unless there isn’t such a good Shofar available.]

[72] Birkeiy Yosef 586:10 in name of Mahriy Malko 98; Shaareiy Teshuvah 586:2 [4]; Kaf Hachaim 586:25

[73] This is based on the Yerushalmi that rules the entire sound must be valid from beginning to end, as rules in Admur 590:10 and 592:8

[74] 586:9

[75] Meaning that we measure the minority versus majority in the area of circumference that the crack is positioned. Hence a small crack on the narrow end of the Shofar may be the majority of the circumference of that area and hence invalidate the Shofar, while a large crack on the wide end of the Shofar may be minority of the circumference of that area and hence still remain valid. 

[76] This applies even if the crack does not contain any missing pieces from the Shofar and hence the sound has no room to escape through the crack, nevertheless it is valid as sound does not pressure the width of an item but rather its length and hence the crack will not further spread due to the pressure of the sound. [ibid] This is unlike the previous case in which according to some opinions even a minor crack in its length is invalid due to the pressure of the sound which causes it to spread.

[77] Meaning even if the Shofar sounded different prior to the crack occurring and hence this crack has caused an altered sound in the Shofar nevertheless it is valid being that all sounds are valid for a Shofar. [ibid]

[78] This is the minimum length required for a Shofar to be Kosher. [ibid]

[79] The reason: Now although the sound of the Shofar is protruding from the area that is above the crack [and the area above the crack is considered cut off] nevertheless we do not invalidate the sound due to it coming as a result of a Kosher Shofar and external source or due to it being the sound of two Shofros. The reason for this is because when the Shofar was originally produced this area was connected to the main part of the Shofar and was never separated from it, therefore both areas [above and below the crack are] considered like one Shofar in this regard to not invalidate it on the pretense that it is like two Shofros. Nevertheless, we do not consider it like one Shofar for all matters and hence with regards to measuring the length, the area above the crack is not included in the measurement being that the crack extends throughout majority of the circumference. [ibid]

[80] Meaning even if the Shofar sounded different prior to the crack occurring and hence this crack has caused an altered sound in the Shofar nevertheless it is valid being that all sounds are valid for a Shofar. [ibid]

[81] The reason: As since majority of the circumference has cracked it is considered as if it has been completely cut off from that area, and hence it is considered that one has a Shofar which does not meet the minimum required length. [ibid]

[82] 586:7-8; Parts of this Halacha are missing in Admur and hence they have been supplemented from the Michaber; Rama and commentaries.

[83] The reason why gluing is valid and is not considered a non-horn material of which initially invalidates the Shofar, is because the glue is not recognizable within the crack. [M”A 586:14 in name of Tur; Rosh; Levush]

Other Opinions: The Michaber 586:8 brings the opinion of the Ramban that rules glue is invalid and only welding the crack together suffices. Their reasoning is because glue is considered a non-horn material and thus has the same law as a patched hole, explained in Halacha B. [M”A 586:79] Practically the main opinion follows the first opinion mentioned in the Michaber. [Elya Raba and other Achronim] although if the sound of the Shofar has changed one should be stringent

[84] Admur 586:8 implies that if the minority crack has been welded or glued then according to all opinions the Shofar is valid.

Other Opinions: The Beis Yosef writes that it is implied from the Ran that according to the opinion that invalidates a minority crack it would not help even to glue [or weld] the crack together, and so rules Peri Chadash. The Kaf Hachaim 586:78 concludes one is to be stringent and not initially use a Shofar that has a crack even if it was glued. However, see Shaareiy Tziyon 586:84 which differentiates between if the sound changed or not and that if the sound did not change it may be used even initially.

[85] M”A 586:13 based on Rabbeinu Yerucham; Rosh; Tosafus; However see other opinions mentioned in the previous footnote.

[86] Michaber 586:8 as once the Shofar has cracked in its entire length it is no longer considered a Shofar. [Beis Yosef; Levush; M”B 586:48] As a Shofar is from the term Shoferes which implies a hollow tube and once there is a full crack it is no longer a tube. [Shaareiy Tziyon 586:85 in name of Levush] The M”A 586:16 however writes the reason for the invalidation is because the Shofar is considered like two Shofros. The Birkeiy Yosef 586:12 and P”M 586 A.A. 16 question this explanation of the M”A on the basis that when there is a crack on only one side it is not considered two Shofros.

[87] Meaning that even if the Shofar contains one crack throughout its entire length it is invalid even with glue and it is not required for there to be a crack on each side. [Birkeiy Yosef ibid; see previous footnote]

[88] 586:7

[89] 586:10

[90] The reason: As such a Shofar is not Halachically considered a Shofar. [ibid]

[91] Meaning even if one welded pieces of horn to a Kosher Shofar which was at least one Tefach in length, in order to increase its size, nevertheless the Shofar becomes invalid due to these additional pieces. The reason for this is because the sound of the Shofar protrudes through the broken pieces and the Torah validated only the sound which protrudes from a single Shofar and not from two Shofros. [ibid]

[92] Alef Hamagen 586:32

[93] Admur 586:12

[94] Meaning one turned the inner part of the Shofar into the external part and the external part into the inner part as is done when turning a shirt inside out. [ibid]

[95] The reason: This is learned from the verse “Vihavarta Shofar….” Which teaches us that one is to blow the Shofar as it exists in its natural state that it grew on the head of the ram while alive, and comes to exclude if one changed the shape to the opposite form. [ibid]

[96] Admur ibid; M”E 586:20

The reason: This is learned from the verse “Vihavarta Shofar….” Which teaches us that one is to blow the Shofar as it exists in its natural state that it grew on the head of the ram while alive, and comes to exclude if one changed the shape to the opposite form. [ibid]

Other Opinions: According to the M”B 586:60 if one blew from the original narrow end he fulfills his obligation. [Piskeiy Teshuvos 586; Minchas Yitzchak 8:54]

If one did not change the shape but blew from the natural wide end of the Shofar: He does not fulfill his obligation [590:20; see Halacha 12]

[97] Hayom Teruah brought in Peri Megadim 586 M”Z 586:1516; Alef Hamagen 586:29; Minchas Yitzchak 8:54 rules to be stringent.

[98] The reason: As since one has altered one of the sides it is no longer considered “Derech Havaraso” the way it was formed.

[99] M”B 586:51 [as is evident that he invalidates only when one blew from the original wide end]; Chayeh Adam 140; Toras Chaim Sofer 586:25

and other Poskim as evident from their omission of this invalidation. [Minchas Yitzchak ibid]

[100] So is implied from Admur 586:12 which writes specifically that only if both the wide and narrow end were changed is the Shofar invalid being that it is the opposite of the way it grew. This implies that if a change is made to the Shofar in a way that is not “the opposite” of the way it grew, then it remains valid. Hence when a change is only made on the narrow side it may be used.

Other opinions in Admur: The Minchas Yitzchak 8:54 learns from Admur which invalidates blowing from either side of a Shofar that has changed on both ends that he holds like the Yom Teruah that it is invalid even if only a single end was changed.

[101] As explained in the lenient Poskim in the previous Q&A!

[102] Minchas Yitzchak 8:54 rules to be stringent.

[103] Hayom Teruah as brought in previous Q&A

[104] As explained in previous footnotes, unlike the ruling of the Minchas Yitzchak

[105] As explained in the lenient Poskim in the previous Q&A!

[106] Minchas Yitzchak ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos 586:1; Moadim Uzmanim 8:5

[107] See Peri Megadim 586 M”Z 1; Minchas Yitzchak 8:54

[108] Toras Chayim [Sofer] 586:2 as explained in Minchas Yitzchak ibid; See Koveitz Sinai 69

[109] 586:13

[110] 586:14

[111] The reason: Now although this Shofar is not the same structure as it was when it grew on the head of the ram nevertheless since it follows the same form as it was originally when it grew on the head of the ram therefore it is considered “the way of growth”. The verse only excludes a Shofar that was turned inside out as in such a case one changed the Shofar from the form of its original growth on the head of the ram. [ibid]

[112] 586:15

[113] The reason: Now although the cartilage interferes between the sound and the actual hollow bone which is defined as the Shofar, nevertheless one is not required to remove it as the hollow bone and cartilage are all the same species, and “Min Bemino” does not serve as an interference. Hence it is considered as if there is no cartilage within the Shofar at all. [ibid]

[114] The reason: The reason for this is because the cartilage is not defined as a Shofar as a Shofar comes from the word Shfoferus which is defined as a tube that is naturally hollow and the cartilage is not naturally hollow. [ibid]

[115] Admur 586:16; Michaber 586:17

[116] This applies to any coating. The Mahril writes the reason why specifically gold is mentioned is because gold was used to make the golden calf and therefore this material cannot be used as a defense for the Jewish people. [Kaf Hachaim 586:116]

[117] The reason: The reason for this is because the lips of the blower rests on the gold and there is thus an interval between the lips of the blower and the Shofar material. [Admur ibid; See Avnei Nezer 432-433; Dovev Meisharim 1:66 as for why the law here is different than by Lulav 651 in which case an item of beauty is not a Chatzitza]

[118] The reason: As nevertheless the lips of the blower rest partially on the gold and there is hence an interval between his lips and the Shofar. [ibid]

Background: The Michaber 586:16 quotes the Braisa which states that if the gold was placed in the area of the mouth it is invalid while if it was placed not in that in that area it is valid. The Michaber then brings two different ways of defining “area of the mouth” as found in Rishonim. The mouth of the Shofar contains an outer slope and inner slope, similar to a kernel of barley which has two slanted sides. [M”B 586:19; Kaf Hachaim 586:120] Some [Ran] explain that the “area of the mouth” means that if the gold coated the inner slant of the mouth of the Shofar then it is invalid while if it coated the external slant of the mouth of the Shofar, then it is valid, even though the lips rest on it. Others [Rosh] explain that whether the gold covered the inner or outer slope of the narrow end it is invalid. The Levush rules that even if the coating covered past the slope of the external side nevertheless if the lips of the blower cover that coating it is invalid. Admur here rules like this opinion of the Levush and this is the meaning of his wording “the length of the Shofar”.

[119] Avnei Nezer 432-433

[120] The reason: The reason why an alteration of sound invalidates the Shofar is because this reveals that the sound which is heard is the sound of the Shofar and of the plating and a Shofar is only valid if it alone is responsible for its sound and not any additional substances. [ibid] 

[121] 586:17

[122] It is unclear what the definitions of these terms “Oviy” “Rachav” and Orech” are. In English Oviy refers to thickness, Rachav to width and Orech to length. Poskim use these words to refer to different parts of the Shofar although some use it to describe one area while others use it to describe a different area. [See Michaber 586:16; Aruch Hashulchan 586:30] For this reason it is very difficult to determine what exactly here Admur refers to in his wording of thickness and width. One cannot say that thickness means the inside of the Shofar as the Michaber clearly rules that any coating on the inside is invalid. [see Q&A!] Now although Admur does not record this ruling there are no Poskim which dispute it and hence it is hard to believe that he argues on it. Furthermore, he would have rather used the word “Befnim” which is the wording the Michaber himself uses to refer to it, if he intended to say the inner part. Possibly the term thickness here refers to the outer slope of the wide end of side of the Shofar. [See Michaber 586:16 for one opinion who defines thickness in this way] while the width refers to the external part of the Shofar. Hence, Admur is saying that whether one coated the outer slope of the thickness of the wide end or the outer part of the Shofar it is valid so long as it does not extend past the length of the Shofar and the sound has not changed it is valid. If, however, the coating covers the inner slope of the wide end or any slope of the narrow end it is invalid. Vetzaruch Iyun.

[123] Michaber 586:16 based on Braisa; M”B 586:70; Vetzrauch Iyun Gadol why Admur completely omitted this law from 586:16 and 17 and merely stipulates that it cannot extend past the length of the Shofar. See also Aruch Hashulchan 586:30.

[124] As it is as if one is blowing with gold and not with the Shofar. [M”B ibid Based on Levush 586:16]

[125] Based on Admur 586:18

[126] Kaf Hachaim 586:116

[127] Admur 586:11 and 17

[128] The reason: The reason for this is because the sound of the Shofar protrudes through the added material and the Torah validated only the sound which protrudes from a single Shofar and not from two Shofros. [Admur 586:10]

[129] 586:17; Admur writes “even if it was added to the wide part by the thickness of the Shofar in a way that it lengthened in size”. Simply this means that one added material to the wide end as opposed to the narrow end. This law was already states in 586:11. Perhaps however it also refers to the top part of the wide end of the Shofar that extends more than then the opposite side of the wide end and hence the novelty is that an extended coating even in that area is invalid.

[130] 586:18; Michaber 586:17

[131] Those that draw pictures on a Shofar in order to beautify it are doing an improper action, even if the entire Shofar is not covered with drawings, as at times the sound of the Shofar changes due to the drawing. [Admur ibid; Tur in name of Ramban] This change of sound is caused by the ink which is similar to a coating. [Beis Yosef brought in Kaf Hachaim 586:122]

[132] Admur ibid; Rama ibid; Beis Yosef 586

[133] Admur ibid; Levush 586:119; Biur Hagra; Levushei Serud 586; M”E 586:26; M”B 586:73; Kaf Hachaim 586:122

The reason: As even if this causes a change in the sound, this change is Halachically meaningless being that there is no additional material on the Shofar that is responsible for this change of sound and rather the change is coming fully from the Shofar itself, and all sounds of a Shofar are valid. [Admur ibid]

[134] Shulchan Gavoa 586:46; Kaf Hachaim 586:122

[135] Sheivet Hakehasi 4:160; Piskeiy Teshuvos 586:10

[136] See Admur 317:7; Our Sefer “The Laws of Shabbos” Volume 2 The laws of Cutting Halacha 1E!

[137] 586:19

[138] The reason: The reason for this is because one’s mouth must be resting on the Shofar itself. [ibid] This is learned from the law stated earlier in 586:16 that if there is gold interfering between the Shofar and one’s lips then the Shofar is invalid. Hence we see the lips must touch the actual Shofar. [Aruch Hashulchan 586:30]

[139] 590:20; Michaber 590:9

[140] The reason: This is hinted to in the verse “Min Hameitzar Karasi Kah” that from the narrow [end] I call to G-d”. [Admur ibid; Yerushalmi] This however is merely an Asmachta and “Lashon Tzachus”. The reason mentioned in Rishonim [Ran; Ritva] however is because the verse states Vehavarta Shofar and Chazal received that this means the Shofar must be blown from the direction that it grew. [Chayeh Adam 140:5; M”B 590:36; Kaf Hachaim 590:72] Veztrauch Iyun why Admur did not record this reason.

[141] 586:20; Michaber 586:20

[142] The reason: The reason the Shofar is valid with the fulfillment of these three conditions is because in such a case one only hears the sound of the inner Shofar without any mixture of sound from the outer Shofar and the Torah only invalidated the sounds of two Shofros and not the sound of one Shofar [that is within another Shofar]. [ibid]

[143] The reason: The reason for this is because one may only hear the sound of a single Shofar, as the Torah says the sound of one Shofar and not two Shofros. Hence one must verify that the sound is coming only from the inner Shofar. Thus, the inner Shofar must protrude from the narrow side as otherwise one will be blowing also through the outer Shofar. Likewise, the outer Shofar may not protrude further out on the wider end as in such a case the sound also bounces off that part of the outer Shofar. Likewise, the sound may not change due to the outer Shofar as in such a case one is hearing the sound of two Shofros. [ibid] 

[144] 586:21

[145] Admur 586:22

[146] The reason: The reason for this is because observing Yom Tov is both a positive and negative command as is written in chapter 498:34, and thus the positive command of blowing Shofar does not override the positive and negative command of Yom Tov. [ibid]

[147] Now although Shofar is a Biblical command nevertheless it is overridden by the Rabbinical decree. The reason for this is because the Sages gave their commands the same power as Biblical commands and hence they established that even their commands have ability to override Biblical commands in a situation that one is not required to actively nullify the command but simply to avoid performing it [Sheiv Veal Taaseh]. [ibid] In other words in cases that there is a Biblical command to perform an action and that action involves a Rabbinical prohibition, the Sages established that one is to refrain from fulfilling the action. However, the Sages did not establish that one is to do a Biblically forbidden action for the sake of performing a Rabbinical command. [See also 128:3; 498 K”A 5; 628:5; 640:10] 

[148] Admur 586:23

[149] See 308:15; “The Laws of Shabbos” Muktzah Halacha 3A!

[150] Admur 586:24; See also 594:2

[151] Admur 586:24-25

[152] Now although the gentile made the Shofar for the sake of the Jew [and we should hence prohibit its use due to that one may come to ask a gentile to initially make one for him] in this case we do not suspect the Jew will request from the gentile to make him a Shofar as this suspicion only applies by a matter which the Jew receives bodily pleasure from. However, Mitzvos which were not given for one to receive bodily pleasure we do not suspect that one will transgress a prohibition in order to fulfill it. [Admur 586:24]

[153] As in such a case the prohibition of Nolad on Yom Tov does not apply being that the gentile owned the horn during Bein Hashmashos and the gentile did not remove his mind from making the horn into a Shofar [at that time] as the horn is within his possession and discretion to do with it as he pleases. [586:25]

[154] The reason: The reason for this is because the Shofar is considered Nolad on Yom Tov and hence is forbidden to be moved by a Jew even in order to use it for blowing, as we do not transgress [even] a Rabbinical command [of Muktzah] in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Shofar [as explained above]. The reason why the Shofar is considered Nolad is because during the time of Bein Hashmashos the horn was not designated to be turned into a Shofar being it was not within the possession of the gentile. [586:25; See 495:13 that we are stringent to forbid Nolad on Yom Tov; See 252:12 and 325:6 that Nolad does not apply when the item is owned by the gentile. Vetzaruch Iyun as the second opinion there rules that it only does not apply if the Gentile began doing the work before Yom Tov and here it seems Admur plainly rules like the first opinion there. See also 308:23]

[155] As if there is no other Shofar available other than the one made by the gentile, one may be lenient like the opinion which rules that Nolad is permitted on Yom Tov in order so one not come to abstain from fulfilling the positive command in the Torah of blowing Shofar. [586:25; See 495:13]

[156] 586:26

[157] This applies even according to those opinions that rule that traveling with an object for more than 12 Mil from outside the city is a Biblical prohibition. The reason for this allowance is because an item that was brought from outside the Techum is permitted to be moved and is only forbidden in eating or benefit. Now although benefit includes the use of the object as explained in 515:1, nevertheless it remains permitted to blow the Shofar as one who blows the Shofar for the sake of the Mitzvah is not considered to be receiving any benefit at all, as explained in 586:24 regarding using a Shofar that was made on R”H. [ibid] However see Taz 586:4 that some benefit is received. Vetzaruch Iyun.

[158] As is explained in 515:15

[159] 515:15; The rule is that although it is permitted to carry on Yom Tov without an Eruv, an object that came from outside the Techum receives the same laws as Shabbos and hence may only be carried in areas that it is permitted to carry on Shabbos itself. [ibid]

[160] Shearim Hametzuyanim Behalacha 135:4; Nishmas Avraham 585 [p. 700];

[161] 528:2

[162] Shearim Hametzuyanim Behalacha 135:4; Nishmas Avraham 585 [p. 700]; Piskeiy Teshuvos 586:11; See Chelkas Yaakov 3:137; Nitei Gavriel Yom Tov 33:16; 34:14

[163] The reason: As majority of Poskim rule that lighting a fire on Yom Tov [i.e. electricity] is only Rabbinical in which case one may ask a  gentile for the sake of a Mitzvah as explained above. [ibid]

[164] 586:4

[165] This applies even if the owner has not given up hope in finding his Shofar and hence it legally still belongs to him. Now although a stolen Lulav [649:4] or stolen Matzah [454:9] or stolen Tzitzis [11:11] are invalid for the Mitzvah and one who used them has not fulfilled his obligation, this is because the actual Mitzvah is being performed with the stolen object. However, the Mitzvah of Shofar is merely to hear the sound that come out of the Shofar and the hearing of this sound is not considered stealing as his hearing of the sound does not involve touching the stolen object at all. Therefore, although the actual blowing contains a stealing prohibition, since the main Mitzvah which is the hearing of the sound does not contain a stealing prohibition, he has fulfilled his obligation. [ibid]

[166] The reason: As since the Mitzvah is being performed as a result of him stealing the object he may not say a blessing on it as is the classical rule regarding a Mitzvah that comes as result of doing an Aveira. [ibid; 11:12; 649:5]

[167] 586:5; M”A 586:4; Elya Raba 586:7; Chayeh Adam 140:18; see also 14:9 regarding Tallis [permitted]; 14:12 regarding Tefillin [permitted]; 14:13 regarding Sefarim [forbidden]; 437:7 regarding Bedikas Chametz; 637:9 regarding Sukkah; 649:3 regarding the Daled Minim; Admur Choshen Mishpat Shiela Usichirus 5 regarding Sefarim that if minority of people are Makpid is forbidden, if knows for certain no one is Makpid is permitted; Metzia Upikadon 27

[168] The reason: One does not need to ask permission to use someone else’s Shofar if he intends to blow for the Mitzvah as one can assume the person does not mind a Mitzvah being done with his object without incurring him any loss. [ibid; 14:9 regarding Tzitzis]

Other Opinions: See Piskeiy Teshuvos 586 footnote 6 that perhaps today due to extra cleanliness people are more careful that other mouths do not touch the Shofar and hence it would be forbidden to use a Shofar unless the person received explicit permission. See Aruch Hashulchan 14:11

[169] Shaar HaTziyon 586:20; Kaf Hachaim 586:23; Admur 14:10 regarding Tallis; 14:12 regarding Tefillin; M”A 649:16 regarding Lulav; Piskeiy Teshuvos 586 footnote 6

[170] M”E 586:5; M”B 586:9; Kaf Hachaim 586:23

[171] Hisorerus Teshuvah 1:177; Igros Moshe 2:106; Piskeiy Teshuvos 586:3

[172] Chayeh Adam 140:18; Kaf Hachaim ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[173] Choshen Mishpat 291:1 [regarding a Shomer Chinam, and certainly this would apply to a borrower in this case even if one holds according to the Machaneh Efraim]

[174] Michaber Choshen Mishpat 340:1; Birkeiy Yosef 586:10; Halachos Ketanos 1:79; Shulchan Gavoa 586:8; Kaf Hachaim 586:25

The reason: As a borrower [Shoel] is only liable for all damages if the damages did not occur in the process of the normal use of the object. [Choshen Mishpat 340:1]

[175] Birkeiy Yosef 586:10 in name of Mahriy Malko 98; Shaareiy Teshuvah 586:2 [4]; See Kaf Hachaim 14:18 and 586:25

[176] The reason: As this has a status of “Shoel Shelo Midaas” in which case he is liable in all cases.

[177] Halachos Ketanos 1:79; Shulchan Gavoa 586:8; Beir Heiytiv 586:4; Sdei Chemed Daled Minim 9

[178] The reason: As he was allowed to borrow it and is hence considered like a regular Shoel. [Poskim ibid]

[179] Orin Telisain 97 based on M”A 586:6 as he has a status of a borrower which is liable for even Onsin. [Choshen Mishpat 340:1]; See Sdei Chemed ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 9

[180] Machaneh Ephraim Nedarim 24 as the borrower receives no monetary benefit from the use of the Tallis and he thus does not have the status of a borrower in this regard.

[181] Admur 586:6 [Parts of this Halacha are missing from our print of the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch and are hence supplemented from other Halachas of Admur (11:13; 649:12) and the rulings of the Michaber and Rama on this Halacha.]

[182] Such as a Jew prostrated himself to the Shofar. [ibid] or a Jew prostrated himself to an animal which has a Shofar. [11:13] Or the animal was offered as a sacrifice to an idol. [Michaber 586:4] In the first case the Shofar is only forbidden if owned by a Jew. In the second case it is disputed whether it is forbidden Bedieved. [See M”A 586:6; M”B 11:35; from Admur 11:13 it is implied it is forbidden even Bedieved although from 649:12 it is implied that it is only initially forbidden. Vetzaruch Iyun.] In the third case the Shofar is completely forbidden even if owned by a gentile.

[183] The reason: As a Shofar is required to have a minimum of length of one Tefach and this Shofar, which is required to be burnt due to it being an item of idolatry, is considered as if it was already burnt and hence does not contain the minimum length. The reason for this is because all items that are required to be burnt are Halachically considered as if they were already burnt. [ibid]

[184] Michaber 586:3; Admur 649:11

Whether the Jew is the one who prostrated to the Shofar or a gentile prostrated to the Shofar and then acquired it to the Jew without nullifying its state of idolatry. The reason for this is because once a Jew owns an idol, that idol can never be nullified and must be destroyed, and this applies irrelevant of whether the Jew sanctified the item into an idol or the gentile. [Michaber ibid; Admur 649:13]

[185] The reason: Being that the item is repulsive in the eyes of Hashem. [Admur 649:12; See also 13:11]

[186] Michaber ibid; Admur ibid

The reason: The reason it is permitted Bedieved is because the Shofar is able to avoid being burnt if the Gentile nullifies its state of idolatry and hence it is not considered to lose its measurement of a Tefach’s length. [Admur ibid]

Other Opinions: The Rama 586:3 rules that even Bedieved the Shofar is forbidden as in actuality the gentile has not yet nullified its state of idolatry. Admur does not record this opinion in 649:12 and he motions to look in 586 in which he says that he explained that the Shofar is permitted. Practically majority of opinions are lenient like the Michaber and so is the final ruling. [M”B 586:18]

[187] Michaber 586:5; This law is not found in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch.

[188] Such as he said “Konem Hanaas Shofar Alay” [Mateh Efraim 586:7; M”B 586:21]

[189] However, he himself may not blow the Shofar being that there are a lot of people that do receive pleasure from blowing the Shofar and since one’s body receives pleasure it cannot be permitted on the basis that Mitzvos are not given to receive benefit. [Taz 586:4 based on Rif and Maor] However according to the Rambam and others [Rabbeinu Yerucham; Rosh; Tur; Aguda] it is permitted for him to blow the Shofar on the basis that Mitzvos were not given for one to receive pleasure. The Bach rules that initially one is to be stringent although if there is no one else available to blow the Shofar one may be lenient. The M”A 586:7; Mateh Efraim 586:7;  M”B 586:22; Kaf Hachaim 586:40 rule like the Bach. The Peri Chadash rules like the Rambam. See 586:24 and 26 that there is no pleasure at all involved in blowing Shofar Vetzaruch Iyun.

How many times is one to blow if there is no one else available? If the person who made the vow is blowing the Shofar he may blow only ten blows of תשר”ת תש”ת תר”ת being that this is the Biblical obligation. [Mateh Efraim 586:7; M”B 586:22] This means to say that one is to blow three sets of each for a total of 30 blows, as this is the minimum amount of blows Biblically required. [Kaf Hachaim 586:40]

[190] Such as he said “Konem Letekiaso Alay”. [ibid]

[191] Mamar Mordechai 586:7; M”B 586:24

[192] 589:3

[193] As the hearing of Shofar is not considered a benefit. Nevertheless, it is forbidden for the person to ask this friend to blow Shofar for him being that it is forbidden to make him an emissary. [ibid]

[194] 586:4

[195] 586:27

[196] This is not considered as if one is fixing a vessel on Yom Tov. [ibid]