Natural Curve of the Shofar

 

I recently obtained a new shofar thanks to my brother-in-law, Moshe Rosenbaum, who was able to pick it up for me in Israel and send it back to NY with my in-laws. So what is so special about this shofar?

Naturally curved rams horn (Photo mine)

The natural shape of a ram's horn is curved at the narrow end, where the mouthpiece is drilled, making it extremely difficult to drill. You can imagine how difficult it would be to use a straight drill through the curvature of a ram's horn without piercing the sides. Because of this, most shofaros on the market are produced by straightening out the narrow end by the application of heat treatment. However, perhaps straightening out the shofar disqualifies it from being kafuf, and thus is not the ideal shofar with which to fulfill the mitvah on Rosh Hashanah.

The earliest source I know on the topic is from R' Saadya Gaon (circa ~942):

In this quote from Siddur R' Saadya Gaon (pg. 217), he states explicitly לא יהיה אלא קרן של איל ואסור לשנות את צורתו.

More recently, R, Joseph son of R. Meir Teomim (born 1727) writes in Pri Megadim not that it is forbidden to change the shape, but straightening out a ram's horn is less preferable. (Translation mine, the bracketed portions in English added to provide context) 

פרי מגדים - משבצות זהב (או"ח סי' תקפ"ו ס"ק א'): דכפוף לכתחלה בעינן דוקא כפוף, הא של איל רק מצוה ממובחר, וא"כ שאר מינין כפוף ואיל פשוט, אם אירע כן, או כפוף שעשאם פשוט, יותר מצוה וצריך שאר מינין

"Ideally one requires [a] curved [shofar]. However, [using a shofar] from a ram is Mitvah min hamuvchar. And therefore, [if faced with a choice between] a different species but curved, versus a straight ram's horn, if it so happened [i.e. that one found a ram's horn that is naturally straight], or if [the ram's horn] was [naturally] curved and they made it straight, it's a greater mitzvah [with the curved horn] and one would need to choose the other species" 

This is also the opinion of R' Yaakov Ettlinger in his commentary to Maseches Rosh Hashanah:

ערוך לנר מסכת ראש השנה דף כו עמוד ב

בתוס' ד"ה של יעל. וכדאמר ר' אבהו. אין להקשות דתרתי טעמי ל"ל משום דכייף טפי מעלי ומשום זכירת עקידת יצחק. דיש לומר דאי משום זכירת עקדת יצחק הוי אמינא דגם אם עשה השופר של איל פשוט ע"י מים חמין שפיר דמי ואי משום דכייף לחוד גם של חיה או של תיש כפוף הוא לכן צריך תרי טעמי:

It seems to me that according to R' Saadya Gaon, it is in fact prohibited to straighten out the shofar, whereas the Pri Megadim and Aruch L'Ner seem to be of the opinion that it is a preference not to straighten the shofar through heating it, but strictly speaking it is not forbidden.

R' Moshe Sternbuch calls it a hiddur to use such a shofar that has its natural curve and was not straightened out in the process. (Moadim U'Zmanim Vol. 8, Hosafos to Vol.1)

So what is the process used to drill a shofar while retaining the original curve? R' Ari Zivotofsky cites the process that was recounted to him by a student of R' Yosef Kapach (RJJ Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society LIII 'Yemenite Shofar: Ideal for the Mitzvah?'). In Yemen they would "drill" through the curvature of the shofar by using a flexible piece of metal heated red hot. An alternative method is to cut of a portion of the horn to find a mostly straight portion of the shofar and drill from there. The advantage of the method employed in Yemen is there is no need to cut off a large portion of the shofar. I am not sure which process was used to produce mine.

So, while I certainly do not think that it is a requirement to chase down a naturally curved ram's horn to fulfill the mitzvah of shofar on Rosh Hashana, I enjoyed the mystery of tracking one down and am excited to use it in a couple of months from now.

___________________________________________________________________________________

For additional reading, see R' Ari Zivotofsky's article in RJJ Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society LIII 'Yemenite Shofar: Ideal for the Mitzvah? and R' Natan Slifkin's monograph 'Exotic Shofars' available online here, without which I would not have known found the Aruch L'Ner and Siddur Rav Saadya Gaon.

Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky and 'Gebrokts' on Pesach

With only two weeks to go until Pesach, I wanted to post about a famous story about Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, along with some fantastic details that didn't quite make it into the popular version of the story.

From 'The Making of a Godol' (pg. 946; italics in the original, bold mine):

Another example of my father's youthful frumkeit is connected with the famous story demonstrating his abiding by his word uncompromisingly. It is public knowledge that he was once invited to eat in someone's house on Pesah, and not wanting to eat (for a reason discussed below), he gave his host the excuse that he did not eat שרוייה (soaked matzah, "gebrokts"). Having made such a declaration, he no longer ate gebrokts for the rest of his life. What is not commonly known is that the episode occurred at the home of the Alter of Slabodka when my father had been served a soup with dumplings ("knaidlach")... when he had informed the Alter that he would not eat the knaidlach because he did not eat gebrokts, the Alter said forcefully, "I'm telling you to eat!" and my father ate them.

The thrust of the commonly told version of the story is that the young Rav Yaakov was faced with eating in the home of someone whose kashrus standards might not be trustworthy, so to avoid embarrassing the host, he made up that he did not eat gebrokts to sidestep the issue, but then to be faithful to his word, he never once again ate gebrokts for the rest of his life.

The correct version told over by Rav Yaakov's son in The Making of a Godol raises some questions:

• Knowing that the host in question was none other than the Alter of Slabodka, it's doesn't make sense that Rav Yaakov would be concerned about the kashrus standards of his host
• Furthermore, the kashrus wasn't an issue - he was eating everything else but turned down the knaidlach
• If that's the case, why didn't Rav Yaakov want to eat the knaidlach, if in his family they grew up eating gebrokts

Rav Nosson Kamenetsky  explained his father's actions as follows (pg. 947-948):

"...we may posit that is was not a problem with kashrus which prompted my father's declaration in the house of the Alter. This is what occurred: out of frumkeit, our protagonist had made up his mind - sometime before he enunciated it orally at the Alter's table - not to eat gebrokts, a frumkeit stemming from the same reason that hasidim refrain from gebrokts... The Alter realized that his pupil who came from a mithnagdic home had actually always eaten gebrokts and due to an "attack" of frumkeit had decided to begin refraining from it. Since my father had not started to abstain from gebrokts in practice, there was no need for him to go through the procedure of absolving a vow in order to permit himself to eat the knaidlach right then and there. By forcing him to eat the knaidlach, the Alter was negating the student's youthful frumkeit. After he was compelled by the Alter to eat the knaidlach, my father realized that he should not have undertaken that specific frumkeit - and it never became a vow on his part. However, since he did make a statement that he ate no gebrokts, he abided by that practice - not because of an extra hametz precaution, but because a word is a word!

I'll end with two more vignettes about youthful frumkeit from the same chapter in The Making of a Godol:

• Rav Naftali Amsterdam repeated in the name of Rav Yisrael Salanter: "It is good to have frumkeit when young, because when one gets older, frumkeit declines." When he heard this from the Salanter, R' Naftali was sure that it was not actually so, and that the rebbi was saying it out of humility. But as R' Naftali became older he saw it as fact.
• Another quip that Rav Yaakov said in the name of Rav Yisrael Salanter: "In my youth I expected to grow up to be another Vilna Gaon, and had I known that I would only be what I am, I would have done something to myself [זיך אנגעטאהן א מעשה, a euphemism for committing suicide]; on the other hand, if I had not had the ambition to be like the Vilna Gaon, I would not even have become what I am."

Sweet Words

After a very long hiatus on posting here, I'm going to revive this blog to share some thoughts, this time to discuss a curious phraseology employed by the Chazon Ish, as an introduction to a verbatim quote of Rav Yisrael Salanter cited in אמונה ובטחון ג:ט.

First, the quote under discussion: 

וּמַה נִמְלְצוּ אִמְרֵי יֹשֶׁר דבְּרוֹת קָדְשׁוֹ שֶׁל הגרי"ס זללה"ה (הַגָּאוֹן רַב יִשְׂרָאֵל סַלַנְט'ער זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא) בְּאִגַּרְתּוֹ בָּזֶה, וְכֹה דְּבָרָיו ז"ל שָׁם, אִם אָמְנָם בְּאִסּוּרֵי טְרֵפוֹת בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב שָׁלְטוּ עָלָיו הֶרְגֵּלָיו וּמִגַּרְמֵי' הוּא נִרְתָע עֲלֵיהֶם וְאֵין יִצְרוֹ מִתְגַּבֵּר עָלָיו, לְעֻמַּת זֶה בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ בַּחֲלָקוֹת יַעֲבֹר וְלִבּוֹ לֹא יִפְחַד וְאַף כְּשֶׁחֲבֵרוֹ תּוֹבְעוֹ לְדִין יַחְבֹּל תַּחְבּוּלוֹת לְהִתְחַמֵּק וּלְהִשָּׁמֵט מִמֶּנּוּ, הֲלֹא לֹא תִגְזֹל חָמוּר מִלָּאו דִטְרֵיפָה שֶׁאַף יוה"כ (יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים) אֵינוֹ מְכַפֵּר, וְכֹל שֶׁעַל פִּי הַדִּין אֵין הַדָּבָר שֶׁלּוֹ זֶהוּ בִּכְלַל גְּזֵלָה, וּבְכָל זֹאת לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הֶרְגֵּל מַתְמִיד בִּשְׁמִירַת הַדִּין נַפְשׁוֹ נֶעֱדֶרֶת מִקִּנְיָן הַמַּקְנֶה אֶת אַהֲבַת הַמִּשְׁפָּט וּפַחְדָתוֹ, וּדְבָרָיו ז"ל דְאַף בְּנֵי אָדָם אֲשֶׁר גְּמוּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם הַטּוֹבִים מְחֻיָּבִים לְכַבְּדָם בְּשֵׁם יְרֵאִים, נִכְשָׁלִים הֵם בְּהִשְׁתַּמְּטוּת מִן הַדִּין שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵין רֵעֵהוּ.

How sweet are these words of clarity, of the holy statements from Rabbi Israel Salanter in his letter. And these are his words: 'If indeed, in matters of non-kosher meat and mixtures of meat and milk, one's habits control him, and on his own one recoils and is not overwhelmed by his evil inclination. But in contrast, in matters between man and his friend, with smoothness he will transgress and his heart will not be afraid. Even when his friend summons him for a judgement, he will devise tricks to hide and slip away. Is it not the case that "Thou shalt not steal", for which even Yom Kippur cannot atone, is a more egregious offense than the command not to eat non-kosher meat. Anything which according to the law does not belong to him is subsumed under the category of theft...'

What I would like to discuss is the phrase "ומה נמלצו אמרי יושר", which I translated, for the moment, as "How sweet are these words of clarity", based on Rabbi Yehuda Oppenheimer's translated and annotated edition of אמונה ובטחון. Rabbi Oppenheimer identifies the source of the phrase in איוב (ו, כה) which reads ומה נמרצו אמרי ישר ומה יוכיח הוכח מכם. Take note that in ספר איוב the word is נמרצו, whereas the Chazon Ish changes to ומה נמלצו, substituting the ר with a ל.

Another example of ל and ר being interchanged may be found in שמות (כב, טו). Targum on the words וכי יפתה איש translates to Aramaic as וארי ישדל. Ramban explains that יפתה, which in the specific context means "to seduce" is translated to ישדל, which is a more general term which means "to employ a strategy to achieve a specific goal". Ramban points to עזרא (ד, יט), where "ומרד ואשתדור מתעבד בה" means "והשתדלות למרוד עושים בתוכה" (I'm also borrowing from Ralbag in עזרא).

Among other examples, Ramban cites our phrase from איוב, and that מה נמרצו אמרי יושר can also interchanged with מה נמלצו, as it appears in תהילים (קיט קג) in the form "נמלצו לחכי".

Returning to the Chazon Ish, the Ramban seemingly supports Rabbi Oppenheimer's translation of "How sweet" are the words of Rav Yisrael Salanter, and it would seem to correspond with the usage in Tehillim - מַה נִּמְלְצוּ לְחִכִּי אִמְרָתֶךָ מִדְּבַשׁ לְפִי.

However, I would like to suggest that the way the Chazon Ish is using the phrase contains a double entendre. First, let us see how the commentaries in איוב understand מה נמרצו אמרי ישר:

רש"י: מה נמרצו. כמו קללה נמרצת, לשון דבר דבר על אפניו. וכן נמלצו לחכי. כולן לשון מליצה הם. ולמ"ד מתחלפת ברי"ש

Two things are noteworthy: 1) Rashi understands נמרצו to mean something along the lines of "how clear and incisive. 2) Rashi also relates this to נמלצו לחכי - even though in that context it seems to mean "how sweet".

Other commentaries in איוב:

מצודות: מה מאד חזקו אמרי יושר

ספורנו: מה נמרצו וחזקו אמרי יושר

אבן עזרא: נמרצו, חזקו, כמו קללה נמרצת

This leads me to believe that the Chazon Ish is using the phrase with both meanings in mind. Perhaps the most accurate translation would be "How well expressed...". Words, when properly expressed, are concise, incisive and, to the listener, can be considered "sweet". The bar for evaluating whether something has been expressed well is set to relating the maximal content in the fewest words, without diluting or compromising the message in any way. But when expressed in the right vessels, words can be sweet, in a way that makes the message יותר מתקבלת על הלב. This idea is encapsulated in the following concepts.

דברי חכמים בנחת נשמעים

לעולם ישנה אדם את תלמידו בדרך קצרה

לעולם אל יוציא אדם דבר מגונה מפיו

לעולם יספר אדם בלשון נקיה

The common denominator of all the above is that a תלמיד חכם is careful to phrase every utterance in the most perfect way possible.

In that respect, it is so fitting that in introducing a verbatim quote of Rav Yisrael Salanter, the Chazon Ish opens with ומה נמלצו אמרי ישר - how well expressed, how incisive and how sweet are the words of Rav Yisrael Salanter, that nothing more is needed than to cite them exactly as they were written.

Conflicting Accounts of a Chazon Ish Story

While I was researching a completely unrelated topic, I discovered, much to my dismay, that one of my favorite stories about the Chazon Ish seems to be somewhat fictional. The story as I heard it, goes as follows:

During World War I, the Chafetz Chaim was stuck in Russia under Bolshevik control. A telegram arrived to the house of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski on Erev Shabbos, requesting his assistance in obtaining the means to escape Russia, mentioning that it was a matter or פיקוח נפש. At the time, the Chazon Ish was in Rav Chaim Ozer's house, together with his brother-in-law, Rav Shmuel Greineman. Rav Chaim Ozer ordered Rav Greineman to travel to Warsaw immediately after Shabbos to arrange whatever was necessary. To this the Chazon Ish supposedly said "If it was written in the Mishna Berurah that a specific circumstance posed a danger to life we would certainly disregard Shabbos and take care of it - so now that the Mishna Berurah himself has told us that it is a matter of life and death, should we ignore his word [and wait until after Shabbos]." The story ends, that Rav Chaim Ozer agreed and that Rav Greineman left immediately for Warsaw that night.

This is how the story appears in R' Moshe Meir Yoshor's biography on the Chafetz Chaim (vol. 2, pg. 480)

The story is also quoted in R' Shlomo Cohen's "Pe'er Hador" (vol. 1 pg. 258) with slight variances (such as that the story took place on the night of Shavuos as opposed to Erev Shabbos). However in the footnote there he points to the introduction of "Chofetz Chaim Al HaTorah", which happens to be written by Rav Shmuel Greineman himself. Let's see how the story is presented by somebody who was there! (The story appears on page 12 of the edition available on Otzar Hachochma) According to his version, the story happened on the first night of Shavuos, and he prepared to travel to Warsaw that night, but didn't end up leaving that night because they found out that the minister he needed to meet wasn't in Warsaw at the time. According to this version, the Chazon Ish never appears in the entire episode!

This discovery is from Dr. Benjamin Brown's enormous book on the Chazon Ish. (Check out the price on this book - I bought it in Meah Shearim for 100 Shekel when it was published in 2011.)