“You stand here today, all of you, before Hashem your G-d, the leaders of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, al the men of Israel.” (Devarim 29:9)
In the first pasuk of parasha, Moshe explains to the
people that the entire nation of Bnai Yisrael is standing before Hashem. Moshe continues to explain that the nation
will now enter into a covenant with Hashem.
Moshe had previously facilitated a covenant between Hashem and Bnai
Yisrael. This previous covenant was created
at Sinai. What is the difference
between these covenants? How does the
covenant described in this week’s parasha differ from the covenant of Sinai?
According to Rashi, the covenant at Sinai preceded
the receiving of the entire Torah. With
this covenant, the people made a commitment to observe those commandments that
had been revealed prior to Sinai. These
commandments included the seven mitzvot that Hashem had revealed to Noach and
the mitzvot that Hashem had revealed to Bnai Yisrael before their arrival at
Sinai.[1] Bnai Yisrael made this commitment with the
declaration na’aseh ve’nishma – we will hear and we will do. In return for this commitment, Hashem
revealed the Torah in its entirety to Bnai Yisrael.
In contrast, Rashi interprets the covenant in this
week’s parasha as the creation of a relationship with between Bnai Yisrael and
Hashem. Bnai Yisrael agrees to accept
Hashem as their G-d and Hashem agrees to accept Bnai Yisrael as His nation. There are two elements to this relationship.
Presumably it includes a commitment by Bnai Yisrael to accept the Torah and to
observe its mitzvot. But in addition to
this commitment, the covenant involves an acceptance blessings and curses that
Moshe has previously described and to which he again makes reference in this
week’s parasha.[2] Observance of the mitzvot will be rewarded
with abundance in the Land of Israel.
Neglect of the commandments will be punished by suffering, exile and
persecution.
Nachmanides offers a different interpretation of
these two covenants. He explains that
the covenant at Sinai was a commitment by Bnai Yisrael to observe the entire
Torah. However, although the Torah
outlines punishments for the violation of many of the mitzvot, the original
covenant did not include an acceptance of the blessings and curses outlined in
Sefer Devarim. These blessings and
curses establish a relationship between the welfare of the nation – in its
entirety – and its commitment to the observance of the Torah. In other words, with the acceptance of this
covenant Bnai Yisrael – as a nation – accepted that the future wellbeing of the
people would be determined by its observance of the Torah.[3] In short, the covenant at Sinai was a
commitment to observance of the Torah.
The covenant in this week’s parasha is an acceptance of the consequences
for observance or neglect of the Torah.
“It is a positive commandment of the Torah to hear the sounding of the Shofar on Rosh HaShanna as it states, “A day of Shofar blast it should be to you.” (Maimonides, Mishe Torah, Laws of Shofar 1:1)
One of the mitzvot that is strongly associated with
Rosh HaShanna is the sounding of the Shofar.
According to the Torah, we are required to sound nine blasts – the
combination of Tekiah, Teruah, Tekiah three times. This is represented by the following table:
Table 1.
Requirement described by Torah
|
Tekiah |
Teruah |
Tekiah |
|
Tekiah |
Teruah |
Tekiah |
|
Tekiah |
Teruah |
Tekiah |
However, in order to fulfill this obligation, we are
required to sound thirty blasts. How,
does the Torah obligation to sound nine blasts translate into an obligation to
sound thirty blasts?
There are two factors at play in this conversion of
a requirement to sound nine blasts into the requirement to sound thirty. The Torah requires that we sound the series
of Tekiah, Teruah, Tekiah three times.
Part of this obligation is easily understood. The Tekiah is an uninterrupted blast. There is little or no room for uncertainty regarding its
character. However, the Teruah is a
sound characterized by interrupted notes.
This is a much more complicated sound.
Complication leaves room for doubts.
What is the exact description of the “interrupted” blast? The Sages identified three
possibilities. First, the Teruah may be
a series of minimal sounds – the sound we refer to as Teruah. Second, the true Teruah may be a more
substantial sound that is interrupted – the sound we refer to as Shevarim. Finally, the true Teruah may be a
combination of these first two possibilities – the sound we refer to as
Shevarim/Teruah. In short, the Torah
requires that we sound the combination of a Teruah preceded and followed by a
Tekiah three times – a total of nine blasts.
However, this nature of the central Teruah is unknown. The three central blasts that we sound –
Teruah, Shevarim and Shevarim/Teruah – are actually three possible identities
of the true Teruah required by the Torah.[4] The following table represents the result of
the doubt regarding the exact nature of the central Teruah sound:
Table 2.
Minimum series of sounds required to satisfy Torah obligation
|
Tekiah |
Shevarim/Teruah |
Tekiah |
|
Tekiah |
Shevarim/Teruah |
Tekiah |
|
Tekiah |
Shevarim/Teruah |
Tekiah |
|
Tekiah |
Shevarim |
Tekiah |
|
Tekiah |
Shevarim |
Tekiah |
|
Tekiah |
Shevarim |
Tekiah |
|
Tekiah |
Teruah |
Tekiah |
|
Tekiah |
Teruah |
Tekiah |
|
Tekiah |
Teruah |
Tekiah |
How many sounds are there in the above table? One might reasonably conclude that the above
table includes 27 sounds. However by
convention, the Shevarim/Teruah sound is counted as two sounds. So, traditionally this table is described as
including 30 sounds. This calculation
is represented in the following table:
Table 3.
Calculation of total number of sounds required to satisfy Torah
obligation
|
Series |
Number of sound in series |
|
Tekiah, Shevarim/Teruah, Tekiah |
4 |
|
Tekiah, Shevarim/Teruah, Tekiah |
4 |
|
Tekiah, Shevarim/Teruah, Tekiah |
4 |
|
Tekiah, Shevarim, Tekiah |
3 |
|
Tekiah, Shevarim, Tekiah |
3 |
|
Tekiah, Shevarim, Tekiah |
3 |
|
Tekiah, Teruah, Tekiah |
3 |
|
Tekiah, Teruah, Tekiah |
3 |
|
Tekiah, Teruah, Tekiah |
3 |
|
Total sounds |
30 |
The dispute over the true nature of the Teruah is
somewhat curious. It is clear that the
Sages are certain that the character of the Teruah contrasts with the character
of the Tekiah. Therefore, because the
Tekiah is an uninterrupted blast, the Teruah must be an interrupted sound. However, how can we account for the
development of these three alternative interpretations of the specific nature
of the Teruah?
Aruch HaShulchan offers an interesting
explanation. He bases his explanation
on a comment of the Sages. In the
passage above from Mishne Torah, Maimonides quotes the pasuk in the Torah that
is the source for the obligation to sound the Shofar on Rosh HaShanna. The literal translation of the pasuk is “a
day of Teruah it should be for you.”
Unkelus translates the word Teruah in the passage as crying – “a day of
crying it should be for you.” The
Talmud explains that the Sages’ understand Unkelus’s translation as providing a
description of the Teruah. The Teruah imitates
the sound of crying. However, crying
can take three forms. Sometimes, one
cries in long sobs. The Shevarim sound
is an imitation of this form of crying.
On other occasions, one cries in short shrieks. This form of crying is imitated by the sound
that we refer to as Teruah. And
sometimes crying combines these two forms of crying. This last possibility is imitated by the Shevarim/Teruah. In other words, the Sages know that the
Teruah mentioned by the Torah is an imitation of crying.[5] However, they differ in precisely which of
the various forms of crying the Teruah is intended to imitate.
Aruch HaShulchan suggests that the Talmud’s
comparison of Teruah to crying is not merely intended to provide a description
of the character of the sound. Instead,
the Talmud is telling us that the Teruah is intended to express the activity of
crying. In sounding the Teruah, we are
engaging in an act of crying. We are
expressing anguish. The dispute in the
Talmud is over the nature of the anguish that we are required to express
through the Teruah. According to Aruch
HaShulchan’s interpretation the Shevarim sound expresses groans of pain and the
conventional Teruah sound expresses the cries of lamentation.[6] Apparently, he maintains that pain and
lamentation are each component themes of Rosh HaShanna. The dispute between the Sages is over which
of these themes is to be reflected in the Shofar sound or if both themes are to
be reflected.
Although this approach to explaining the debate of
the true nature of the Teruah is interesting, it presents two problems. First, it is difficult to identify the
actual alternative themes in Rosh HaShanna to which the various interpretations
of the Teruah refer. In other words, we
can easily understand that on Rosh HaShanna we should lament our condition and
even anticipate with anxiety the coming judgment we will receive. But it is difficult to identify how this
experience can be alternatively interpreted as an encounter with pain, an
expression of lamentation, or both.
The second difficulty stems from a comment of Rav
Hai mentioned by Aruch HaShulchan. Rav
Hai maintains that all three of the interpretations of Teruah are valid and
proper. There is no actual dispute
regarding the character of the Teruah sound.
Instead, all three interpretations essentially fulfill the requirement
of sounding the Teruah sound. On a
Torah level, any one of these three interpretations is acceptable.
However, in different communities different
interpretations developed. The Sages
wished to establish uniformity in the interpretation of Teruah. The Sages did not wish to choose one of
these interpretations for universal implementation and suppress the
alternatives. Instead, in order to
establish a uniform, universal practice, they required that the Teruah should
be sounded according to all of the various valid interpretations.[7]
Rav Hai’s position is difficult to reconcile with
Aruch HaShulchan’s explanation of the three alternative interpretations of the
Teruah. It is somewhat unlikely that
each of these interpretations is a reference to an alternative theme in Rosh
HaShanna – as Aruch HaShulchan suggests – and to maintain that each of these
interpretations is valid according to the Torah! Certainly, the Torah is not unconcerned with the theme or themes
of Rosh HaShanna that we are to express through the Shofar and leaves it to us
to decide!
These problems suggest and alternative
interpretation of the discussion in the Talmud. As noted above, the Talmud interprets the term Teruah to mean
“cry.” Rabbaynu Yom Tov ben Avraham
Isbili – Ritva – suggests that the Talmud is not suggesting that the Teruah is
intended to express crying. Instead,
the Talmud is only providing a description of the Teruah sound. The intention
of this description is to communicate that the Teruah is a broken sound. The discussion is the Talmud is over the
specific nature of this broken sound.[8]
Ritva’s approach suggests that the discussion in the Talmud should be interpreted as an analysis of the character of a “broken” Shofar blast. This broken character can be created by sounding a series of minimal notes that emerge as a Shofar blast through being sounded in series. This is the conventional Teruah. Alternatively, the “broken” character can emerge through breaking the Tekiah into smaller components – at least three components. This interpretation is expressed in our Shevarim. In other words, the character of a “broken” blast can emerge from the inherent minimal nature of the component notes – the conventional Teruah. Alternatively, the broken character can emerge from the relative length on the component notes as compared to the Tekiah – our Shevarim. Finally, it is possible that the true Teruah must include both of these alternative interpretations – our Shevarim/Teruah.
This explanation of the Talmud allows for the
discussion to be interpreted as a dispute between the Sages. It is also consistent with the position of
Rav Hai. In other words, it is possible
that the Sages are in agreement that the Teruah of the Torah is a broken sound
but they dispute the exact character of this broken sound. It is also possible – as Rav Hai maintains –
that the Torah merely requires the sounding of a broken sound but does not
specify the precise manner in which we should create this sound. All of our interpretations of Teruah are
valid and fulfill the Torah requirement.
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 24:3.
[2] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Devarim 29:12.
[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Devarim 29:9. Commentary on Sefer Shemot 24:1.
[4] Mesechet Rosh HaShanna 33b – 34a.
[5] Mesechet Rosh HaShanna 33b.
[6] Rav Aharon HaLeyve Epstein, Aruch HaShulchan,
Orech Chayim 590:2-3.
[7] Rav Aharon HaLeyve Epstein, Aruch HaShulchan,
Orech Chayim 590:4.
[8] Rabbaynu Yom Tov ben Avraham Isbili (Ritva), Commentary on the Talmud, Mesechet Rosh
HaShanna 34b.