Talk:Shofar blowing

Questions on the latest edit

1) I don't understand the ordering in this revision. First it mentions R Abbahu's enactment, then there is a bunch of unrelated stuff, then there is more discussion of the enactment (three different understandings of it). Shouldn't everything related to the edit be together?

If you look carefully, nothing is unrelated. It explains the reasoning behind R. Abbahu's enactment, and the subsequent doubts which were raised because of R. Abbahu's enactment. The subsequent section, "Different customs" should explain the differing views, where we mention also the fringe views.Davidbena (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

2) The paragraph beginning "The first series has a combination..." - this is true for only one of the the understandings of R Abbahu, so I think it should not be mentioned without qualification? This also applies somewhat to the two paragraphs which follow it. Ar2332 (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

If there are different ways of understanding how R. Abbahu's enactment is to be applied, we can add a parenthetical statement indicating that it is understood by some in that way, but explained by others differently. The best way for us to reach an agreement, without reverting each other's edits, is to work out a rough-draft here, in this Talk-Page. Shabbat Shalom.Davidbena (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Definitely, we should have gone to the talk page one or two edit cycles ago :)

So here is what the gemara says R Abbahu enacted - just that TaShRaT was blown. It doesn't say how many times was blown, it doesn't say if TaShaT+TaRaT were blown and if so how many times. I found and inserted one source which explicitly disagrees (saying R Abbahu enacted TaShRaT*3), I did not yet find a source saying R Abbahu enacted TaShRaT+TaShaT+TaRaT. So currently it is not correct to say R Abbahu enacted TaShRaT+TaShaT+TaRaT, that is not in the gemara, we have zero sources for it, and one source against it. So I don't know how we can let this stay in the page. That is why in my edit I just paraphrased the gemara, and then said "this has been understood in three ways, then explained the three ways one by one (and TaShRaT+TaShaT+TaRaT I left with a "citation needed" for the time being). Interested to hear your thoughts. Ar2332 (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeshar koach! "No man fully understands the words of the Torah until he has stumbled over them" - אין אדם עומד על דברי תורה אלא אם כן נכשל בהם - [Talmud, Gittin 43a]. Indeed, Maimonides explains Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 4:9, where it says: "The manner of blowing the shofar is three blasts thrice repeated" (סדר תקיעות שלש של שלש שלש), to mean: three teru'ot (quavering blasts), with a teqi'ah (sustained blast) before and after each, making for a total of three quavering blasts and six sustained blasts; this being the original enactment before the enactment made by Rabbi Abbahu. For all practical purposes, Maimonides' words are supported by the Tosefta (Rosh Hashanah 4:9). All this is briefly stated in the introductory sentence written in the article's section "Three series." I double-checked the other rabbinic commentaries to see whether or not Maimonides' view is universally accepted (e.g. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 33b and 34a; Jerusalem Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 21a-b; Halakhot Gedolot, Hil. Rosh Hashanah; She'iltoth de'Rav Achai Gaon, P. ve'Zoth Ha-berachah, # 170 - Le-Rosh Hashanah; and Responsa of Rabbi Hai Gaon, cited by Rabbi Abraham ben David in: Tamim Da'im, responsum # 119). In the She'iltoth (ibid.), it speaks only about the order of blasts AFTER Rabbi Abbahu's enactment, whose words are these: וצריך למתקע תקיעה, שלשה שברים, תרועה ותקיעה. דאתקין ר' אבהו בקיסרין סימן ' תשר"ק תש"ק תר"ק '. [Translation: "One must blow a sustained blast (teki'ah), three [short] lilting blasts (shevarim), a quavering blast (teru'ah) and a sustained blast (teki'ah), seeing that Rabbi Abbahu enacted in Caesarea the mnemonics: TaSHRaK (teki'ah, shevarim, teru'ah and teki'ah), TaSHaK (teki'ah, shevarim, and teki'ah), TaRaK (teki'ah, teru'ah, and teki'ah)]. Note that the letters representing the mnemonics are different to what we are used to today, although their representation have the exact same meaning as TaSHRaT, TaSHaT and TaRaT, and which make-up the entire three series. Our article describes these series in the language commonly used by us today, and all is in agreement with the teaching of Rav Achai Gaon, author of the She'iltoth.

I checked also the Halakhot Gedolot of Shimon Kiara (Mekize Nirdamim edition, Jerusalem 1972, p. 305), and in it it says the exact same thing as stated in the She'iltoth, writing on this wise -- not in Aramaic, but rather in Hebrew: אתקין ר' אבהו בקיסרי תקיעה שלשה שברים תרועה ותקיעה, שנייה שלשה שברים ותקיעה, שלישית תקיעה תרועה ותקיעה. (Translation: Rabbi Abbahu enacted in Caesarea teki'ah, shevarim, teru'ah and teki'ah; second series, [teki'ah], teru'ah, and teki'ah; third series, teki'ah, teru'ah, and teki'ah). The author of Halakhot Gedolot goes on to write that "we do not know what a teru'ah is," since the word is translated in one place as yababa ("a wailing sound"), and in another place as yelulei, which explains one of the reasons behind R. Abbahu's enactment, and for which reason we do both. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Post Script: I also checked the halachic writings of Rabbi Isaac ibn Ghiyyat (Sha'arei Simḥa, Hil. Rosh Hashanah, Furta 1861, p. 38) and he, too, speaks about the original enactment being only nine horn blasts, which blasts, he says, were merely teki'ah, teru'ah and teki'ah three times, just as explained later by Maimonides. Rabbi Isaac ibn Ghiyyat goes on to explain (p. 38) that it was Rabbi Abbahu who enacted the additional horn blasts because of certain doubts. The first series was enacted to fulfill both methods of a teru'ah ("quavering blast") - yelūlei and genūḥei, the one having a sound of making a sudden noise (yelp), the other of deep moaning. The author of Halakhot Pesukot, Rav Yehudai Gaon, writes in his seminal work the exact same thing (see Sefer Halakhot Pesukot of Rabbi Yehudai Gaon, Ahavat Shalom: Jerusalem 1999, p. 97). So far, all rabbinic texts corroborate each other.Davidbena (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Post Post Script: The three pillars of halacha, Maimonides (Mishne Torah, Hil. Shofar 3:1-3), Maran Yosef Karo (Shulhan Arukh, Orach Chaim 590:1-2) and Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (Rosh Hashanah 33b) all say the same thing, just as we have written above. The first two bring down the general development of the halachic practice, mentioning the later enactment made by Rabbi Abbahu of Caesarea without mentioning his name, although Rabbi Isaac Alfasi does mention his name. The illustrious Talmudic scholar, Rabbi Menachem Meiri, writes on the development of shofar blowing in his commentary on Rosh Hashanah 33b, just as all the others have so deftly explained. All are in agreement here. Shalom.Davidbena (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Good job finding sources (Sheiltot, Halachot Gedolot, etc) which support your view about what R Abbahu enacted. But what about Maimonides? Seemingly his position is that R Abbahu enacted the blowing of 30 blasts? Ar2332 (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

According to Maimonides (Hil. Shofar 3:1), the Torah only obligates us to make 9 horn blasts on Rosh Hashanah. However, according to Maimonides (Hil. Shofar 3:2-3), because of a doubt that had arisen regarding the proper sound of the Teru'ah ("quavering blast") - whether it is like unto a yaleila (screech or yelping noise) or like unto a anaḥa (sound of deep moaning or sigh), it was enacted to make a total of 30 blasts of the horn. The addition of shevarim was made in place of the anaḥa-sound, whereas the teru'ah is thought to be the yaleila-sound (ibid., vs. 3). Rabbi Vidal of Tolosa, known as Harav Ha-Maggid, in his commentary on Maimonides, writes that the 30 blasts was an enactment made by Rabbi Abbahu. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Right. So contrary to the Sheiltot which says R Abbahu enacted 10 blasts, Maimonides says that R Abbahu enacted 30 blasts. Why put the Sheiltot's understanding in the main text and relegate Maimonides' understanding to a footnote? Wouldn't it make more sense to bring both interpretations together? Ar2332 (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No, there's no contradiction. The She'iltot speaks only about the 10 blasts of the first three series. When repeated three times it makes for 30. Everyone agrees to the halacha of making the blasts three times. If it makes it any easier for you, I have also put Maimonides' ruling in the footnote.Davidbena (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Easiest Way to Explain Rav Abbahu's enactment

Ar2332, shalom. I have been noticing your recent edits on this page, and I have no doubt that your intentions are good. With that said, I still think that there are easier ways to explain to our readers the development of this Jewish practice of blowing the ram's horn (shofar) on New Years Day. Since the original practice was ONLY 9 blasts (no more and no less), but Rav Abbahu came along and enacted a total of THIRTY blasts, do you see anything inherently wrong or complex with the following edit? My view is that we should endeavor to explain to our readers the development of these additional blasts as simply and as lucid as possible.

Three series

Originally, the shofar was only blown nine times on Rosh Hashana - specifically, three sets of tekiah-teruah-tekiah.

This practice was later changed by Rav Abbahu of Caesarea (3rd century CE), because of doubts that had arisen surrounding the actual performance of this commandment.

During the first series, Rav Abbahu enacted that they blow a [very long] sustained blast (Teki'ah), followed by three [short] lilting blasts (Shevarim), with the resounding pitch of a person who is crying, and again by a [very long] sustained blast (Teki'ah). This series was to be repeated three times, for a total of 12 blasts. This prescribed order is often called by the mnemonics: TaSHRaT – Teki'ah, Shevarim, Teru'ah, Teki'ah.

During the second series, he enacted that they blow one [very long] sustained blast (Teki'ah), followed by three [short] lilting blasts (Shevarim), followed by a [very long] sustained blast (Teki'ah). This series was also to be repeated three times. This prescribed order is often called by the mnemonics: TaSHaT – Teki'ah, Shevarim, Teki'ah.

During the third series, he enacted that they blow a [very long] sustained blast (Teki'ah), followed by a [long] quavering blast (Teru'ah), and again a [very long] sustained blast (Teki'ah). Again, this series was to be repeated three times. This prescribed order is often called by the mnemonics: TaRaT – Teki'ah, Teru'ah, Teki'ah.

The first series has a combination of four interchanging sounds made by the horn, which, when repeated thrice, make for a total of twelve blasts. The second series has a combination of three interchanging sounds, which, when repeated thrice, make for a total of nine blasts. The third and final series has a combination of three interchanging sounds, which, when repeated thrice, make for a total of nine blasts. The sum total is thirty blasts. This understanding has been accepted by modern halakha, which requires that a person hear 30 blasts on Rosh Hashana.

Besides the greater number of blasts made by the horn, the substantial change made by Rav Abbahu is in his adding the "short, lilting blasts" (Shevarim), which blasts have the resounding pitch of a person who is crying. This was added because of a doubt originating over the meaning of the word used by Onkelos and by the Targum Yerushalmi, both Aramaic translations on Lev. 23:24 and Num. 29:1, and where both texts translate "a quavering blast" (Teru'ah) as "a wailing sound," (Aramaic: Yababa), which happens to be also the same word used in describing the sound made by the mother of Sisera in Judges 5:28, when she moaned the loss of her son. With the ram's horn, it was not known if this word meant short, intermittent lilting blasts, or one long quavering blast, from whence he prescribed that they do both in the first series.

Another doubt, however, arose because of this enactment. It was not known whether or not the addition of "three short lilting blasts" in between the older practice would disqualify the whole. For this reason, they also blow "three short lilting blasts" in a series by itself, and "one long quavering blast" in a series by itself. Each is done separately.

References

Davidbena (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've been sick the past few days, I hope to reply to this soon Ar2332 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, looking over the versions again - in my comment I attempted to incorporate the unique information from your comment in a more concise manner. So I vote in favor of the page as it is now. Maybe we can get the input of other editors? Debresser for example. Ar2332 (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

My comment is not very helpful, I'm afraid. I have been looking at various attempts to rephrase this specific section for a few years now, and find that all attempts are more or less the same, none of them really satisfying. Debresser (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I edited it again, is this better? Ar2332 (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Ar2332. When I find the leisure, I'll slowly re-read the article and see what improvements need to be made to it, if any.Davidbena (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Tagging non-English words

Debresser asked on my talk page:

Please explain to me why you added the {{Cleanup lang}} template to Shofar blowing in this edit? Debresser (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The banner links to Template:Lang#Rationale which has big-picture reasons, but more specifically today I have been working off a moss report listing the English Wikipedia articles with the greatest number of potential typos. That report lists the following for this article:

tekiah, tekiah, tekiah, tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah, tekiah, shevarim, tekiah, tekiah-shevarim-tekiah, tekiah, shevarim, tekiah, tekiah-teruah-tekiah, tekiah, tekiah, shevarim, tekiah, tekiah, tekiah, tekiah, shevarim, shevarim, shevarim, shevarim, tekiah, tekiah-teruah-tekiah, malchiyot, zichronot, shevarim, shevarim-teruah, tekiah, tekiah, tekiah, shevarim, tekiah, shevarim, tekiah, shevarim-teruah, tekiah, shevarim-teruah, tekiah, shevarim-teruah, tekiah, tekiah, shevarim-teruah, tekiah, vateyavev, yevava

Since these are in Latin script rather than Hebrew, I'd probably put them in {{transl}} rather than {{lang}}. -- Beland (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

We have a guideline in the manual of style: word in other languages should be put in cursive. That is all. Not lang or trans templates. This is something you should take up at a higher level. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: MOS:FOREIGNITALIC does in fact require the use of {{lang}} and friends, which handle the italicization. The MOS explicitly asks editors not to use manual italics for non-English words. -- Beland (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry. I remembered the italics, but did not remember the part where it says to use a {{lang}} template. I edit much in Judaism-related articles, which use many words in Hebrew, and apart from in the lead, they almost never use such a template. Seems, that is something we should start working on. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries! We certainly get a lot of cases like these in the main moss work flow; this article just happened to have an unusually high number. -- Beland (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Debresser, I will be making the corrections to this article based on the {{lang}} template. Are you in agreement that we use the following format? example: la`az (לעז) → la`az (לעז)? Or perhaps only the word's transliteration, as shown here: tekē'a, or this? pronounced [teqiʔa] Davidbena (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way: Our contributing editor, Beland, does not say that we cannot use Hebrew script here (which we can). What he does say is that, if the article has only Latin script transliterations of Hebrew words, they should be written by using {{transl}}.Davidbena (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The bold Hebrew words looked ugly. The new version looks just fine. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)