Shaking the Lulav (Sukka 37b-38a)

The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

 

Gemara Sukka
Yeshivat Har Etzion

*********************************************************

This shiur is dedicated in celebration of 

Ahavya and Hillel's successful completion of shana rishona.

*********************************************************

 

 

SHIUR #25: SHAKING THE LULAV (SUKKA 37b-38a)

 

by Baruch Weintraub

 

 

A.        SHAKING THE LULAV – THE SOURCE

 

The Mishna on p. 37b discusses the points in Hallel when the lulav must be shaken. Inasmuch as the previous mishnayot make no explicit mention of a need to shake the lulav, the Gemara immediately asks how the Mishna can discuss when the lulav must be shaken, when it has not yet established that it must be shaken. The Gemara answers that the need to shake the lulav is alluded to in the first mishna in the chapter (29b) – "A lulav that has three handbreadths, so that it can be shaken, is fit." The Gemara on that mishna (32b) emends the wording, so that it reads: "A lulav that has three handbreadths, and enough that it can be shaken, is fit." Thus we see that the lulav must be shaken, and therefore the mishna can open with a discussion regarding the times at which this shaking must take place.

 

The Gemara's answer explains the source in the Mishna, but we must raise the following question, which is not asked, or at least not explicitly, in the Gemara: what is the biblical or rabbinic source for shaking the lulav?

 

The answer to this question is, of course, connected to the answer to another fundamental question: is the shaking of the lulav regarded as a separate fulfillment of a mitzva, or is it merely an element of some other law?

 

II. A FULFILLMENT WITHIN THE MITZVA OF LULAV

 

At first glance, it would seem obvious that the shaking is part of the mitzva of taking the lulav, for surely it is performed with the lulav itself. Support for this approach can be adduced from the Tosafot in Pesachim 7b (s.v. latzet). The Tosafot discuss the proper time to recite the benediction over the mitzva of taking the lulav, in light of the rule that a benediction recited over a mitzva should be recited as close as possible to the fulfillment of the mitzva, but not after its fulfillment (over le-asiyatan). The Tosafot cite the view of Ri who says that one should take the lulav in his hand upside down (not the way it grows), recite the benediction, and then turn it around, and thus fulfill the mitzva. The Tosafot disagree and say that one should take the lulav in the ordinary manner, recite the benediction, and then fulfill the mitzva with the shaking.

 

The Ri might disagree with the anonymous position in the Tosafot in Pesachim for one of two reasons. Either he maintains that shaking the lulav is not at all a fulfillment in the mitzva of lulav, or alternatively he maintains that it is a fulfillment in the mitzva of lulav, but since the Gemara in Sukka, p. 42a, states explicitly that "as soon as he picks it [= the lulav] up, he fulfills his obligation," the benediction cannot be delayed. Indeed, the Tosafot in Sukka 39a (s.v. over) argue that one cannot rely on the shaking, because it is not indispensable to the fulfillment of the mitzva. In other words, the Ri and the Tosafot disagree not about the nature of shaking the lulav, but about the laws of benedictions. Therefore the Tosafot in Sukka say that even Ri agrees that if a person took the lulav without reciting the benediction, bedi'eved he can recite the benediction afterwards, and rely on the shaking.[1]

 

It follows, then, that according to the Tosafot, the shaking is an element in the mitzva of lulav. We must still define the nature of this law.

 

III. DEFINITION OF THE MITZVA OF TAKING THE LULAV

 

The Mikra'ei Kodesh (Sukkot, II, no. 1) analyzes what is the act of the mitzva of taking the four species. Is the act of the mitzva the taking, or perhaps it is the holding? There is a practical difference between these two possibilities in the case of a person who gets up in the middle of the night, takes the four species in his hand, and continues to hold them until the break of dawn. Do we say that with the break of dawn, the person begins to fulfill the mitzva and he can recite a benediction, since the mitzva is the holding? Or do we say that he must first put down the lulav and then take it again, the mitzva being the act of taking?

 

If we assume that the act of the mitzva is the taking, a difficulty arises from an explicit Baraita in Sukka 41b, which cites the practice of the people of Jerusalem to walk around all day long with their lulavs in their hands. The Gemara concludes: "What does this teach us? It teaches us how zealous they were in the mitzvot." This formulation implies that the practice of the people of Jerusalem was not merely a demonstration of how dear the mitzva was to them, but rather an actual fulfillment of the mitzva.

 

Before we resolve this difficulty, let us examine a somewhat similar law regarding tzitzit. The Rema (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayyim 8:16) rules that one who dons his tallit prior to the break of day can recite the benediction when morning arrives, provided that he touch and handle them at that time (see Taz, ad loc., no. 16, that this handling is required by basic law, and without such handling, one cannot recite the benediction). At first glance, this is difficult, for how can one recite the benediction "to wrap oneself with tzitzit" – surely he is not wrapping himself now, but only handling the tzitzit!

 

The source of the Rema's ruling is a talmudic passage in Sukka 46a, which states that the rabbis of the school of Rav Ashi would recite a benediction over the tefilin that they were wearing, when they would touch and handle them. The Rishonim disagree about which benediction would be recited and over what was it recited. According to Rashi (s.v. demeshamshi), one is obligated to touch and handle the tefilin that he is wearing, and the Tosafot explain (s.v. kol eimat) that the benediction that was recited is "lishmor chukav." The Ritva (ad loc.) disagrees and says that the Gemara is dealing with a case where the rabbis were distracted from their tefilin, so that their handling the tefilin was like donning them, and therefore they could recite the benediction "lehani'ach tefilin."[2] Once again, the question arises: how can handling be regarded as donning?

 

We would like to suggest the following answer: The Kovetz Shiurim (Kuntrus Divrei Soferim, no. 3, sec. 16) argues that regarding the mitzva of tzitzit, the fulfillment of the mitzva is the fact that the person is wearing the fringed garment, though the act of the mitzva is the action of wrapping himself in it. And similarly regarding the prohibition of sha'atnez, a person is subject to flogging for each warning that he receives, even if he does not remove the garment and then don it again after each warning, because the transgression is his wearing the sha'atnez, and not his putting it on. The Kovetz Shiurim proves there (sec. 17) that this is all true provided that the person donned the garment at a time when he was obligated in the mitzva. But if he donned the garment at a time when he was not obligated in the mitzva, he is not flogged for each warning. He closes the discussion without providing an explanation for this distinction.

 

It might be suggested that indeed the fulfillment of the mitzva and the transgression of the prohibition is in the wearing, only that there is a general rule that there is no flogging for the violation of a prohibition, the transgression of which does not involve an action. Therefore flogging is only administered if he performed an action, e.g., if he put on the garment containing sha'atnez. And since all the subsequent "wearings" result from the original action of putting the garment on, each "wearing" is regarded as a transgression involving an action, and so he is repeatedly flogged for that single action which underlies his many transgressions. But all this is true only if the act of the prohibition was performed at a time of obligation, for only then is it regarded as an act of a transgression that carries liability for flogging.

 

Just the reverse applies to tzitzit: the fulfillment of the mitzva is in the wearing, but the rule is that a benediction is recited not over the fulfillment of a mitzva, but over the act of the mitzva.[3] But in order for a benediction to be recited over such an act, the act must be performed at a time when the person is obligated in the mitzva.

 

IV. THE ACT OF HOLDING THE FOUR SPECIES

 

            We can now understand the novelty in the position of the rabbis of the school of Rav Ashi, according to the Ritva. According to him, and so ruled the Rema, in order to recite a benediction over tzitzit it is not necessary to perform the act of putting on the tzitzit. And similarly, in order to recite a benediction over tefilin it is not necessary to perform the act of binding the tefilin. What is necessary is that the person maintain the state of wearing the tzitzit or the tefilin. In other words, the act of the mitzva does not have to be the cause of the continued wearing; it suffices that it be continued wearing that involves an action. For this, touching and handling the tzitzit and the tefilin suffices, for this is regarded as wearing that involves an action. And since touching and handling is regarded as an act of mitzva, if a person becomes distracted, so that the previously recited benediction is no longer valid, he can once again recite "lehani'ach tefilin" over his handling of the tefilin. For this purpose, this too is regarded as an act of donning which is the act of the mitzva, for even with respect to donning, the essence is not the donning itself, but the fact that the tefilin are now in place in the wake of the person's action. (There is room to expand on this analysis regarding tefilin, and perhaps distinguish between the tefilin of the hand and the tefilin of the head. See Shiurei ha-Grid be-Hilkhot Setam, Inyanei Tefilin, no. 5.)

 

Now that we have reached this understanding, we can suggest a similar understanding with respect to lulav, for all agree that the fulfillment of the mitzva is the fact that the lulav is being held by the person. But since a benediction can only be recited over the act of the mitzva, we require an act of taking, for the holding itself is not regarded as an action.[4] Therefore it is necessary that the act of taking be performed at a time of obligation. This answers the difficulty from the people of Jerusalem who would walk about all day holding their lulavs, for all agree that the fulfillment of the mitzva continues as long as a person continues to hold the lulav in his hand.

 

This might be the source of the law of shaking, which is similar to the touching and handling of tzitzit and tefilin, for even though he doesn't take the lulav, he holds it in such a way that involves an action. Therefore, the Tosafot write in Pesachim that a person can delay reciting the benediction until after he takes the lulav and before he shakes it. For the shaking is also regarded as an act of the mitzva of lulav, over which a benediction may be recited, just as a benediction may be recited over the touching and handling of tefilin.

 

This understanding is taken to the extreme by the Shibbolei ha-Leket (367), who brings in the name of his brother, Rabbi Binyamin, that if a person fails to shake his lulav, he does not fulfill his obligation. According to him, shaking is not an additional act of the mitzva, but rather the sole act of the mitzva, for mere taking is not regarded as an act of the mitzva for this purpose.

 

To summarize the direction which we have followed thus far, we have proposed here that the shaking is a new act of the mitzva that parallels the taking of the lulav. According to this proposal, the shaking, even if we do not say that it is obligatory as argued by Rabbi Binyamin, is nevertheless recognized as an act of the mitzva by Torah law.

 

V. SHAKING AT THE TIME OF THE BENEDICTION AND DURING HALLEL

 

            An objection may be raised against this understanding: Why does the mishna state that one must shake the lulav specifically during Hallel? Surely it would seem much more reasonable to shake it immediately following the benediction!

 

            Indeed, the Tosafot on our passage (s.v. be-hodu) adduce several proofs that one must shake the lulav not only during Hallel, but immediately after taking the lulav as well. The Ritva adds that the shaking following the benediction is so obvious that it did not have to be mentioned, for then is the main performance of the mitzva.

 

However, the fact that the mishna speaks only of shaking in Hallel, and also the need to shake the lulav in a specific manner, as follows from the Gemara and as we shall see below, incline us to understand that we must find a different explanation, or at least an additional explanation, for the shaking of the lulav. That is to say, it is possible that the shaking of the lulav after the benediction constitutes a shaking necessary for the act of the mitzva, but the shaking during the recital of Hallel must be explained in a different manner, as we shall see below.

 

VI. WHEN WOULD THEY SHAKE?

 

            When we analyze the shaking in Hallel, we can propose two possibilities. First, the shaking might constitute a fulfillment in prayer, and second, the shaking might constitute an independent fulfillment, which must be accompanied by the recital of certain verses.

 

            In order to test these possibilities, let us examine the mishna that deals with the question when is the lulav shaken. The mishna states that the lulav is shaken at the end of Hallel, during the recitation of Tehilim 118, at the opening verse, "O give thanks to the Lord, for He is good" (Hodu Lashem ki tov, Ki le-olam chasdo) and at the identical verse that closes the psalm. This law that the shaking is done at the opening and closing verses of the psalm, suggests that the shaking of the lulav is a fulfillment in the recital of Hallel on Sukkot, and that it comes to emphasize the beginning and the end of this psalm.

 

            On the other hand, the shaking in the middle of the psalm, in the verse "Save us O Lord, we pray You" (Ana Hashem hoshi'a na), can be understood in two ways – either as a desire to place special emphasis on this verse, or that here the verse comes to serve the shaking. This might underlie the dispute between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai, whether or not to shake the lulav while reciting, "We pray you, O Lord, prosper us" (Ana Hashem hatzlicha na). Bet Hillel maintain that here the verse comes to serves the shaking, which must be performed while praying to God for salvation. Bet Shammai, on the other hand, maintain that the verse, Ana Hashem, constitutes an independent unit within the psalm that requires shaking at the beginning and at the end, just like the entire psalm requires shaking at the beginning and at the end.[5]

 

            The Tosafot say that Bet Hillel's source is found in the verses in I Divrei Ha-yamim (16:33-35): "Then shall the trees of the wood sing for joy at the presence of the Lord… O give thanks to the Lord, for He is good… And say, Save us, O God of our salvation…." That is to say, the law is that the trees of the wood must sing while reciting the verse, "O give thanks to the Lord." The Rosh (sec. 26) goes further and says that the mitzva of shaking the lulav was designed to cause the people of Israel to rejoice, like one who goes out from before a judge after having been acquitted. Thus, the sages enacted that the shaking take place precisely in those verses that deal with gratitude and judgment. We see from here that the shaking is a fulfillment in the mitzva of reciting Hallel, and it is intended to cause the people to rejoice while they recite it, so that they should pray as one who knows that he will be vindicated in his judgment. Thus, the shaking of the lulav, both in Hodu Lashem and in Ana Hashem, constitutes a fulfillment in the recital of Hallel.

 

            Rashi, on the other hand, writes that "there is a mitzva to shake [the lulav] in order to prevent bad dew." The implication is that the shaking constitutes an independent mitzva, and it stands to reason that this mitzva was enacted specifically at the time of reciting the verse Ana Hashem because of its ability to rescue Israel from evil decrees. According to Rashi, it is not clear whether the shaking for Hodu Lashem is also an independent fulfillment, or perhaps there it comes to serve the recital of Hallel. If we say that even the shaking during Hodu is a separate fulfillment, and that the recital of the verses is part of that fulfillment, this might be understood based on what Rabbi Yerucham Fishel Perla says (Sefer ha-Mitzvot le-Rasag, III, addenda, no. 5) that the shaking is a fulfillment of the mitzva of rejoicing, and therefore it is good to thank God for his lovingkindness while shaking the lulav.

 

The relationship between the shaking in Hodu Lashem and the shaking in Ana Hashem might stand at the heart of the disagreement how to understand Rabbi Akiva's testimony regarding the practice of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua. As stated in the mishna, Rabbi Akiva testified that they would only shake the lulav during Ana Hashem hoshi'a na. The Rishonim disagree whether or not they also shook the lulav during Hodu Lashem. According to the Ravya (683), they would shake the lulav during Hodu Lashem as well, while according to the Bartenura on the mishna (s.v. ve-hem), they would shake only during Ana Hashem hoshi'a na. If we understand that both the shaking during Hodu and the shaking during Ana Hashem are a fulfillment in the reading of Hallel, it stands to reason like Ravya, that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua shook during both. If we understand that we are dealing with two separate fulfillments, it is very possible that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed with the shaking as a fulfillment in the recital of Hallel, and therefore they only shook the lulav while reciting Ana Hashem, as argued by the Bartenura.

 

There might be a practical ramification between the positions of Rashi and the Tosafot regarding a person who did not have a lulav while he recited Hallel, but later he found one. If the shaking is a law in Hallel, there is no reason for him to shake the lulav afterwards. But if the shaking is an independent fulfillment, there is room to obligate him to shake the lulav, and even to recite the verse Ana Hashem hoshi'a na while doing so.

 

VII. THE POSITION OF THE RAMBAM – WAVING THE LULAV

 

As soon as he picks up these four species, whether he picks them up all at once or he picks them up one after the other, whether with his right hand or with his left hand, he fulfills his obligation. This applies when he picks them up in the manner that they grow, but if he picks them up not in the manner that they grow, he does not fulfill his obligation. The proper way to fulfill the mitzva is to pick up the three species bound together with his right hand, and the etrog with his left hand, move them forward and draw them toward him, raise them and lower them, and shake the lulav three times in each direction. How so? He moves them forward and shakes the top of the lulav three times, and then he draws them toward him and shakes the top of the lulav three times, and similarly when he raises them and when he lowers them. When does he move them forward and draw them toward him? During the recital of Hallel during Hodu Lashem ki tov, at the beginning and at the end, and during Ana Hashem hoshi'a na. (Rambam, Hilkhot Lulav 7:9-10)

 

            Rabbi Yosef Soloveitchik (Shiurei ha-Grid, Sukka 37b, p. 179) brings in the name of his father, Rabbi Moshe, that while according to the position of the Tosafot, the shaking is a fulfillment in Hallel, according to the Rambam, both the shaking and Hallel are fulfillments in the mitzva of taking the lulav. Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik concluded from this that one must take the lulav and immediately thereafter recite Hallel, without interrupting between the taking and the benediction, on the one hand, and Hallel, on the other. This is not necessary, however, according to the Tosafot. Indeed, the Chassidic custom is to take the lulav in the sukka before going to synagogue, whereas Rabbi Moshe would take the lulav immediately prior to his recital of Hallel. Another practical ramification is whether there is a need for a lulav that fulfills the requirement of "lachem" for the shaking during Hallel. According to the Rambam, this is necessary, whereas according to the Tosafot, it is not.[6]

 

            Rabbi Soloveitchik does not explain how the Rambam knows that Hallel and the shaking are fulfillments in the mitzva of lulav. It might be suggested that the Rambam understood that when our passage brings the law of waving the kivsei atzeret, and concludes, "and similarly in the case of lulav," this teaches us not only the manner of the movements, but also the basis of the law, which is learned from waving.[7] That is to say, the shaking of the lulav is in fact a mitzva of waving. If we continue with this analogy, the recital of Hallel during the waving perhaps parallels the recital of the viddui while waving the bikkurim, or alternatively the song of the Levites at the time of the waving (see Rambam, Hilkhot Bikkurim 3:12). It is also possible that here too we must differentiate between the shaking during Hodu, which parallels the song of the Levites, and the shaking during Ana Hashem, which parallels the reciting of viddui.

 

VIII. WAVING AND CAUSING THE LULAV TO FLAP

 

            The question regarding the foundation of the law of shaking the lulav might also have practical ramifications regarding the manner of the shaking. There are a number of different approaches among the Rishonim, all of which are based on an unclear passage in the Yerushalmi on our mishna (3:8). We will not discuss all the positions; a discussion of the major views can be found in the Ran on the Rif (18b, s.v. amar). We will focus on one major disagreement which appears already among the Geonim, whether one must merely wave the lulav or one must shake it in such a way that the leaves flap and create a sound (kiskus).

 

            This disagreement might depend on the various understandings presented above regarding the law of shaking the lulav. If we understand that we are dealing with an act of the mitzva of taking that parallels the handling of tzitzit and tefilin, it is difficult to explain why it is necessary to move the lulav forward and then draw it back, to raise it and then to lower it. Causing the leaves to flap and create a sound should suffice, and perhaps this is even more similar to the handling of tzitzit and tefilin. The same is true if we understand that shaking the lulav is derived from the verse, "Then shall the trees of the wood sing," as argued by the Tosafot, for if a person causes the lulav to flap and create a sound, this might be regarded as a "tree singing."

 

            If, on the other hand, we accept the view of the Rambam, that the shaking of the lulav parallels other cases of waving in the Torah, e.g., the waving of the bikkurim, it is more reasonable to require moving the lulav forward, drawing it back, raising it and lowering it. And if we understand like Rashi, that shaking the lulav is a separate fulfillment, the question remains open.

 

            Some Rishonim understand that it is necessary to shake the lulav both ways. That is to say, to move it forward, draw it back, raise and lower it, and then to shake it in such a manner that the leaves flap and make noise (this is Ribav's understanding of Rabbenu Hai Gaon and Rabbenu Chananel). This allows for the understanding that there are two separate fulfillments of shaking. Similarly, there are Rishonim who say that the leaves of the lulav must be made to flap while the lulav is being waved (Rosh; Magen Avot of the Meiri, end of sec. 21), and this too implies that the shaking has a two-fold fulfillment. This seems to be the prevalent custom today.

 

SUMMARY

 

            We have seen three main approaches to the law of shaking the lulav:

 

1)         A fulfillment in the mitzva of taking the lulav, either as the act of the mitzva (the view of the Tosafot, regarding the shaking that follows the benediction), or as a waving of the lulav (view of the Rambam, regarding the shaking in Hallel).

2)         An independent fulfillment of shaking the lulav (the view of Rashi and Rabbi Yerucham Fishel Perla).

3)         A fulfillment in the recital of Hallel (the view of the Tosafot and the Rosh regarding the shaking during Hallel).

 

We have also seen that it is possible to distinguish between the shaking at the time of the benediction and the shaking during Hallel, and regarding the shaking during Hallel itself, between the shaking for Hodu Lashem and the shaking for Ana Hashem. We have also noted that the nature of the shaking might have practical ramifications regarding the manner of shaking.

 

SOURCES FOR THE NEXT SHIUR:

 

            In the next shiur, we will deal with the issue of shome'a ke-one – hearing is like saying. The sources that should be studied, beyond the second mishna on p. 38a and the Gemara on it, include:

 

1)         Tosafot, s.v. shema, and the parallel Tosafot in Berakhot 21b, s.v. ad – what is the basis for the disagreement between the Tosafot and Rashi?

2)         Is shome'a ke-one valid lekhatchila or only bedi'eved? See end of Tosafot, s.v. shema (cited above), and Responsa ha-Rashba, I, no. 126. See also Meiri on our passage.

3)         The well-known dispute between the Bet ha-Levi (on the Torah, end of Bereishit) and the Chazon Ish (Orach Chayyim, no. 29), whether one can fulfill his obligation regarding birkat kohanim by way of shome'a ke-one can serve as the basis for analyzing the law of shome'a ke-one. What is the relationship between this disagreement and the disagreement between Rashi and the Tosafot referred to above?

 

שו"ת הרשב"א -

"תחילת כל דבר דע, ששליח ציבור מוציא את השומעים שהשומע כעונה ואפילו לכתחילה".

 

מאירי -

"ומנהג היה בימי רבותי' שאף בימים שגומרין בהם את ההלל היו  רוב העם אפי' הבקיאים סומכים על שליח צבור שהיה מקרא  אותם ובלא עניית מה ששליח צבור אומר מלה במלה אלא שהיו  בענין ענייה בדרכים הרבה ותורף הענין הוא ששליח צבור אומר  הללויה והם אומרים הללויה וכן על כל דבור ודבור שבו כגון  שהוא אומר הללו עבדי ה' והם אומרים הללויה הוא אומר הללו  את שם ה' והם אומרים הללויה וכן על כל דבור ודבור  וכשהמקרא מגיע לראשי פרקים הם חוזרים מה שאמר כגון  שהוא אומר בצאת ישראל ממצרים והם חוזרים גם כן בצאת  ישראל ממצרים מלה מלה וכשהמקרא אומר בית יעקב מעם  לועז הם חוזרים הללויה ומ"מ תחלה לא היה המנהג אלא בהודו  לה' ומשם למדו אחר כן לכל ראשי הפרקים הוא אומר אנא ה'  הושיעה נא והם חוזרים אנא ה' הושיעא נא אע"פ שאינו ראש  הפרק ולמדנו ממנה שאם הקטן מקרהו צריך לענות מה שהוא  אומר שקראה זו כעין קריאה של קטן היא שהרי הושיעה נא  והצליחה נא פסוק אחד הוא וחולקין אותו לשנים כעין קריאת  קטן ומאחר שהיא כקריאת קטן כל שאדם בא לסמוך עליה על  המקרא צריך לחזור מה שהוא אומר הוא אומר הצליחה נא  ולמדנו ממנו שאם בא לכפול כופל שהרי היו יוצאים בו בהללויה  והם חוזרים אותו פסוק בלי שום צורך הוא אומר ברוך והם  אומרים בשם ה' ולמדנו ממנה שהשומע כעונה שהרי לא חזרו  לומר ברוך הבא ולא הללויה עליו ומ"מ י"מ שהבקיאים אין  סומכין על המקרא אלא שאף הבקיאים אחר שקראו אותו  לעצמם היו נוהגים כן עם שליח צבור ומאותם המנהגים יצאו  לנו דברים אלו שכתבנו ומ"מ שומע כעונה דוקא בשומע מפי  המחויב בדבר ואף זו בדיעבד ולא לכתחלה"

 

בית הלוי -

"מה שאמר חכם אחד בברכת כהנים דכהן אחד יכול לומר ברכת כהנים ושארי כהנים ישמעו ושומע כעונה. הנה אם היה מקום לומר כן בודאי דהיינו מרויחין בזה לפרש לשון המשנה במסכת מגילה (דף כד) המפטיר בנביא כו' והוא פורס על שמע והוא נושא את כפיו, ולפי זה ניחא דהוא יאמר הפסוקים להוציא שארי הכהנים. אמנם עיקר הדבר לא נהירא כלל דשומע כעונה שייך רק בדבר דאין צריך בו אלא אמירה לחודא, אבל ברכת כהנים דצריך קול רם כאדם האומר לחברו וכמו דנפקא לן בסוטא (דף ל"ח) מקרא דאמור להם ובזה לא שייך שומע כעונה, דהרי ענייתו של הכהן השומע הרי אינו נשמע להעם השומעים ולא עדיף הך כהן השומע מאם היה אומר מפורש בפה רק בלחש לא יצא"

 

חזו"א -

"הא דאמרינן שומע כעונה, אי פרושו שיוצא במעשה השמיעה לחוד, או שמתיחס אליו גם הדיבור של המשמיע, על ידי שמיעה, ויוצא ידי חובה בשיתוף, השמיעה והדיבור, של חבירו. ... וכיון שענין שומע כעונה הוא התאחדות השומע והמשמיע זה בדיבור וזה בשמיעה עד שמתייחס גם הדיבור למצוות השומע, לכן, אף במצוות שאינו יוצא בדיבור כל דהו אלא שצריך תנאים בדיבורו , מ"מ יוצא בשמיעה, כמו, למ"ד לא השמיע לאזניו לא יצא, ומכל מקום יוצא בשמיעה, ואם השמיעה היתה נחשבת כאחד ממיני הדיבור, אכתי הוי כדיבור בלחש שלא השמיע לאזניו, אלא שדיבור המשמיע מהני ליה לדידיה, וכן כששומע מגילה, שאם היתה השמיעה כדיבור, אכתי הוי קראה בע"פ, ולא יצא, אלא שכל קריאת המשמיע הוי כדידיה…"