1)

(a)Rebbi Zeira instructed his servant (who was blowing the Shofar)- to have Kavanah to blow for him, too.

(b)Rebbi Zeira will establish our Mishnah, which requires a person walking behind a Shul to have Kavanah to hear the Shofar, but says nothing about the blower (who is not aware of the man behind the Shul and does certainly not have him specifically in mind) - by a Sheliach Tzibur (the Ba'al Toke'a) who has the entire community in mind (whether he sees them or not).

(c)We query Rebbi Zeira from the Beraisa which states that, if the listener had Kavanah but not the blower, or vice-versa, the listener is not Yotzei. We know that, in the latter case, the blower did not have the listener in mind, because it is similar to the former case, where the listener had only himself in mind.

(d)Rebbi Zeira answers that this is a Machlokes Tana'im. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa, who holds that he does holds that the blower does not need to specifically have the listener in mind - whereas Rebbi Yosi (with whose opinion Rebbi Zeira conforms) holds unless the blower is the Shali'ach-Tzibur, the listener is only Yotzei if the blower has him in mind, as well as himself having the intention to be Yotzei.

2)

(a)Our Mishnah ascribes Moshe's raised or lowered hands affecting the course of the war with Amalek - to the fact that, when he raised his hands, the people looked upwards and subordinated themselves to Hash-m (because 'external acts influence a person internally'), which in turn, was the catalyst that caused Hash-m to fight on their behalf.

(b)The Tana presents a similar idea in connection with the copper snake - where, it was not the copper snake that healed them from the snake-bites, but the fact that they looked upwards and subordinated themselves to Hash-m. Note: the reason that the Tana found it necessary to give two examples of the same concept, is presumably to teach us that doing so is effective both before the sin and afterwards (as the Lashon of the Mishnah clearly suggests).

(c)Our Mishnah rules that a deaf-mute, a fool, and a minor cannot blow Shofar for grown-ups - based on the principle that whoever is not included in the obligation to perform any Mitzvah, cannot render Yotzei someone who is.

3)

(a)

1. A Tumtum - is someone whose sexual organs are covered, and who therefore does not know his sex.

2. An Androginus - is someone who possesses both male and female sexual organs.

(b)One Tumtum may not blow even for another - because of the possibility that the one who is blowing is a woman, and the one who is listening, a man; whereas an Androginus may - because every Androginus has the same Safek, either they are both men, or they are both women.

(c)An Eved Cana'ani is Patur from Teki'as Shofar - because basically, he has the Din of a Jewish woman, and women are Patur from Teki'as Shofar.

(d)Someone who is half-slave, half free may not blow for his friend - because the half of him that is a slave cannot render Yotzei the half of his friend who is free.

(e)A person becomes half-slave, half-free - if he was previously owned by two masters, and one of them set him free.

4)

(a)Initially, we quote two Pesukim to explain why the Tana of the Beraisa needs to tell us that Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim are obligated to blow Shofar on Rosh Hashanah: "Yom Teru'ah Yih'yeh Lachem", and "u'Seka'atem ba'Chatzotz'ros al Oloseicchem"- from which we might have learned that whoever is Chayav to blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah only, is included in the Mitzvah, to preclude the Kohanim, who are also obligated to blow the trumpets all the year round (whenever an Olas Tzibur is brought).

(b)We refute this explanation however - on the grounds that, seeing as the one pertains to blowing the Shofar, and the other, to blowing the trumpets, on what grounds would we possibly connect the two?

(c)So we ultimately explain the Beraisa on the basis of the Mishnah that we learned above, equating Rosh Hashanah with the Yovel. In that case, whoever is included in the Mitzvos of Yovel, we might have said, is also included in the Mitzvah of blowing the Shofar, to preclude the Leviyim who are not, as we shall now see.

(d)The source for this is the Mishnah in Erchin, which permits Kohanim and Leviyim to sell their property at all times and to redeem it - and it is the latter that the Beraisa needs to counter. Because the Din is that, should the owner declare his field Hekdesh and not redeem it, and the treasurer of Hekdesh goes on to sell it to someone else, then, when Yovel arrives, the field does not revert to the owner, but goes to the Kohanim. However, if the owner is from the tribe of Levi, then it reverts to him in the Yovel.

5)

(a)Someone who is half-slave and half-free may not blow even for his friend. Rav Nachman emends the statement of Rav Huna, who permitted him to blow for himself - because, if the half of him that is a slave cannot blow for the half of his friend who is free, then, by the same token, he cannot blow for the half of himself that is a slave either.

(b)Rav Nachman therefore rules - that he cannot even blow for himself.

(c)We know that Rav Nachman is right - because he has the support of a Beraisa

6)

(a)One Jew (who is a Bar-Chiyuva) may blow for another, even though he himself is not currently being Yotzei with the blowing - because of the principle 'Kol Yisrael Areivim Zeh ba'Zeh' (each Jew is responsible for the other).

(b)This will only apply to a Mitzvah which his friend is obligated to perform however, but not to one which is purely voluntary - in which case, it will not apply to reciting a Berachah over bread or wine, seeing as there is no obligation to eat it (i.e. Don't eat the food and you won't need to recite the Berachah!) ...

(c)... and the same will apply to any other food.

7)

(a)Rava asks whether someone who is himself not being Yotzei now the Mitzvah or Matzah or that of Kidush, can be Motzi someone who is, with the Berachah of 'ha'Motzi' over the former and that of 'Borei Pri ha'Gafen' over the latter - because, on the one hand, the Matzah and the Kidush-wine are obligations, but on the other, the Berachos of 'ha'Motzi' and 'ha'Gafen' are Birchos ha'Nehenin (come for the benefit of the food, and not for the Mitzvah).

(b)Rava's She'eilah will not extend to the Berachos of 'Al Achilas Matzah' and 'Mekadesh Yisrael (ve'ha'Zemanim)' of Kidush - which are pure Birchos ha'Mitzvos, and which one can obviously render Yotzei even if one does intend to be Yotzei oneself.

(c)We resolve Rava's She'eilah from Rav Ashi - who quotes Rav Papi as having rendered Yotzei with Kidush (including the Berachah of Borei Pri ha'Gafen), first Rav Ashi and then, when his resident gardener arrived, him, too.

(d)The Tana of the Beraisa expressly permits reciting a Berachah even over food, on behalf of his children who are about to eat (even though he does not intend to eat together with them).

8)

(a)With regard to blowing the Shofar on Shabbos ...

1. ... min ha'Torah - one may blow the Shofar anywhere.

2. ... mid'Rabanan - they decreed, forbidding it outside the Beis Hamikdash, for reasons that we shall see later.

(b)After the Churban Beis ha'Mikdash - Raban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted that they should blow in every town that had a Beis Din (consisting of three Semuchin).

(c)Rebbi Eliezer restricts the scope of Raban Yochanan's Takanah - by confining it to Yavneh, where the Sanhedrin sat.

9)

(a)Chazal also differentiated between Yerushalayim and Yavneh inasmuch as in Yavneh, when Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbos, they would only blow in Yavneh itself, whereas in Yerushalayim they would blow in other towns too, provided four conditions were met; 1. That they could see Yerushalayim; 2. That they could hear it; 3. That it was close; 4. That one could go to Yerushalayim from there on Yom-Tov.

10)

(a)We initially try to resolve the discrepancy between the Pasuk in Emor, which writes "Shabason Zichron Teru'ah" and the Pasuk in Pinchas, which writes "Yom Teru'ah Yih'yeh Lachem" - by establishing the former Pasuk by Yom-Tov which fell on Shabbos (when the Shofar is only mentioned but not blown), and the latter one by Yom-Tov that fell during the week, when one actually blows.

(b)Besides blowing the Shofar - removing bread from an oven using a shovel is also referred to as a 'Chochmah' rather than a 'Melachah'.

(c)Besides the fact that blowing the Shofar is a Chochmah and not a Melachah (and that it cannot therefore be a Torah prohibition to blow on Shabbos), the problem with defining blowing on Shabbos as a Torah prohibition (as we initially thought it is) is - that, if blowing the Shofar on Shabbos is learned from a Pasuk, then how could Chazal permit it in the Beis Hamikdash.

11)

(a)Chazal forbade blowing the Shofar on Shabbos for the same reason as they prohibited taking the Lulav on Shabbos and reading the Megilah - because although everyone is Chayav to blow the Shofar, not everyone is expert at blowing, so we are afraid that a person might (in his eagerness to perform the Mitzvah) carry his Shofar in the street to an expert, to find out how to blow properly.

(b)They nevertheless permitted blowing it in the Beis Hamikdash - due to the principle 'Ein Shvus ba'Mikdash'.

(c)When after the Churban, the Bnei Beseirah suggested that Beis Din sit down and discuss whether or not to include the town where the Sanhedrin sat, in the decree of not blowing Shofar on Shabbos - Raban Yochanan ben Zakai counter-suggested that they blow first, and discuss the matter later.

(d)After they had blown however, and wanted to sit down and discuss the matter for future years - he ruled that, now that they had blown, there was nothing more to discuss.

12)

(a)The 'Amru Lo', who permit blowing in any town with a Beis Din, appear to be saying the same as the Tana Kama. They disagree with him however - in a town which has only a temporary Beis Din, which the Tana Kama permits; whereas they maintain that it must be a permanent Beis Din like that of Yavneh, before one is permitted to blow on Shabbos.