2

The Mishna in Rosh Hashana 26a states that according to the Tanna Kama, a shofar may not be made of a cow's horn.

In the Gemara, Ulla states that one reason for this is that "the accuser cannot become the defender," a concept which Rav Chisda had previously used to explain the fact that the Kohen Gadol does not wear the Golden Vestments while doing the parts of the Yom Kippur service which involve entering the Holy of Holies. Since the Golden Calf was made (as the name suggests) of gold, it would be wrong to use gold in this service. So too, says Ulla, since the Golden Calf was (as the name suggests) a statue of a calf, it would be wrong to use a cow's horn for the shofar.

The Gemara on the spot asks why the Kohen Gadol does wear Golden Vestments on other occasions, and answers that the rule of "the accuser cannot become the defender" only applies inside the Holy of Holies. If so, the Gemara asks of itself, what does the rule of "the accuser cannot become the defender" have to do with the shofar of Rosh Hashana, which is blown outside the Holy of Holies? The answer given is that the Torah describes the shofar as being for "remembrance," and this is the equivalent of being inside the Holy of Holies.

About a page later, on 26b , another Mishna teaches that the shofar used in the Beis Hamikdash was partially gold plated. (This point appears to be unanimous amongst all the Tannaim.)

My question is this--how would Ulla explain this Mishna? Why does not the rule of "the accuser does not become the defender" prevent us from decorating the shofar with gold plate, just as it prevents the Kohen Gadol from wearing the Golden Vestments inside the Holy of Holies?

Improve this question
4
  • It is connected to the fact that day of rememberance on R.H. is remembrance of Maamad har Sinai, where Jewish people got gold rings for naaseh v'nishma. judaism.stackexchange.com/a/144616/36610
    – Y DJ
    Commented Sep 19 at 20:41
  • I fail to see how that answers my question. Ulla says that the shofar must not be tinged with recollection of the Golden Calf, because "the accuser cannot be the defender." For this reason, it cannot be made of a cow's horn. Nevertheless, the shofar (in the Beis Hamikdash) is partially plated with gold. Why is this not a violation of the principle that "the accuser cannot be the defender?" It's probably simply my limitations, but I don't see any connection at all between the jewelry in honor of na'aseh v'nishma and the principle that "the accuser cannot be the defender."
    – Yehoshua Kahan
    Commented Sep 19 at 20:45
  • Well, the Mishkan also served as kapara for the Golden Calf, yet many of its parts were plated with gold. The shofar is not made out of gold, just plated.
    – Y DJ
    Commented Sep 19 at 20:53
  • Sure, the Gemara discusses why the Aron and the Keruvim involved gold. I skipped that in my summary because it did not seem relevant to me. Just as the shofar is not made of gold, but merely plated with it, so is the Kohen Gadol not made of gold, but merely clothed in Golden Vestments. My question is why the principle prevents the Kohen Gadol from wearing his Golden Vestments in the Holy of Holies, but does not prevent the shofar from being plated with gold.
    – Yehoshua Kahan
    Commented Sep 19 at 20:56

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

The shofar's sound, which causes 'remembrance', is what makes it considered akin to being 'inside'.

The gold, which adorns the shofar, invalidates the shofar if it impacts the sound.

As the gold contributes no part to the sound emitted and by extension the 'remembrance' generated, it is therefore not considered as being 'inside'.

Improve this answer
3
  • That is an interesting interpretation. Is it original to you? If not, do you remember the source?
    – Yehoshua Kahan
    Commented Sep 19 at 20:52
  • @YehoshuaKahan Thanks. Just came to me now.
    – Nahum
    Commented Sep 19 at 20:57
  • Nice. It seems to me that, according to this interpretation, the distinction between the Golden Vestments of the Kohen Gadol and the gold plating of the shofar is that the Golden Vestments, when required, are necessary for the avoda of the Kohen Gadol. Thus, if he would wear them into the Holy of Holies, they would be a critical element for the service. That would be an incident of "the accuser becoming the defender." The gold plating of the shofar, by contrast, is not critical to the mitzva, but merely decorative. As such, it is not "becoming the defender," but merely being present.
    – Yehoshua Kahan
    Commented Sep 19 at 21:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .