Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Sefer Hamitzvot (Positive Commandment 170) and Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 405) count this mitzvah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The mitzvah is not the blowing of the shofar, as might be inferred from the prooftext, but rather listening to the blowing.

Though the ram’s horn is not explicitly mentioned in the verse, our Sages derived the requirement as the Rambam explains.

To announce the freeing of the slaves and the return of property, as explained in Leviticus 25:9-13.

Rams’ horns are always bent. This, too, has homiletic significance, referring to the bending over of our proud hearts. (See Rosh HaShanah 26b.)

Rosh HaShanah 16a states that a ram’s horn is used to recall the akedah (binding) of Isaac.

The Rambam’s opinion is based on the statement of Rav Levi (Rosh Hashanah 26b), who declares: “The mitzvah of Rosh Hashanah is to be performed with bent [shofarot],” implying the use of a sheep’s or ram’s horn for that is their natural shape.
The Ra’avad, Rabbenu Asher, and. many other Rishonim maintain that Rav Levi desired to designate the type of shofar which is most preferable to use, but did not intend to disqualify the horns of other animals. Their view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 586:1), which states that it is desirable to use the horn of a ram. However, if that is not possible, the horn of any animal may be used. The only exceptions are the horns of a cow and some wild animals whose horns are single, solid entities (Ramban).

The above verse merely mentions יוֹם תְּרוּעָה—“a day of sounding”—without stating what instrument must be sounded.

Rosh Hashanah 33b

An analogy גזרה שוה)) is drawn between the two verses, to teach that the same type of “sounding” is required on both occasions. Thus, since the Torah specifies states that the “sounding” of the yovel is carried out with a shofar, that same instrument is used on Rosh HaShanah.

As will be explained in the commentary to Chapter 2, Halachah 8, and Chapter 7, Halachah 13, in certain contexts the Rambam interprets the expression במקדש—literally, “in the holy place”—as referring. to the entire city of Jerusalem. (See also the Rambam’s commentary to the mishnah, Rosh HaShanah 4:1.) However, in the present context, it refers to the Temple alone. Thus, Rosh HaShanah 27a states that the shofar was sounded in this manner only “on the Temple Mount and at the eastern gate.”

The v;erse from Psalms mentions “the voice of the shofar,” using the singular. In contrast, it refers to “trumpets.”

for greater emphasis

Rosh HaShanah 26b contrasts the sounding of the shofar and trumpets on Rosh HaShanah with their being blown on a fast day declared because of unfavorable conditions. On the latter occasion, the sounding of the trumpets was emphasized in keeping with the instructions of Numbers 10:9.

Rosh Hashanah 27a states that the expression “before God” implies: in the Temple.

even within Jerusalem

For it is not appropriate to use such a shofar for a mitzvah.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that this refers to a shofar belonging to a gentile that was used in the worship of idols, or a shofar which was itself worshiped as an idol. However, as will be explained, if the shofar of idol worship belonged to a Jew or if it was made from the horn of an animal that was sacrificed to an idol, even after the fact, its use is not acceptable.

Deuteronomy 13:13-19 describes the laws governing a city in which the majority of the inhabitants have turned to idol worship. All the idolaters must be slain and all the homes and property burned. No benefit may be derived from them. (See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, Chapter 4.) Because it is supposed to be burned, it is considered (by Halacha) as if it’s already burned and does “not exist” (Maggid Mishnah).

Rosh Hashanah 28a explains that the difference between a shofar of idol worship and one of an apostate city is that all the property within the latter must be destroyed. Since ultimately this shofar must be burnt, even before it is actually destroyed it is no longer considered to be an existent entity. Thus, we may not use it on Rosh HaShanah, because a shofar used for the mitzvah must be of a specific size slightly larger than one’s hand, as mentioned in Halachah 5—and a nonexistent entity has no size at all.
A shofar of idol worship must also be destroyed. However, should the gentile negate its connection to idol worship before it is acquired by a Jew, it need not be destroyed, as stated in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:8. Since there is a possibility that it will not have to be destroyed, it is considered to be an existent entity and may be used for the mitzvah.
This principle applies only to aspects of idol worship belonging to a gentile. It is impossible to negate the connectio ןז between an idol worshiped by a Jew and its forbidden nature. (See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:9.) Hence, a Jew’s shofar of idol worship may not be used. Similarly, if a Jew has acquired a shofar of idol worship that belonged to a gentile before the latter negated its connection to idol worship, the Jew is no longer capable of negating this connection. Therefore, such a shofar may not be used on Rosh HaShanah.
Also, once an animal has been sacrificed to an idol, there is no possibility of negating its connection to idol worship. Hence, its horn may not be used as a shofar.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 586:3-4) quotes all the above laws as halachah. The Ramah relates that certain authorities recommend not using even a gentile’s shofar of idol worship unless we know that he negated its connection with idol worship before Rosh HaShanah begins.

Though in general, a mitzvah performed with a stolen article is not acceptable (see Chapter 8, Halachah l; Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah 6:7), this case is an exception...

Hence, a person who listens to the shofar being blown fulfills his obligation

Based on this statement, the commentaries propose that, according to the Rambam, a person who blows a shofar without putting his lips to it fulfills his obligation. The Ramban (see Maggid Mishneh 1:6) does not accept this view.

Accordingly, after the fact, by hearing such a shofar, one has fulfilled one’s obligation, because

for sound is not a physical entity that can be possessed. Rabbenu Manoach and the Kessef Mishneh cite other examples from Nedarim 13b-15a, where the Sages differentiate between sound and material entities.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 3:1) derives this law as follows:
Everyone agrees that a stolen lulav is unacceptable. What is the difference
between a shofar and a lulav?
Rabbi Yosse responded: “Concerning a lulav, [Leviticus 23:40] states: ‘You
shall take for yourself,’ implying that only ‘your own’ is acceptable. ln contrast,
[Numbers 29:1] states: ‘It shall be a day of blowing for you,’ implying that
regardless [of the nature of the shofar used, the blowing shall be ‘for you’]”.
Rabbi Eliezer explained: “There, [concerning the lulav,] one must perform the
mitzvah with the lulav itself. Here, [conceming the shofar,] one performs the
mitzvah with its sound.”
Nevertheless, because a sin is associated with this mitzvah, Ashkenazic custom is that no blessing should be recited before blowing such a shofar (Magen Avraham 586:4).

animal consecrated as an...

Once an animal is consecrated as an olah offering, no part of its body may be used any other purpose. Therefore, we should not use such a shofar from such an aninial for any purpose whatsoever. This halachah applies before the blood from the sacrifice has been offered on the altar. Afterwards, the skin and homs of the animal become the property of the priests and may be used for mundane purposes (Rashi, Rosh Hashanah 28a).

The prohibitions forbidding use of consecrated articles for mundane purposes.

In Hilchot Me’ilah 5:16, the Rambam writes:
Concerning the sound, sight, and smell of consecrated objects: We should not
derive benefit from them. However, all the implications of the prohibition against
using them for mundane purposes do not apply.

Though the laws of הליעמ do not apply to sound, there is still a Rabbinic prohibition against benefiting from the sound of consecrated articles. Therefore, one might think that we would be unable to fulfill the mitzvah with such a shofar (Lechem Mishneh). Accordingly, the Rambam explains:

Rashi (Rosh Hashanah, ibid.) states: “the mitzvot were not given to the Jewish people for their enjoyment, but rather as a yoke.”
This concept has relevance in the ethical, as well as the halachic sphere. In the tenth chapter of Hilchot Teshuvah, the Rambam writes:
One who serves [God] out of love occupies himself with the Torah and the
mitzvot... for no ulterior motive, not because of fear that evil will occur, nor in
order to acquire benefit...
The great Sages would command the more understanding and brilliant among
their students in private: “Do not be like servants who serve their master for
the sake of receiving a gift. Rather, since he is the Master, it is fitting to serve
Him”; i.e., serve [Him] out of love.
The above is not intended to imply that a person should not feel happy and fulfilled in the service of God. Quite the contrary; indeed, the Rambam conclutiei. these halachot (Chapter 8, Halachah 15) with a description of the importance of happiness in the service of God. However, the intent is that the happiness should be a byproduct and not the goal of the service. We should be totally committed to fulfilling God’s will, and the expression of that commitment should generate satisfaction and joy.

that mitzvot were not given for our benefit;

Doing so is not considered a violation of his vow. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 586:5) advises that the person who took the vow should not blow the shofar himself [because many consider that to be a pleasurable experience (Taz)]. Rather, he should hear the teki’ot from a colleague.
Also, the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) notes that if a person specifically states that he vows not to listen to a colleague’s teki’ot, he may not hear that person blow the shofar on Rosh HaShanah, because a vow (neder) can also negate a mitzvah. (See Hilchot Nedarim 3:6-8.)

not only when obtaining the shofar requires the violation of a melachah (forbidden labor) prohibited by the Torah, but

In Hilchot Shabbat 21:1, the Rambam defines sh’vut as a prohibition instituted by the Sages because a particular activity resembles one forbidden as a melachah by Scriptural Law, or because performing it may cause one to perform a melachah. Needless to say, the prohibition applies when obtaining the shofar requires the violation of a melachah (forbidden labor) prohibited by Scriptural Law.

Lest one accidentally cut off a branch (Hilchot Shabbat 21:6)

Lest one prepare a swimming aid (ibid. 23:5)

In his commentary on the mishnah, the Rambam explains that this refers to cutting the horn off with a household knife. Since a craftsman’s knife is not being used, cutting the shofar off is not forbidden by Torah law. Nevertheless, the Rambam uses the expression “needless to say,” because such an activity bears a closer resemblance to one forbidden by Torah law than those mentioned previously.

cutting off the horn with a craftsman’s knife

as stated in Halachah 1.

In Hilchot Sh›vitat Yom Tov 1:2, the Rambam writes:
Whoever rests from a melachah categorized as “work” on one of [these days]
fulfills a positive commandment, because the Torah describes them as “days
of rest”... if one performs a melachah that is not intended to prepare food,...
one negates the performance of a positive commandment and transgresses a
negative commandment, as [Leviticus 23:8] states: “You shall not perform any
servile work.”

Though the performance of a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment (Yevamot 3b), that applies only when the negative commandment is not reinforced by a positive commandment, as in the case at hand.

lt is forbidden to prepare a utensil for use on a festival. (See Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 4:8.) However, this activity is not placed in that category (Rabbenu Manoach).

i.e., even before Rosh HaShanah

The Rambam concludes Hilchot Shechitah (14:16):
... lest one view the mitzvot in a deprecating manner, because the deference is
not to be granted to the mitzvot in and of themselves, but to the One who
commanded us to fulfill them, blessed be He.

The protrusions are necessary lest one say that a person is producing the sounds by blowing into his hands without a shofar.

Niddah 26a defines this measure as “an expanded handbreadth.” The Beit Yosef notes that, in this context, a handbreadth is defined as four thumbbreadths. Thus, the difference between the width of a thumb and the other fingers accounts for the “expansion.” In modern measure, a handbreadth is considered between 8 (Shiurei Torah) and 9.6 (Chazon Ish) centimeters.

i.e., from its mouth to its end;

This is a quote from Rosh Hashanah 27b. The Rabbis have noted that, in contrast to a crack along the shofar’s width, in this context no minimum figure is mentioned with regard to the portion of the shofar remaining uncracked. Two contrasting interpretations are offered to explain the difference.
Some maintain that as long as the entire length (or the majority of the length) of the shofar is not cracked, the shofar is not disqualified. Others maintain that even the slightest crack along the length of the shofar disqualifies it, because the pressure of the blowiog will cause the crack to grow uotil, ultimately, the eotire shofar will be cracked (Rabbeou Asher; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 586:8).
Cooceroiog halachah l’ma’aseh, both the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (5H6:8) aod the Mishnah Berurah (586:43) write that wheo oo other shofar is available, ooe may rely oo the first opioioo. Nevertheless, eveo the latter opioioo does oot disqualify a shofar that is cracked leogthwise if it is tied firmly so that the crack will oot expaod, or if the shofar is heated aod the crack closed. Some opinioos also allow such a shofar to be used if the crack is plugged closed with other substances.

with the crack exteodiog aloog the majority of the shofar’s circumfereoce (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim ibid., 9),

Most authorities require a haodbreadth to remaio from the crack to the shofar’s mouth (Kessef Mishneh). However, the Ba’ al Ha’itur maiotaios that a shofar is acceptable eveo if the mioimum measure remaios ooly from the crack to the eod of the shofar.

This applies eveo if the souod of the shofar is chaoged because of the crack (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.).

Heoce, the crack does not disqualify it.

In his commentary oo the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 3:5), the Rambam writes that the hole must be plugged. This point is not accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (ibid., 7), which emphasizes that if the hole is not plugged, the shofar. is kosher even though its sound has changed. Nevertheless, the Ramah states that if another shofar is available, a shofar with a hole should not be used.

i.e., any substance other than a ram’s horn;

because the sound produced does not come from the shofar alone, but rather from the shofar and the other substance.

These three conditions are dependent on the Rambam’s interpretation of Rosh Hashanah 27b. Rabbenu Asher interprets the passage differently. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) favors the Rambam’s interpretation, but states that under difficult circumstances, when no other shofar is available, one may rely on Rabbenu Asher’s interpretation.

the bonelike tissue inside the horn

The presence of a foreign substance inside the shofar would cause it to be disqualified, as stated in the following halachah. However, since this tissue is considered to be part of the horn itself, the shofar is acceptable.
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid., 586:15) quotes this law, but also adds that if one removed this tissue from the horn and then hollowed it out, the tissue would be unacceptable for use as a shofar.

Tosafot,. Rosh Hashanah 27a explains that this construction is not called a shofar. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid., 10) states that this law applies even if the fragment of the shofar closest to one’s mouth is of sufficient size to be considered a kosher shofar itself.

whether from the mouthpiece or from the wider end (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 586:11).

using a fragment of a ram’s horn

On the surface, this law appears to be an extension of the principle mentioned in the last clause of the previous halachah. If so, one might question why the Rambam mentions them in two separate halachot.

or any other foreign substance

for the sound must come from the shofar itself. Though Rosh Hashanah 26b mentions that the mouth of the shofar used in the Temple was coated with gold, the place where the person blowing would put his mouth was not covered.

with gold or any other substance

for then, the sound we hear is a product of both the shofar and the coating, and not the shofar alone.
Based on this law, the Ramban advises against making designs in the shofar and coating them with paint or metal, for this may alter the shofar’s sound and prevent the teki’ ot from being acceptable.

All these laws are quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 586:16).

i.e., with the further end of the inner shofar protruding beyond that of the outer shofar

for the outer shofar had no effect on the sound we hear. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 586:20) emphasizes that one may fulfill one’s obligation under such circumstances only if the sound of the inner shofar remains totally unchanged. The teki’ot are unacceptable if its sound is altered.

i.e., its edge protrudes beyond that of the inner shofar

For then, one is hearing the sound of two shofarot. The Torah commanded us to hear one shofar and not two (Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 27b).

Rosh Hashanah 27b explains the derivation of this law as follows: The terminology which Leviticus 25:9 uses when commanding us to blow the shofar, תרבעהו, דפרש has an additional implication. That expression is also related to the word, רבע meaning «to pass.» The manner in which we use the shofar must parallel the manner in which the ram passes by with it on its head. Based on the same principle, our Sages (ibid.) explain that a shofar is unacceptable if it was heated to the point that the horn became soft, and then turned inside out.

It makes no difference whether the portion is cut away from the shofar’s mouthpiece or from its wider portion (Mishnah Berurah 586:63).

Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 27b explains that the necessity of mentioning this law arises from the last clause of the previous halachah. Since we find that the Torah requires us to use the shofar in the same manner as which it was carried by the ram, a special teaching is necessary to inform us that a shofar is acceptable even if it was shortened.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that such a shofar is acceptable even it was shortened because of a disqualifying factor which it possessed on the portion which was cut off.

widening the hollow of the shofar

scraping away its outer shell

even if the sound of the shofar changes (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 586:13; Mishnah Berurah 586:65).

since no change is made in its fundamental shape.

Rabbenu Manoach and the Kessef Mishneh translate רורצ as “dry,” explaining that blowing a shofar causes it to dry out and produce a raspy tone. Hence, it was customary to rinse it with water or wine, as mentioned in Halachah 4.

In his commentary on this clause, Rabbenu Manoach injects a spiritual concept emphasizing how the musical quality of the shofar’s tones are not significant, but rather the stirring and rousing nature of the shofar’s call which motivates the people to Teshuvah.

Rav Hai Gaon writes that these laws were not merely questions of abstract theory. Rather, they carried practical relevance in the Talmudic period, when the Jews frequently had to perform mitzvot clandestinely, to avoid being observed by the Roman authorities.

for they hear the shofar’s sound alone. Needless to say, both they and the person blowing the shofar must fulfill the conditions outlined in Chapter 2 regarding a person’s fulfillment of the mitzvah when hearing the shofar blown by a colleague.

all

is

However,

even if they hear the sound of the shofar together with it,

because another sound is mixed together with the desired sound.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam does not mention people standing within a barrel, because that is a very unlikely eventuality.

alone,

together with the shofar,

The Taz 587: l explains that this concept is also relevant for synagogues with poor acoustics. If the people hear echoes together with the shofar’s sound, they do not fulfill their obligation.
At present, there is a more common application of this principle. A person who hears the shofar through a microphone does not fulfill the mitzvah. In addition to the difficulties involved with the use of the microphone on a festival, there is a more essential problem. The listeners are not hearing the sound of the shofar, but rather a second sound, produced by a different mechanism. The microphone converts the sound waves of the shofar to electronic signals; these are then amplified and converted to a different set of sound waves. Hence, by hearing such a sound, we cannot fulfill the mitzvah obligating us to hear a shofar’s call.