Blowing, right. The actual blowing. That is what the עיקר מצוה is. That's why the bracha is about the tekiah. Now, there are going to be kushyos and re'ayos for and against each of these two opinions. So, we have on the one hand, seemingly the Rambam and the Bahag, they say that the mitzvah is hearing the shofar, and we have here Rabbeinu Tam, who says that the mitzvah, lichora, and he seems to indicate by the fact that the bracha is on the tekiah, that the mitzvah is on the blowing, that is the עיקר מצוה. So, one of the re'ayos, and one of the big, I guess, questions on the shita of Rabbeinu Tam, and it's really a support for the Rambam, the Rambam himself in teshuvot brings this as a proof that the mitzvah must be the shemi'ah, only the shemi'ah. And what is the proof? And this has to do with what, Yair, what you were bringing up here a moment ago.

Let's try and work out Rabbeinu Tam's opinion here for a moment and say that the real mitzvah is blowing the shofar. That is the mitzvah, the mitzvah is to blow the shofar. So, what does that mean? Means I have an obligation to blow the shofar, you have an obligation, we all have an obligation to blow the shofar. Each and every person has that mitzvah. Whatever the mitzvah is, it applies to all of us. And so, what happens? We go to shul, and who blows shofar? Everybody. Yeah, that's what should have to happen, but we know the halacha, and it's clear throughout the mishnayot and the Gemara in Masechet Rosh Hashanah, that you could have one person, and like we do בזמן הזה, we could have one person, we could have the baal tokea standing up front, he blows shofar, and everybody is included, and everybody is yotzei. So, how is it possible, asks the Rambam, or and he really asks it as a question on the other opinions, and he wants to prove that it must be that the mitzvah has to be something which could be done by everyone. And it's, ah, so asks Aaron, why can't it be working through shelichut? Shelichut, what's shelichut? Shelichut, shelichut means sending like an agent, a messenger, which is a concept that we do find in the Torah that a person does not necessarily have to do Not Lubavitch shluchim. Why can't it be shelichut? So,

let's put that question on hold for one moment. It's a good point, we'll get to that. But asks the Rambam that if the mitzvah was to actually do the תקיעה, to actually blow, that was the mitzvah, that was the עשה, the actual blowing, then it's something which is an obligation on each and every one of us, and Can I just get one thing straight? Whether it's שמיעה or תקיעה, everybody holds you can still have, at least, somebody blow it and you hear it, either through shelichut or you don't even need a shelichut. If it's If it's תקיעה, it's through shelichut, but you don't need Well, if it's תקיעה, it's going to need to be explained. It's got to be a explained shelichut. And if it's שמיעה, you don't even need the shelichut. If it's שמיעה, you don't need shelichut, cuz everybody everybody heard. So, that's the nafka mina. Exactly. The nafka mina is, and this is what the Rambam is trying to prove, we're going to get stuck in a corner here. If If you're going to say that the mitzvah is the תקיעה, you are going to have to come onto some kind of form of shelichut, maybe, which likhora does not exist by such kind of mitzvah. And that is what Aaron was asking. There are certain times where we have the concept of shelichut, of of having a representative. For example, making a transaction, even a a חלות for קידושין. For example, the Somebody makes kiddush for everybody. Someone makes kiddush, so we'll get to that in a minute. That's going to have to do with the idea of שומע כעונה, which we'll get to in a moment. But there's there is a concept of shelichut. Right. But shelichut

doesn't exist on what we call a מצוה שבגופו, an obligation that you have for yourself to do a mitzvah. Such as, for example, shaking a lulav, like we mentioned yesterday, that mitzvah. Shaking a lulav, you can't appoint a representative to shake the lulav for you and thereby you be yotze. That doesn't work. Is הדלקת נרות like that? הדלקת נרות for Chanukah or for שבת? Which are you referring to? For שבת, שליחות? I don't think so. I'm not sure about that. Maybe it does. Having a light, it's not Right, well, there right, there could be we go into the point of the mitzvah, I'm not sure how how that works. But Well, tefillin, for example. You can't have someone else put on tefillin and you'll be and you fulfill the mitzvah, although there is a whole discussion, I think Tosafos has a shtikel about that. Can he give a get? Yeah, well, not an obligation, but there's a קיום, there's a fulfillment of a mitzvah, but that also could be done with שליחות. Person could send a messenger, a shaliach, a representative, to give a get for him, a person could send a representative to do a kiddushin for him. There are many things, acquisitions You can't send a shaliach for nisuin and erusin, right? Nisuin, you can't do שליחות, no. I was trying to tie it into what we were doing yesterday. Yes, good, good. I think we might actually have some other some connections actually here. But, yeah, you can But kiddushin Thought you heard from me a kiddushin, erusin, yeah. Kiddushin and erusin you could have a shaliach, nisuin, though, you cannot have a shaliach. Oh, okay. That's the second step when there is No shaliach. Okay, now, so what so what so again, so the Rambam uses this to prove that it must be that the mitzvah is only the שמיעה, that is what the mitzvah is, not the תקיעה, because if the mitzvah was the תקיעה then how is everyone fulfill the mitzvah when you have one person get up there and blow for everybody? שליחות is ruled out, can't be שליחות, because no שליחות on this kind of mitzvah. So it must be that everyone really have a part of this mitzvah. That would only be explained if it's the mitzvah of שמיעה. That is what the Rambam says, and he goes so far, and it's very interesting, he goes so far as to compare the blowing of a shofar to something similar to that of building a sukkah. The mitzvah is sitting in a sukkah and eating in a sukkah, building it is the preparation for the mitzvah. Blowing the shofar is like making your I guess הכנה or preparation, you could call it, or creating the היכי תימצי, the ability for those to fulfill the mitzvah of the שמיעה. But it's not really the essence of the mitzvah. That is what the Rambam says in in תשובה there. So how do we explain Rabbeinu Tam? How do we explain the שיטות that say that the mitzvah is to actually blow the shofar? If if shlichut seemingly is ruled out because this kind of mitzvah cannot work through shlichut, so we have to explain how is it possible that Rabbeinu Tam could say that the mitzvah and the berachah is on the tekiah, and we have one person get up there and blow the shofar and it's considered like we all blew the shofar? How does that work? So, was it you who brought up the the idea of Kiddush? Someone brought Kiddush. So there's a concept that we have which is similar to shlichut, but also a little different, of what we refer to as shomea ke'onah. One who listens, כעונה, as if he himself verbalized what he heard. And that is something which applies for example by Kiddush. Megillah? Megillah, the yeah, I think so. It's like kedushah if you're in the middle of Shemoneh Esrei. Yes, by kedushah, it applies in many many many many times. That by Kiddush you have one person get get up there and make Kiddush for everyone, and we all could be yotzei, we could all fulfill the mitzvah, because listening, hearing him make the Kiddush, which is a little little bit different than shlichut, here you have to actually listen. If you don't listen, you don't not yotzei, where shlichut has nothing to do with listening. Shlichut means you give over your power of of making a kiddushin to your representative and he can do it for you. Here the the idea is listening: shomea ke'onah. If he hears the kiddushin, I'm sorry, if he hears the the the if he hears the Kiddush rather, on Shabbos, or you hear kedushah like you're talking about during davenen, we can consider it as if you yourself said the kedushah. So there is the Steipler Gaon that Rabbeinu Tam will take this concept of shomea ke'oneh one step further than what we know. What we know of shomea ke'oneh is not nothing more, until now, and what the Rambam would hold, is that it's nothing more than a shemi'ah is like you verbalized it through your mouth. So for example, when it comes to shofar, if you want to apply the concept of of shomea ke'oneh, then what the Rambam would say is shomea ke'oneh won't help you so much, because the Baal Toke'a is blowing the shofar, he's making his tekiah. So you want to say that you're listening to his tekiah, so it's like you yourself made that noise. So we could accept that, you made the noise, but you didn't make the noise through a shofar, you made the noise from your mouth, and that's not sufficient to fulfill the mitzvah of shofar. The mitzvah of shofar is the kol has to be through the shofar. And being that the kol has to be through the shofar, the Rambam will say shomea ke'oneh will not help you. Shomea ke'oneh is just as if you verbalized that noise itself, nothing more. Whereas Rabbeinu Tam will take it one step further. And Rabbeinu Tam will say that shomea ke'oneh could go up to similar to that of shlichut, and that you could have the way the Steipler says it, it's like you could have his ma'aseh, what he's actually doing, he's blowing from a shofar, we could consider it as if you, the one who's listening to the tekiah, are also blowing, not only from your mouth, but from a shofar as well. That is a very big chidush, I think. What's the reason he can say that? Because he knows כל התורה כולה. What? So I think he I mean I think I think he's saying that because we are we're pushed into a corner here that that the concept of shlichut in and of itself doesn't really work. Rabbeinu Tam seems to be saying that the mitzvah is the tekiah. So how is it possible that everyone could fulfill the mitzvah if you have one person up there? So he's saying it must be that he takes this idea of shomea ke'oneh one step further and we could carry over the whole action of the תוקע, and we kind of we can kind of transfer the shofar to each and every person's mouth, and when you're listening to that tekiah, it's as if you yourself are actually blowing the shofar. That is what the Steipler wants to say, and and I do acknowledge that is a big chiddush. It's not exactly It's It's very similar to שליחות. It's that it takes more. You have to actually be listening to what's going on. It's the שמיעה with accomplishes this this this level of He says something like the shofar's part of the body, I don't know, something extended. It's like an exten- Yeah, I don't think he says that, but you become attached to the shofar. Yeah, like it becomes a Becomes like בטל maybe? It become, I don't know, maybe a חסידישע ווארט here you could You you come up with a vort, and we'll see, and then let me know. Maybe there's a piece I'll back something up into it. Yeah. But there is a similar discussion which a little bit off the records here that comes up with regard to this idea of שומע כעונה which I think the famous Beis Halevi, I didn't get a chance to look it up recently, but he talks about the idea of ברכת כהנים, when you have a kohen up there who's who's saying the berachos. So, he comes to explain why each kohen has to actually say the berachos himself and can't rely on this concept of שומע כעונה. He hears a kohen next to him saying the berachah, so let it be as if he himself said the berachah. And the famous Beis Halevi, if I'm not mistaken, that says that the reason is because by the the ברכת כהנים there's an additional requirement, which is that it has to be בקול רם, in like an elevated voice. So, the concept of שומע כעונה doesn't go that far. All it does is we make as if the noise that you hear is as if you yourself are verbalizing, but anything in addition that's necessary to fulfill the mitzvah does not come along with it. And that's why The other spike that came along, which was very recent, what was the answer given? So, it's all dependent How how Rabbeinu Tam would answer? Because it's definitely not So, I'm I'm going to give you alternative answer because the Was there an answer that was like There's another answer, I think. There is some other answers. Well, yeah, I mean the Steipler's vort, I think, is a Steipler's vort is a big chiddush. Can you hear me over there, Jeff? Can you hear? Okay. So, there must be like a conventional explanation that Yeah, so so I'm I'm going to share with you two other ideas. One is going to be my own thought, and another one is going to be from the earlier Acharonim, so I I would recommend you go with this pshat. By kiddush, so you don't have to drink all of the wine in this case. So, so, I think it definitely is better, is definitely is better, definitely ideal. I think there's a discussion, during Shabbos day, I think it's accepted not to. Sorry. Go ahead. No, just stop the thing you're saying, because Shabbos day, I mean, the accepted minhag is you don't have to drink from it. Friday night, I think I remember hearing that it's it's much more preferable that you should take a part in the drinking of the kiddush. But could be yotzei if you blow your own shofar. The person No, you I think you made me think of a good answer. Not everybody's a baki in blowing shofar. Not everybody's a That is correct, but it doesn't really explain then how how we could be yotzei the mitzvah. How do we fulfill the mitzvah then? We're not asking to do anything too complicated ever. Right, שלוחי דבי דינא אינון, yeah, שלוחי ב״ד. Yeah, it would be ideal I can't make one I have my He blew one of those, you know, based on Maybe it's not practical, but not everyone knows how to blow So, there's So, there's a there was another suggestion I wanted to say, maybe to explain the shita of Rabbeinu Tam, being that this is a big חידוש. Let's move over here, hear something. Being that this is being that this is a big חידוש, I'm telling you what the Steipler is saying, and and I'd like to to preface this with another question that's asked rather on the Rambam, not on Rabbeinu Tam. Now, the Rambam said and the Behag understood that the mitzvah of shofar was the שמיעה, hearing the קול שופר, hearing the voice of the shofar, that's the mitzvah. And we said that the Rambam went on to prove that it has to be just that is the only mitzvah, the mitzvah is the שמיעה and blowing is is just a heichi timtza, the way to get to the mitzvah. So, what אחרונים ask on the Rambam is that why is it important, and it's meforash like this in the in the Mishnayot in Masechet Rosh Hashanah, why is it important that the תוקע, the one who blows the shofar, has to be a בר חיובא, meaning he has to be he he really has to be one who is included in the mitzvah and the obligation to blow shofar? Why can't even a קטן, a minor, blow shofar? Why are there any דינים that are relevant to the תוקע? The point is hearing the noise of the shofar, so even if it happens by a five-year-old could blow shofar, and you hear the קול שופר, you should be yotzei. That is the question that they ask on the other opinion, the shita of the Rambam. So with this, the Ktav Sofer in teshuvot brings us to a Gemara in Masechet Rosh Hashanah. The Gemara talks about the halacha of blowing shofar if Rosh Hashanah falls out on a weekday. And as we know that if Rosh Hashanah falls out on Shabbos, what's the halacha? On Shabbos Rosh Hashanah we do not blow shofar. Right? This year it's a close call, but but it's not Shabbos on Rosh Hashanah. So the Gemara asks mana hani mili? How do we know that only during the week we blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah, but if Rosh Hashanah falls out on Shabbos, you don't blow shofar? So it's a famous there's a famous reason that's given, which the Gemara gets to only later, but initially the Gemara says that mana hani mili, what is the מקור? What is the source for this halacha? And the Gemara says that the source for this halacha is because we have two pesukim that seem to give off a different connotation. We have one pasuk that says יום תרועה יהיה לכם, and there's another pasuk that says זכרון תרועה יהיה לכם. What's the difference between יום תרועה and זכרון תרועה? So Rashi explains that זכרון תרועה, זכרון means like remembrance of תרועה. It implies it's not the actual blowing. ולא תרועה ממש, רש״י says, אלא מקראי של תרועה, like pesukim that relate to the idea of the תרועה. So the Gemara wants to say that one pasuk is referring to when Rosh Hashanah falls out during the week, so that's when you actually blow the shofar. And when Rosh Hashanah falls out on Shabbos, that's when we only have a זכרון of תרועה. We have a pesukim that remind us of the תרועה, but we don't actually blow the shofar. In fact the Gemara, didn't they blow the shofar in the בית המקדש? How could you say, exactly what your question is, how could you say that's a source the Torah itself that you don't blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah based on this seemingly contradiction in the pesukim? But we know that the halachah is in the בית המקדש itself, they did blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah, which seems to indicate that mid'oraita on a Torah level, there really is reason to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah, and it was only a rabbinic decree that you don't. So the Gemara, on Shabbos, correct, on Shabbos. So then the Gemara says you're right, and it falls off, and it comes onto this other idea which we all know of, of the chashash, we are concerned that a person might not know exactly how to blow, and he's going to go to his Rebbe to teach him, and he's going to carry the שופר ד' אמות in רשות הרבים. A chashash, a gezeirah, we don't want someone to be מחלל שבת. So the Ksav Sofer, though, he points out that the Gemara then doesn't get back to the question. We still seemingly have like a contradiction in the pesukim. There's one pasuk that indicates the mitzvah is is יום תרועה, and the other pasuk seems to say that it's about זכרון, remembrance of תרועה. And the Gemara falls off of the connection between Shabbos and weekdays, but how do we resolve the two pesukim? There is the whole chelek about the ברית מילה on Shabbos, in in הלכות שבת, yeah. But yeah. So what the Ksav Sofer wants to say, now this is his own קנייטש, he wants to be mechadesh, now this is lechora. So this, he wants to say that with this we can maybe go back to explaining the Rambam. And we said that the Rambam understands that the ikar and only mitzvah of shofar is the shemi'ah, hearing the shofar. With which the מפרשים ask that if that is the case, then why is it important that the one who blows has to be what we call a bar chiyuv, someone who is subject to the mitzvah? Let it be a minor, let it be a katan, let it be someone who is a cheresh or a shoteh. The point is hearing the shofar. So what the K'tav Sofer wants to say is that the Rambam could read these פסוקים, and he says that we'll take the first פסוק, and the first פסוק of יום תרועה implies that the mitzvah is the תקיעה itself, not like what the Rambam was saying, that it's the actual blowing, that is the mitzvah. But then what we have is that the other פסוק comes along, and זכרון תרועה he says implies that it's about zikaron. And zikaron he wants to tweak a little bit, not like what Rashi was saying about reading פסוקים of teru'ah, but rather the remembrance of teru'ah means to say the shemi'ah, hearing the the shofar, and that's the So the פסוק is coming to say that the ikar mitzvah is really listening, but what we still have left from the first פסוק is to teach us that there are still some strings attached, and that the one who is תוקע, the one who actually is blowing, there are certain דינים that that are necessary for him to meet the criteria that everyone

listening should be able to fulfill the mitzvah, and he has to be what we consider and call a bar chiyuv. He has to be subject to the mitzvah of shofar. And that is how the K'tav Sofer wants to explain the שיטה of the Rambam. Well, it well, it really just means that he has to he has to be like like what we call a bar chiyuv. Meaning, he has to be someone who is obligated in the mitzvah himself in order to be able to to be יוצא everyone else. Okay, so therefore what? If the chiyuv, meaning if the mitzvah, we'll call it mitzvah, if the mitzvah is listening, you don't need to come onto the idea of shomea k'oneh. That is the mitzvah, the mitzvah is to hear it, you're hearing it. Shomea k'oneh is when you have to actually say it yourself, and you have to say it yourself, and you want to be yotzei with someone else who is saying it, that's where we have the idea of shomea k'oneh. So so the Rambam, this was in the beginning, the Rambam went on to prove that the עיקר מצוה is just that that is a mitzvah to hear the shofar. Hearing it, that itself is the mitzvah. You don't need to come onto שומע כ... No. Oh. So so this is what the so that's what the Acharonim are asking, that if the mitzvah is just hearing, that's all it is, then let let let a little two-year-old blow the shofar, and you should be yotzei. You heard the shofar. But he has to be a bar chiyuv. But he has to be a bar chiyuv, so that's what the Ksav Sofer is coming to explain, that even if the mitzvah really is hearing it, but there still is this תנאי, this stipulation that comes along, and he bases it on this pasuk of יום תרועה, that although the עיקר מצוה and the only mitzvah is the שמיעה, but there are דינים as to how the שמיעה is heard, and from what kind of person it's heard from, and and that he has to be also a bar chiyuv. Okay, so let's You'll have to show me that. So you so you show me that, after. Let me ask, are you trying to go back to now prove the Rabbeinu Tam, or what? Yes, yes, now I

want to get back to Rabbeinu Tam. This was all to get back to Rabbeinu Tam. Bar chiyuv means one who is also obligated in this same mitzvah. Eligible would be the word here, no? That's arvus, that's arvus. כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה. Every mitzvah, if you're yotzei once, like Kiddush, you're already you're yotzei Kiddush, you can still make Kiddush for someone else because of arvus. Obligated, obligated. Huh? Who is not a בר חיוב? Once you're yotzei? No, so you are a בר חיוב. The Gemara says that once you're yotzei, you're still a בר חיוב, because because of the concept of arvut. If your friend is not yotzei the מצוה, כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה, we're all connected. And if your friend wasn't yotzei, the Ran says it's as if you yourself weren't yotzei. Pretty serious. Now, there By the way, by the way, once you got me on this, so I did notice that when I was looking through some of these inyanim, that I think there is a Pnei Yehoshua, though, that says that you don't need to come onto this idea of arvut if the whole mitzvah is listening, because even if he fulfilled his mitzvah already, so you just have to listen, and you're yotzei. All you need the idea of arvut for is that he should be able to be yotzei you in the berachot. But I don't let's I don't want to get into that right now. Huh? Oh, so we did say בר חיוב, right. So, right. So lichora, right, lichora, I didn't see the Pnei Yehoshua inside, but lichora, yeah, you do need בר חיוב, so it's going to be a little shver. Lichora, you

do need the idea of arvut to make him considered a בר חיוב, that he should be able to be yotzei everyone, yeah. Lichora, that much I'll give you. However, so now, getting back to Rabbeinu Tam. So what we were left with before was that Rabbeinu Tam the Steipler wanted to be medayek from Rabbeinu Tam the fact that he says the mitzvah is לתקוע, the mitzvah is, rather, על תקיעת שופר, the mitzvah is על התקיעה, the mitzvah is to blow. That is a mitzvah, blowing shofar. And we asked what, then, or how then, rather, is everyone yotzei the mitzvah? You have one person up there, he blows shofar for all of us. And we said that you cannot apply the the the the concept of shlichut for a מצוה שבגופו, a mitzvah that a person has like shaking a lulav or or or or something of that sort, you cannot use the concept of shlichut. So the Steipler wanted to be mechadesh that it could work, maybe this is what you were referring to, through through a modified version of shomea ke'oneh, that it's more than just hearing what he's doing, but it's also you when you hear what he's doing, it's not only that you verbalized it, but like you have his maaseh. As if you blew from the shofar itself, not just that you made the noise from your mouth, but you also blew from the shofar.

That's what the Steipler wanted to be mechadesh, which is lichorah a chidush. But what I wanted to say, maybe on this Kesav Sofer, was על פי דרכו, based on his מהלך, in similar vein, that we have the two pesukim. We have the יום תרועה which implies that the עיקר מצוה is the tekiah, like the Kesav Sofer himself says, that יום תרועה implies that it's day of blowing, that the mitzvah is the tekiah. Then we have the other pasuk of זכרון תרועה, which we said lichorah implies that it's the משמעות is that it has something to do with the שמיעה. Because the Kesav Sofer uses it a little differently to to change the the position and say that the mitzvah is really on the שמיעה, but maybe we could tweak it a little bit and say that according to the Rabbeinu Tam, the pasuk is coming to say that this mitzvah is different than all of the mitzvot. This mitzvah, although shomea ke'oneh in general does not transfer the actual maaseh, the actual blowing, but here specifically by שופר, זכרון תרועה, your remembrance, your listening to the תרועה, that also could be a fulfillment and ke'ilu as if you blew, and your שמיעה could be tekiah. You're hearing the shofar, we could be מחשב it and consider it as if you yourself blew the shofar. Because of the, because of the word זכרון? Because of the word זכרון. Right, the Torah is giving, yeah the Torah is giving a special exception here that, although generally, shomea k'oneh does not go this far, that's a very big chiddush to say what the Steipler says, that in general shomea k'oneh is considered not like you just verbalized it, but like you have the whole action of the of the תקיעה, that's a big chiddush. But if you say that it's not a chiddush all over, it's a chiddush here by shofar itself, and we could base it maybe on these pesukim, that the pasuk, first pasuk of יום תרועה is saying that the blowing is a mitzvah, the second pasuk is saying זכרון is telling us that listening could be considered like you actually blew shofar. Why? Because all you have to do is remember, and remember, anybody can remember. Well, well, by hearing it it's I can stand for a minute, you know. זכרון means like like like the remembrance I guess, so so it's How do you remember that? So so by hearing it it's puts puts it on your mind. You're hearing the shofar is is a the memory really is the spring for what's going on in your head. Huh? It's a big chiddush to say that. Well, I'll talk to you about it after. I mentioned before, before you came, the Beit Halevi with with with birkat kohanim. It's not so pashut. Not so pashut. The pshat of shomea k'oneh is just considered like you verbalized what's being heard, but everything that comes along with that, you don't necessarily have. And so the Beit Halevi says by birkat kohanim, that's what we mentioned before, birkat kohanim, he says there's no shomea k'oneh because because there's a din of קול רם, it has to be with like an elevated voice. So So, we'll discuss it later, okay? So that, so that is that is the maybe alternative suggestion for the shita of Rabbeinu Tam. And I just want to conclude here with one more mahalach in the acharonim quickly and then give you one more suggestion here, explain Rabbeinu Tam, and that is that the acharonim want to be medayek from the shita of the Ran in Sukkah. The

Ran in Sukkah, he seems to say something that implies that really both the שמיעה, listening to the shofar, and the תקיעה are both components of the mitzvah. Because he's talking about the klal and the general rules of הלכות ברכות. And we know that sometimes when you make a bracha, the bracha is with a lamed in front of the word, for example, להניח תפילין, to put on tefillin. Sometimes they have the word al, they say על נטילת ידים, על המילה, ברית מילה. And the Rishonim all give different general rules as to when you say al and when you say lamed. And the Ran's general rule, and there's a lot of questions that he goes to explain why each one may have exceptions, but the general rule that he's working with is if it's possible to be done through someone else. Do you have a shaliach do the mitzvah for you? So let's say, for example, ברית מילה, שייך על ידי אחר, the father could have a shaliach do the ברית, so that's why it's על המילה. Putting on tefillin, להניח תפילין, you yourself have to put on the tefillin. So when he talks about shofar, he asks that although if the bracha was to be on the שמיעה, the שמיעה is only something you could do yourself, you hear the shofar, so it's לשמוע קול שופר. But he asks, could the bracha be on the תקיעה, and then you could word it a little differently, you could say על תקיעת שופר, because you don't have has to blow, someone else could blow. Now, I don't want to get involved in his answer, but the point is that you see from the Ran that he's comfortable really with the bracha being on either one of the two: either the תקיעה or the שמיעה. It's just a matter of which one we make the bracha on, and if you say the al or the lamed, but technically speaking, we all say, we've all, we pasken that we say לשמוע קול שופר, yes. That's how we pasken. I think the Mishnah Berurah brings down that bedi'eved could be yotzei with the other beracha. But you have to take a look there. But the Ran seems to be comfortable with either one being a legitimate beracha, which which indicates that they're both possibilities, and and the shemiya and the tekiya are both a part of the mitzvah. So what we saw until now is the Rambam was going to one extreme that it was the shemiya. We saw Rabbeinu Tam who is saying it's the tekiya. Here, says the Steipler, that the Ran seems to say they're both a חלק of the mitzvah. So what I wanted to suggest, also based on this Ran, was that the reason why they are both a חלק of the mitzvah might very well be from these two pesukim. We could split it up a little differently. We could say יום תרועה implies that it's you have to blow, there's a mitzvah in the blowing. And the זכרון תרועה, like the Ktav Sofer said, seems to put the focus on the shemiya. So the way the Ran is understanding that is that they're both a חלק of the mitzvah, the mitzvah is the tekiya. To blow shofar is part of the mitzvah, and the mitzvah is also to hear, so it's to be shomea the shofar. And with this, we'll understand also the halacha. There's a halacha, by the way, that if you blow the shofar and you don't hear it, the halacha is you're not yotzei. Talk about one who תוקע לתוך הבור, he's blowing into a pit. So if you don't hear the shofar, even the tokea, he's blowing the shofar, he himself is blowing, he's not yotzei. So that could also be for this reason, because it's not only the tekiya which would be the mitzvah, it's also the shemiya. They're both a part of the mitzvah of shofar. And the the last point I want to make then is, לפי זה, if this is the מקור and this is the source that it's also based on these two פסוקים that the Ktav Sofer told us about, the יום תרועה implying the mitzvah of the תקיעה and the זכרון תרועה implying the mitzvah of the שמיעה, then we're left now without a source to understand how how does everyone though fulfill that תקיעה? Meaning, the בעל תוקע, he blows, so he did that mitzvah, he accomplished the תקיעה, and he accomplished the שמיעה. But everyone else listening didn't have the תקיעה. And what we tried saying before was that was learned out from the second פסוק of זכרון תרועה was implying that you could fulfill the תקיעה by listening. But now I want to say that we need that second פסוק just to teach us that you have a chiyuv also to listen, that is also part of the mitzvah. So for that I

will share with you what I saw from the Maharam Chaviv, which in the Sefer Yom Teruah, the name of the sefer, by the way, Yom Teruah, so he he has a different source from the very same פסוק that gives off a connotation, a משמעות, that you don't actually have to blow and you can still fulfill the mitzvah of actually תקיעה, blowing. He says because it says יום תרועה יהיה לכם, should be for you, you plural. And he says there's a משמעות, and there's a similar דרשה by Sukkah that the Torah is telling you that everyone can be yotzei with one shofar. And the פסוק is like making, so to speak, an exception here, and saying that even if the mitzvah is the תקיעה, יום תרועה, that's the mitzvah is the is the תקיעה, but everyone can be considered having a part in the תקיעה itself, even though we generally don't apply שליחות to these kind of mitzvot, still יום תרועה יהיה לכם, everyone can be yotzei with that תקיעה, and we can consider it like everyone actually blew the mitzvah blew the blew the shofar and mekayem the mitzvah of shofar. As long as they heard, yes. Okay, tov, yishar koach.

Thanks for coming. Okay, sure. Fine. Sure.