Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

the mitzvot of eating matzah, maror, and charoset, and of relating the story of the Exodus.

and in the Diaspora, on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan

It is customary to begin the Seder as soon as possible after nightfall, in order that the children will be able to remain awake and participate in the Seder.

The literal meaning of the Rambam’s words is “mix,” because in the Talmudic era, the wines were very strong and were mixed with water before being served.

See Halachah 7:7.

which is recited whenever a person fulfills a mitzvah that is not performed frequently. Though this blessing is instituted for the fulfillment of the mitzvah of celebrating the holiday of Pesach, one should also have the intention of including the other mitzvot mentioned above.

while reclining, as in Halachah 7:8.

in preparation for eating the vegetable dipped in charoset, as mentioned in the following halachah. In Hilchot Berachot 6: 1, the Rambam writes that one must wash one’s hands before partaking of any food dipped in a liquid. However, the present custom is not to recite a blessing before this washing. (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 473:6, Taz). See also Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 158:4.

In the Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah, Pesachim 1:3, he writes that the table is brought before kiddush. This is also the custom in most homes today, where the Seder plate is brought to the table before kiddush.

all the objects to be used during the Seder:

to dip in the charoset as karpas,

The Paschal sacrifice should be eaten after one has been satisfied from eating other foods. Therefore, another sacrifice, a הגיגח (festive offering) was also brought to make up the main body of the festive meal. (See Hilchot Korban Pesach 10:12-14.)

when the Temple has not yet been rebuilt and we do not bring the Paschal sacrifice

The Chidah mentions that it is customary that the meat designated in commemoration of the Paschal sacrifice be roasted in the way that sacrifice was roasted. Rabbenu Manoach writes that it is customary to take the front leg or shank-bone of a lamb as a reference to God’s “outstretched arm.”
It is forbidden to designate an animal as a sacrifice at present. Hence, since many of the common people might think that the shank-bone was actually a Paschal sacrifice, many authorities suggested using a bone from a chicken, a species which was never offered as a sacrifice. Similarly, we are warned not to eat the shank-bone.

Our custom is to use an egg for that purpose.

the person leading the Seder

recited before partaking of a vegetable. lt is proper to have the intention to include also the maror, which is eaten later.

Rabbenu . Manoach writes that it is customary to use םפרכ (parsley).
This practice is instituted in order to pique the curiosity of the children. (See Halachah 7:3.) They see us beginning to eat without continuing to do so.

This custom is also mentioned in the Haggadot of Rav Saadia Gaon and Rav Amram Gaon. However, Rabbenu Tam and many Ashkenazic authorities object to it. Hence, it is our practice to dip the vegetable in salt water or vinegar. (See Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 473;)

This opinion is not accepted. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 473:6, states that less than a Kezayit should be eaten, in order that no question arise as to whether or not one is obligated to recite a blessing afterwards.

Despite the fact that a תיזכ is eaten, the Rambam does not require the recitation of the blessing, תושפב ,ארוב after eating the vegetable. This is surely true according to our custom, in which less than a תיזכ is eaten.

to arouse the children’s curiosity, as explained in Halachah 7:3.

This was customary when people sat on couches with small tables in front of them. At present, it is customary to remove the Seder plate.

This also is intended to pique the children’s curiosity, for though the wine is poured, it is not drunk until later.

Some versions of the Mishneh Torah omit the latter phrase, which implies that the questions are not asked by the children. Others interpret the passage as follows: the children ask without necessarily phrasing the questions precisely, and then the leader recites the standard text. Perhaps this is the source for the custom followed by many, where, after the child recites the four questions, the leader of the Seder, and, at times, each of the assembled, also recites the questions.

The first three of these four questions are recorded in the Mishnah. It must be noted that the commonly accepted text of the Haggadah follows a different order, quoting that mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 116a. The order mentioned by the Rambam is found in the Jerusalem Talmud and the codifications of Rabbenu Asher and Rav Yitzchak Alfasi ..
Perhaps, the reason for this order is that the first three questions follow the pattern the child sees at the Seder: first we dip (karpas,) then we eat matzah, and then we eat maror.
It must be noted that the expression “twice” represents somewhat of a question to the Rambam, who also requires the matzah and the sandwich to be dipped in charoset.

referring to the Paschal sacrifice, which was roasted. As mentioned in the f ollowing halachah, this question is not recited at present.

ln contrast to the question regarding matzah, we do not say only bitter herbs, for other vegetables are allowed (and even required: for use in the karpas) on Pesach.

This question is not mentioned in the Mishnah. Some commentaries maintain that it was not recited in that period for it was customary for many to eat reclining throughout the year. Thus, doing so on Pesach was not a unique phenomenon. Nevertheless, this question is found in as early a Haggadah as that of Rav Amram Gaon.
Others maintain that, by including it in this halachah, the Rambam expresses his opinion that it was mentioned while the Temple was standing. Thus, at that time, five questions were recited.

until the sacrifices can be brought

Paschal

leaving us with the four questions customarily asked.

See Halachah 7:4.

i.e., quoting other verses in explanation, using the text found in the Sifri.

Deuteronomy 26:5-8. This is the main body of the Haggadah, as explained in Halachah 7:4.

It is our custom that the Seder plate is returned immediately after it is taken away, and we recite the entire Haggadah while it is present

This and the following two passages refer to the three elements of the Passover service which Rabban Gamliel (Pesachim 116) considers essential to be mentioned at the Seder. The Rambam mentions this requirement in Halachah 7:5.

This statement would be made during the time the Temple was standing and the Paschal sacrifice was actually placed on the table. (See Halachah 8:1.) Nevertheless, in contrast to the maror and the matzah, the Paschal sacrifice was not raised. Perhaps this was because it would be difficult to raise the entire body of the animal.

As mentioned in Halachah 7:5, it is questionable why the Rambam changes the order of matzah and maror from that which is mentioned in the Haggadah itself.

The Zevach Pesach notes that although the Jews were commanded to eat matzot in Egypt bef ore the exodus. However, he explains that this commandment was given in preparation f or the miracle that would occur in the future.

At present, we definitely should not lift up the shank-bone, lest it appear that it was designated as the Passover sacrifice.

it is questionable why the Rambam substitutes this appellation for God for “the Omnipresent” mentioned in the first clause.

The following passage is also a quote (with some emendations) from the Mishnah, Pesachim 116b.

It must be noted that the phraseology used by the Rambam here differs from Pesachim, ibid., and also from the text of the Haggadah which he composed himself.

Psalms 113-118. The Hallel was recited while the Paschal sacrifice was being offered and while it was eaten during the Seder. Our Sages explain that the Jews recited these verses of praise as they left Egypt. The commentaries explain that since we interrupt the recitation of Hallel with the Seder meal, no blessing is recited beforehand.

Only this portion of the Hallel is recited before eating. Pesachim 118a explains that these verses of praise refer to the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt, the splitting of the Red Sea, and the giving of the Torah. In contrast, the latter chapters of Hallel allude to the miracles that will precede the Messianic redemption.

It is recited while holding a raised cup of wine.

It appears from the text of the Mishnah that while the Temple was standing, the blessing was concluded in this manner, without the final line: “Blessed are You, God, who redeemed Israel.”

a prayer for redemption from the present exile and the rebuilding of the Temple. The text is quoted by the Mishnah in the name of Rabbi Akiva.

Jerusalem

in the Temple.

the festive offering which is eaten before the Paschal sacrifice, as explained in Halachah 8:7.

Even though he has not diverted his attention from drinking wine after making kiddush, he recites a new blessing. As mentioned in Halachah 7:10, each of the four cups of wine is given a unique importance of its own.

while reclining on the left side.

Thus, according to the Rambam, this blessing is recited twice at the Seder.

as is necessary before partaking of bread. Even though the hands were washed before partaking of the vegetable, a second washing is required

and accidentally touched an unclean portion of his body (Rashi, Pesachim 115b ). In general, the Sages postulate תוינקסע ,םידיח “a person’s hands are constantly busy,” and imply that a person is not necessarily conscious of what he touches. Hence, the possibility exists that, in their activity, the hands touched a portion of the body or another substance which requires one to wash.

On Pesach, as on all Sabbaths and festivals, it is required that one have lechem mishneh, two loaves (Hilchot Shabbat 30:9).

for the reason to be explained.

for their matzot, like many Sephardic matzot today could be folded,

but does not eat from the matzah until after reciting the second blessing.

whole

See Hilchot Shabbat, ibid.

Our custom is to use three loaves. One is broken for this purpose early in the Seder (yachatz), and the other two are kept for lechem mishneh.

See Halachah 8:8 for the present custom.

This halachah refers to a seder as it was conducted while the Temple was standing. Hence, the matzah and the bitter herbs are eaten together, as implied by Exodus 12:8: “eat it (the Paschal sacrifice) together with matzot and bitter herbs.”
The above follows the opinion of the Sage, Hillel. Pesachim 115a mentions other opinions which did not require the matzah and maror to be wrapped together, but merely to be eaten at the same sitting. However, since the latter opinion also accepts Hillel’s practice, when partaking of the Paschal sacrifice, it is preferable to eat them wrapped together.

Pesachim 116a quotes an opinion which explains that dipping the maror in charoset was intended to kill any insects that might be present on it. However, as mentioned in Halachot 7:11 and 8:8, the Rambam considers the charoset a mitzvah in its own right; and, therefore, requires that it be included when the Paschal sacrifice or other foods associated with the mitzvot of the night are eaten.

as permitted by the Sages who differ with Hillel

the matzah

the maror

The mention of a separate blessing for maror is slightly problematic in view of Halachah 7:11 (and in particular, in the light of Rav Chayim Soloveitchik’s commentary mentioned there ). lfeating maror is not a mitzvah, why is a blessing recited for it?

because partaking of the Chaggigah offering is a mitzvah and requires a blessing.

lt must be noted that in his commentary on the Mishnah, Pesachim 10:9, the Rambam suggests a different text for this blessing: “who has ... commanded us to eat the sacrifice.”

The Chaggigah offering is eaten before the Paschal sacrifice, in order that the Paschal sacrifice be eaten when one is already satisfied.

See Hilchot Korban Pesach, Chapter 8, for the details of this offering.

In this instance as well, in his commentary on the Mishnah (ibid. ), the Rambam offers a different version for this blessing: “who has ... commanded us to eat the Paschal sacrifice.”

ln contrast to Rashi (Pesachim 116a) and, similarly, in contrast to our text of the Haggadah, the Rambam does not explicitly state that the Paschal sacrifice was eaten as a sandwich with the matzah and the bitter herbs.

The Rambam uses the expression, · “the body of the Paschal sacrifice” in contrast to the “meat of the Chaggigah” because, as stated in Halachah 8:1, the entire Paschal sacrifice is brought to the Seder table.

The commentaries question the need for this halachah, because the Chaggigah offering is eaten before the Paschal sacrifice. The Emek HaSh’eylah explains that if one forgot to recite a blessing over the Chaggigah, one might think that the blessing recited over the Paschal sacrifice would suffice for the previous mitzvah as well. Hence, this opinion must be negated.

This follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Nevertheless, Pesachim 121a quotes Rabbi Yishmael, who offers an alternate opinion.
Pesachim (ibid.) explains these Sages’ difference ofopinion as follows: The blood of the Paschal sacrifice is to be poured out against the base of the Temple altar. In contrast, the blood of the Chaggigah should be sprinkled on the two opposite corners of the altar.
Rabbi Yishmael maintains that דבעידב (after the fact), were a person to pour the blood of the Chaggigah offering on the base of the altar, he would be considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Hence, the blessing for the Pesach offering can apply to the Chaggigah as well.
In contrast, Rabbi Akiva maintains that even “after the fact,” the Chaggigah offering is not acceptable if its blood is not sprinkled on the altar as prescribed. Accordingly, the blessing for the Pesach offering has no connection to the Chaggigah at all.
The Lechem Mishneh questions the Rambam’s decision. In Hilchot P’sulei HaMukdashim 2:2, the Rambam writes: “Whenever [blood] is prescribed to be presented [ on the altar] by sprinkling, and it was presented by pouring, one has fulfilled his obligation,” accepting the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. If so, his acceptance of Rabbi Akiva’s opinion here appears to present a contradiction.
Rav Yechezkel Landau (Tz’lach, Pesachim ibid.) attempts to resolve the issue, explaining that the Rambam follows the interpretation of Rav Chayim HaCohen (Tosefot, Pesachim ibid.), who favored a different text of the Talmud and, accordingly, an alternate interpretation of the difference in opinion between the two Sages.
Rav Chayim maintains that Rabbi Yishmael considers the Chaggigah offering as secondary to the Paschal sacrifice. (See also Jerusalem Talmud, Pesachim 10:7.) Hence, reciting a blessing over the Paschal sacrifice, the essential element )רקיע( of the evening, also fulfills the requirement for the secondary element ,)לפט( the Chaggigah. lndeed, regarding the blessings recited over food, the Rambam writes (Hilchot Berachot 3:5) that whenever there are two foods, one essential and one secondary, it is only necessary to recite a blessing over the essential food. A blessing is not required for the secondary item.
This interpretation itself presents a question: Since the Chaggigah offering was instituted only for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice and is not an obligation in its own right, it can be considered as “secondary” to the Pesach sacrifice. If so, what is the rationale for Rabbi Akiva’s opinion?
It can be explained that Rabbi Akiva never considers one mitzvah as secondary to another. We may use the labels “primary” and “secondary” in regard to matters dependent on our will, but not in regard to mitzvot which we fulfill in obedience to God’s desires. Therefore, though the Chaggigah offering was instituted because of the Paschal sacrifice, once it has been instituted, it must be considered as a mitzvah in its own right, with its own importance. Hence, it requires a unique blessing of its own (R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitch Haggadah).

Yishmael agree with this decision.
This law can also be explained within the co11text of the discussion of “primary” and “secoridary” mentioned above. Since the Paschal sacrifice follows the Chagigah offering, for the Paschal sacrifice should be eaten when satisfied, one might presume that it is considered as “secondary” to the Chagigah. Hence, the Sages must negate this presumption.

Note the opinions mentioned on p. 34 of the Moznaim edition of Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, which question whether the Paschal sacrifice can be offered on the Temple Mount even before the Temple is rebuilt.

holding a complete matzah and the broken half, as explained in Halachah 6. According to our custom, this blessing is recited while holding three matzot: two complete ones, and the broken half.

According to our present custom, the lowest matzah is returned to the Seder plate at this point, so that the f ollowing blessing is recited when holding only one complete matzah and the broken half.

The Rambam’s statements have aroused much question, because generally, the charoset is associated only with the maror. Though the Ra’avad curtly dismisses these words as “emptiness,” the Tur and the Maggid Mishneh quote previous authorities, Rav Amram Gaon and Rav Yitzchak ibn Giat, who also require dipping the matzah in charoset.
The Tzafnat Paneach explains the difference between the Rambam and the Ra’avad as follows: As mentioned in Halachah 7:11, charoset is a mitzvah commemorating the mortar used by our ancestors. Hence, the Rambam maintains that it should be eaten together with both the matzah and the maror.
The Ra’avad maintains that matzah commemorates two different qualities: the “bread of poverty” eaten in Egypt and the matzot our ancestors carried out from Egypt after being redeemed. In contrast, maror and charoset are both symbols of slavery.
While the Temple was standing, ~he Ra’avad did not object to the matzah being dipped in charoset, because, as above, it also commemorates our ancestors’ slavery. However, after the Temple’s destruction and the negation of the mitzvah of maror, we may assuine that the other symbols of the enslavement are also negated. Hence, the only mitzvah is the commemoration of the redemption associated with the matzah. Accordingly, it should not be mixed with charoset, which recalls the slavery.

at least a ,תיזכ while leaning on the left side, as prescribed above.

All opinions agree that at present, the matzah is not to be eaten together with the maror. While the Temple was standing, they could be eaten together—since they were both mitzvot, partaking ofone mitzvah could not negate another. However, even at present, matzah is a Torah command, while maror, in the present age, is only of Rabbinic origin. Hence, eating the maror will negate the taste of the matzah (Pesachim 11 Sa ).

without reclining.

bitter

For this reason, it is customary in many communities to shake the charoset off the maror after dipping.

as was the custom of Hillel,

We follow this practice by eating the korech at the Seder.

The Seder meal should be festive, with the finest foods being served.

a second time

However, a תיזכ is required as in all requirements concerning eating. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 477:3) states that if possible, it is desirable to eat two portions of that size, one commemorating the Chagigah and one, the Paschal sacrifice.

It was customary to eat dessert (afikoman in Greek) after a meal. The Mishnah prohibits eating such dessert after eating from the Pesach sacrifice a second time (Pesachim 119b ).

Which we refer to as the afikoman.

with the exception of the remaining two cups oj wine and water, as mentioned in the following halachah. Rabbenu Asher also allow5 nonalcoholic beverages to be consumed. When there is a great necessity, his opinion may be relied upon (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 478:1).

See also Halachah 6:11.

If a person does eat after the afikoman, the Mishnah Berurah (478:1) requires him to eat another תיזכ of matzah as a second afikoman.

After eating a meal, we are required to wasb with water, mayim-achronim, before reciting grace (Hilchot Berachot 6: 1 ).

as is customary for grace, Hilchot Berachot 7:14.

affer reciting the blessing, borey pri hagefen, as mentioned in Halachah 7:10. The cup is drunk while reclining on the left side.

begun before the meal

as our Sages commented: “Song is recited only over wine.”

at the conclusion

The Mishnah, Pesachim 10:7, quotes a difference ofopinion on this matter. However, the Rambam chooses the blessing which is customarily recited after Hallel.
This represents a change from the Rambam’s statements in his commentary on the Mishnah, where he writes:
“the blessing of song”—this is “Nishmat kol chay” until its conclusion. “May all
Your works praise You, God ... “ until its conclusion is also called the blessing
of song. Ifone joins the two together, it is praiseworthy.
At present, we follow the custom of joining both blessings together.

reclining on the left side.

neither food or drink. Note commentary on the previous halachah

for the water will not wash away the taste of the matzah or the wine.

Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi quotes a version of Pesachim 118a, which states: “Rav Tarfon declares: ‘On the fifth cup, he recites the great Hallel.”’ (The accepted text of the Talmud states: “On the fourth cup ... “)

From this statement, Rabbenu Manoach derives that otherwise drinking additional cups of wine is forbidden.
i.e., — Psalm 136, beginning

Rabbenu Nissim writes that drinking a fifth cup fulfills the mitzvah in the most complete manner. However, the Ma’aseh Rokeach quotes the Rambam’s son, Rav Avraham, as relating that his father would always recite Psalm 136 after the Hallel prayers, and then conclude with the blessing without drinking a fifth cup. Accordingly, the Ma’aseh Rokeach concludes that although it is permissible to drink a fifth cup, it is not proper to do so.
Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XXVII, suggests a different interpretation of this halachah, noting that the Rambam does not mention that the fifth cup is drunk. · A fifth cup is mixed and placed on the table, and the “great Hallel” is recited over it. However, that cup should not be drunk. Thus, the fifth cup is not included as one of the four. Rather, it is a separate and independent obligation.
The Vilna Gaon (see Ta’amei HaMinhagim 551) associates the fנfth cup with the cup ofelijah. The Talmud concludes the discussion of many unresolved questions with the statement: .וקית Literally, the term is a shortened form of the word ,םוקית “let it remain”. However, it is also interpreted as an acrostic for the expression ץרתי יבשתתועיכאו תוישוק—“The Tishbite (Elijah) will answer all questions and difficulties.”
Since the requirement of the fifth cup remains an unresolved question, the fifth cup is left for Elijah in the hope that he will come soon and resolve this question as well.
The homiletic aspects of this comment notwithstanding, from a halachic perspective a differentiation must be made between the two. The fifth cup is of Talmudic origin and may be poured for each individual. In contrast, Elijah’s cup is an Ashkenazic custom of later origin, and a single cup is used for the whole family. Indeed, they are mentioned by halachists in different chapters of the Shulchan Aruch: the fifth cup by the Ramah in Chapter 481 and Elijah’s cup by the Chok Ya’akov in Chapter 480.

A number of different halachic questions would arise should a person decide to leave the home in which he is holding the Seder from the kiddush until the conclusion of the grace after meals. However, once grace is concluded, no such problems exist.
The Ra’avad does not accept this opinion and maintains that all four cups should be drunk in the same place. Hence, he does not allow a person to leave the home in which he begins the Seder until its conclusion. Nevertheless, the Ramah quotes the Rambam’s view as halachah in Orach Chayim 481:1.

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Orach Chayim 476:1, states that this is the accepted Ashkenazi custom.

The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 476:2 states that this prohibition refers even to the meat of calves or fowl, “any creature that requires slaughter.”

for the meat resembles the Paschal sacrifice which had to be roasted. As mentioned above, for this reason the Zeroa is not lifted up while the passage concerning the Paschal sacrifice is recited, and, in some communities, certain restrictions are made concerning its preparation.

whether the custom of eating other roasted meat is accepted or not

the animal used for the Paschal sacrifice

as was the Paschal sacrifice, see Halachah 8: 1.

The Paschal sacrifice must be slaughtered in the Temple and eaten within Jerusalem.

for the Pesach sacrifice was served all as one

it is forbidden to eat any portion of the Paschal sacrifice prepared in this fashion, see Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:4.

However, if he has only one cup, he should use it for kiddush (Magen Avraham 483:1).

the plural usage of this term could be employed to include the second seder, held outside Eretz Yisrael.

Rav Yitzchak Alfasi and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 483: 1 state that one must recite the al achilat matzah blessing before partaking of the matzah.
The Ramah (and the other Ashkenazic authorities) suggest that in such an eventuality, one should use mead or other highly regarded beverages הנידמ( )רמח for kiddush and the other three cups.

Thus, matzah is eaten a second time. However, a blessing is not recited for it. The hands need not be washed for Urchatz. The commentators question whether the hands are washed a second time before partaking of the matzah again.

See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 475:2.

Though this is not the place to eat maror, one must recite the blessing and eat the maror with the intention of fulfilling the mitzvah. There is no way one could eat a full portion of maror now and recite the blessing afterward.

after dipping them in vinegar or salt water, as mentioned in Halachah 8:2.

The Rambam defines the Haggadah as the text beginning with Hah lachmah anya and ending with the blessing, asher ge’alanu.

dipping them in charoset

second

to fulfill the mitzvah of maror. The Mishnah Berurah (475:28) mentions other opinions which suggest reversing the order and first dipping the maror in charoset, and the second time in salt water. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav states. that there is much controversy over this matter. Hence, one should try hard to find other vegetables to use for karpas and thus, avoid the issue.

the minimum measure necessary to fulfill the mitzvah. See Halachah 6: 1.

matzah that has been watched to ensure it has not become chametz and has been prepared for the purpose of being used to fulfill the mitzvah. See Halachot 5:8 and 6:5.

should begin his meal by reciting hamotzi over matzah that has not been watched. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 482: 1, states that after the meal is begun, the maror should be eaten.

Rabbenu Manoach emphasizes that one should not overeat in order that eating the shemurah matzah will not be חסנ ,הליכא undignified eating.

as the afikoman

in order that the taste of matzah, a food that is a mitzvah, will remain in his mouth, as stated in Halachah 8:9. This reason is important enough to take prominence over the importance of eating the matzah designated for the mitzvah at the beginning of the meal.

Holding a Seder alone.

This law is derived as follows: The Paschal sacrifice must be eaten together with a company of people ,)הרובח( organized before the sacrifice was slaughtered. It is forbidden to take the meat outside of this company. A person who eats the Paschal sacrifice alone is considered as the sole member of his company. Should he fall asleep in the midst of eating, it is considered as if he has changed from one company to another and he is forbidden to eat again.
Since the afikoman was instituted as a commemoration of the Paschal sacrifice, similar laws apply to it. Accordingly, Pesachim 120b records a discussion between Abaye and Rabbah conceming this law.
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 478:2 quotes the Rambam’s statements verbatim. The Ramah states that since the law is derived from the laws of the Paschal sacrifice, it applies only with regard to the consumption of the afikoman. However, if a person fell asleep in the midst of the meal beforehand, he may resume eating. This opinion is accepted by the later Ashkenazic authorities.

Since the other members of the company remained awake,

They need not recite new blessings over the food, as explained in the Shulchan Aruch, Chapter 178.

and hence the eating of the entire company has been interrupted.

for the reasons explained above.

i.e., though drowsy, they would be able to respond to questions, the eating of the company is not considered to have been interrupted, and

As mentioned in the introduction, the Rambam composed the Mishneh Torah with the intention of providing our people with clear directives concerning the performance of all the mitzvot. Hence, he also includes in this work the text of all necessary prayers and legal documents.

The main body of the Haggadah was composed early in our nation’s history. Some authorities attribute it to the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, who composed it together with the other prayers and blessings they authored. Large portions of the Haggadah are found verbatim in the Mishnah, Pesachim, Chapter Ten, and reference is made there to other sections that are not explicitly quoted.
However, as obvious from the discussion in that chapter, the precise text of the Haggadah was a matter of debate and question throughout the Talmudic period. A few centuries after the completion of the Talmud, Rav Amram · Gaon composed a text of the Haggadah that was accepted internationally, throughout all Jewish communities. Approximately sixty years later, his successor, Rav Saadia Gaon, composed a Haggadah with some changes and emendations. These two texts served as the basis for the Rambam’s Haggadah and for the subsequent texts published by other Sages. Only minor differences exist between the Haggadah we use today and that composed by Rav Amram Gaon.

as stated in Halachot 8:3-5, there are certain differences between the text we recite and that recited when the Paschal sacrifice may be offered.

After reciting kiddush, washing one’s hands, and partaking of the karpas, as mentioned in Halachah 8:1-2.
It must be noted that the Rambam prescribes that yachatz, the breaking of the aflkoman, be performed directly before eating the matzah and not before beginning the recitation of the Haggadah, as is our custom.

This statement, half in Hebrew and half in Aramaic, refers to Deuteronomy 16:3. This line is not included in the Haggadot of Rav Amram or Rav Saadia Gaon, nor is it found in most subsequent Haggadot.

This passage is not explicitly mentioned in the Talmud. However, Ta’anit 20b records that before the Seder, Rav Huna would open his door and announce: “Whoever is needy, let him come and eat.”
In contrast to the rest of the Haggadah, this passage is recited in Aramaic. Among the explanations for this practice are:
a) This enabled the passage to be understood by all participants, since Aramaic was the common language of the time’ (Tosefot Rid, Manhig). Accordingly, the Ramah ( Orach Chayim 473:6) relates that he would translate the passage into Yiddish at his Seder.
b) The angels do not understand Aramaic, and hence they will not accuse us of being unworthy of redemption (Ritbah).
c) The demons do not understand Aramaic, and thus they will not accept our invitation to the Seder (Rashi, HaPardes). This reason is questioned, because Pesach is a םירומיש ליל (a protected night), on which,the demons have no power to harm a Jew.

Our Haggadot (and that of Rav Amram Gaon) state אתשחב“now.” However, Rav Saadia Gaon’s Haggadah also uses the Hebrew iא,אתש “this year.” However, unlike the Rambam, he employs that expression for both clauses.

The practice of asking the four questions is explicitly mentioned in the Mishnah, Pesachim 116a.

Note the commentary on Halachah 8:2 regarding the order of the questions.

As explained in the commentary on Halachah 2, this question is not mentioned in the Talmud. Hence, some commentaries maintain that it was added in later generations. Nevertheless, the fact that the Rambam includes it together with the question concerning roasted meat appears to indicate that he maintains that this question had been asked during the time the Temple was standing.

Pesachim 115a mentions the beginning of this passage within the context of the discussion of the requirement to begin the description of the Exodus by telling of our people’s roots. See also the commentary on Halachah 7:4.

This expression is not included in the text of the Haggadah quoted by many authorities, including the Shibolei HaLeket and the Avudraham. Some manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah also omit it. Similarly, in Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvah 157, the Rambam makes statements similar to those of this passage without mentioning this expression.

There is no explicit mention of this passage in the Talmud, although a somewhat parallel story is related in the Tosefta, Pesachim, Chapter 10.

Berachot 12b quotes these statements without any reference to the gathering in Bnei Brak.

This phrase is not mentioned in our text of the Haggadah. Its inclusion answers a question frequently raised: Why does the Haggadah mention this concept, which deals with the mitzvah to recall the Exodus from Egypt each day, on the Seder night? The recollection of the Exodus at the Seder is of a different nature entirely.
However, this addition clarifies the issue: This was one of the subjects discussed by the Sages in Bnei Brak.

Deuteronomy 16:3.

The use of the word םרקמ as a name for God is based on Bereshit Rabbah 68:9: “He is the place of the world and the
world is not His place.”

Our text ofthe Haggadah employs a slightly different version, mentioning four expressions of blessing to parallel the four sons.

This passage is found with certain emendations in the Jerusalem Talmud and in the Mechiltah.

Both the aforementioned sources state “has commanded us,” preventing comparison between the wise and wicked sons. Nevertheless, the Rambam (as well as Rav Amram Gaon and Rav · Saadia Gaon) found it more appropriate to quote the verse from the Torah verbatim.

Our text ofthe Jerusalem Talmud includes this as the answer to the simple son. Other commentaries (See P’nei David, Simchat HaRegel) give this as the answer to the wicked son.

The literal meaning of the Greek word afikoman-see the Rambam’ s commentary on the Mishnah, Pesachim 10:8.

Pesachim.119b.

Exodus 12:26.

Exodus 12:27 states that the question asked by the wicked son should be answered differently: “It is the Passover service to God ... “ The Zevach Pesach explains that the Haggadah implies, in addition to the reply given in the Torah, that he be reprimanded strongly, “blunt his teeth ... “

Exodus 13:8.

the Jerusalem Talmud uses the expression: “the foolish son.”

Exodus 13:14.

Exodus 13:8.

This verse, both the answer to the son who does not know how to ask and the source for the mitzvah to relate the story of the Exodus, serves as a transition between the passage of the four sons and the narrative of our redemption. (See also Halachah 7:1.)

Mechiltah.

The word הז (this) is always used to refer to a clearly visible entity, as Menachot 29a comments on Exodus 12:2. Similarly, in this context, “this” refers to a situation where symbols of the Exodus, the matzah and the maror, are visibly present before us.

Pesachim 115a quotes this passage as reflecting the principle that the narrative of the Exodus must begin by relatingi our people’s roots. (See Halachah 7:4.) lt must be noted that the Rambam chooses slightly different phraseology from that employed in other Haggadot.

Joshua 24:2-4.

This passage is found in the Haggadot of Rav Amram Gaon and Rav Saadia Gaon. However, its origins are unknown.

i.e. counting the 400 years ofoppression from the birth of Isaac, for during that entire time, the Jews were “strangers in a land that is not their own.” The Egyptian exile itself lasted only 210 years. See Rashi, Exodus 12:40.

Genesis 15:13-14.

Deuteronomy 26:5.

This and the verses that follow are part of the םירוכיב יודיו recited when the Jews would bring their first fruits to Jerusalem. Pesachim 116a requires the person reciting the Haggadah to “expound from ‘An Aramean sought to destroy my father’ until he completes the entire passage.” This implies that the exegesis of the verses found in the Haggadah was already extant at that time.
The commentaries quote the Sifri as the source for these interpretations though our text of the Sifri contains only portions of this passage. [The passage is found in the Mechiltah d’Rashbi in its entirety. However, some authorities maintain that it was a later addition.] Nevertheless, other early collections of Midrashim, such as Lekach Tov, Midrash HaGadol, and the Yalkut Shimoni, include the complete text.

Sifri, Mechiltah d’Rashbi.

Genesis 47:4.

Deuteronomy 10:22.

Exodus 1:7.

Ezekiel 16:7.

Though the verse has no explicit connection to the Exodus, the commentaries explain that it describes the situation of the Jews in Egypt in metaphoric terms.
Many texts of the Haggadah also include the previous verse from Ezekiel: “And when I passed by you,. 1 saw you weltering in your blood ... “ Rav Ya’akov Emden relates that he and his father, the Chacham Tzvi, would recite this verse even though he did not find it in other texts. (His statement is slightly questionable. There are some earlier texts of the Haggadah, such as Siddur HaAri zal, which do include it.)

Deuteronomy 26:6.

Exodus 1:10.

Exodus 1:11.

Exodus 1:13.

Deuteronomy 26:7.

Exodus 2:23.

Exodus 2:24.

Exodus 2:25.

Exodus 1:22.

Exodus 3:9.

Deu!eronomy 26:8.

Exodus 12: 12.

Our text of the Haggadah contains a further elaboration of this verse, showing how each use of the word “1” is intended to exclude God’s use of an intermediary to execute judgement.

Exodus 9:3.

1 Chronicles 21:16.

Deuteronomy 4:34.

Exodus 4:17.

Joel 3:3.

This concludes the exegesis of the verses of the םירוכיב יודיו in the Sifri.
Our Haggadot (and similarly, those of Rav Amram Gaon and Rav Saadia Gaon) continue with a number ofother passages:
a) Statements by Rabbi Yossi HaG’lili, Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Akiva concerning the number of plagues with which the Egyptians were punished;
b) Passages recounting the extent of God’s generosity to the Jewish people.
The first group of statements have their source in the Mechiltah. Rav Avraham, the Rambam ‘s son, relates that his father did not include them in his text of the Haggadah because they were not popularly known. Nevertheless, it was his custom to recite them at the Seder.
The source for the second grouping of passages is less clear. They are not explicitly found in any Midrash.

This passage and the remaining passages until the blessing, asher ge’ alanu, are explicitly mentioned in the Mishnah, Pesachim 116a,b. (See also Halachot 7:5, 8:4 and the commentary, ,vhich mentions the change in the order there.)

to relate the story of the Exodus. See Halachah 7:5.

Exodus 12:27.

Exodus 12:39.

Exodus 1:14.

This passage is found in Pesachim 116b. However, in contrast to the Talmud and our text of the Haggadah, the Rambam’s text omits quoting Exodus 13:8: “And you shall tel1 your son ... “ Apparently, the Rambam had a different text of the Mishnah, which omitted this verse. This difference in texts is also the source for the Rambam’s statements, Halachah 7:6: “ln every generation, a person is obligated to present himself ... “ See the commentary on that halachah.

Deuteronomy 6:23.

Ravvah, Pesachim, ibid., requires reciting this verse.

Pesachim 116b.

With slight textual differences, this entire passage is found in Pesachim 116b. (See also Halachah 8:5).

Psalm 113.

the flintstone into a stream of water — The Hallel was recited both while slaughtering the Paschal sacrifice and while eating it. To commemorate the latter recitation, we recite the Hallel at the Seder.
We divide the Hallel into two portions (see Pesachim, ibid. and Halachah 8:5):
the first, containing Psalms referring to the Exodus from Egypt, we recite before the meal;
the second, containing Psalms referring to the Messianic redemption (see Pesachim 118a), is recited after the meal.

Psalm 114.

Pesachim 116b.

This blessing is quoted from Pesachim 116b. The first portion was also recited while the Temple was standing.

This portion of the blessing, composed by Rabbi Akiva, represents a prayer for our redemption and the rebuilding of the Temple. (See Pesachim, ibid., Halachah 8:5.)

The word “other” can also imply “of a different nature” —i.e., we pray for the Messianic redemption, when our festivals will be of an entirely different nature.

the Chaggigah offering

The Chaggigah offering was not sacrificed when Pesach began on Saturday night. Accordingly, it is our custom to reverse the order of these sacrifices on such an occasion. However, the Rambam does not mention such a practice.

The Mechiltah (see also Tosefot, Pesachim, ibid.) notes that the Bible mentions nine songs sang by the Jewish people as a collective entity. In each case, the Hebrew for song, ,חריש is used in the feminine gender, for our redemption was not complete. ln contrast, the song to be sung to greet Mashiach will be a שדח ,ריש a new song. The masculine gender is used because the Messianic redemption will represent the complete and ultimate liberation ofour people. May it come speedily in our days.

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.

Though the Rambam’s statements are based on Rosh Hashanah 29a, he makes a slight emendation, adding the expression “to hear,” in order to emphasize that the mitzvah is hearing, not blowing, the shofar.

Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 12:17 states:
All the gentiles—when they convert and accept all the mitzvot of the Torah
- ... are considered as Jews in every regard.

Freed slaves are the same as converts.

Women are freed from the obligation to perform mitzvot that are linked to a specific time. Nevertheless, based on Rosh Hashanah 33a, the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 589:6, states that we are allowed to blow the shofar for them, and the Ramah (based on Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah, loc. cit.) maintains that women may recite a blessing.

i.e., gentile slaves םידבע(, )םיינענכ who are required to fulfill only the mitzvot for which women are obligated. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 12:11, 14:9.) A Jew sold as a slave דבע( )ירבע is required to fulfill all the mitzvot.

Until a. pers_on reaches majority, he is not obligated to perform any of the mitzvot. Nevertheless, when a child reaches an age when he can appreciate the mitzvah, his father is ob1igated to train him to hear shofar as part of his education. (See Hilchot Nachalot 11:9.)

In Hilchot Avadim 7:4, the Rambam explains that a slave can reach this status if, for example, his master freed half the slave and sold or gave the other half to a colleague.

An expression meaning “closed one” in Hebrew. It refers to a person whose genitalia are covered by a layer of skin. Hence, this person’s gender cannot be determined without this skin’s removal. Thus, there is a doubt whether this person is male or female. However, should this layer of skin be removed and the person’s gender be discovered, there is no difference between him and an ordinary person of the same gender. (See Hilchot Ishut 2:25.)

A term borrowed from the Greek, in which andro means “man,” and gynous “woman.” It refers to person who has both male and female sexual organs. The Sages were unsure whether to consider such a person a male or a female. (See Hilchot Ishut 2:24 and also the notes to the following halachah.)

In the latter two cases, the obligation results from the doubt which exists whether these individuals are male (and hence obligated to hear shofar) or not.

i.e., those mentioned in the previous halachah, a חופוש (a mentally unstable individual) and a שדח (a deaf person). ln contrast, a blind person is obligated to hear the shofar.

by blowing the shofar

However, a male who has already fulfilled his obligation to hear the shofar can blow the shofar for a colleague (Rabbenu Manoach).

Nevertheless, they are allowed to blow the shafar for themselves. (See Halachah 7 and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 589:6.)

i.e., another androgynous

a normal adult male or a tumtum. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s statement, noting that there is a difference of opinion among the Sages (Yevamot 83a) whether an androgynous is considered as half male and half female, or as a unique entity in his own right. The latter opinion is compatible with the Rambam’s decision. However, according to the former opinion, it appears that an androgynous would resemble a person who is half slave and half free. As the following halachah states, such a person cannot blow the shofar even for himself, let alone for others.
The Maggid Mishneh defends the Rambam’s decision, explaining that the Rambam does not consider the difference of opinion in Yevamot as unresolved. Rather, he, as does Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (the Rif), maintains that the halachah follows the latter opinion.
Furthermore, the Maggid Mishneh explains that even according to the former opinion, it is possible to differentiate between an androgynous and one who is half slave and half free, the former condition being brought about by God; the latter, by man.

in his case, the doubt is not about the general category, but an individual question about the particular tumtum’s nature

and the teki’ot he blows are acceptable.

and hence, unable to blow the shofar for a male.

by blowing the shofar

let alone for others,

Every activity performed by such an individual is considered as a combined effort carried out by both aspects of his being. The aspect of his being which is a free man is obligated to hear shofar blown by one who is obligated to perform the mitzvah. Hence, the teki’ot he blows himself include the influence of his slave side, and are not sufficient to facilitate his performance of the mitzvah (Rosh Hashanah 29a).

One might ask: Since his hearing the shofar also involves his slave side, how is that hearing sufficient to allow him to fulfill his obligation?
The Tzaphnat Paneach explains that there is a difference between hearing the shofar and blowing it. Hearing the shofar is a complete act in and of itself. Hence, since the free side of the person has heard the shofar, he is considered to have performed the mitzvah. In contrast, the blowing of the shofar is merely the preparation for the fulfillment of the mitzvah. Hence, the free side of the person cannot fulfill his obligation by hearing tekiot which were produced by a person whose entire being was not obligated to perform the mitzvah.
Based on this explanation, we can understand how such a person fulfills the mitzvah of lulav, for there as well, the act of taking the lulav constitutes rather than prepares for, the fulfilment of the mitzvah.

without the intention of fulfilling the mitzvah of hearing the shofar

even though he desires to fulfill the mitzvah

without the intention of facilitating his colleague’s performance of the mitzvah

for he has heard an unacceptable shofar blast (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 589:5).
These laws relate to a question of a much larger scope: Must a person who performs a mitzvah have the intention of doing so or not? Rosh Hashanah 32b, which is the source for these decisions, maintains that such intention is necessary. However, other Talmudic sources imply that there is no need for such intention. Whenever a person performs the deed of a mitzvah, he fulfills his obligation, regardless of his intention.
On the surface, the Rambam’s own decisions regarding this question appear paradoxical. Hilchot Chametz U’matzah 6:3 states:
A person who eats matzah without the intention [of fulfilling the mitzvah]—e.g.,
if gentiles or thieves force him to eat—fulfills his obligation.
There, it appears that the Rambam does not require a person to have the intention to fulfill a mitzvah, for in this instance the only reason the person ate the matzah was the coercion of the gentiles.
The commentaries attempt to resolve the issue. The Maggid Mishneh states that to fulfill his obligation, the person being forced to eat the matzah must know that today is Pesach, that he is obligated to eat matzah, and that it is matzah which he is eating. Rabbenu Nissim, the Kessef Mishneh, and Rabbenu Manoach follow a different line of reasoning. They differentiate between eating matzah and hearing a shofar. In the former case, a person’s body benefits from the activity regardless of his intention. To support this thesis, they draw a parallel to the following passage.
Generally, the Torah frees a person from liability if he commits a transgression while being only קסעתמ (performing a deed without any thought). However, a person who eats forbidden foods or engages in forbidden sexual relations in this manner is liable, because he derived pleasure from his activities (Keritot 19b).
Similarly, since the person derived physical satisfaction from eating the matzah, even though he was forced to do so, the action is attributed to him. In contrast, since his body did not benefit from hearing the shofar, he does not fulfill his obligation until he hears the shofar blown in the proper manner.
As regards halachah l’ma’aseh, in Orach Chayim 589:8, the Shulchan Aruch quotes the Rambam’s decision concerning blowing the shofar, stating that a קסעתמ does not fulfill the mitzvah. Similar decisions are rendered concerning Kri’ at Shema ( Orach Chayim 60) and lulav and etrog (Orach Chayim 651).
Concerning matzah, the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 475:4 quotes the Maggid Mishneh’s opinion, and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav adds the explanation mentioned in the name of the Kessef Mishneh. (Even so, the Pri Chadash and other commentaries do not accept this decision.)

Rosh Hashanah 28b quotes Rabbi Zeira as instructing Shamaya: “Have me in mind and blow for me.”

The Magen Avraham (189:4) states that if a person comes to the synagogue on Rosh Hashanah with the intention to fulfill his obligation to hear the shofar, that intention is sufficient. Even if he has no specific intention while the shofar is being blown, he fulfills his obligation.

i.e., the person blowing the shofar

The blower need not have each individual in mind. However, as the previous halachah states, he must have the intention that his blowing enable people to fulfill their obligation to hear shofar. If he blows without that intention, their listening is of no consequence.

However, as stated in the previous halachah, if the listener lacks that intention, he does not fulfill his obligation.

Rosh Hashanah 29a derives this principle by contrasting the law mentioned in the previous halachah with the law mentioned in this halachah›s latter clause.

The Magen Avraham (589:5) explains that a person who continues traveling must be sure that he has the intention of fulfilling his obligation. However, if he stops to hear the shofar, that itself is sufficient proof that he desires to fulfill the mitzvah.

In his commentary on the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 3:5), the Rambam writes: “the [function of] leader of the congregation was instituted in that capacity only in order to enable the many to fulfill their obligation.”

According to the fixed calendar we use, Rosh Hashanah never falls on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday (Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 7:1). Thus, the second day of Rosh Hashanah will never fall on the Sabbath. However, it is not at all infrequent for the first day of Rosh Hashanah to fall on the Sabbath.

However, it is sounded in certain places, as explained in Halachot 8 and 9. There is an allusion to this in the Torah itself. Though Numbers 10:10 describes Rosh Hashanah as a day of “the sounding of the shofar,” Leviticus 23:24 refers to it as a day of “the remembrance of the sounding [of the shofar”—i.e., this refers to Rosh Hashanah which falls on the Sabbath, when the shofar is not actually sounded (Rashi, Rosh Hashanah 32a).

See the commentary on Chapter 1, Halachah 4 for a definitio.n of the term sh’vut. Rosh Hashanah 29b equates the blowing of the shofar with removing bread from the oven. lt appears from Shabbat 117b that the removal of bread from the oven was forbidden only because it is “a weekday act,” not in the spirit of the Sabbath. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 588:4.)

A question can be raised, based on the Rambam’s statements in Chapter 1, Halachah 4:
Regarding a shofar to be used on Rosh Hashanah: lt is forbidden to violate the festival’s laws to obtain it. This applies even when the forbidden practice is in the category of sh’vut.
The Lechem Mishneh offers a number of resolutions to this difficulty. Among them:
a) Had the proper attention been paid to the matter before Rosh Hashanah, the sh’vut mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4 with regard to obtaining the shofar would not exist. In contrast, the sh’vut involved in blowing the shofar cannot be avoided.
b) The sh’vut mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4 must be violated before the mitzvah is performed. Hence, there is no way the prohibition can be relaxed in the mere expectation that a mitzvah will be performed. In contrast, in this instance, the performance of the mitzvah and the sh’vut occur concurrently.
However, the order of the halachot here suggests a different explanation. As the Rambam states in the following halachah, certain leniencies are taken regarding the sh’vut of sounding the shofar on Rosh Hashanah (since, as mentioned above, it is forbidden only because it is a “weekday act”). In contrast, the activities mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4 are of a more severe nature, and hence no leniency may be taken in their regard.

The Rambam alters the expression used by Rosh Hashanah 29b, which states: “perhaps he will take it to a skilled person so that the latter will teach him.” Perhaps, the emendation was made because it is more likely that a person would desire that his colleague blow for him than begin to teach him on Rosh Hashanah itself.

Hilchot Shabbat 12:8 equates the two and explains the nature of this melachah. It must be noted that the phrase “transfer it from one domain ... “ is the Rambam’s addition and does not appear in Rosh, Hashanah, ibid. (lndeed, Tosafot, Megillah 4b explains that there is no suspicion that the latter prohibition will be violated.)

As is the commission of all Shabbat melachot (Hilchot Shabbat 1:1-2.).

A similar expression is also found in Hilchot Megillah 1:13, explaining- why the Megillah is never read on the Sabbath. lt must be noted that while the Temple was standing, a similar decree was not enacted on the first day of Sukkot which fell on the Sabbath, even though it is possible that a person would carry his lulav in a forbidden manner. Note our commentary on Chapter 7, Halachot 13 and 14, which explains the difference between the two festivals.
The fact that a Rabbinic decree can cause a mitzvah to be nullified—particularly as significant a mitzvah as the blowing of the shofar—has been the subject of much discussion by the Rabbis. In his commentary on the tractate of Sukkah, Rabbenu Nissim states that this decree was instituted only because in most Jewish communities, the people were not aware of the date the Rabbis had established for Rosh Hashanah. Hence, since the people could not be sure that they were in fact performing a mitzvah, the Rabbinic decree had the power to negate its performance. Even in the places where they were conscious of the proper date, they would not blow the shofar in such a year, so that great divisions in Torah practice would not be created among the Jewish people.
In Likkutei Torah, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi explains the matter from a mystical perspective. He writes that the Sabbath itself generates spiritual influences which resemble those produced by the blowing of the shofar. Thus, there is no necessity to blow the shofar, and the Sages were therefore willing to allow such a decree to negate its observance.

Rabbenu Mano’ach explains that this refers to children of six or seven.

even though blowing the shofar on the Sabbath is prohibited for an adult

This halachah is not directly related to the laws of Rosh Hashanah, but rather to the laws of the Sabbath. If a child has not reached the age where he can be educated concerning the mitzvot, his parents are not required to prevent him from violating any of the mitzvot (Yevamot 114a).
The law stated here represents a reversal of the Rambam’s understanding of Rosh Hashanah 33a from that in his commentary on the Mishnah. lndeed, his change in interpretation caused the Ra’avad to object to this halachah. It is interesting to note that the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 4:9) and the primary interpretation mentioned in the Halachot of Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (the Rif)—sources which the Rambam relies upon heavily—follow the Rambam’s initial approach.

He may tel1 them to blow the shofar and teach them how to blow (Maggid Mishneh).

even though the blowing of the shofar is prohibited on the Sabbath.

Since the prohibition against blowing the shofar is not severe, a number of leniencies are taken in this regard. The shofar is sounded for women (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 589:6), and similarly, additional blasts are sounded to “upset Satan” (Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 596:1). However, it is forbidden for an adult to sound the shofar on Rosh Hashanah unnecessarily. Nevertheless, even a child who has reached the age when he is educated concerning the mitzvot need not follow this stringency (Ramah, ibid.).

The Sages forbade sounding the shofar on the Sabbath lest someone carry it in a forbidden manner, as explained in the previous halachah. However, that decree was not applied to places where the Sanhedrin, Israel’s supreme court, held its sessions. The influence of the court would be felt throughout the entire city and its surroundings. Hence, the people would be more scrupulous in their observance of the mitzvot. (See the Rambam ‘s commentary on the Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 4:1 and the following halachah.)

After the Temple was constructed, the Sanhedrin held its sessions in the Chamber of Hewn Stonc:; in the Temple. Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, the Sanhedrin was forced to move from that place to other locations in Jerusalem. (See Hilchot Sanhedrin 14:12-13.)

i.e., not only was the shofar sounded at the seat of the Sanhedrin and on the Temple mount, but throughout the city; even private individuals were allowed to blow the shofar (Rosh Hashanah 30a).

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s statements. He disagrees with the Rambam on two points:
a) while the Temple was standing, the Rambam maintains that the shofar was sounded throughout Jerusalem, while the Ra’avad maintains that it was sounded in the Temple alone.
b) after the Temple’s destruction, the Rambam maintains that the shofar was not sounded in Jerusalem, while the Ra’avad argues that it was.
The difference between the two depends on the Rambam’s interpretation of the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 4:1):When the festival of Rosh Hashanah fell on the Sabbath, they would sound the shofar in the Mikdash, but not in the country at large.
In his commentary on that Mishnah, the Rambam writes: “We have already explained to you several times (see Ma’aser Sheni 2:4, Shekalim 1:3, Sukkah 3:10) that the term mikdash refers to the entire city of Jerusalem.” Thus, he maintains that if. Rosh. Hashanah fell on the Sabbath while the Temple was standing, the shofar would be sounded throughout the city. After the destruction of the Temple, this practice was discontinued.

The influence of the Sanhedrin could be felt even on the outskirts of the city.

This refers to the 2000 cubits—תְּחוּם שַׁבָּת—from the outermost house from each point on the city’s circumference.

There were a number of smaller villages surrounding Jerusalem which met all the requirements specified below.

below the mountains, who could not see Jerusalem.

Since they were situated on the mountaintops, they could see the city even from afar. However, the sound would not carry that far.

which they would be unable to cross

The exclusions mentioned by the Rambam are quoted from Rosh Hashanah, ibid., based on the text of the Mishnah. The Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 4:1) interprets the Mishnah slightly differently.

even where the courts held session

Semichah is the term used to refer to the permission granted to a judge to act in that capacity. Only a judge who himself possesses semichah can convey this distinction to a colleague. Moses gave semichah to Joshua and the seventy elders and they began a chain that stretched over many generations, ending several hundred years after the destruction of the Temple. (See Hilchot Sanhedrin 4:1-2.)

semichah could be conveyed only in Eretz Yisrael (ibid.:6).

i.e., if, on Rosh Hashanah, the court held special sessions in a city where it was not normally located, the shofar would not be sounded. (See the Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 4:1.)

The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 29b) states:
When the Temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai ordained that
the shofar be sounded in every place where a court holds sessions.
The Talmud elaborates:
[After the destruction of the Temple,] Rosh Hashanah once fell on the Sabbath,
and all the cities gathered together [in Yavneh]. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai
asked the family of Beteira: “Shall we blow?”
“Let us consider the matter,” they replied to him.
“Let us blow, and then consider the matter after having blown,” he answered
them.
“Let us consider the matter,” they replied again.
He told them, “The sounding of a horn has already been heard in Yavneh. Once
a deed has been performed, no further discussion is entertained.”

Originally, the months were sanctified by the courts after hearing the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon. (See Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, Chapters 1 and 2.)

The Rambam’s statements represent a middle road in a difference of opinion between the Rabbinical giants upon whom our understanding of the Talmud is based. Rashi (Rosh Hashanah 29a) states that the shofar was sounded on the Sabbath only in the presence of the Supreme Sanhedrin. Thus, this law applied only in Yavneh and in the few other cities where the Sanhedrin subsequently held its session.
Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (the Rif) quotes this law in his Halachot even though he quotes only those laws which are applicable in his age. From this it appears that he maintains that the shofar may be sounded in the presence of any court of stature on the Sabbath, even if its judges do not possess semichah. lndeed, the Ramban and Rabbenu Nissim write that Rav Yitzchak Alfasi would have the shofar sounded in his own court when Rosh Hashanah fell on the Sabbath. Similarly, the text Haezer records that the author saw a Sage from Damascus who stated that he saw the shofar blown on Rosh Hashanah which fell on a Sabbath.
(The Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid., does not mention the need for the judges to possess semichah. Thus, it is possible that he also originally subscribed to this view.)
In the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam’s position lies in between these views. On one hand, unlike Rav Yitzchak Alfasi, he requires that the judges possess semichah and be of sufficient stature to have sanctified the new moon (thus, excluding any contemporary courts). Nevertheless, unlike Rashi, he allows the shofar to be sounded in the presence of any court that has those qualifications, and not the Supreme Sanhedrin alone.

Our translation of לודג ןיד תיב is based on the Kessef Mishneh, who explains that in this context the term refers to an established court of judges with semichah, and not the Supreme Sanhedrin, as is sometimes the case. Indeed, authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah from Yemen omit the word לודג from the above expression.

but only while they are in session. If they have risen, the shofar can no longer be sounded. However ...

the judges

Though the Sages (Rosh Hashanah 30a) raised a question on this matter and left it unanswered, the Rambam allows the shofar to be sounded under such circumstances. Since the question concerns a Rabbinic decree, the more lenient approach is taken (Maggid Mishneh).

In this aspect, there was a difference between the sounding of the shofar on the Sabbath between Jerusalem and Yavneh. In Jerusalem, the influence of the Temple and the court was felt so strongly that even outside the presence of the court, the shofar could be sounded. In contrast, in Yavneh and other cities where courts were located, the shofar was sounded only in the presence of a court (Rosh Hashanah, ibid.).

The S’dei Chemed derives a general principle from this law. Hilchot Shabbat 21:27 states that all Sabbath and festival prohibitions that were categorized as sh’vut were suspended in the Temple, because the priests were scrupulous in their observance of the mitzvot and there was no danger that any infringement of Torah law would occur. Similarly, the above text continues, all decrees of this nature may be suspended in the presence of a high court, because the court will ensure that the Torah’s laws will be kept.
This logic runs contrary to a statement of Rabbenu Nissim, who writes that although Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted the blowing of the shofar on the Sabbath in the presence of a court, he was not that lenient regarding the taking of the lulav and etrog. Thus, we see that the leniency mentioned here applies to the shofar alone and not to other cases.

There is a slight imprecision with the Rambam’s statements. Rosh Hashanah was celebrated for two days throughout almost the totality of Eretz Yisrael even while the Temple was standing. It was impossible to notify the people in most of the land (for the messengers were not allowed to travel more than two thousand cubits beyond Jerusalem) whether or not the court had substantiated the testimony of the witnesses on the day when Rosh Hashanah was expected to fall. (See Beitzah 4b-5a; Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 5:7-8.)

This refers to the actual sounding of the shofar. According to Sephardic custom, there is a difference concerning the recitation of the blessing shehecheyanu (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 499:3).

According to the fixed calendar which we employ at present, it is impossible for the second day of Rosh Hashanah to fall on the Sabbath.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that there is some difficult correlating this statement with that of the previous halachah, which implies that, at present, no courts are of sufficient stature to blow the shofar on the Sabbath. Among the possible resolutions to this difficulty are:
a) as the Rambam writes in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 5:3, until the age of.Abbaye and Ravvah, there were courts of judges who sanctified the new month based on the testimony of witnesses. Thus, the Rambam could be referring to such a court.
b) ln Hilchot Sanhedrin 4:11, the Rambam discusses the possibility of the renewal of the practice of semichah. He could be referring to such an eventuality in the present instance.

This is our practice at present.