Hilchos Tekiyas Shofar: The Baal Tokeia and Shliach Tzibur—Hamaschil B’Mitzvah Omrim Lo Gemor

Transcript

Siman tof kuf pei hei, se'if daled. Achar tekiah v'lo shliach tzibur. The halacha is that you're supposed to get a baal tekiah, and he should be a different person than the shliach tzibur. Why? K'dei shelo yitbalbel. In order he shouldn't become confused, because if he's going to have to blow shofar and daven, he'll become מבולבל. Im hu muftach shechozer l'tefilaso, yachol l'tקוע. And if he's muftach that he will go back to blowing properly, then there's no problem. Muftach shechozer l'tefilaso, then it's okay. Now today we have machzorim, so it's muftach, so mistama, the poskim is brought down like this, that there shouldn't be a problem for a shliach tzibur to be a baal tekiah. Says the Rama, hagah: v'davka tekias al סדר התפילה, של שליח ציבור לתקוע. The problem is only for the ones al סדר התפילה. Aval tekiah shetokein yoshev, דהיינו קודם שמתפלל מוסף, מותר לש"ץ לתקוע. Why? There's no problem. I'm not really sure what's the chiddush of the Rama yet. The whole problem is when you're shliach tzibur. To be not the shliach tzibur yet, there shouldn't be a problem. But there should be an issur gavro. Says that he's not allowed to be the same person. Mudneh cheshbon. What's the chiddush? Iga, medafki shall say that's gevaldig. If the problem, shemi is batel, so when he's in the middle of seder hatefillah, you have a problem, but before that, here what? Maybe should daven, because shemi is batel with tefillah; it should be the balkoreh. Maybe he's not allowed to be the shammes of the shul in the morning to put the chairs, because he'll be misbatel later. I mean, if it's not b'shaas the tefillah, there's no chiddush. Or maybe there is a shtikel chiddush. U'mein hashliach tzibbur teikea meyushav. If it's not the shliach tzibbur's blowing, meyushav, lo yeitzei tekeiah yitgagam, and I'll say the brachos. So it's kedai that you should have one baal tekiah for the tekios d'meumad and tekios d'meyushav. If it's the shliach tzibbur, you have to split it because he's not allowed to do the ones during the musaf, so he's doing the ones before, so you can't make him do the ones in the middle. But if it's a different person doing the tekios d'meyushav, which means the ones before is somebody else doing it, so that same person should continue during the tefillah. Why? Says the Ramo, Ki hamaschil b'mitzvah omrim lo gmor. For the one that begins the mitzvah, we tell him, you finish the mitzvah. Azoi shteit in Ramo: Ki hamaschil b'mitzvah omrim lo gmor. Mashma, that the shliach tzibbur doesn't have the problem of a maschil b'mitzvah and lo gamar. If he would be blowing the tekios to meyoshev, he's not allowed to blow the tekios d'me'umad. I have a klal of a maschil b'mitzvah and lo gamar, nishkefelech. He has no choice. Listen, what are you going to do? He's mevatel. He's batel. Hamishtamea. The maschil b'mitzvah doesn't take precedence over what? Shem yitbatel, making it a shtarker gooder Rosh Hashanah. Let me ask you a kasha. Ei bazoi, so why should it not be that the shliach tzibbur should not be the baal tokea? You have a cheshbon, a maschil b'mitzvah and lo gamar, so I understand that he can't do the tekios d'me'umad. Why? Because since he is mevatel, cuts him away from the tekios d'me'umad. Good, so let him not be the baal tokea for the tekios d'meyoshev. Maybe the Rambam would agree to that, but the story is that he happens to be the one to blow because maybe he's the only one to blow. But ein hachanami.

If there is somebody else, maybe we should take precedence to take somebody else. No? If there's a cheshbon matzil mi'tzoym loi gemar. So because of a matzil mi'tzoym loi gemar, we want it should be the same baal tekea for both. What about moving? Listen, Shemy's baal, listen, Shemy's baal will take away the problem of a matzil mi'tzoym loi gemar. You're not going to make a matzil mi'tzoym loi gemar, and then there should be a problem, Shemy's baal, right? So do it the other way. Don't have him blow even the tekiyos de'meyushiv. Let him not blow the tekiyos; let somebody else. Like this, you shouldn't run into a problem of a matzil mi'tzoym loi gemar. Right? You got a kasha, no? I believe that that's gufo what the Ramah is saying in the hagah. I asked you a kasha: what's the chiddush of the Ramah hagah, that dafka tekiyos al seder tefillah asur l'shliach tzibbur l'tkoa? But tekiyos shetokea meyushiv, that he's allowed. What's the chiddush? He's not telling me because of the Shemy's baal. It's a hemshech of the next. Since you have a problem of a matzil mi'tzoym loi gemar, so then maybe you have a problem with the baal tekiah even doing the tekiyos de'meyushiv, because he can't do the tekiyos de'maumed. Says the Ramah, chiddush, he could do it. Tell me, I don't teach you the truth. I hope that's the truth. You want to know the truth in this Ramah? That's the real Ramah. I'm sure that 99% of people read the Ramah, they... that tekiyos de'meyushiv, it's not a problem here if you're reading the Mishnah Berurah. Read me the Mishnah Berurah on this Ramah. Is there a Mishnah Berurah on this? Yeah? No? What's the chiddush? I mean, he's balbul. He's not going to be misbalbel. So what's the chiddush? What do you think? If it's not about tefillah yet, so what's the problem? What's the hemshech? Since this is din of ... gemaras, maybe Pakker shouldn't blow the beginning either, because he can't finish it. ... we're not worried about that. Why? That's the shit. Why not? Read me the Mishnah Berurah. Huh? Doesn't speak. Okay, but you hear the nekudah? I just want to know on this thing, v'hagah b'davka ...? Can you speak about that? I said the shemrei sheini. The shemrei exactly like I told you, the shemrei chashinu, she's balbul, no problem. He's allowed to, because there's no shem is balbul. That's a chiddush. I asked you, that's a chiddush. The chiddush is if it's not during tefillah, it's lo yisbalbel. So you know what else you should write? And by the way, he's allowed to daven Maariv the night before, and it's not going to be misbalbel with the musaf tomorrow. I mean, what does it have to do with the other? But if he's not davening, there's no shem is balbul. Chiddush is maybe he shouldn't blow, for what reason? Because since he can't... He says the ... when the shliach tzibbur, if the shliach tzibbur is not the one blowing the ... that's when you say that the master should finish. I said that. I know. I know the halachos ... Besides them, that's a chiddush in the first part also, because I would say maybe he shouldn't blow for that reason already. I know. Don't discuss. Please, please. This is not a ... this is a shiur. Now, it's very simple. You see clearly the Rambam that there's a problem of a maschil b'mitzvah im lo gamar. So that problem, l'choira, could have been that that should stop the shliach tzibbur from being baal tekiah in the first place. You're right, he can't not—he can't blow the second ones because you have a problem shema he's baal. So maybe he shouldn't blow at all, get somebody else, unless that's what the Rambam means. If he is—what do you mean if he is? If he happens to be the one that has to blow. But adaraba, maybe you're supposed to find someone who won't have this problem. But that's what the Rambam is saying, if I care, it's mutar for him to blow. That's good for the chiddush of the Rambam, not to tell me that he's allowed to blow in the beginning because there's no problem shema he's baal. Of course there's no problem shema he's baal. The chiddush is, I would say maybe al tamaschil b'mitzvah im lo gamar shouldn't. Tamaschilim, v'davka b'kii she'al sei da'atfilah you have a problem, asur. Kiyah is the miluy shehe has allowed, not because of shema he's baal. Of course there's no problem shema, because tamaschil b'mitzvah im lo gamar maybe. That's what I hold the pshat in the Rambam. Why am I saying this is the pshat in the Rambam? The Meiri in Rosh Hashanah, daf lamed beis amud beis, dibur hamaschil haMishnah hashlishis.

Taka paskens clearly that the baal tekeah is not allowed to be the shliach tzibbur. Sayfed the tekias d'mumed, sayfed the tekias d'myoshev because of a problem of ha'oseh mitzvah aveirah. Yeah, but your father is not the pasul d'meiri. Also, the Rambam says doesn't apply. Again, so, or meaning he's what? He does both. Okay. First of all, sha! What is this charusi here, this shiur? What's going on here? First of all, just to tell you, if you'll have someone else daven here, the shemayis balbo will be a lot worse. Okay, so you have to have your father davening. That's first of all. It's not that we have a chashash, so sugya's not again. The question would be the other way around. Could you have split? Who had a story with split? No? That's the story. The story with split is right here. Are you allowed to split? Technically, shtuyefe, please don't make me nervous today. I'm gonna go over, I'm all. And I'm telling you over, gevaldige meiri. The Meiri tells me that the baal tekeah cannot be the shliach tzibbur, period, unless you don't have a problem of shemayis balbo. But on the side you have a problem of shemayis balbo, you have a problem. Now, first of all, we have a machlokes. Machlokes the Rambam and the Meiri. What do I at least have from this Meiri? Before the machlokes, at least I understand what the Rambam is saying, and that we were mechaven l'ennes. The Rambam. There's a chiddush that he's allowed to be the baal tekeah in the beginning. I would say maybe it's not ... because mashkulan d'Rabbanan that you're allowed. So then it comes out that we have a machlokes d'Rabbanan in the meiri, right? So the first thing is we have to understand the machlokes. But besides that, I think we can go a little stronger into the sugya by asking the meiri itself, tell me, if a person can't complete a mitzvah, shouldn't start it? What are you talking about? If someone knows he can only do a piece of a mitzvah, a lot of yeshiva guys feel that way: I can't learn the whole sugya, so I don't learn at all. A lot of people feel that way: I can't do the whole mitzvah, I can't learn the whole seder, so I won't come at all. Do a little bit, no? When is there a problem of ... when you could finish, but when you can't finish, so what's the problem? And who holds like that? The Ramban. That's good for the Ramban, ... to me. Where is the problem of ... only if I could finish and I don't, but here the shliach tzibbur can't finish, so then there's no problem. So the kasha becomes stronger. Forget that. Let alone the hesber of the machlokes. What's pshat in this meiri? I mean, why should I not do what I can do? Why should I not do what I can do? Ela mai, I'm not ... okay, so I can't. What do you want me to do? Why does a person have to be careful not to start if he can't finish, if he can't finish? Unless maybe there is such a ... that if you could choose between two people, better to go with the person that could finish, meaning— The individual should pasken start a mitzvah, even though he can't complete it. If you want to choose something to represent the tzibur, better get the person who can be hamaschil b'mitzvah v'omrim lo. So it comes out an interesting yesod then, from Rabbosei. Hamaschil b'mitzvah v'omrim lo, gemor. Omrim lo. It's not just a din in the gavra; it's a din in the tzibur then. It comes out it's my din. It's my din that the one who started a mitzvah, I should tell him to finish. If you learn it's his din, if he starts a mitzvah he can't finish, he can't finish, and so on. But if it's my din, so I have to choose a person who I could tell him, gemor. And it's interesting, that's the lashon of Chazal: hamaschil b'mitzvah omrim lo. Why don't you just say, hamaschil b'mitzvah, yigmor? Hamaschil b'mitzvah, omrim lo. Chazal were very careful with their words. This you won't hear anyplace. This is not—this is for some reason people don't learn Shulchan Aruch like this, they don't learn halacha like this, they don't learn Gemaras like— I mean, read the Gemara: hamaschil b'mitzvah. Why would you talk like that? Hamaschil b'mitzvah, state omrim—what's omrim lo? Hamaschil b'mitzvah. Who? Hamaschil, the one that starts, yigmor. Hamaschil, the person who starts, yigmor. Hamatchil yigmor. Hamaschil b'mitzvah yigmor mitzvah.

Why do we say omrim loi? So it could be it's not a din on the gavra as much as a din on the tzibur, who is sending him. Omrim loi gemar. So we can have now an interesting machlokes. The Rama holds that since he can't finish, that means he's not mechuyiv. Ha'ma'aseh mitzvah, he couldn't finish, so gemar. I mean, and if he can't gemar, right, and if he can't do it, it's nisht. Ha'ma'asek b'mitzvah, patur. And if he can't, that means he's not allowed to start, while the Meiri is paskening—and don't forget, it's interesting, the mekor of this is Rav Hai Gaon, it's a gaon, shitas haGeonim. So it's interesting, maybe they're arguing in how to fataysh this gaonim. Al kol panim, we could say that that's the pshat in the Meiri. The Meiri understood that if we could pick two people, we'd be better off to pick the person that we could omrim loi and be mekayem our din of gemar. Okay. I want to say a different hesber in the machlokes. I want to say a different hesber in the machlokes than the Rama and the Meiri. Shh. I want to say a different hesber in the machlokes than the Rama and the Meiri. Again, the Rama paskens that if we can't ask the shliach tzibbur to finish his nisht, so he'll start and he won't finish. A different hesber in the machlokes. First we're saying, could be it's a machlokes in the geder of hamaschil b'mitzvah and lo gamar. The Rama held that if he can't finish his, it's only a problem if he could finish, then he should. While the Meiri held, listen, don't send someone who can't finish. I'd like to tell you a different hesber, and I want to first tell you a Rambam and a Maggid Mishneh. Rambam says, Zeh shetikea k'shenoyshvin, hu shetikea al seder habrachos k'shenoyshvin. The one that's tekiah when they sit, he's the one that's tekiah when they stand. Says the Maggid Mishneh, kach kosvu haGeonim. He's quoting this Rambam, right, the Geonim. Listen how he quotes the Geonim. V'kach amar Rav Hai Gaon, haminhag b'Yisrael, the minhag in Klal Yisrael, shehatokea b'zman shetzibur yoshvin umevarech, kodem hatekiah hu hatokea al seder habrachos sheheim. So my first question is, minhag? Minhag? What's the root of it? The Geonim, right? This comes from Geonim. Interesting way of how it's brought down. Haminhag b'Yisrael. Kasuv, I mean there's a din of hamaschil b'mitzvah omrim lo gemor. It's a din, no? I mean, minhag? That's a minhag? There's a din called hamaschil b'mitzvah omrim lo gemor. What's haminhag b'Yisrael? And if you look at the Rambam, the Rambam doesn't make it into minhag. The Rambam says it's a din. Zeh shetikea... The one who tosses it has to do with that. I know it's an interesting lashon here. Something is curiously different when you read the ... after, or before you read the way the Rishonim, the Rambam, the Rishonim bring it down. It's not the same thing. A minhag is not the same thing as a problem of a ... mitzvah, and the Rambam says it as a din, minhag Bnei Yisrael. My second ha'arah is, look at the way he brings it down, that the one who blows, k'shehein yoshvin u'mevarech kodem hatekiah, hu hatokea ... What's it to do with the mevarech? What does that have to do with it? Come a day you'll understand what I feel. I'm with you. Read what it says: Haminhag b'Yisrael shehatokea bizman shehatzibur yoshvin u'mevarech kodem hatekiah, hu hatokea ... Rabosai, you know what I think the Maggid Mishneh is telling us? I think it's the biggest chiddush. It has nothing to do with hamaschil ... It has to do with the bracha. Since he was the mevarech.

Mainly, he should be the tekiah. We don't like to separate between the brachos and the tekiah, and that's a minhag Bnei Yisrael. It's a certain halacha. We try to adjust that if you make the bracha, you do the mitzvah. Don't have you make the bracha and someone else should do the mitzvah. Sound familiar? If someone makes a bracha and then someone else takes over, or someone else, some other shofar comes in the middle, there's a problem with the bracha. You want the bracha, the tekiah, and continuing. And since the tekios d'me'umad are as well under the first brachos, so we try not to separate the tekios, the tekiah, to the brachos. Quickly. This applies to the tzibur also. Sure, why not? It doesn't apply to the tzibur. The din of the Mishnah Berurah brings down about separating brachos and people is by the tzibur. There's issues of separating, even though everybody heard the bracha and everybody's being yotzei with the same bracha. There is an issue of changing baal tekiah, changing shofers, and it's all al hesach. I don't want to even say the word hesech, hefsek. There's a hefsek by switching from the original mevarech and original shofar. That's what we see in halacha, and that's a minhag Bnei Yisrael, and that's what he means, zeh shetekiah k'shem yoshvin. It has nothing to do with hamasmim... I'll prove it to you. What is the next line in the Rambam? How does the Rambam bring this halacha of zeh shetekea? It's a masmitzvah mideRabbanan; it's a separate halacha, yeah? V'eino medaber bein tekiah shemeyushav l'tekiah sheme'umad, v'im sach beineihem, af al פי she'avar, eino chozer umevarech. The Rambam says one halacha. It's clear. There's nothing to talk about. Ad kedei kach sheani matmia al haRama, where did he get the masmich mitzvah l'Gemara? He's quoting this geonim. It's a pashut; it has nothing to do with a masmich mitzvah l'Gemara. He says clearly, and that's what the Maggid Mishneh means. One who makes the bracha when he—it's about other sugyas than a masmich mitzvah l'Gemara. And that's why the Rambam brings it as one halacha, zeh shetokea. He's the one that makes the tekiah. V'eino medaber bein tekiah shemeyushav. Ad kedei kach, you have the pashut right on the side of the Rambam. Tzarich עיון גadol, where did you get hamasmich mitzvah? Where does it come from? It's not in Rav Hai Gaon. Rav Hai Gaon never spoke about masmich mitzvah l'Gemara. I'd like to show you where I— I can't say where I got this from. I got this from learning the Rambam, but what I'm being mistamech on, what am I relying my basis, my yesod from? The basis of my yesod. I'd like to read to you a shtikel a Gaon, the Gaon in Shulchan Aruch on this din of the Rambam. Says the Gra in Biur HaGra. Yerushalmi says, Perkama deRosh Hashanah, Perkama deYom Tov, v'kamah mekayemes, that what? Mekivan shehamaskil b'mitzvah omer lo gemor. Yeah, omer lo gemor. U'vGemara, perek vav deBrachos, hayu, techilah v'achronah mesayeya. So this is a maskil b'mitzvah, omer lo gemor. V'haGeonim amru. The Geonim said, mishum d'lechatchilah yesh kamevarech. Look how he brings Rambam. He brings the Rambam, hamaskil b'mitzvah omer lo gemor, and he brings the mekoros for hamaskil b'mitzvah omer lo gemor. V'haGeonim kasvu, the Geonim wrote, mishum d'lechatchilah yesh kamevarech. It's mamash what I said, right? It's mamash the Rambam. It's mamash the Maggid Mishneh. I'd like you to look up in your Be'er HaGolah this Rambam. Where does it come from? You know what? First, first get the Rambam itself. Who is he quoting? The Rambam. Quotes the Rambam.

No such Rambam. Tzorichin godol, there's no such Rambam, my boys. There is really, Reb Chizkayim, there's really no such Rambam. There's no such thing. There is no such Rambam, my boys. And I have a raya. Look at the Gaon, look at—yeah, the Rama's quote. Yeah, no, the Rama brings the din, ... and then he quotes the Rambam. It's not true. The Rambam is the first part, that we want him to be the same person, but that a ... mitzvah ... that's no Rambam. My boys, I'd like you to look in one more place in Shulchan Aruch. Please take a look at Shulchan Aruch, siman tof kuf tzadik beis, se'if daled. Correct, go ahead, read. It's tof kuf tzadik beis, se'if daled, the Mechaber and the Ramo. Go ahead. Clearly, read it clearly. Ooh, that's this Rambam, right? Now you're talking Rambam, right? That we want it to be the same person. Who is it that's the Mechaber? Says the Ramo. Okay, what's the machlokes, the Mechaber and the Ramo, or is there one? Maybe the Mechaber just brings the halacha and the Ramo says, by the way, don't make it... It sounds very serious. Na oi, nachon. It's a bringer. Like, is this mechaber Rambam? Huh? He says in the mechaber it's ... the eved? I know he doesn't say that. Mishnah Berurah, the mechaber, the Rambam—what's he, is there machlokes, or the Rambam is just explaining the mechaber? Explaining. You come and bring down halacha, yeah? So the Mishnah Berurah is learning tal talmasa b'mitzvah, and he's bringing down there, and the Rambam is just saying it's not likuvah, it's only l'chatchilah, right? If you can't, you can't. The hainu on being mefaresh the mechaber. Mechaber uses strong lashon; I'm telling you it's not such a strong lashon. So they're arguing maybe on how strict is hamaschil b'mitzvah omrim lo kemar. One says stronger language, one says a weaker language. But you know what I think the pshat is? There's a tremendous machlokes, the mechaber and the Rambam. The mechaber held like the Rambam that there's likuvah. What do you mean? The one who's making the bracha now has to continue the tekios. And the Rambam is saying, I learned it has different reason. It has to ... only l'Gemara, that's all. I understood the din not that it must be that way. The Rambam brings it down zeh shetikein like it's a din. Says the Rambam, it doesn't mean it; it just means it's the right thing to do, al hamaschil b'mitzvah omrim lo kemar. Now you understand that. This is what's going on behind the mechaber and the Ramo. Mishnah Berurah obviously doesn't go into all this. Mishnah Berurah makes it, it's all about hamaschil mitzvah, there's no machlokes, and the Rambams, and there's no Magid Mishnas, there's no goyens. I don't have to tell you. But there is such a thing, and therefore I understand that the machlokes, the mechaber and the Ramo, is real machlokes, not just one explaining the other instead of tav kuf tzadi beis. Lefi zeh, I want to say that that's the pshat in the Meiri. The Meiri held that this halacha, that the tekiyah must be the same for both, outs the bracha. So it has nothing to do with hamaschil b'mitzvah omer ligmor, so you can't take the shliach tzibbur if he can only do one. Masha'en kein the Ramo held that it has to be hamaschil b'mitzvah omer ligmor, and that's only when I could finish and I don't. So where I can't finish, you could take the shliach tzibbur. Teminik, roi la'asos, no, roi. It's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to be gomer. If you can't be gomer, so you're not gomer. That doesn't mean I can't take the shliach tzibbur. Hamaschil b'mitzvah omer ligmor.

The Gemara would be good finished. See, first I wanted to say that the chiluk is, what's the geder of a maschil mitzvah, like Gemara, that they're arguing where I can't finish, can I still be sent? I told him maybe the pshat is they're arguing bichlal what's the reason for this din, that Ramo learns the reason for the din is al tamaschil mitzvah, like Gemara. So therefore, if I could finish, fine, and if I can't finish, it's also fine. It's also good. Mashenkein the Meiri is going with the shitas haGeonim, the way the Rambam understood shitas haGeonim, that it's likuva, there's a problem. Like the Mechaber brings it down, it's not stam ra'ui and it's kedai and it's a good thing and it's a nice thing and it's a sheines, there's a problem with the brachos. Okay. Now, I want to ta'ina not k'mina lahalacha, psak halacha. You're asking me to pasken halacha now. The Magen Avraham in seif katan zayin, in siman taf kuf tzadi beis, on this halacha that we started with, taf kuf tzadi beis, I'm saying the one we just learned, he says a chiddush that the halacha, the one who starts is the one who finishes al tamaschil b'mitzvah omrim lo gemor, is only in the olden times. Today we don't have this problem. Why? Because in the olden times there was a chazakah that the one who started was the one who finished. The Mishnah ברורה brings down, the one who started was the one who finished. But today, that there's no chazakah for it because we takkeh split it up lechatchilah. So there is no problem of hamatzil mi'tzad l'Gemara, because there's no such thing. It's pak up two kibudim. We split it up as two kibudim. Read the Mishnah Berurah. Bizmaneinu, says the Magen Avraham, that was only in the olden times, yeah? If you tell him you're the baal kriyah means already both. Mashenkein. ... Today they do split it up. Therefore the first one was not a zocheh, and there's no problem of hamatzil mi'tzad l'Gemara. Lefi the way I explained to you, the Rambam, the Meiri, the Mechaber, that has nothing to do with hamatzil mi'tzad l'Gemara. There's no bizman hazeh; it's the same halacha bizman hazeh. So you should pasken halacha l'maaseh. Mishnah Berurah is going with his mahalach, that it's all about hamatzil mi'tzad l'Gemara, and it's a Magen Avraham, it's a minhag, it's a this, it's a yent, it's a nice thing, it's beautiful, but today it's beautiful the other one, okay. But if you're going to go, it's ikar, it denounces the ikuvim in the brachos, so it has nothing to do with the kibudim. It has nothing to do with the brachos, shayach l'hefsek. Okay, I'll tell you another nafka mina. Why is the Rama not bothered by the hefsek? Because... I'm getting to that. I'm getting to it soon. I'm going to get to it soon. Slow, slow. You know what, once you brought it up, I'll tell you ready. I was going to say one of two things. I was going to say one of two things. Either you say, I mean, it's not a real hefsek. I mean, the bracha is chal on whoever was there, and— Yeah, I'd say that. I said the bracha is chal already on everybody. So it's not you different than anybody else. I mean, it's one— I mean, technically, if you are mafsik, you still yotzei, because the bracha is chal already. Finished, that's all. The other way I would learn is—the other way I would learn is, you'll soon see, I have a different mahalach also, that the tekiah—you have to know what the tekiah's the moment is. Is it nichlal in the first bracha, or you don't even need a bracha for it? We spoke for the Chazon Ish. Remember we spoke last week, two weeks ago from Chazon Ish, that the tekiah's the moment don't need any brachos. So therefore the Rama technically is without brachos. There's nothing to talk about. Notice the way the Rama learned, there's nothing to start with the Rama, because there's no brachos for that. The whole din is not starting. So therefore you have to go find the Yerushalmi, ... mitzvah ... Either you hold it's chal on everybody, so it's not a sugya, or you hold there's no sugya because there's no such halacha. I mean, there's no starting point. I just told you, because lechatchila you want that the blower—

And the blowings should go under a bracha. And we see not like that. Shulchan Aruch halachah, you saw from that that you should not stop, and if you get another guy, it could be a problem after you make the bracha. Even though everybody was there and stopped, it's a safek. L'chatchilah, we don't want hefsek. That's called a hefsek. Getting a new baal tekiah is called a hefsek. Not l'ikuvah, but it's called a hefsek, that l'chatchilah we don't want it. No, it's— no. Yes, that's not that you have to make another bracha, but you don't have to make another bracha, but l'chatchilah we don't want it. That's what we see from Shulchan Aruch. Okay. I'll tell you another nafka mina I was thinking, a geshmakke nafka mina. What happens if the first baal tekiah who blew, making the bracha and blowing, and then he couldn't blow anymore? So you anyway had to get another one, right? Which is b'diavad, you're allowed. Now could you split it to a third one? If you learn that the sugya is al ta'maschin mitzvahim lo yigmor, so the second one has to continue. But if you learn the problem is that the original bracha should be from the tekiah, he should blow all the tekios. If it's anyway not that person, so you anyway brought Chaim Yankel to take over. You could bring Chaim Berel to take over. What's the difference? What's the difference how many people take over? If you learn it's al ta'maschin mitzvahim lo yigmor, so if he blows, he's the second blower. The first one, something happened to him. He couldn't blow. His lips swelled up, he had to— he's not feeling well, he had to run, whatever the story is. No, I'm saying, halachah l'maaseh, they have that. Also, this is all halacha l'maaseh. What happens in the shul where the guy can't blow, so they get another guy. So now the question is, should he have to blow the whole tekios? If it's a tam ramoz, reason of hamaschil mitzvah omrim lo gmor, vavad he has to keep on blowing. But if the reason is because the bracha, the original bracha, has to follow through with tekios, you're anyway not having that. No, think, you get four people to blow, as long as they were all there during the bracha, what's the big deal? Why is the third guy different than the second guy? There's no ma'alah of the third guy over the second guy. No. It's only l'chatchilah, but do you have a yotzei? The question is, could—can I l'chatchilah go and get another person? Not mechuyiv. I'm not mechuyiv to stop from getting another person. There's no reason why I can't have a third person come. It's very simple. If the reason is hamaschil mitzvah omrim lo gmor, so if the second one was appointed to do the mitzvah, so he must finish the mitzvah. But if the reason is because we want the first bracha chal on the tekiah, so guy two is no different than guy three; they're all standing. Outside, I'm not talking about outside. Forget about outside. I'm talking about the people in the shul. Outside is a different story. Outside is already another she'eilah. The people in the shul, you're anyway bringing the second person because the first guy couldn't blow, so then you can have five people blow. Split it up into five people, who cares? That's l'choirah not gemina l'halacha l'maaseh. You hear, David? Gevaldig psak halacha. Now, what is the hesber in this machlokes? Why is the shaila if hamaschil b'mitzvah omerim lo gmor is the sugya, or is the sugya hefsek in the bracha? So I told you already, I cheated a little, but I told you because it could be the Rama held that there's no sugya called hefsek on the tekiyos d'maomed, because there's no bracha for the tekiyos d'maomed. So what pshat in the Gaon? The Gaon held there was. But why does the Gaon not feel that the problem is hamaschil b'mitzvah omerim lo gmor, and the teretz is because that's only a ro'ui, that's not a real chovah, and he wants to learn it l'chovah. He found a much worse problem. Wait, is it a tosefes by the fact it's a hefsek? No, no, no, no, no. It could be the Rama held that there's no problem of hefsek. So you have to find hamaschil b'mitzvah omerim lo gmor. Why does the Gaon not be busy with this? The teretz is because he held that there is a problem of hefsek, because he held that the brachos do go on the rest of the tekiyos. Yeah, but what about the problem of hamaschil b'mitzvah omerim lo gmor? Why bring that if you have a more serious problem? That's l'choira the hesber of the machlokes. But I want to tell you a little bit deeper. You ready?

In Hilchos Chanukah, in siman tof reish ayin aleph, se'if zayin, brought out an interesting halacha. What happens if the baal tefillah is in a rush? In a rush, you know, sometimes you have two examples. Either Maariv, and he runs into the shul, he finally got the minyan together, so if he's going to have to light, and the daven, you know, it's going to take three minutes to light, and then everybody's going to start yelling, Mini, mini, mini, Borchi, Borchi, Borchi, right? Let's go, time is money, you know, everybody's going to start yelling and screaming. Or let's say Shabbos sometimes. Let's say you have Shabbos. The best example, I had this a lot of times when growing up. I saw my father sometimes. He has to light all the candles, right? Let's say there's a whole family and everything. He doesn't want to be busy with it, so what does he do? You light the first candle, maybe, and you let someone finish it. Make the bracha, light the first candle, let someone finish it. So this is a shaila in tof reish ayin aleph, se'if zayin. Go ahead, open up the Shulchan Aruch. Tof reish ayin aleph, se'if zayin. Elie has—what is this, water? What is this? Yeah, se'if zayin. Go ahead, read. Yes. Mitzvah hanicha b'tefach hasamuch lepesach, משמאל, כדי שתהא מזוזה מימין. Can I have the Shulchan Aruch, please, אלי? Tof reish ayin aleph, se'if zayin. Okay. Where is in the Rema? יש להדליק בערב שבת קודם מנחה. אם רוצים למהר להתפלל לאחר שבירך שליח ציבור. If they want to daven after the shliach tzibbur lights. והדליק אחד מהם. So he lit one, the shliach tzibbur, right? That's who usually makes the bracha and lights. יוכל השמש להדליק הנשארים, והשליח ציבור יתפלל. You, you, you don't finish, I'll finish. He made a bracha, he lit one. What about the rest of them? Let someone else finish off the rest of them. The Magen Avraham says, I don't understand, why is this din unique to the beis knesses, to the house also? See Rashi in Teshuvah on Erev Shabbos. Why would you talk about a beis knesses? It's only a beis knesses you have this problem. I can start, oh, start Klerin, start in a yeshiva, beis knesses is for the tzibbur, and the shul and the house. Torah is Chanukah, I'm not only. Right now, because when we get to Chanukah, we'll discuss the different mahalchim. I mean, it's not the same. Lighting is the chovah for the tzibbur, it's a ma'aseh degavra. Hilchos Chanukah. Okay. Says the Magen Avraham, guess what? It has to do with the house also. He brings the Yam Shel Shlomo, and it says, yeah, the same halacha, it's just a gavra. He said it by the beis knesses. Well, it's also, we say it all over, that you can start and let someone else finish the mitzvah. We say it by many mitzvos. Says the Magen Avraham, I'll prove you that this halacha is general and has nothing to do with beis knesses. Okay? What's wrong? Huh? Maybe you don't like the shot. There's nothing not to like here. It's all... there's nothing here which is not 100%. Today's shiur is 100%. You ready? Listen here. Says the Magen Avraham, hu hadin in the house, it's the same thing. Proof? There's a halacha when you make melikah. So one makes melikah, kartzoi, and the squeezing to get the blood out, anybody else can do that, right? On an animal, it all comes out by itself. But by a bird, you have to be kartzoi u'meilek, which means you give the nail into the thing, the shechitah, and then you squeeze, meirak, you squeeze the neck into the blood. So what do we see? There's halacha that if someone starts, the other person could finish. Says out the Magen Avraham raya. We see...

The idea is that a person starts, even though he's not finished, someone else can finish it. Someone else can finish it. The idea is a din of a maschil b'mitzvah u'melaklah. The pshat is, once it's gemar, then you're finished. So if it's kartzoi, the mitzvah is over. So meileh is just part of the next part of the procedure. Once you did your mitzvah to the completion, so there's a second mitzvah. Some people feel that way. You know, once they have maftir, they have to have Musaf. There are people like that. And once they have Musaf, they have daven Mincha. Once they have Mincha, they have Maariv, and you have to give them birchas hamazon by Shalosh Seudos. Maschil b'mitzvah, they started. The truth is, when you start and you complete, there's no next, I have to do the next. Mimeila, kartzoi u'meirak is not a stirah to the halacha of a maschil b'mitzvah u'melaklah, as they state in poskim. Says the Gra on this Magen Avraham, the ra'ayah is not a ra'ayah. You know why? Because over there he had no choice. The kartzoi couldn't be the meirak, couldn't be the same person, because that's the way it was in the shechitah. The reason why they split it up was because he couldn't do it. I'll read. Tof reish ayin aleph. Seems like. Says the Magen Avraham. Koidem minchah... I'm over. ... shegam b'beis rishoi la'asis kein. D'chein nir'eh li, says the Magen Avraham, I have a proof to this. He says in the Gemara, Kartzai k'meirak achar al yadoi, ayin sham b'ayin b'Chulin perek beis. So we see that it can be done by two people. Says the Gaon, says the Gaon, ayin Magen Avraham, siman pei gimel, kartzei meirin. D'sham davka. Over there it's davka. Why? Mishum sheyitzarech l'maher l'kabel ha'dam. He also has to make kabbalas ha'dam, so you have to be kartzoi. He had to go and pick up the keli to be what? To kabel, so someone else squeezed it. Yeah, the ... l'maher davka. V'af sheha'shaar einan ela mitzvah b'alma, even though l'choira there it's only mitzvah b'alma, which means he understood that that's the reason for the Magen Avraham, that it's not l'maaseh cheftza of the mitzvah, it's only l'mitzvah b'alma. But still, there's halacha, I'm asking mitzvah over lo yigmor, but here it's because אי אפשר לעשות. No? What do you think? What do we have? We have a big yesod from this Gaon, that where you can't do it, there's no ma'atzma mitzvah over lo yigmor. That's what you see from this Gaon, and that's how he ... And who holds like this? The Rama. The Rama is saying ... If it's after the mitzvah, then there's no problem, right? But if it's not after the mitzvah, it's still chelek of the mitzvah, it's a problem. Maybe he could have learned, maybe that it is part of the mitzvah. And if it's part of the mitzvah, so I can't come and say, hamas... I have no choice. Mai dilma, really it's not part of the mitzvah. And if it's not part of the mitzvah, and I'll tell you right back that it's not part of the mitzvah, the Ritva in Rosh Hashanah, daf lamed daled, says clearly that you want to know what the kiyum of the moment are? It's shiurei mitzvah v'noyeho. It's noy mitzvah. It's adding, it's extra, it's embellishing the mitzvah of shofar by blowing tekios the moment. I'll say the tefillah. You want to read it inside? You want to read this Ritva? It's a unbelievable Ritva, huh? So take it and read it.

Exactly what I'm heading to. I want to know by Chanukah, what's Chanukah, the rest of it. It's also no mitzvah. And if it's no mitzvah, so you light one and finished. So you don't need the raya, the Magen Avraham, of tekilah l'soif. What? Lamed daled. Lamed daled. Lamed daled, lamed daled. Omer aleph. Divrei ha'maschil, kasav haRif. Kasav haRif, go ahead. ... yotzei ידי חובת מצה שויפר בתקיעת דמיושב. ... ברכה is boiis l'chovas mitzvah shofar. It's not for shofar, ela l'chovas tefillah b'tzibur. ... ענין שאויס, like do, ... ברכות שאנו ... להפריד ... Okay. I have a problem about teisaf. ועוד, שאין משום בל תוסיף אלא כשמוסיף בגוף הדבר עצמו, אילו הוסיף תקיעה או תרועה בסדר, אבל לכפול הדבר כולה, ג' פעמים לחיוב מצוה. It's only for chibuv mitzvah. It's a she'eino tzarich. We try to show that we love our mitzvahs. You know what the ta'ina? So someone asks you what a tefillah is the moment, chibuv mitzvah, finished. In Rosh Hashanah, daf lamed daled, amud aleph. So let's stretch a bit through now. Either we could say like this: the din of the Rambam is because since it's chibuv mitzvah, Chanukah, also al tz'mehadrin, ממילא you have no problem. That's how we could learn the din over here. So what about a bedi'eved? Technically, you shouldn't have a problem of a maschil mitzvah ... also not, unless we say lechatchilah b'di'eved, and there too it's a lechatchilah b'di'eved. Right? There too, so it's not lechatchilah to do it if you have no time, you're rushing, you do b'di'eved. רואין נמי. What did the Miri hold? So say one of two things. Even the Meiri held that there's a problem even when it's chibuv, like the goy. And the goy is l'shitasei, and therefore the goy comes along and says there there's a different problem. Rambam, you're wrong, and it's not lechatchilah. Why? Because there's still a problem. But could be, could be, where are you going? Ila, but this is the main part of the shiur, the cheshbon, huh? This is the main thing, the cheshbon at the end, the cheshbon it out properly. Nachon. One more time. Yes. The—I'm sorry, the Shulchan Aruch that says by Chanukah we would say tzuadim b'chol mitzvos is the same Rama l'chatchila b'diavad. Oi dilma, or maybe no. Over there, it's called noi, and over here it's not called noi, because the t'chiyah, the moment, is very important. The only thing is, you have no choice, maybe. So the Shliach tzibbur, yeah; everybody else, no. Right? Meaning, I agree with you when it's noi, but here you have a choice. Don't take the baal techeh; take somebody else. Oi dilma, you come and say like this: really, by noi it applies. U'faker, maybe it only—u'faker, we can say that noi is a din of ra'ui. Vashekein when it's not noi, there's likuva v'ma'akev metzuyan noi. Maybe. Oi dilma, be'emes we could come and say that he holds of the Rambam, that it's a problem of sach.

Why is it a problem? Because it cannot be a problem by maschil mitzvah l'gmar. You can't make a likuva of a maschil mitzvah l'gmar. There's no such thing. Mameila, what's it about? It's about hefsek with the bracha. That's the only thing that you can have a problem. That's where the hesber of the machlokes is. In this yesod, either we say that there's no problem, maschil mitzvah l'gmar, when you're finished, and the Meiri says, therefore I don't want to go ta maschil mitzvah l'gmar. And therefore I don't want to go ta maschil mitzvah l'gmar, because it's finished. Once you have the tekiah's de'meyush, and you're finished, that's it. The rest is just noi. I'm telling you, the argument is in the din of a maschil mitzvah l'gmar. If you hold it is makom afrom, right, so what do you say? And whenever the ikar mitzvah is over, it's finished, right? So then you can't come and tell me by tekiah shofar, ha-maschil mitzvah l'gmar, because it's finished already. Unless you learn oymitz part of the mitzvah. So it could be either you hold oymitz not part of the mitzvah, which means the Meiri may be held like the Ramban that oymitz not part of the mitzvah. So it has nothing to do with maschil mitzvah l'gmar. But if you learn like that, then you have a problem. So then what's the hefsek problem? Unless there's a din even for the noi mitzvah, that the bracha should be chal on the noi mitzvah. I'm trying to tell you that could be there is a din. Either you hold like the makom afrom that it's not part of the mitzvah. There's nothing to do with that. There's halacha: once someone starts, you finish. I am askin mitzvah, omer lokeimar. So the teretz is, when it's a noi mitzvah, you can say, hamaschil b'mitzvah, omer lokeimar, l'chatchilah, but not b'di'eved. And that's this din over here. Who finished? Right, but since it's a noi mitzvah to say do the next one, so you continue, hamaschil mitzvah, omer lokeimar. This Magen Avraham. Aye, dilma the pshat is, once the mitzvah is over, there is no hamaschil mitzvah. So Meiri held there's nothing what to talk about, so he has to come to the din of hefsek. I'll tell you where this is nogea l'maaseh. I'll tell you where it's nogea l'maaseh. I saw minhag, and I don't know where it comes from, that when someone opens up the aron kodesh to take out the Sefer Torah, he's the one that opens it afterwards also. And a lot are not makpid. I think Sefardim are not so makpid on it. Ashkenazim are much more. The Aruch Makpid on it. Whoever opens it up first should go back to open it up second. Who? Okay, sell it to two different people. In Ashkenaz, they don't sell it to two different people. They don't sell it. In Ashkenaz, whatever it is, their ... Whatever it is, they sell it. Could you sell it separately on Rosh Hashanah and Kippur? That's where I'm getting. I'd rather know that everybody says, hamaschil b'mitzvah, omer lokeimar. I'll tell you the truth, rabboisai, it's an interesting chiddush to me. First of all, I didn't find it. I didn't find it. And second, who says it's the same mitzvah? I don't know where it comes from. Maybe it's not the same mitzvah. Here's the moment, here's the yoshiv, is a shofar. It's considered two different things. So who tells you the ... considered the same mitzvah? You took it out, and someone will put it back. Once someone brings it back. I want you to know, in a lot of yeshivas, the person does gelilah, picks up the Sefer Torah, puts it right back. ... walks all the way from the amud, comes to the bimah, and walks back. Right. I was just davening in ... shul, a real ... shul. And I had actually ... so I'm sitting there waiting for the ... to come. No one, no one. ... So then I'm like, okay. Yeah, but the chiddush is that the baal gelilah, the chiddush is the baal gelilah can put it right back in the Torah. That's what they do in yeshivas, in a lot of places they do that. The person who's holding the Torah gets up, walks with the thing and puts it back. The Chassidish ... do it that way. But l'choira, you have to clarify. If there's a din of a ma'aseh mitzvah, like ... okay, I don't want to hear every ...

Person's past history and what shows they davened in, because he's relevant to me. What's halacha l'maaseh? Is there a rule of hamaschil b'mitzvah? Like, I tried to identify that. I went to look for it today. I don't know where it comes from. I looked in all the sefarim that bring the minhag. I don't know where it comes from, but everybody says it. No, no, no, the guys usually forgot that he had hachnasas... so they always have to wait. By the way, you had a—who says makpid? Why should you be makpid? And halacha l'maaseh, could you sell it as a separate thing? It's תלוי בשאלה. Even if you hold it's the same thing, if the pshat is it's divisible, so there's no din of hamaschil b'mitzvah. And it's a shaylah for the shul, maybe that's like אי אפשר. It's a question trying to get money for the shul, so it's like אי אפשר. Yeah? If it's a question to get the money for the shul, so it's together with אי אפשר. So you're allowed to separate it. Why? Because the shul has to make money, huh? That's what I'm trying to tell you. If it's minhag, we can separate it. That's what I'm telling you. If it's only chibuv mitzvah, and if you hold it's even by chibuv mitzvah and everything, it's only b'di'eved, maybe it's together b'di'eved. Din of hamaschil b'mitzvah. ... Rabbosai have a nice day.