Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav 1-2

Sugya Map: The Ontology of Sound

• Issue: Is the Mitzvah the act of blowing (teki'ah) or the sensory experience of hearing (sh'mi'ah)?
• Nafka Mina: A stolen shofar or the use of consecrated (hekdesh) materials. If sound is a physical entity, we have gezel or me'ilah; if it is merely a vibration, the prohibition is bypassed.
• Sources: Rosh Hashanah 27b–28a; Mishneh Torah, Shofar 1:1–2.

Text Snapshot

"מצות עשה מן התורה לשמוע קול שופר... והלכות גזל אינן נוהגות בקול" (Hilchot Shofar 1:1; 1:3).

• Nuance: Rambam emphasizes lishmo’a (to hear) over the act of teki’ah. By defining the mitzvah as the auditory reception of the blast, he effectively creates a legal firewall between the physical object (the horn) and the religious act (the sound).

Readings

• Ramban (in Maggid Mishneh 1:3): Counters that sh'mi'ah is not the exclusive mitzvah. He argues the mitzvah is inherently tied to the blowing, maintaining that one must use a kosher object to generate the sound.
• Rabbenu Manoach: Highlights the "yoke" aspect—mitzvot are not for our benefit (hanah). This resolves me'ilah: if you aren't "benefiting" from the sound in a mundane sense, the prohibition of using hekdesh evaporates.

Friction: The Gezel Paradox

• Kushya: If mitzvot are not for benefit, why is a Lulav stolen pasul (invalid)? The Yerushalmi (cited by Rambam) distinguishes: Lulav requires "yours" (lakhem), but Shofar requires only "day of sounding" (yom teru'ah).
• Terutz: A Lulav is a physical object you "take" (netilah). A Shofar is a medium for sound. Because sound is not a tangible, possessable commodity, the "theft" does not attach to the mitzvah itself.

Intertext

• SA Orach Chayim 586:4: Reflecting this lomdus, the Magen Avraham rules that while one fulfills the mitzvah with a stolen shofar (per Rambam), one should not recite the beracha because it is a "mitzvah performed via a transgression" (mitzvah ha-ba'ah ba-aveirah).

Psak/Practice

• Meta-Psak: The Rambam’s focus on the sound rather than the object remains the standard for modern acoustic questions. This is why hearing a shofar through a microphone is universally rejected: it is not the sound of the shofar reaching your ear, but an electronic simulation. The physical integrity of the sound path is the sine qua non of the mitzvah.

Takeaway

The mitzvah is not the horn; it is the vibration. If you treat the shofar as a tool rather than a commodity, you align with the Rambam’s rigor—prioritizing the teru'ah (the stir) over the keren (the object).