This coming Shabbos, the first day of Rosh Hashanah 5787, the sound of the shofar will be absent from virtually every shul around the world. The shofar will be sounded only on Sunday, the second day of Rosh Hashanah. But in the Old City of Yerushalayim, one unusual minyan led by Rav Yisrael Ariel plans to blow the shofar on Shabbos itself.
Asked during a Kikar HaShabbat studio discussion whether he intends to do so again this year, Rav Ariel replied simply: “This year? With God’s help, why not?”
The unusual practice has reopened a centuries-old halachic debate and revived a fierce controversy that divided Yerushalayim approximately 145 years ago: Is it permissible — or perhaps even obligatory — under certain circumstances to blow the shofar when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos?
The issue carries an additional emotional dimension because of a longstanding observation regarding difficult events that occurred in years when the first day of Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbos. Kikar HaShabbat host Yossi Abdu pointed to tragedies ranging from the destruction of the two Batei Mikdash and the anti-Jewish massacres in Spain in 1391 to the 1929 Chevron massacre, the Meron disaster and the October 7 massacre in 5784.
For some, the absence of the shofar on the Yom Hadin therefore carries an ominous historical association in addition to its halachic significance.
Against that backdrop, Abdu convened three rabbonim representing sharply different approaches to the issue. Rav Yisrael Ariel, head of the Temple Institute and Yeshivat HaMikdash and author of the extensive work “Shofar and Lulav on Shabbos,” presented the case for reviving the practice. Rav Avraham Maimon, author of “Derech Ha’atarim,” defended the prevailing halachic tradition against such a change. Rav Yosef Chaim Ohev Tzion, author of “Atah Basi” and “Yoma D’Atzarta,” addressed the question from the perspective of Kabbalah and what spiritually takes the place of the shofar when it cannot be sounded.
Rav Ariel summarized his position unequivocally: “There is a Torah commandment to blow on Shabbos on Rosh Hashanah… We are actually renewing a halacha that is nearly two thousand years old.”
Rav Maimon responded with the fundamental objection: “Who gives us the authority to decide between the Rishonim?”
Rav Ohev Tzion offered a different approach entirely: “The spiritual rectification accomplished through these mitzvos on this day… occurs on its own through the sanctity of Shabbos.”
The generally accepted halacha throughout the Jewish world, as codified in Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 588:5), is that the shofar is not sounded when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos. Rav Ariel represents a minority view that understands Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai’s enactment as permitting the shofar to be sounded before a qualifying bais din even today.
Why is the shofar ordinarily not blown on Shabbos? Sounding a shofar is not, on a Torah level, one of the prohibited forms of work. The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah 29b teaches: “When the festival of Rosh Hashanah occurred on Shabbos, in the Mikdash they would blow, but not in the rest of the country.”
The concern is that although everyone is obligated to hear shofar, not everyone knows how to blow one properly. Chazal feared that a person might carry a shofar four amos through a reshus harabbim to bring it to an expert for instruction, thereby violating a Torah prohibition. The same basic concern underlies rabbinic restrictions involving Megillah, the arba minim and several other mitzvos.
Following the destruction of the Bais Hamikdash, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted that the shofar could be sounded wherever there was a bais din. The entire dispute revolves around what kind of bais din qualifies: Must it consist of formally ordained judges in the ancient sense of semichah, or can an established contemporary bais din suffice? Some opinions potentially allow even a court consisting of three judges.
Rav Ariel traced the debate to Yavneh following the Churban, when Roman restrictions prevented Jews from entering Yerushalayim and the leading chachamim gathered in Yavneh. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, he said, instructed the surrounding communities: “We will blow on Shabbos. From all the cities they will come here to hear the blowing.”
According to Rav Ariel, Yavneh offered two important advantages. Its bais din could establish with certainty that Rosh Hashanah had begun, and it could ensure that people did not individually carry their shofaros. “No one will bring a shofar… and they gained that they would not carry and would fulfill the mitzvah properly,” he explained.
Rav Ariel further argued that an enactment established by the Sanhedrin possesses permanent authority. He cited the Rambam’s introduction to the Mishnah: “These are the laws established by the prophets and sages in each and every generation, as a fence and safeguard for the Torah. As it is written: ‘And you shall safeguard My charge!’ — ‘Make a safeguard for My safeguard’… They may not be transgressed in any manner… and even prophets cannot permit them.”
Perhaps the most significant precedent invoked by those who favor blowing is that of the Rif, Rav Yitzchak Alfasi. The Ramban records that the Rif did not believe fully ordained judges were necessary and that his students therefore blew shofar before him whenever Rosh Hashanah occurred on Shabbos.
“Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi, author of the Halachos, held… that we do not require expert, ordained judges. Rather, ‘any bais din’ refers to the bais din of his city… Therefore, his students would blow before him throughout his life on Rosh Hashanah that occurred on Shabbos. And so we received from the elders of Spain, the people of his place.”
The significance of that precedent is heightened by the Rif’s stature. The Rambam famously instructed his student Rav Shmuel ibn Tibbon, “Your hand should not depart from the Rif,” while Rav Zerachiah Halevi referred to the Rif’s work as “the small Talmud.”
Nevertheless, the Ramban and Ritva noted that the Jewish world did not ultimately adopt the Rif’s practice, while the Rosh observed that even major students of the Rif did not follow his position in practice. The Rosh himself required a particularly distinguished bais din, describing it as a “prominent bais din, great in its generation.”
That creates the central tension in the dispute: Does a documented practice of one of the greatest Rishonim outweigh centuries of subsequent halachic practice to the contrary?
Rav Ariel argued, “You cannot bring proof from someone who did not do something. You can bring proof from one who did.”
Rav Maimon countered that centuries of universal nonobservance cannot simply be dismissed as silence. In his view, that history itself represents a binding tradition of psak.
The Rambam, meanwhile, writes in Hilchos Shofar 2:9 that ideally the necessary bais din must possess classical semichah: “In this time, when the Mikdash has been destroyed, any place where there is an established bais din, provided that it is ordained in Eretz Yisroel, they blow there on Shabbos.”
Rashi, as well as other Geonim and Rishonim, differ regarding the need for semichah. Rav Ariel, however, sees room for leniency even within the Rambam’s own wording, which later states: “In this time… if the first day occurred on Shabbos and there was no bais din in the place fit to blow [on Shabbos], they blow only on the second day.”
Rav Ariel understands that wording as indicating that where there is a bais din “fit to blow,” the mitzvah may still apply even without full ancient semichah. He also cited the Kesef Mishneh: “Now that everyone establishes [the month] according to calculation, and we observe two days, the matter is certain for us.”
Rav Ariel further maintained that his approach cannot be dismissed as the opinion of a lone authority. He listed 23 Rishonim and Acharonim whom he believes provide support for the underlying position, among them the Rif, Rabbeinu Chananel, Rashi, Tosafos, the Ran, Ramban, Rashba, Rabbeinu Manoach, Sefer HaChinuch, Meiri, Rabbeinu Yerucham, Bartenura, Rosh and Bais Yosef.
Some of those very authorities, however, are also central to Rav Maimon’s case against changing the accepted practice. The Ramban, Rashba and Rosh, for example, discuss the theoretical basis of the Rif’s position while also noting that the Jewish world did not follow it.
The disagreement, therefore, is not necessarily over what those sources say, but what practical conclusion should be drawn from them. Rav Ariel sees evidence that a bais din without classical semichah can theoretically qualify. Rav Maimon sees the subsequent refusal to implement that position as decisive.
Another component of Rav Ariel’s argument is that today there is no uncertainty about which day is Rosh Hashanah. He cited the Rambam in Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh 5:1: “When there is no Sanhedrin in Eretz Yisroel, the months are not established and the years are not made leap years except according to the calculation that we use today. And this matter is a halacha transmitted to Moshe at Sinai: When there is a Sanhedrin, they establish according to sighting, and when there is no Sanhedrin, they establish according to this calculation that we use today and do not require sighting.”
The Rambam later writes: “That which we calculate today, each person in his city, and say that Rosh Chodesh is on this day and Yom Tov is on this day… we rely only on the calculation of the people of Eretz Yisroel. Our calculation is merely to reveal the matter.”
Rav Ariel argues that the modern fixed calendar therefore eliminates an element of uncertainty that existed in earlier generations.
An ancient piyut provides another intriguing piece of evidence. Attributed to Rav Elazar HaKalir and Rav Nachman HaChaver, it describes a shofar being tied to a post on Rosh Hashanah that fell on Shabbos.
Rav Ohev Tzion cited an interpretation attributed to researcher David Henshke suggesting that tying the shofar to a post could eliminate the concern of carrying altogether. “If I tie the shofar to a post, I can blow without a bais din,” he argued.
Rav Ariel revealed that such a method was actually attempted: “In the first year, they tied it to a post.”
But he rejected the suggestion that this could replace the requirement for a bais din. Pointing to the account of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai in Yavneh, Rav Ariel said that after the official blowing, shofaros could be heard throughout the courtyards. “Even though the bais din blew, with a rope or without a rope, everyone in the courtyards blew and blew. This is not the basic Torah law; it is an additional hiddur mitzvah.”
Asked whether one could therefore simply tie a shofar to a post and blow without a bais din, Rav Ariel answered: “No, that nullifies it.”
The controversy is hardly new. Some 145 years ago, Rav Akiva Yosef Schlesinger, author of Lev HaIvri, launched a campaign in 1881 to restore shofar blowing on Shabbos in Yerushalayim.
Rav Schlesinger’s argument rested on several points: that Chazal’s decree had never applied to Yerushalayim in the same way, that “Mikdash” could include the entire Old City, and that Yerushalayim lacked the 600,000 people he believed necessary to qualify as a Torah-level reshus harabbim.
Rav Shmuel Salant initially offered support, but intense communal opposition ultimately forced Rav Schlesinger to conduct that year’s blowing privately, in what was described as a “modest place.”
He did not abandon the campaign. Over subsequent decades, Rav Schlesinger published articles and attempted to bring Yerushalayim’s various batei din together behind the proposal. The Rishon LeTzion, Rav Yaakov Shaul Elyashar, reportedly declared: “If the Ashkenazim blow — we will blow as well.”
At one point, Rav Schlesinger visited Rav Salant while the latter was ill in bed. Despite his condition, Rav Salant dressed in his honor and produced sources supporting the permissive position. His poor health, however, prevented him from leading such a dramatic communal change, and the opportunity disappeared.
Rav Maimon raised another historical question: If this approach was correct, why was shofar blowing on Shabbos not restored during Rav Yaakov Berab’s attempt to renew semichah in Tzfas during the 16th century?
Rav Ariel answered that the effort to restore semichah became engulfed in controversy. Maharalbach opposed it, Rav Yaakov Berab fled to Damascus, and the entire project collapsed before the shofar question could be addressed.
“We cannot bring proof from why they did not. They wanted to do many things; they did not have time. Because of the dispute, the whole thing sank,” Rav Ariel said.
He added that Rav Yosef Karo, author of the Kesef Mishneh and himself among those who received the renewed semichah in Tzfas, wrote that when the date of the festival is known with certainty, an established bais din can qualify for blowing.
The Yerushalayim effort was also derailed by an unusual personal dispute. Rav Schlesinger had received a mailing list from Rav Shmuel Salant and the Aderes to invite members of the community. But the head of the chevra kadisha reportedly bore a grudge against him over an earlier controversial ruling allowing Jewish refugees fleeing conscription into the Czar’s army to take second wives.
Rav Schlesinger’s reasoning was that in the jurisdiction of the Bais Yosef, the ban of Rabbeinu Gershom did not carry the same force: “It is the place of Maran, the Bais Yosef… and he does not accept the ban of Rabbeinu Gershom; he is not concerned for it.”
According to the account, the chevra kadisha official retaliated by campaigning against the proposed shofar gathering. “He knocked on all the doors: Don’t come, don’t come,” ultimately helping derail the plan.
Rav Schlesinger had envisioned something far larger than a private minyan. His proposal called for a major gathering at the Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai shul, complete with police and ushers, with tickets sold and the proceeds given to widows and orphans.
The Rishon LeTzion objected to monetizing the gathering, writing, “It cannot be accepted… they will say it is for money,” and raising an additional issue of shvus.
Rav Schlesinger’s determination was reportedly strengthened by a heartbreaking letter describing the pogroms against Russian Jewry, which reached him just as he was considering abandoning his campaign.
Opposition remained intense, led in part by Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, whose concern centered on undermining enactments of Chazal. Criticism arrived from abroad as well. Rav Shimon Sofer of Erlau, a grandson of the Chasam Sofer, wrote in Hisorerus Teshuvah that the proposed ruling should not be relied upon, adding pointedly: “One who loves mitzvos will not be satisfied with mitzvos.”
One particularly dramatic episode is recorded in Orach Dovid. Rav Schlesinger went to immerse in a mikvah before blowing the shofar. When he emerged, he discovered that opponents had invalidated his shofar on grounds of muktzah. His son hurried to obtain another one.
Outside the shul, Rav Sonnenfeld — despite being a leading opponent of the practice — reportedly stood close enough to listen to the blowing through the wall while deliberately remaining outside so his presence would not be interpreted as approval.
Returning to the present-day debate, Rav Ariel argued that the widespread existence of eiruvin fundamentally changes the practical reality underlying Chazal’s concern about carrying.
“In this time, when there is an enactment of an eiruv, the mitzvah returns to its place,” he declared. “Nullifying the mitzvah of blowing shofar today, when the public carries machzorim and talleisim and Kiddush necessities through the streets to the shul, while only the shofar, which is the primary mitzvah of the day, is not carried — this is nothing but a degradation of the mitzvah and a disgrace to the Torah.”
Rav Ariel went further, applying to those who refrain from the mitzvah the verse “Because he has despised the word of Hashem and violated His commandment,” while invoking regarding those who perform it the declaration, “Cursed is he who does not uphold the words of this Torah,” followed by the people answering amen.
Rav Ariel summarized his broader argument by declaring: “We are actually renewing a halacha that is nearly two thousand years old, from Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai… There is a Torah commandment to blow on Shabbos on Rosh Hashanah.”
In his view, someone who blows under the appropriate circumstances fulfills not one but three mitzvos. Citing the Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim 1:1, he argued that observing Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai’s enactment also fulfills the Torah obligations to heed the rulings of the bais din.
The Rambam writes: “The Great Bais Din in Yerushalayim is the foundation of the Oral Torah… as it is written, ‘According to the Torah that they teach you’ — this is a positive commandment… Whoever does not act according to their instruction violates a negative commandment, as it says, ‘Do not deviate from anything they tell you, right or left’… and the decrees, enactments and customs… it is a positive commandment to listen to them.”
“Thus, you fulfill three mitzvos,” Rav Ariel said — the mitzvah of shofar itself, the commandment of lo sasur, and the obligation of v’asisa k’chol asher yorucha.
The discussion also touched on whether a shofar could be sounded on the site of the Bais Hamikdash without a bais din based on the Talmudic principle that rabbinic shvus restrictions do not apply in the Mikdash.
Rav Ariel argued that according to his reading of the Rambam, the entire walled Old City of Yerushalayim can be included in the relevant definition of Mikdash, while most Rishonim limit it to Har Habayis itself.
He also distinguished ordinary shofar blowing from the manner in which it would be performed at the Mikdash: “With trumpets and the sound of the shofar, shout before the King, Hashem… When you blow the shofar on Har Habayis today, you need to blow with trumpets as well.”
Rav Ariel said that several years ago, when Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbos, both shofar and trumpets were indeed sounded together on Har Habayis.
He presented another potentially lenient position, arguing that Rishonim including Rashi and Rabbeinu Chananel permit blowing even in the presence of an “ad hoc” bais din, rather than requiring a permanent court.
Rav Maimon disputed that interpretation, maintaining that those sources must be understood within the broader disagreement over precisely what constitutes the necessary bais din.
Rav Ariel also sought to demonstrate that blowing on Shabbos continued as an actual practice in Eretz Yisroel for centuries. He traced the Yeshiva of Eretz Yisroel as it moved from Yerushalayim to Ramle, Teveria and Damascus, arguing that its members continued the practice even during the Rambam’s era.
He cited accounts from Rav Binyamin of Tudela, Rabbeinu Manoach and a letter from the Cairo Genizah. According to those sources, when the Babylonian Reish Galusa demanded that the practice stop, local leaders refused, and “the heads of the yeshiva stood firm in observing the mitzvah according to the custom of Eretz Yisroel.”
Rav Ariel attributed the eventual disappearance of the custom not to a decisive halachic ruling, but to historical upheaval. The Crusaders massacred Jewish communities and destroyed shuls, he said, after which immigrants from France arrived with a different practice.
Quoting Rabbeinu Tam, Rav Ariel remarked: “‘Minhag’ contains the letters of ‘Gehinnom’; if fools practiced it, the wise did not.”
Rav Maimon then pressed him on an apparent implication of his position: If an eiruv eliminates the concern about carrying, why require a bais din at all?
Rav Ariel answered that he did not want to rewrite the enactment itself because of the broader danger of religious reform: “We do not want to change the enactment, lest there be reform; they will say we have completely deteriorated.”
Rav Ariel also recounted a conversation with Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach to argue that the absence of a practice does not necessarily establish a prohibition. He said he once asked Rav Shlomo Zalman why a seven-branched Menorah was not actually lit at the site of the Mikdash. Rather than cite a specific prohibition, Rav Shlomo Zalman referred him to the Chief Rabbinate.
Rav Maimon’s response was that the dispute is not primarily about whether the sources cited by Rav Ariel exist, but whether contemporary rabbonim have the authority to derive a new practical ruling from them after generations of poskim acted otherwise.
“There were giants of the world in Yerushalayim… no one thought of this,” he said.
For Rav Maimon, the long history of refraining from blowing, together with the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch, the established tradition of Yerushalayim and the position of Rav Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky, carries decisive weight.
“Who gives us the authority to decide between the Rishonim?” he asked.
The panel also discussed what happens bedieved if someone does blow shofar on Shabbos. Rav Maimon cited the position of Rav Akiva Eiger and the Avnei Nezer that such a person can fulfill the Torah mitzvah despite simultaneously violating a rabbinic shvus. The Chelkas Yoav takes the opposing view that the rabbinic prohibition prevents the Torah mitzvah from being fulfilled at all.
Rav Ariel rejected that conclusion: “It is impossible to uproot the Torah mitzvah.”
Rav Ohev Tzion then shifted the discussion from the practical halachic dispute to the spiritual question underlying it: If the shofar serves to mitigate judgment, what protects Klal Yisroel when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos and the shofar is not sounded?
Citing the responsa Torah Lishmah, attributed to the Ben Ish Chai, he offered a clear answer: “The spiritual rectification accomplished through these mitzvos… occurs on its own through the sanctity of Shabbos, and we do not need to accomplish it ourselves.”
According to the tradition of the mekubalim, the physical absence of the shofar can be addressed through kavanos. The Rashash instructed that these intentions be performed silently, while Rav Sasson Persiado, author of Pesach Einayim, formulated a shortened tefillah. Rabbeinu Yosef Chaim, in Sod Yesharim, instructed a person to mentally envision the sequence of the tekios as though they were actually being sounded.
Rav Ohev Tzion also cited Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, the Meshech Chochmah, who suggested that surrendering the mitzvah of shofar out of obedience to Chazal is itself a profound spiritual act of self-sacrifice.
“The very fact that we do not blow… is itself an extraordinary spiritual Akeidah,” he wrote.
The concept was summarized during the discussion in stark terms: “We know that we are entering danger; there is no greater Akeidah than this.”
To illustrate the spiritual power of Shabbos, Rav Ohev Tzion cited a mashal from Rav Yaakov Ettlinger, the Aruch LaNer. A minister who sinned was saved from punishment through the pleas of his beloved first wife, while a second wife whom he had mistreated was unable to obtain mercy for him.
The message, Rav Ohev Tzion explained, is that Shabbos is the “spouse” of Klal Yisroel. When Rosh Hashanah occurs on Shabbos, Shabbos itself serves as an advocate for the Jewish people — giving particular significance to meticulous Shemiras Shabbos.
Rav Ohev Tzion connected that teaching to the October 7 massacre, which occurred on Shabbos, a day on which the sanctity of Shabbos itself was terribly violated.
A final mystical explanation was cited in the name of Rav Dovid Modina of Italy: “In Heaven above they blow the shofar… there is no shvus there,” suggesting that the mitzvah is, so to speak, carried out in the Heavenly realm.
Rav Ariel was openly skeptical of that explanation.
“Are there people who know what happens in Heaven? Mitzvos are meant to be done!” he responded.
Abdu also presented the question to mekubal Rav Shaked Bohadana, who said: “The halachic and accepted answer, according to the Arizal and the Rashash, states unequivocally that one does not blow the shofar when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos.”
The practice of the chachamim of Yeshivas Beis El is to concentrate on all the kavanos associated with the sitting tekios following Krias HaTorah, without actually sounding the shofar. This practice is recorded by the Rashash’s grandson Rav Refael Sharabi in Divrei Shalom and by the Rashash himself in Nahar Shalom.
The spiritual completion, according to this approach, takes place on the second day of Rosh Hashanah, when the elements absent on the first day are completed together with the spiritual work of the second day.
The panel also discussed the parallel issue of taking a lulav when the first day of Sukkos falls on Shabbos. Tosafos distinguishes between shofar, which mitigates judgment, and lulav, which does not serve the same function.
Rav Ariel also cited the Yerushalmi, where the permission to carry a lulav on Shabbos serves as a precedent for other cases, including bringing a knife for a bris milah or obtaining matzah from a neighbor.
Rav Ariel himself takes a lulav when the relevant day falls on Shabbos. Rav Ohev Tzion noted that Rav Dov Lior, Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Chaim Kanievsky opposed doing so — “Heaven forbid, they should not take a lulav on Shabbos until Mashiach comes” — while Rav Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch permitted it.
The discussion eventually expanded into another contentious halachic question: whether Jews may ascend Har Habayis.
Rav Ohev Tzion noted that Rav Yitzchak Yosef, during his weekly shiur for Parshas Ki Savo, cited a responsum of Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook as prohibiting such ascents. Rav Ohev Tzion spoke in glowing terms of Rav Kook, describing him as “the rabbi of all the people of the Diaspora… who was a genius and holy.”
He also mentioned Rav Moshe Feinstein and other stringent poskim who prohibited ascending Har Habayis, adding that the Ohr LeTzion ruled that even a soldier who must enter for a legitimate purpose should first immerse in a mikvah.
Rav Ariel disputed the characterization of Rav Kook’s position.
“Where did Rav Kook write that?” he asked.
According to Rav Ariel, Rav Kook instead envisioned the eventual establishment of a Sanhedrin on Har Habayis, with police officers and litigants immersing before ascending to appear before it.
“He did not prohibit it, did not prohibit it,” Rav Ariel insisted.
Rav Ariel also cited the case of Sir Moses Montefiore, who entered the Dome of the Rock. Despite controversy surrounding that visit, Rav Shmuel Salant subsequently received Montefiore warmly and respectfully.
Rav Ariel further claimed that the Chief Rabbinate Council, during the tenures of Rav Yisrael Meir Lau and Rav Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, adopted a decision supporting the establishment of a shul on Har Habayis, which he viewed as evidence that prayer there could be permitted.
Abdu noted, however, that while Rav Mordechai Eliyahu had proposed a theoretical framework for constructing a shul on Har Habayis — an idea also discussed by the Chief Rabbinate Council during Rav Bakshi-Doron’s tenure — these poskim nevertheless prohibited ordinary individuals from ascending Har Habayis under present circumstances.
Rav Maimon defended that distinction, noting that major poskim including Rav Ovadia Yosef and the Steipler clearly prohibited ascending Har Habayis, though he acknowledged that he would need to review some of the specific sources cited during the discussion.
Rav Ariel concluded this portion of the debate with a personal recollection from the Six-Day War.
“I merited, through the kindness of Hashem, to be among the paratroopers who liberated Har Habayis, and I guarded the place of the Kodesh HaKodashim while tamei,” he said.
Rav Ariel explained that he relied on a principle he attributed to Rav Shimon bar Yochai: “When you perform the mitzvah of conquest, you do it while tamei… during construction, during conquest, you do it while tamei.”
He distinguished between entering in a state of tumah as part of conquest or essential construction and doing so once the Mikdash is functioning normally. “Once they finish, whoever enters, his life is subject to kares,” he said.
Toward the conclusion of the discussion, Abdu returned to the original question and asked about the position of leading poskim of recent generations, including Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank.
Rav Maimon gave a straightforward response: “All the poskim of the recent generations maintain that we do not blow shofar on Shabbos.”
Rav Ariel did not dispute that this has been the prevailing practice. He maintained, however, that the absence of a practice does not by itself constitute halachic proof that the practice is forbidden.
In practical terms, virtually every shul in Eretz Yisroel and throughout the world will follow the established halacha this Shabbos and will not sound the shofar. The tekios will instead be heard on Sunday, the second day of Rosh Hashanah.
Rav Ariel’s minyan in the Old City will be an exception. He said davening at the Temple Institute’s shul will begin at 7:30 a.m., with the shofar expected to be sounded at approximately 10:30 a.m. When Rosh Hashanah last fell on Shabbos, in 5784, approximately 150 people reportedly attended the minyan.
For those following the conventional practice, Rav Ohev Tzion and Rav Bohadana offered the approach of the mekubalim: particular care with Shemiras Shabbos, viewing Shabbos as the advocate of Klal Yisroel, and silently contemplating the sequence of the tekios while reciting the shofar verses during Mussaf.
And what of the ominous Talmudic statement, “Any year in which they do not blow at its beginning…” — does a Rosh Hashanah without shofar necessarily portend a difficult year?
According to the Ran, citing the Baal Halachos Gedolos, the answer is no. The warning does not refer to a year in which Rosh Hashanah falls naturally on Shabbos and the shofar is omitted in accordance with halacha. Rather, it concerns the exceptional circumstance in which the Jewish community was supposed to blow the shofar but failed to do so because of circumstances beyond its control.
{Matzav.com}
