If the shofar was punctured and the puncture was sealed, if it impedes the blowing, the shofar is unfit, but if not, it is fit. If one sounds a shofar into a pit, or into a cistern, or into a large jug, if he clearly heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation; but if he heard the sound of an echo, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

And similarly, if one was passing behind a synagogue, or his house was adjacent to the synagogue, and he heard the sound of the shofar or the sound of the Scroll of Esther being read, if he focused his heart, i.e. his intent, to fulfill his obligation, he has fulfilled his obligation; but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. It is therefore possible for two people to hear the shofar blasts, but only one of them fulfills his obligation. Even though this one heard and also the other one heard, nevertheless, this one focused his heart to fulfill his obligation and has therefore indeed fulfilled it, but the other one did not focus his heart, and so he has not fulfilled his obligation.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: If a shofar was long and it was shortened, it is still fit. If it was scraped out, so that only its outer layer remains, it is also fit. If the shofar was plated with gold at the place where one puts his mouth, it is unfit; if it was plated not at the place where he puts his mouth, it is fit. If it was plated with gold on the inside, it is unfit, as one does not hear the sound of a shofar but the sound of a golden instrument. If, however, it was plated with gold on the outside, the following distinction applies: If its sound changed from what it was before the plating, it is unfit, but if not, the gold plating is mere ornamentation and it is therefore fit.

The baraita continues: If the shofar was punctured and the puncture was sealed, if it impedes the blowing, the shofar is unfit, but if not, it is fit. If one placed one shofar inside another shofar and blew, if he heard the sound of the inner shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, because it is considered one shofar, but if he heard the sound of the outer shofar he has not fulfilled it, as the sound issues from two shofarot at once.

The Sages taught in a different baraita: If a shofar was scraped down, whether on the inside or on the outside, it is fit. Even if it was scraped out to the point that only its outer layer remains, it is still fit. If one placed one shofar inside another shofar and blew, if he heard the sound of the inner shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he heard the sound of the outer shofar, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he inverted the shofar and blew it, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

Rav Pappa said: Do not say that this means that he softened the shofar and turned it inside out like a tunic. Rather, the meaning is that he widened the narrow end of the shofar and narrowed its wide end. What is the reason that this is unfit? It is according to the opinion of Rav Mattana, as Rav Mattana said that the verse states: “You shall proclaim [veha’avarta] with the shofar” (Leviticus 25:9), where the word veha’avarta literally means carry, thereby teaching that we need the shofar to be sounded the same way that it was carried on the head of the animal, and if a change was made, it is unfit.

§ It was taught in the mishna: If one glued together broken fragments of shofarot to form a complete shofar, the shofar is unfit. The Sages taught in a baraita: If anything was added to a shofar, whether of the same substance, i.e., horn, or of a foreign substance, the shofar is unfit. If the shofar was punctured and sealed, whether with the same substance or with a foreign substance, it is unfit. Rabbi Natan says: If it was sealed with the same substance, it is fit; with a foreign substance, it is unfit.

The baraita stated: If it was sealed with the same substance, it is fit. Concerning this Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This applies only where most of the original shofar is intact and only a small patch was added. The Gemara concludes: By inference, if it was sealed with a foreign substance, then even if most of the original shofar is intact, it is unfit.

Some teach this ruling with regard to the last clause of the baraita, in which it was taught: If it was sealed with a foreign substance, it is unfit. Concerning this Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is only where most of the original shofar was missing, so that the patch constitutes the majority. The Gemara concludes: By inference, if it was sealed with the same substance, then even if most of the original shofar was missing, it is still fit.

The baraita continues: If the shofar was plated with gold on the inside, it is unfit. If, however, it was plated on the outside, and if its sound changed from what it was before the plating, it is unfit, but if not, it is fit. If the shofar was cracked lengthwise, it is unfit. But if it was cracked along its width, the following distinction applies: If, of the portion above the crack there remains a measure sufficient to sound a blast, it is fit, but if not, it is unfit.

And how much is a measure sufficient to sound a blast? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explained: Enough that when he holds it in his hand, it can be seen protruding on one side of his hand and on the other side. If the sound of the shofar is high or deep or dry, it is fit for blowing, as the Torah does not require a particular sound, and all sounds coming from a shofar are fit.

It is related that the following ruling was sent from Eretz Yisrael to Shmuel’s father: If one drilled out the inside of a horn and blew it, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: It is obvious, for all shofarot are drilled, since after the horn is removed from the animal, the bone that fills the horn and connects it to the animal’s head must be removed. What, then, does this ruling teach us?

Rav Ashi said: Here we are discussing a case where he drilled the bone that fills the horn instead of removing it in the usual manner. Lest you say that even something made of the same substance interposes, and the sound that is produced is emitted from the bone and not from the shofar, the ruling therefore teaches us that since the bone and the horn are considered to be of the same substance, the shofar is fit and he has fulfilled his obligation.

§ It was taught in the mishna: If one sounds a shofar into a pit or into a cistern, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Rav Huna said: They taught this only with respect to those standing at the edge of the pit, i.e., on the outside, as they can hear only the echo coming from the pit. But those standing in the pit itself have fulfilled their obligation, since they initially hear the sound of the shofar.

This is also taught in a baraita: If one sounds a shofar into a pit or into a cistern, he has fulfilled his obligation. But didn’t we learn in the mishna that in that case he has not fulfilled his obligation? Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from here that the contradiction must be reconciled in accordance with Rav Huna? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is so.

Some had a different version of the previous passage. There are those who raise the following source as a contradiction: We learned in the mishna that if one sounds a shofar into a pit or into a cistern, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that in that case he has fulfilled his obligation? Rav Huna said: This is not difficult; here, in the mishna, we are dealing with those standing at the edge of the pit, whereas there, in the baraita we are dealing with those standing in the pit.

Rabba said: