Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 6, 2021 | 讘壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讘

Masechet Rosh Hashanah is dedicated anonymously in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by the Hadran Women of Minneapolis in memory of Monica Howell z"l.

This month's shiurim are also dedicated in memory of Dr. Chaya R. Gorsetman, Chaya bat Esriel V鈥橬aomi z鈥檒 during the period of shloshim by her husband, children, and grandchildren.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Rosh Hashanah 28 – Shabbat November 6

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, click here.

Raba distinguishes between two cases of hearing half a shofar blast 鈥 in one he allows it (one who hears half a blast in a pit and half out of the pit) but not in the other (half before dawn and half after dawn). Why? In the case where it is permitted, the Gemara questions this based on other sources that seem to indicate that one cannot hear half a shofar blast. Raba statement is reinterpreted since the original understanding was rejected. Can one fulfill the mitzva of shofar if the shofar was taken from an animal sanctified for a sacrifice? On what does it depend? Different answers are brought. Rava concludes that all is permitted as when one fulfills a mitzva it is not considered that one benefitted. Therefore, one can hear a shofar from a person or a shofar to whom he vowed not to derive benefit from. Do mitzvot require intent? If not, then if one forced a person to eat matza, one fulfilled the mitzva and likewise if one blew a shofar for the music, one would fulfill the mitzva. Are these cases exactly the same? Rava said that mitzvot do not require intent. Several sources are brought to question this statement of Rava, one of them being the case in our Mishna of passing a shul when the shofar is being blown.

砖诪注 诪拽爪转 转拽讬注讛 讘讘讜专 讜诪拽爪转 转拽讬注讛 注诇 砖驻转 讛讘讜专 讬爪讗 诪拽爪转 转拽讬注讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬注诇讛 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 讜诪拽爪转 转拽讬注讛 诇讗讞专 砖讬注诇讛 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 诇讗 讬爪讗

If one heard part of the blast in the pit and part of the blast at the edge of the pit, he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he heard part of the blast before dawn, when it is not yet time to sound the shofar, and part of the blast after dawn, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讘注讬谞讗 讻讜诇讛 转拽讬注讛 讘讞讬讜讘讗 讜诇讬讻讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讬谞讗 讻讜诇讛 转拽讬注讛 讘讞讬讜讘讗 讜诇讬讻讗

Abaye said to him: What is different there, in the case of one who heard part of the blast before dawn and part of it after dawn? If you say that there the entire blast needs to be heard in a time of obligation, and when he hears part of the blast before dawn and part after dawn it is not all within the same time of obligation, here too, in the case of the pit, the entire blast needs to be in a place where one can fulfill his obligation, and when he hears part of the blast in a pit and part at the edge, it is not all within a place where he can fulfill his obligation.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诇讬诇讛 诇讗讜 讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讻诇诇 讛讻讗 讘讜专 诪拽讜诐 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 诇讗讜转谉 讛注讜诪讚讬谉 讘讘讜专

The Gemara rejects this argument: How can these cases be compared? There, night is not a time of obligation at all, and sounding the shofar then has no meaning whatsoever, but here, a pit is a place of obligation for those standing in the pit. That is to say, the part of the blast that was heard in the pit is not inherently invalid, but merely disqualified due to an external factor, so that it is possible to connect it with the part of the blast that was heard at the edge of the pit.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 专讘讛 砖诪注 住讜祝 转拽讬注讛 讘诇讗 转讞讬诇转 转拽讬注讛 讬爪讗 讜诪诪讬诇讗 转讞讬诇转 转拽讬注讛 讘诇讗 住讜祝 转拽讬注讛 讬爪讗

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabba maintains that if one heard the end of a blast without hearing the beginning of the blast, he has fulfilled his obligation? Because in the case where one heard the beginning of the blast in a pit, he is considered to have heard only the end of the shofar blast, which he heard at the edge of the pit. And it therefore follows that if one heard the beginning of a blast without hearing the end of the blast, he has also fulfilled his obligation.

转讗 砖诪注 转拽注 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诪砖讱 讘砖谞讬讛 讻砖转讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讗诪讗讬 转住诇拽 诇讛 讘转专转讬 驻住讜拽讬 转拽讬注转讗 诪讛讚讚讬 诇讗 驻住拽讬谞谉

Come and hear a proof that this is not so, for we learned in the mishna: If one blew the initial tekia of the first set of tekia-terua-tekia, and then drew out the second tekia so that it spans the length of two tekiot, it counts as only one tekia, and is not considered two tekiot, i.e., the concluding tekia of the first set, and the initial tekia of the second set. But why is this so? If we consider part of a blast as a complete one, let it count as two tekiot. The Gemara explains: If one hears only the beginning or the end of a shofar blast, he has indeed fulfilled his obligation, but nevertheless, we do not divide a shofar blast into two.

转讗 砖诪注 讛转讜拽注 诇转讜讱 讛讘讜专 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛讚讜转 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛驻讬讟住 讗诐 拽讜诇 砖讜驻专 砖诪注 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 拽讜诇 讛讘专讛 砖诪注 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬驻讜拽 讘转讞讬诇转 转拽讬注讛 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬注专讘讘 拽诇讗

The Gemara raises another difficulty: Come and hear that which was taught in a mishna: If one sounds a shofar into a pit, or into a cistern, or into a large jug, if he clearly heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation; but if he heard the sound of an echo, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But why is this so? If indeed half a blast is considered a blast, let him fulfill his obligation with the beginning of the blast, before the sound of the shofar is confused with the echo, since he heard the beginning of the blast clearly.

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讛 讘转讜拽注 讜注讜诇讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara answers: Indeed, half a blast is not considered a blast, and Rabba鈥檚 statement must be understood differently. When Rabba spoke, he was speaking not about other people hearing the blast, but about one who was sounding the shofar for himself in a pit and emerged from the pit as he was blowing. He has fulfilled his obligation, because he was located in the same place as the sound of the shofar at all times, and so he heard the entire blast clearly.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪驻讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜讗讻转讬 砖讜驻专 讘讘讜专 讜拽讗 诪讬注专讘讘 拽诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of Rabba鈥檚 statement? The halakha in this case should be obvious, as there is no reason that the blast should be disqualified. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that his head might sometimes emerge from the pit while the shofar itself is still in the pit, and the sound may become confused with its echo, and so he would not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, Rabba teaches us that we are not concerned about this, and the obligation is considered to have been fulfilled.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖讜驻专 砖诇 注讜诇讛 诇讗 讬转拽注 讜讗诐 转拽注 讬爪讗 讘砖讜驻专 砖诇 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讬转拽注 讜讗诐 转拽注 诇讗 讬爪讗

Rav Yehuda said: One should not blow with the shofar of an animal consecrated as a burnt-offering, but if he nevertheless transgressed and blew, he has fulfilled his obligation. One should also not blow with the shofar of an animal consecrated as a peace-offering, and if he nevertheless transgressed and blew, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讜诇讛 讘转 诪注讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注诇 讘讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖诇诪讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 诪注讬诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚专讻讬讘 讘讛讜 讜诇讗 谞驻拽讬 诇讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this distinction? A burnt-offering is subject to misuse of consecrated objects before being offered, and once one misuses it for mundane purposes, it becomes non-sacred, so that the one who blows with its shofar fulfills his obligation. In contrast, peace-offerings are not subject to misuse of consecrated objects before being offered, since in the case of sacrifices of lesser sanctity, misuse is restricted to the fats and other portions that are offered on the altar, and even this applies only after the sprinkling of the blood. Since one is not considered to be misusing peace-offerings when utilizing them for mundane purposes, the prohibition remains intact and they do not become non-sacred. Therefore, one who blows the shofar of an animal consecrated as a peace-offering does not fulfill his obligation.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讗讬诪转 诪注诇 诇讘转专 讚转拽注 讻讬 拽讗 转拽注 讘讗讬住讜专讗 转拽注

Rava strongly objects to this argument: When does he commit misuse? After he has sounded it, for only then has he misused the consecrated animal. If so, when he sounds it, he is sounding with something that is still prohibited, even in the case of the animal that was consecrated as a burnt-offering, and so he should not be able to fulfill his obligation with it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讚专 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讬爪讗 诪爪讜转 诇讗讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 谞讬转谞讜

Rather, Rava said: Both this one, the shofar of a burnt-offering, and the other one, the shofar of a peace-offering, are governed by the same halakha: If he sounded them, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Later, Rava retracted his statement and then said the opposite: Both this one, the shofar of a burnt-offering, and the other one, the shofar of a peace-offering, are governed by the same halakha: If he sounded them, he has fulfilled his obligation. The reason for this is that mitzvot were not given for benefit. That is to say, the fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit, and in the absence of benefit, one is not liable for misuse.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖讜驻专 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讗 讬转拽注 讜讗诐 转拽注 讬爪讗 讘砖讜驻专 砖诇 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 诇讗 讬转拽注 讜讗诐 转拽注 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 讻转讜转讬 诪讬讻转转 砖讬注讜专讬讛

Rav Yehuda said further: One should not sound a shofar that was used for idol worship, but if he nevertheless transgressed and sounded it, he has fulfilled his obligation. One should also not sound a shofar from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry, where the majority of inhabitants committed idolatry, but if he nevertheless transgressed and sounded it, he has not fulfilled his obligation. What is the reason for this last ruling? With regard to any object found in a city whose residents were incited to idolatry, its size as required for the mitzva is seen by halakha as crushed into powder. Since a shofar from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is destined for burning, it is considered as if it is already burnt, and it therefore lacks the requisite measurement for fulfilling the mitzva.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诪讜转专 诇转拽讜注 诇讜 转拽讬注讛 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪砖讜驻专 诪讜转专 诇转拽讜注 讘讜 转拽讬注讛 砖诇 诪爪讜讛

Rava said: If one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another, i.e., if he took a vow not to receive any benefit whatsoever from a certain person, that other person is nevertheless permitted to sound a blast for him so that he fulfills the mitzva, in accordance with the principle that the fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit. For the same reason, if one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from a particular shofar, he is nevertheless permitted to sound a blast with it so that he may fulfill the mitzva.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诪讝讛 注诇讬讜 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪诪注讬谉 讟讜讘诇 讘讜 讟讘讬诇讛 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛

And Rava said further: If one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another, that other person may nevertheless sprinkle the waters of purification on him, i.e., water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, which was used to purify people and objects that had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse, in the rainy season, for at that time the sprinkling is performed only in order to fulfill a mitzva. But he may not do so in the summer season, since then he also benefits from the very fact that water is being sprinkled on him. Similarly, if one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from a particular spring, he may nevertheless immerse in it an immersion performed in order to fulfill a mitzva in the rainy season, but not in the summer season, since then he also derives benefit from the very fact that he has immersed in cold water.

砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻驻讗讜 讜讗讻诇 诪爪讛 讬爪讗 讻驻讗讜 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻驻讗讜 砖讚 讜讛转谞讬讗 注转讬诐 讞诇讬诐 注转讬诐 砖讜讟讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讞诇讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻驻拽讞 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讜 讻砖讛讜讗 砖讜讟讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻砖讜讟讛 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讜

搂 It is related that the following ruling was sent from Eretz Yisrael to Shmuel鈥檚 father: If one was forcibly compelled to eat matza on Passover, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara clarifies the matter: Who compelled him to eat the matza? If we say that a demon forced him, i.e., that he ate it in a moment of insanity, this is difficult. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to someone who is at times sane and at times insane, at the times when he is sane, he is considered halakhically competent for all purposes and is obligated in all the mitzvot. And when he is insane, he is considered insane for all purposes, and is therefore exempt from the mitzvot. If so, someone who was compelled by a demon to eat matza is not considered obligated to perform the mitzvot at all.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖讻驻讗讜讛讜 驻专住讬讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛转讜拽注 诇砖讬专 讬爪讗

Rav Ashi said: We are dealing with a case where the Persians compelled him to eat. Rava said: That is to say that one who sounds a shofar for the music, having no intent to fulfill the mitzva, fulfills his obligation, since the critical issue is hearing the blast and not the intent of the blower.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 讗讻诇

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that this is identical to that which was stated above, that one who was compelled to eat matza fulfills the mitzva even if he had no intention of doing so? The same should apply in the case of the shofar, that one who heard the blast of a shofar fulfills his obligation even if he had no intention of doing so. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there is a difference between the two cases, there, the Merciful One says: Eat matza, and he indeed ate it, thereby fulfilling the mitzva.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讝讻专讜谉 转专讜注讛 讻转讬讘 讜讛讗讬 诪转注住拽 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讗 诪爪讜转 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讜转 讻讜讜谞讛

But here, with regard to a shofar, it is written: 鈥淎 memorial of blasts鈥 (Leviticus 23:24), which might have been understood as requiring conscious intent, and this one was merely acting unawares, without having any intent whatsoever of performing the mitzva. Therefore, Rava teaches us that the absence of intent does not invalidate fulfillment of the mitzva, even in the case of shofar. The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Rava maintains that the fulfillment of mitzvot does not require intent. That is to say, if one performs a mitzva, he fulfills his obligation even if he has no intention of doing so.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 讘转讜专讛 讜讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讛诪拽专讗 讗诐 讻讜讜谉 诇讘讜 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讜讜谉 诇讘讜 诇爪讗转

The Gemara raised an objection to this conclusion from what we learned in a mishna: If one was reading the passage of Shema in the Torah, and the time of reciting Shema arrived, if he focused his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara reasons: What, is it not that he focused his heart to fulfill his obligation, and if he failed to do so, he has not fulfilled his duty, therefore implying that the fulfillment of mitzvot requires intent?

诇讗 诇拽专讜转 诇拽专讜转 讛讗 拽讗 拽专讬 讘拽讜专讗 诇讛讙讬讛

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the mishna means that he intended to read the passage. The Gemara asks in astonishment: To read? But he is already reading it, for the mishna explicitly states: If one was reading in the Torah. The Gemara answers: We are discussing one who was reading from a Torah scroll in order to correct it, uttering the words indistinctly. The mishna teaches that if such an individual intends to articulate the words correctly, he has fulfilled his obligation.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 注讜讘专 讗讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘讬转讜 住诪讜讱 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜砖诪注 拽讜诇 砖讜驻专 讗讜 拽讜诇 诪讙讬诇讛 讗诐 讻讜讜谉 诇讘讜 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗诐 讻讜讜谉 诇讘讜 诇爪讗转

The Gemara raises another objection: Come and hear that which we learned in our mishna: If one was passing behind a synagogue, or his house was adjacent to the synagogue, and he heard the sound of the shofar or the sound of the Scroll of Esther, if he focused his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. What, is it not that he focused his heart to fulfill his obligation, and if he failed to do so, he has not fulfilled his duty, therefore implying that the fulfillment of mitzvot requires intent?

诇讗 诇砖诪讜注 诇砖诪讜注 讜讛讗 砖诪注 住讘讜专 讞诪讜专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the mishna means that he intended to hear the sound of the shofar. The Gemara immediately asks: To hear? But he already hears it, since the mishna explicitly states: And he heard the sound of the shofar. The Gemara answers: We are discussing one who thinks that it is merely the sound of a donkey that he is hearing, and in this case, where the listener thinks that the sound was not that of a shofar, he does not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, the mishna teaches that it is sufficient that one have intent and know that he is hearing the sound of a shofar.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 谞转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 讜诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诪砖诪讬注 诪砖诪讬注 讜诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 诇讗 讬爪讗 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 讜诪砖诪讬注 讘砖诇诪讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诪砖诪讬注 讜诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 讻住讘讜专 讞诪讜专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 讜诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诪砖诪讬注 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讗讜 讘转讜拽注 诇砖讬专

The Gemara raised an objection to this answer from a baraita: If the hearer of the shofar had intent, but the sounder of the shofar did not have intent, or if the sounder of the shofar had intent, but the hearer did not have intent, he has not fulfilled his obligation, until both the hearer and the sounder have intent. Granted, with regard to the case where the sounder had intent, but the hearer did not have intent, Rava can say that this is referring to a case where the hearer thinks that it is merely the sound of a donkey and he did not have intent to hear the sound of a shofar. But with regard to the case where the hearer had intent, but the sounder did not have intent, under what circumstances can this case be found? Is it not where he sounds a shofar for music and despite the intent of the hearer he has not fulfilled his obligation? This implies that unless the sounder of the shofar has intent to fulfill the mitzva the hearer does not fulfill his obligation.

讚诇诪讗 讚拽讗 诪谞讘讞 谞讘讜讞讬

The Gemara rejects this argument: Perhaps the baraita is referring to a case where he sounded bark-like blasts with the shofar, i.e., he did not sound the shofar in the proper manner, but merely acted unawares without intent to perform the mitzva. The baraita teaches us that if he has intent to sound the blasts in the correct manner, he has fulfilled his obligation.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讬砖谉 讘砖诪讬谞讬 讘住讜讻讛 讬诇拽讛

Abaye said to Rava: However, if that is so, that the fulfillment of a mitzva does not require intent, one who sleeps in a sukka on the Eighth Day of Assembly should receive lashes for violating the prohibition against adding to mitzvot, since he is adding to the mitzva of: 鈥淵ou shall dwell in sukkot for seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:42). Since, according to Rava, even if one did not intend to observe the mitzva of sukka but slept in the sukka for a different reason, his sleeping in the sukka constitutes the fulfillment of a mitzva to dwell there, then, if one did so at an inappropriate time, he is considered to have transgressed the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot. Yet the Sages instituted that in the Diaspora one must observe Sukkot for eight days.

讗诪专 诇讜 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜转 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谞谉

Rava said to him: This is because I say that mitzvot can be transgressed only by adding to them in their prescribed times. But if one adds to a mitzva outside of the period of obligation for the mitzva, there is no violation of the prohibition against adding to mitzvot. On the Eighth Day of Assembly there is no longer a mitzva to sleep in the sukka. Therefore, sleeping in the sukka on that day does not constitute a prohibited act.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 砖注讜诇讛 诇讚讜讻谉 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞转谞讛 诇讬 转讜专讛 专砖讜转 诇讘专讱 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜住讬祝 讘专讻讛 讗讞转 诪砖诇讬 讻讙讜谉 讛壮 讗诇讛讬 讗讘讜转讬讻诐 讬讜住祝 注诇讬讻诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讜住讬驻讜 注诇 讛讚讘专 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘专讬讱 诇讬讛 注讘专讛 诇讬讛 讝诪谞讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 讚注讘专

Rav Shemen bar Abba raised an objection from that which was taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that a priest who went up to the platform to recite the Priestly Blessing should not say: Since the Torah granted me permission to bless the Jewish people, I will add a blessing of my own, which is not part of the Priestly Blessing stated in the Torah, for example: 鈥淢ay the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times as many as you are鈥 (Deuteronomy 1:11)? It is derived from the verse that states: 鈥淵ou shall not add to the word which I command you鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:2). But here, since the priest already recited the Priestly Blessing, the time of the mitzva has passed, and according to Rava, after the prescribed time for performing a mitzva, one does not transgress the prohibition against adding to mitzvot, yet it nevertheless teaches that he has transgressed.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讚诇讗 住讬讬诐

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where he did not complete the fixed text of the blessing but added to it in the middle.

讜讛转谞讬讗 住讬讬诐 住讬讬诐 讘专讻讛 讗讞转

The Gemara raises an objection: Isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a parallel baraita: If he completed the Priestly Blessing. The Gemara answers: The baraita means that he completed one blessing, i.e., the first verse of the Priestly Blessing, but he still has two more blessings to recite.

讜讛转谞讬讗 住讬讬诐 讻诇 讘专讻讜转讬讜 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诇讜 诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 爪讘讜专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讚专 诪讘专讱 讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita dealing with the same issue: If he completed all of his blessings. The Gemara explains: Here, with regard to the Priestly Blessings, it is different, since if he encounters another congregation, he may recite the blessings again, from which we learn that the entire day is the prescribed time of the mitzva. Therefore, even if he added a blessing of his own only after he finished reciting all three verses of the Priestly Blessing, he is still considered to have added to the mitzva in its prescribed time, and he therefore transgresses the prohibition against adding to mitzvot.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚转谞谉 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讬谞转谞讜 诪转谞讛 讗讞转 诪转谉 讗专讘注 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注

The Gemara comments: And from where do you say that if a mitzva may be performed again, the whole day is considered its prescribed time? As we learned in a mishna: If the blood of sacrifices that require only one sprinkling, such as the firstborn offering, became mingled with the blood of other sacrifices that require only one sprinkling, the mixture of blood is sprinkled once. Similarly, if the blood of sacrifices that require four sprinklings, such as burnt-offerings, became mingled with the blood of other sacrifices that require four sprinklings, the mixture is sprinkled four times.

诪转谉 讗专讘注 讘诪转谉 讗讞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谉 讗讞转

However, if the blood of an offering that requires four sprinklings became mingled with the blood of an offering that requires only one sprinkling, the tanna鈥檌m disagree: Rabbi Eliezer says: The mixture of blood is sprinkled four times. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is sprinkled once.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 注诇 讘诇 转讙专注 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 注诇 讘诇 转讜住讬祝

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: But if he sprinkles the blood only once, he thereby transgresses the prohibition: Do not diminish, which renders it prohibited to take away any element in the performance of a mitzva, as he has not sprinkled the blood of an offering requiring four sprinklings, i.e., the burnt-offering in the proper manner. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: But according to your position, that he must sprinkle the blood four times, he thereby transgresses the prohibition: Do not add, which renders it prohibited to add elements to a mitzva, e.g. an offering requiring one sprinkling, like the firstborn animal.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 讗诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讘注爪诪讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘诇 转讙专注 讗诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讘注爪诪讜

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: The prohibition: Do not add, is stated only in a case where the blood stands by itself, but not when it is part of a mixture. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: Likewise, the prohibition: Do not diminish, is stated only in a case where the blood stands by itself.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻砖诇讗 谞转转 注讘专转 注诇 讘诇 转讙专注 讜诇讗 注砖讬转 诪注砖讛 讘讬讚讱 讻砖谞转转 注讘专转 注诇 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 讜注砖讬转 诪注砖讛 讘讬讚讱

Rabbi Yehoshua said further, in defense of his position: When you do not sprinkle four times, even if you transgress the prohibition: Do not diminish, you do not perform the act with your own hand, since it is merely an omission, not an action. Whereas when you sprinkle four times, you transgress the prohibition: Do not add, with regard to one of the sacrifices, and you perform the act with your own hand, i.e., you transgress the Torah鈥檚 command by means of a positive act. If one is forced to deviate from the words of the Torah, it is preferable to do so in a passive manner. The Gemara concludes the citation from the mishna.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪转谞讛 诪讘讻讜专 注讘专讛 诇讬讛 诇讝诪谞讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 讚注讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讜讻专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讚专 诪讝讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讝诪谞讬讛

The Gemara proceeds to derive from here that if the mitzva may be performed again the whole day is considered its prescribed time: And here, once he has already offered one sprinkling of the blood of the firstborn as required, its time has passed, since he has already completed the mitzva of sprinkling the blood of the firstborn, and it nevertheless teaches that he transgresses the prohibition: Do not add. Is it not because we say as follows: Since if he encounters another firstborn to be sacrificed, he would sprinkle of its blood again? If so, the entire day is considered the prescribed time for the mitzva of sprinkling.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪爪讜转 注讜讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞谉

The Gemara rejects this argument: From where do you conclude that this is so? Perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that mitzvot can be transgressed by adding to them even outside their prescribed times. Therefore, this source provides no proof.

讗谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖讘讬拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜诪讜转讬讘 诪讘专讬讬转讗 诇讜转讬讘 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪讜转讬讘 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讜讻专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘注讬 诪讝讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讘专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 诪转专诪讬 爪讘讜专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讚专 诪讘专讱 讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讝诪谞讬讛

The Gemara explains: This is what we were saying when we cited this mishna: What is the reason that Rav Shemen bar Abba set aside the mishna, which deals with the sprinkling of blood, and raised an objection from a baraita? He should have raised an objection from the mishna, which is more generally accepted. What is the reason that he does not raise an objection from the mishna? Since he knows that it can be argued as follows: Because if he encounters another firstborn he will be required to sprinkle its blood. Therefore the entire day is considered the prescribed time of the mitzva. If so, with regard to the baraita as well, it can be argued that because if he encounters another congregation, he may recite the Priestly Blessing again, the whole day is considered its prescribed time.

讜专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讛转诐 诇讗 住讙讬 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讛讻讗 讗讬 讘注讬 诪讘专讱 讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗 诪讘专讱

The Gemara asks: And what is the opinion of Rav Shemen bar Abba, who raised the objection from the baraita? The Gemara explains: There, it is not possible to refrain from sprinkling the blood of another firstborn that comes his way, so the entire day is certainly its prescribed time. But here, if he wishes, he may bless the other congregation, and if he wishes, he may refrain from blessing them, since he is obligated to recite the Priestly Blessing only once a day.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇爪讗转 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 诇注讘讜专 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛

Rava himself said: There is no difficulty at all, since the fulfillment of a mitzva does not require intent, but the transgression of the prohibition: Do not add, or: Do not diminish, requires intent.

讜讛讗 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚诇注讘讜专 讜诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇爪讗转 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 诇注讘讜专 讘讝诪谞讜 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in the case of the sprinkling of blood, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, the transgression of the prohibition: Do not add, does not require intent, since he holds that if one added to the required sprinklings, he transgresses. Rather, Rava said: One must say as follows: The fulfillment of a mitzva does not require intent, and the transgression of the prohibition: Do not add, during the prescribed time of the mitzva, does not require intent, and the sprinkler of the blood therefore transgresses, as Rabbi Yehoshua maintains. However, the transgression of the prohibition: Do not add, when it is not in its prescribed time, e.g., in the case of sleeping in the sukka on the Eighth Day of Assembly, requires intent to fulfill the mitzva, and in the absence of such intent, there is no transgression.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇砖诪注讬讛

With regard to the intent required in order to fulfill the mitzva of shofar, Rabbi Zeira said to his servant:

Masechet Rosh Hashana 聽is dedicated anonymously in honor of聽Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by聽the Hadran Women of Minneapolis in memory of Monica Howell z"l.

And in memory of Dr. Chaya R. Gorsetman, Chaya bat Esriel V鈥橬aomi z鈥檒 during the period of shloshim by her husband, children and grandchildren.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Rosh Hashanah: 25-29 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

The Gemara describes different testimonies given before the court. It describes seeming contradictions and explains how they could be true....

Rosh Hashanah 28 – Shabbat November 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Rosh Hashanah 28 – Shabbat November 6

砖诪注 诪拽爪转 转拽讬注讛 讘讘讜专 讜诪拽爪转 转拽讬注讛 注诇 砖驻转 讛讘讜专 讬爪讗 诪拽爪转 转拽讬注讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬注诇讛 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 讜诪拽爪转 转拽讬注讛 诇讗讞专 砖讬注诇讛 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 诇讗 讬爪讗

If one heard part of the blast in the pit and part of the blast at the edge of the pit, he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he heard part of the blast before dawn, when it is not yet time to sound the shofar, and part of the blast after dawn, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讘注讬谞讗 讻讜诇讛 转拽讬注讛 讘讞讬讜讘讗 讜诇讬讻讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讬谞讗 讻讜诇讛 转拽讬注讛 讘讞讬讜讘讗 讜诇讬讻讗

Abaye said to him: What is different there, in the case of one who heard part of the blast before dawn and part of it after dawn? If you say that there the entire blast needs to be heard in a time of obligation, and when he hears part of the blast before dawn and part after dawn it is not all within the same time of obligation, here too, in the case of the pit, the entire blast needs to be in a place where one can fulfill his obligation, and when he hears part of the blast in a pit and part at the edge, it is not all within a place where he can fulfill his obligation.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诇讬诇讛 诇讗讜 讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讻诇诇 讛讻讗 讘讜专 诪拽讜诐 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 诇讗讜转谉 讛注讜诪讚讬谉 讘讘讜专

The Gemara rejects this argument: How can these cases be compared? There, night is not a time of obligation at all, and sounding the shofar then has no meaning whatsoever, but here, a pit is a place of obligation for those standing in the pit. That is to say, the part of the blast that was heard in the pit is not inherently invalid, but merely disqualified due to an external factor, so that it is possible to connect it with the part of the blast that was heard at the edge of the pit.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 专讘讛 砖诪注 住讜祝 转拽讬注讛 讘诇讗 转讞讬诇转 转拽讬注讛 讬爪讗 讜诪诪讬诇讗 转讞讬诇转 转拽讬注讛 讘诇讗 住讜祝 转拽讬注讛 讬爪讗

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabba maintains that if one heard the end of a blast without hearing the beginning of the blast, he has fulfilled his obligation? Because in the case where one heard the beginning of the blast in a pit, he is considered to have heard only the end of the shofar blast, which he heard at the edge of the pit. And it therefore follows that if one heard the beginning of a blast without hearing the end of the blast, he has also fulfilled his obligation.

转讗 砖诪注 转拽注 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诪砖讱 讘砖谞讬讛 讻砖转讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讗诪讗讬 转住诇拽 诇讛 讘转专转讬 驻住讜拽讬 转拽讬注转讗 诪讛讚讚讬 诇讗 驻住拽讬谞谉

Come and hear a proof that this is not so, for we learned in the mishna: If one blew the initial tekia of the first set of tekia-terua-tekia, and then drew out the second tekia so that it spans the length of two tekiot, it counts as only one tekia, and is not considered two tekiot, i.e., the concluding tekia of the first set, and the initial tekia of the second set. But why is this so? If we consider part of a blast as a complete one, let it count as two tekiot. The Gemara explains: If one hears only the beginning or the end of a shofar blast, he has indeed fulfilled his obligation, but nevertheless, we do not divide a shofar blast into two.

转讗 砖诪注 讛转讜拽注 诇转讜讱 讛讘讜专 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛讚讜转 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛驻讬讟住 讗诐 拽讜诇 砖讜驻专 砖诪注 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 拽讜诇 讛讘专讛 砖诪注 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬驻讜拽 讘转讞讬诇转 转拽讬注讛 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬注专讘讘 拽诇讗

The Gemara raises another difficulty: Come and hear that which was taught in a mishna: If one sounds a shofar into a pit, or into a cistern, or into a large jug, if he clearly heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation; but if he heard the sound of an echo, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But why is this so? If indeed half a blast is considered a blast, let him fulfill his obligation with the beginning of the blast, before the sound of the shofar is confused with the echo, since he heard the beginning of the blast clearly.

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讛 讘转讜拽注 讜注讜诇讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara answers: Indeed, half a blast is not considered a blast, and Rabba鈥檚 statement must be understood differently. When Rabba spoke, he was speaking not about other people hearing the blast, but about one who was sounding the shofar for himself in a pit and emerged from the pit as he was blowing. He has fulfilled his obligation, because he was located in the same place as the sound of the shofar at all times, and so he heard the entire blast clearly.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪驻讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜讗讻转讬 砖讜驻专 讘讘讜专 讜拽讗 诪讬注专讘讘 拽诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of Rabba鈥檚 statement? The halakha in this case should be obvious, as there is no reason that the blast should be disqualified. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that his head might sometimes emerge from the pit while the shofar itself is still in the pit, and the sound may become confused with its echo, and so he would not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, Rabba teaches us that we are not concerned about this, and the obligation is considered to have been fulfilled.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖讜驻专 砖诇 注讜诇讛 诇讗 讬转拽注 讜讗诐 转拽注 讬爪讗 讘砖讜驻专 砖诇 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讬转拽注 讜讗诐 转拽注 诇讗 讬爪讗

Rav Yehuda said: One should not blow with the shofar of an animal consecrated as a burnt-offering, but if he nevertheless transgressed and blew, he has fulfilled his obligation. One should also not blow with the shofar of an animal consecrated as a peace-offering, and if he nevertheless transgressed and blew, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讜诇讛 讘转 诪注讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注诇 讘讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖诇诪讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 诪注讬诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚专讻讬讘 讘讛讜 讜诇讗 谞驻拽讬 诇讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this distinction? A burnt-offering is subject to misuse of consecrated objects before being offered, and once one misuses it for mundane purposes, it becomes non-sacred, so that the one who blows with its shofar fulfills his obligation. In contrast, peace-offerings are not subject to misuse of consecrated objects before being offered, since in the case of sacrifices of lesser sanctity, misuse is restricted to the fats and other portions that are offered on the altar, and even this applies only after the sprinkling of the blood. Since one is not considered to be misusing peace-offerings when utilizing them for mundane purposes, the prohibition remains intact and they do not become non-sacred. Therefore, one who blows the shofar of an animal consecrated as a peace-offering does not fulfill his obligation.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讗讬诪转 诪注诇 诇讘转专 讚转拽注 讻讬 拽讗 转拽注 讘讗讬住讜专讗 转拽注

Rava strongly objects to this argument: When does he commit misuse? After he has sounded it, for only then has he misused the consecrated animal. If so, when he sounds it, he is sounding with something that is still prohibited, even in the case of the animal that was consecrated as a burnt-offering, and so he should not be able to fulfill his obligation with it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讚专 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讬爪讗 诪爪讜转 诇讗讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 谞讬转谞讜

Rather, Rava said: Both this one, the shofar of a burnt-offering, and the other one, the shofar of a peace-offering, are governed by the same halakha: If he sounded them, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Later, Rava retracted his statement and then said the opposite: Both this one, the shofar of a burnt-offering, and the other one, the shofar of a peace-offering, are governed by the same halakha: If he sounded them, he has fulfilled his obligation. The reason for this is that mitzvot were not given for benefit. That is to say, the fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit, and in the absence of benefit, one is not liable for misuse.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖讜驻专 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讗 讬转拽注 讜讗诐 转拽注 讬爪讗 讘砖讜驻专 砖诇 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 诇讗 讬转拽注 讜讗诐 转拽注 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 讻转讜转讬 诪讬讻转转 砖讬注讜专讬讛

Rav Yehuda said further: One should not sound a shofar that was used for idol worship, but if he nevertheless transgressed and sounded it, he has fulfilled his obligation. One should also not sound a shofar from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry, where the majority of inhabitants committed idolatry, but if he nevertheless transgressed and sounded it, he has not fulfilled his obligation. What is the reason for this last ruling? With regard to any object found in a city whose residents were incited to idolatry, its size as required for the mitzva is seen by halakha as crushed into powder. Since a shofar from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is destined for burning, it is considered as if it is already burnt, and it therefore lacks the requisite measurement for fulfilling the mitzva.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诪讜转专 诇转拽讜注 诇讜 转拽讬注讛 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪砖讜驻专 诪讜转专 诇转拽讜注 讘讜 转拽讬注讛 砖诇 诪爪讜讛

Rava said: If one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another, i.e., if he took a vow not to receive any benefit whatsoever from a certain person, that other person is nevertheless permitted to sound a blast for him so that he fulfills the mitzva, in accordance with the principle that the fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit. For the same reason, if one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from a particular shofar, he is nevertheless permitted to sound a blast with it so that he may fulfill the mitzva.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诪讝讛 注诇讬讜 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪诪注讬谉 讟讜讘诇 讘讜 讟讘讬诇讛 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛

And Rava said further: If one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another, that other person may nevertheless sprinkle the waters of purification on him, i.e., water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, which was used to purify people and objects that had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse, in the rainy season, for at that time the sprinkling is performed only in order to fulfill a mitzva. But he may not do so in the summer season, since then he also benefits from the very fact that water is being sprinkled on him. Similarly, if one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from a particular spring, he may nevertheless immerse in it an immersion performed in order to fulfill a mitzva in the rainy season, but not in the summer season, since then he also derives benefit from the very fact that he has immersed in cold water.

砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻驻讗讜 讜讗讻诇 诪爪讛 讬爪讗 讻驻讗讜 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻驻讗讜 砖讚 讜讛转谞讬讗 注转讬诐 讞诇讬诐 注转讬诐 砖讜讟讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讞诇讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻驻拽讞 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讜 讻砖讛讜讗 砖讜讟讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻砖讜讟讛 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讜

搂 It is related that the following ruling was sent from Eretz Yisrael to Shmuel鈥檚 father: If one was forcibly compelled to eat matza on Passover, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara clarifies the matter: Who compelled him to eat the matza? If we say that a demon forced him, i.e., that he ate it in a moment of insanity, this is difficult. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to someone who is at times sane and at times insane, at the times when he is sane, he is considered halakhically competent for all purposes and is obligated in all the mitzvot. And when he is insane, he is considered insane for all purposes, and is therefore exempt from the mitzvot. If so, someone who was compelled by a demon to eat matza is not considered obligated to perform the mitzvot at all.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖讻驻讗讜讛讜 驻专住讬讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛转讜拽注 诇砖讬专 讬爪讗

Rav Ashi said: We are dealing with a case where the Persians compelled him to eat. Rava said: That is to say that one who sounds a shofar for the music, having no intent to fulfill the mitzva, fulfills his obligation, since the critical issue is hearing the blast and not the intent of the blower.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 讗讻诇

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that this is identical to that which was stated above, that one who was compelled to eat matza fulfills the mitzva even if he had no intention of doing so? The same should apply in the case of the shofar, that one who heard the blast of a shofar fulfills his obligation even if he had no intention of doing so. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there is a difference between the two cases, there, the Merciful One says: Eat matza, and he indeed ate it, thereby fulfilling the mitzva.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讝讻专讜谉 转专讜注讛 讻转讬讘 讜讛讗讬 诪转注住拽 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讗 诪爪讜转 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讜转 讻讜讜谞讛

But here, with regard to a shofar, it is written: 鈥淎 memorial of blasts鈥 (Leviticus 23:24), which might have been understood as requiring conscious intent, and this one was merely acting unawares, without having any intent whatsoever of performing the mitzva. Therefore, Rava teaches us that the absence of intent does not invalidate fulfillment of the mitzva, even in the case of shofar. The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Rava maintains that the fulfillment of mitzvot does not require intent. That is to say, if one performs a mitzva, he fulfills his obligation even if he has no intention of doing so.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 讘转讜专讛 讜讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讛诪拽专讗 讗诐 讻讜讜谉 诇讘讜 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讜讜谉 诇讘讜 诇爪讗转

The Gemara raised an objection to this conclusion from what we learned in a mishna: If one was reading the passage of Shema in the Torah, and the time of reciting Shema arrived, if he focused his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara reasons: What, is it not that he focused his heart to fulfill his obligation, and if he failed to do so, he has not fulfilled his duty, therefore implying that the fulfillment of mitzvot requires intent?

诇讗 诇拽专讜转 诇拽专讜转 讛讗 拽讗 拽专讬 讘拽讜专讗 诇讛讙讬讛

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the mishna means that he intended to read the passage. The Gemara asks in astonishment: To read? But he is already reading it, for the mishna explicitly states: If one was reading in the Torah. The Gemara answers: We are discussing one who was reading from a Torah scroll in order to correct it, uttering the words indistinctly. The mishna teaches that if such an individual intends to articulate the words correctly, he has fulfilled his obligation.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 注讜讘专 讗讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘讬转讜 住诪讜讱 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜砖诪注 拽讜诇 砖讜驻专 讗讜 拽讜诇 诪讙讬诇讛 讗诐 讻讜讜谉 诇讘讜 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗诐 讻讜讜谉 诇讘讜 诇爪讗转

The Gemara raises another objection: Come and hear that which we learned in our mishna: If one was passing behind a synagogue, or his house was adjacent to the synagogue, and he heard the sound of the shofar or the sound of the Scroll of Esther, if he focused his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. What, is it not that he focused his heart to fulfill his obligation, and if he failed to do so, he has not fulfilled his duty, therefore implying that the fulfillment of mitzvot requires intent?

诇讗 诇砖诪讜注 诇砖诪讜注 讜讛讗 砖诪注 住讘讜专 讞诪讜专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the mishna means that he intended to hear the sound of the shofar. The Gemara immediately asks: To hear? But he already hears it, since the mishna explicitly states: And he heard the sound of the shofar. The Gemara answers: We are discussing one who thinks that it is merely the sound of a donkey that he is hearing, and in this case, where the listener thinks that the sound was not that of a shofar, he does not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, the mishna teaches that it is sufficient that one have intent and know that he is hearing the sound of a shofar.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 谞转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 讜诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诪砖诪讬注 诪砖诪讬注 讜诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 诇讗 讬爪讗 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 讜诪砖诪讬注 讘砖诇诪讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诪砖诪讬注 讜诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 讻住讘讜专 讞诪讜专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 砖讜诪注 讜诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诪砖诪讬注 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讗讜 讘转讜拽注 诇砖讬专

The Gemara raised an objection to this answer from a baraita: If the hearer of the shofar had intent, but the sounder of the shofar did not have intent, or if the sounder of the shofar had intent, but the hearer did not have intent, he has not fulfilled his obligation, until both the hearer and the sounder have intent. Granted, with regard to the case where the sounder had intent, but the hearer did not have intent, Rava can say that this is referring to a case where the hearer thinks that it is merely the sound of a donkey and he did not have intent to hear the sound of a shofar. But with regard to the case where the hearer had intent, but the sounder did not have intent, under what circumstances can this case be found? Is it not where he sounds a shofar for music and despite the intent of the hearer he has not fulfilled his obligation? This implies that unless the sounder of the shofar has intent to fulfill the mitzva the hearer does not fulfill his obligation.

讚诇诪讗 讚拽讗 诪谞讘讞 谞讘讜讞讬

The Gemara rejects this argument: Perhaps the baraita is referring to a case where he sounded bark-like blasts with the shofar, i.e., he did not sound the shofar in the proper manner, but merely acted unawares without intent to perform the mitzva. The baraita teaches us that if he has intent to sound the blasts in the correct manner, he has fulfilled his obligation.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讬砖谉 讘砖诪讬谞讬 讘住讜讻讛 讬诇拽讛

Abaye said to Rava: However, if that is so, that the fulfillment of a mitzva does not require intent, one who sleeps in a sukka on the Eighth Day of Assembly should receive lashes for violating the prohibition against adding to mitzvot, since he is adding to the mitzva of: 鈥淵ou shall dwell in sukkot for seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:42). Since, according to Rava, even if one did not intend to observe the mitzva of sukka but slept in the sukka for a different reason, his sleeping in the sukka constitutes the fulfillment of a mitzva to dwell there, then, if one did so at an inappropriate time, he is considered to have transgressed the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot. Yet the Sages instituted that in the Diaspora one must observe Sukkot for eight days.

讗诪专 诇讜 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜转 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谞谉

Rava said to him: This is because I say that mitzvot can be transgressed only by adding to them in their prescribed times. But if one adds to a mitzva outside of the period of obligation for the mitzva, there is no violation of the prohibition against adding to mitzvot. On the Eighth Day of Assembly there is no longer a mitzva to sleep in the sukka. Therefore, sleeping in the sukka on that day does not constitute a prohibited act.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 砖注讜诇讛 诇讚讜讻谉 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞转谞讛 诇讬 转讜专讛 专砖讜转 诇讘专讱 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜住讬祝 讘专讻讛 讗讞转 诪砖诇讬 讻讙讜谉 讛壮 讗诇讛讬 讗讘讜转讬讻诐 讬讜住祝 注诇讬讻诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讜住讬驻讜 注诇 讛讚讘专 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘专讬讱 诇讬讛 注讘专讛 诇讬讛 讝诪谞讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 讚注讘专

Rav Shemen bar Abba raised an objection from that which was taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that a priest who went up to the platform to recite the Priestly Blessing should not say: Since the Torah granted me permission to bless the Jewish people, I will add a blessing of my own, which is not part of the Priestly Blessing stated in the Torah, for example: 鈥淢ay the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times as many as you are鈥 (Deuteronomy 1:11)? It is derived from the verse that states: 鈥淵ou shall not add to the word which I command you鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:2). But here, since the priest already recited the Priestly Blessing, the time of the mitzva has passed, and according to Rava, after the prescribed time for performing a mitzva, one does not transgress the prohibition against adding to mitzvot, yet it nevertheless teaches that he has transgressed.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讚诇讗 住讬讬诐

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where he did not complete the fixed text of the blessing but added to it in the middle.

讜讛转谞讬讗 住讬讬诐 住讬讬诐 讘专讻讛 讗讞转

The Gemara raises an objection: Isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a parallel baraita: If he completed the Priestly Blessing. The Gemara answers: The baraita means that he completed one blessing, i.e., the first verse of the Priestly Blessing, but he still has two more blessings to recite.

讜讛转谞讬讗 住讬讬诐 讻诇 讘专讻讜转讬讜 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诇讜 诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 爪讘讜专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讚专 诪讘专讱 讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita dealing with the same issue: If he completed all of his blessings. The Gemara explains: Here, with regard to the Priestly Blessings, it is different, since if he encounters another congregation, he may recite the blessings again, from which we learn that the entire day is the prescribed time of the mitzva. Therefore, even if he added a blessing of his own only after he finished reciting all three verses of the Priestly Blessing, he is still considered to have added to the mitzva in its prescribed time, and he therefore transgresses the prohibition against adding to mitzvot.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚转谞谉 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讬谞转谞讜 诪转谞讛 讗讞转 诪转谉 讗专讘注 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注

The Gemara comments: And from where do you say that if a mitzva may be performed again, the whole day is considered its prescribed time? As we learned in a mishna: If the blood of sacrifices that require only one sprinkling, such as the firstborn offering, became mingled with the blood of other sacrifices that require only one sprinkling, the mixture of blood is sprinkled once. Similarly, if the blood of sacrifices that require four sprinklings, such as burnt-offerings, became mingled with the blood of other sacrifices that require four sprinklings, the mixture is sprinkled four times.

诪转谉 讗专讘注 讘诪转谉 讗讞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谉 讗讞转

However, if the blood of an offering that requires four sprinklings became mingled with the blood of an offering that requires only one sprinkling, the tanna鈥檌m disagree: Rabbi Eliezer says: The mixture of blood is sprinkled four times. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is sprinkled once.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 注诇 讘诇 转讙专注 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 注诇 讘诇 转讜住讬祝

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: But if he sprinkles the blood only once, he thereby transgresses the prohibition: Do not diminish, which renders it prohibited to take away any element in the performance of a mitzva, as he has not sprinkled the blood of an offering requiring four sprinklings, i.e., the burnt-offering in the proper manner. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: But according to your position, that he must sprinkle the blood four times, he thereby transgresses the prohibition: Do not add, which renders it prohibited to add elements to a mitzva, e.g. an offering requiring one sprinkling, like the firstborn animal.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 讗诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讘注爪诪讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘诇 转讙专注 讗诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讘注爪诪讜

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: The prohibition: Do not add, is stated only in a case where the blood stands by itself, but not when it is part of a mixture. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: Likewise, the prohibition: Do not diminish, is stated only in a case where the blood stands by itself.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻砖诇讗 谞转转 注讘专转 注诇 讘诇 转讙专注 讜诇讗 注砖讬转 诪注砖讛 讘讬讚讱 讻砖谞转转 注讘专转 注诇 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 讜注砖讬转 诪注砖讛 讘讬讚讱

Rabbi Yehoshua said further, in defense of his position: When you do not sprinkle four times, even if you transgress the prohibition: Do not diminish, you do not perform the act with your own hand, since it is merely an omission, not an action. Whereas when you sprinkle four times, you transgress the prohibition: Do not add, with regard to one of the sacrifices, and you perform the act with your own hand, i.e., you transgress the Torah鈥檚 command by means of a positive act. If one is forced to deviate from the words of the Torah, it is preferable to do so in a passive manner. The Gemara concludes the citation from the mishna.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪转谞讛 诪讘讻讜专 注讘专讛 诇讬讛 诇讝诪谞讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 讚注讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讜讻专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讚专 诪讝讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讝诪谞讬讛

The Gemara proceeds to derive from here that if the mitzva may be performed again the whole day is considered its prescribed time: And here, once he has already offered one sprinkling of the blood of the firstborn as required, its time has passed, since he has already completed the mitzva of sprinkling the blood of the firstborn, and it nevertheless teaches that he transgresses the prohibition: Do not add. Is it not because we say as follows: Since if he encounters another firstborn to be sacrificed, he would sprinkle of its blood again? If so, the entire day is considered the prescribed time for the mitzva of sprinkling.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪爪讜转 注讜讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞谉

The Gemara rejects this argument: From where do you conclude that this is so? Perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that mitzvot can be transgressed by adding to them even outside their prescribed times. Therefore, this source provides no proof.

讗谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖讘讬拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜诪讜转讬讘 诪讘专讬讬转讗 诇讜转讬讘 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪讜转讬讘 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讜讻专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘注讬 诪讝讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讘专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 诪转专诪讬 爪讘讜专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讚专 诪讘专讱 讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讝诪谞讬讛

The Gemara explains: This is what we were saying when we cited this mishna: What is the reason that Rav Shemen bar Abba set aside the mishna, which deals with the sprinkling of blood, and raised an objection from a baraita? He should have raised an objection from the mishna, which is more generally accepted. What is the reason that he does not raise an objection from the mishna? Since he knows that it can be argued as follows: Because if he encounters another firstborn he will be required to sprinkle its blood. Therefore the entire day is considered the prescribed time of the mitzva. If so, with regard to the baraita as well, it can be argued that because if he encounters another congregation, he may recite the Priestly Blessing again, the whole day is considered its prescribed time.

讜专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讛转诐 诇讗 住讙讬 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讛讻讗 讗讬 讘注讬 诪讘专讱 讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗 诪讘专讱

The Gemara asks: And what is the opinion of Rav Shemen bar Abba, who raised the objection from the baraita? The Gemara explains: There, it is not possible to refrain from sprinkling the blood of another firstborn that comes his way, so the entire day is certainly its prescribed time. But here, if he wishes, he may bless the other congregation, and if he wishes, he may refrain from blessing them, since he is obligated to recite the Priestly Blessing only once a day.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇爪讗转 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 诇注讘讜专 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛

Rava himself said: There is no difficulty at all, since the fulfillment of a mitzva does not require intent, but the transgression of the prohibition: Do not add, or: Do not diminish, requires intent.

讜讛讗 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚诇注讘讜专 讜诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇爪讗转 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 诇注讘讜专 讘讝诪谞讜 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in the case of the sprinkling of blood, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, the transgression of the prohibition: Do not add, does not require intent, since he holds that if one added to the required sprinklings, he transgresses. Rather, Rava said: One must say as follows: The fulfillment of a mitzva does not require intent, and the transgression of the prohibition: Do not add, during the prescribed time of the mitzva, does not require intent, and the sprinkler of the blood therefore transgresses, as Rabbi Yehoshua maintains. However, the transgression of the prohibition: Do not add, when it is not in its prescribed time, e.g., in the case of sleeping in the sukka on the Eighth Day of Assembly, requires intent to fulfill the mitzva, and in the absence of such intent, there is no transgression.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇砖诪注讬讛

With regard to the intent required in order to fulfill the mitzva of shofar, Rabbi Zeira said to his servant:

Scroll To Top