be used; but if it does not affect the proper sound it may be used. If one should blow the cornet inside a pit, a cistern or a vat, and the sound of the cornet was (plainly) heard (by one listening to it) he will have done his duty (to hear the cornet on the New Year), but not if he heard only an indistinct sound. Thus also, if one should happen to pass by a synagogue, or live close by it, and should hear the cornet (on the New Year) or the reading of the Book of Esther (on the Feast of Esther), he will have complied with the requirements of the law, if he listened with proper attention, but not otherwise; and although the one heard it as well as the other, yet the difference (on which everything depends) is that the one listened with proper attention and the other did not.
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If a cornet was long and was shortened, it is valid; if one scraped it and reduced it to its due size it is valid; if one covered it on the inside with gold it is invalid; if on the outside and it changed the tone from what it originally was, it is invalid, but if not it is. If a cornet had a hole in it and it was closed up, and thereby prevented (the production) of the proper sound, it is invalid, but if not it is valid; if one placed one cornet inside another and the sound heard (by a listener) was produced from the inner one, he has fulfilled his duty, but if from the outer one, he has not.
"Or one made of several pieces joined together." The rabbis taught "If one added to a cornet ever so small a piece, whether it be of the same kind of horn or not, it is invalid. If a cornet had a hole, whether one stopped it up with a piece of the same kind (of horn) or not, it is invalid. R. Nathan, however, said (only when repaired with material) not of the same kind it is invalid, but otherwise if of the same kind it is valid. (To which) R. Jehudah added: "That is, if the greater part of a cornet was broken." From this we can infer that if repaired with material of the same kind, although the greater part was broken, it is, nevertheless, valid.
"If one covered a cornet on the inside with gold it is invalid; if on the outside, and it changed the tone from what it originally was, it is not valid, but if not it is." If a cornet had been split lengthwise it is invalid, but if crosswise, yet enough remained with which to produce the sound, it is valid, but if not it is invalid. (And how much is that? R . Simeon b. Gamaliel explains it to be as much as we may hold in our closed hand, and yet on either side a portion is visible). 1 If its tone was thin, or heavy, or harsh, it is valid, for all tones were considered proper in a cornet. The schoolmen sent a message to the father of Samuel: ("One has fulfilled his duty if he bored a hole in a horn and blew it. That is self-evident! for in every cornet a hole must surely be bored." Said R. Ashi: "If one bored a hole through the bony substance inside the horn (which ought to be removed), are we to suppose that one substance causes an interposition with another of the same nature (and that therefore it must not be used)?" Therefore they sent to say that this is no objection.
"If one should blow the cornet inside a pit or a cistern," etc. R. Huna said: They taught this only in the case of those who stood at the pit's mouth, but those who were in the pit itself fulfill their duty. If one heard a part of (the required number of) the sounds of the cornet in the pit, and the rest at the pit's mouth, he has done his duty; but if he heard a part before the dawn of day, and the rest after the dawn, he has not. Said Abayi to him: Why in the latter case (should he not have done his duty, because he did not hear the whole of the sounds at the time when the duty should be performed), yet in the former case (he is considered to have done his duty) under similar circumstances? How can these cases be compared? In the latter case, the night is not the time of performing the obligation at all, while in the former case, a pit is a place where the duty may be performed for those who are in it! Shall we say that Rabba held: If one heard the end of the sounding (of the cornet) without having heard the beginning he did his duty, and from these words we must understand that if he heard the beginning without the end he has also done his duty? Come and hear. If one blew the first sound (Tekia) and prolonged the second (Tekia) as long as two, it is only reckoned as one; and (if Rabba's opinion is correct) why should he reckon it as two? (This is no question)! If he heard half the sounds he has done his duty, but when one blows one sound on the cornet we cannot consider it two halves.
Rabha says: One who vows to receive no benefit from his neighbor may nevertheless blow for him the obligatory sounds (of the cornet); one who vows refusal of any benefit from a cornet may blow on it the obligatory sounds. Furthermore, said Rabha: "One who vows to refuse any benefit from his neighbor may sprinkle on him the waters of a sin-offering in the winter, but not in the summer. One who vows to receive no benefit from a spring may take in it a legal bath in the winter, but not in the summer.
The schoolmen sent a message to the father of Samuel: "If one had been compelled to eat unleavened bread (on the first night of Passover, i.e., he had not done so of his own accord) he has also done his duty." Who compelled him? Said R. Ashi: "Persians." Rabha remarked: From this statement we can prove that if one plays a song on a cornet he does his duty. Is this not self-evident? The cases are similar. One might suppose that in the former case the law commanded him to eat (unleavened bread) and he ate it, but in the latter case the Torah speaks of "a remembrance of blowing the cornet" [Lev. xxiii. 241, and (when he plays a song he does not remember his duty for) he is engaged in a worldly occupation. Therefore he teaches us that even under such circumstances he does his duty.
To this an objection was raised. We have learned: If one who listened (to the sounds of the cornet) paid the proper attention, but he that blew the cornet did not, or vice versa, they have not done their duty until both blower and listener pay proper attention. This would be correct in the case where the blower, but not the listener, pays the proper attention, for it is possible that the listener imagines he hears the noise of an animal; but how can it happen that the listener should pay due attention, and the one who blows (the cornet) should not, except he was only playing a song (by which he does not do his duty)? (It is possible) if he only produced a dull sound (i.e., and not, for example, a Tekia).
Said Abayi to him: "But now, according to thy conclusion (that a duty performed without due attention is the same as if performed with due attention) wilt thou say that he who sleeps in a tabernacle on the eighth day of the Feast of the Tabernacles shall receive stripes (because he had no right to observe the law for more than seven days)?" Answered Rabha: "I say that one cannot infringe a command except at the time when it should be performed." R. Shamen b. Abba raised an objection: Whence do we know that a priest who ascended the platform (to pronounce the priestly benediction) must not say: Since the Torah has given me the right to bless Israel, I will supplement (the benedictions, Numb. vi. 24-26) by one of my own, as, for example [Deut. i. ii]: "May the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are?" From the Torah which says [Deut. iv. 2]: "Ye shall not add unto the word." And in this case as soon as he has finished the benedictions the time for performing that duty has gone by; still if he add a blessing of his own he is guilty of infringing the law, which says, "Ye shall not add." This refers to a case of where the priest had not yet finished the scriptural benediction. We have learned, however, that he had finished the scriptural benediction. The Boraitha means to say that he had finished only one of the (three) benedictions. We have learned in another Boraitha, however, that even if he had completed all three benedictions, and then supplemented one of his own, he is also guilty of a transgression. In this case it is different, for it might be that the priest would come to another assembly where prayer was held and be called upon to again pronounce the benedictions. Hence it must be assumed that there is no specified time for the priest to pronounce his benedictions, but all day can be considered as the proper time, and thus the priest, by supplementing a benediction of his own, becomes guilty.
R. Shamen bar Abha, however, does not admit that the whole day is the proper time, because the priest is not in duty bound to pronounce the benediction in another assembly. Nevertheless he is guilty if he should supplement an additional benediction of his own; whence we see that even if the proper time has passed, guilt is nevertheless incurred, and this is contradictory to Rabha's dictum. Therefore, said Rabha: (I mean), To fulfill the requirements of the law one need not pay attention; to transgress the law against supplementing, at the
