ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafRosh Hashanah 28
(a) Rabah *validates* a Shofar-blast that one heard partially inside a pit
and partially outside it (despite the fact that he was standing outside the
pit and part of what he heard was an echo) - because a pit is a Makom Chiyuv
(for those who are standing inside it), but *invalidates* a blast that one
heard partially before dawn-break and partially afterwards - because what he
heard before dawn-break is not a blast of Chiyuv for anyone.
(b) We already proved however (on the previous Daf) that one needs to hear
the entire blast, and not just the end. So we establish Rabah - when he was
standing inside the pit at the beginning of the note, and continued to blow
as he climbed out of it (in which case, he heard the tone of the Shofar from
beginning to end).
(c) The Chidush is - that we do not decree because of the possibility that
he withdraws his head from the pit whilst the Shofar is still inside the pit
(where he might well be hearing the echo during that brief period).
(a) Lechatchilah - one may not blow on a Shofar of a Shelamim or of an Olah.
(b) According to Rav Yehudah, one is Yotze by the latter, but not by the
former - because Me'ilah applies by an Olah, which therefore goes out to
Chulin; whereas by a Shelamim, there is no Me'ilah, and it therefore retains
(c) The horn must have been removed from the head of the Olah - *before* the
Shechitah, because once it has been Shechted, the skin and the horns belong
to the Kohanim, and Me'ilah no longer applies to them.
(d) Me'ilah is applicable to the Emurim of the Shelamim (the fat-pieces),
once the animal has been Shechted.
(a) Rava proves Rav Yehudah's theory by Olah incorrect - because it is only
*after* he has blown that the Shofar of the Olah goes out to Chulin.
Meanwhile, he is benefitting from it be'Isur, and (according to Rav
Yehudah's theory), he will not be Yotze.
(b) He nevertheless rules leniently, even by Shelamim - because of the
principle "Mitzvos La'av Lehanos Nitnu' (the purpose of performing Mitzvos
is not for our personal benefit, but to fulfill the commandments of Hashem).
(c) Rav Yehudah accepted Rava's ruling to permit (Bedieved) Shofar blasts
that were blown on a Shofar of Avodah-Zarah - We learn from the Pasuk in
Re'ei "Abeid Te'Ab'dun ... " - that all vessels that were used for Avodah-
Zarah are Asur be'Hana'ah (such as a Shofar).
(d) He nevertheless forbids those blown on a Shofar of an Ir ha'Nidachas -
because whatever belongs to an Ir ha'Nidachas must be burned, and whatever
must be burned, is considered as if it has been burned already.
Consequently, the Shofar has lost its minimum Shiur.
(a) Rava permits a person to blow Shofar for someone who is Mudar Hana'ah
(forbidden through a Neder to derive any benefit from him) - because of
'Mitzvos La'av Lehanos Nitnu'.
(b) The same will apply - even if he is Mudar Hana'ah from the Shofar?
(c) The same distinction applies regarding sprinkling the ashes (and water)
of the Parah Adumah on to someone who is Mudar Hana'ah from him, as to
Toveling in a spring from which one is Mudar Hana'ah - Both are permitted in
the winter, but forbidden in the summer, because they derive *real* physical
benefit (which has nothing to do with the Mitzvah).
(a) The Beraisa says that someone who is under the influence of demons - is
considered sane when he behaves in a sane manner, and insane, when he
(b) When they sent to Shmuel's father that someone who is forced to eat
Matzah, is Yotze - they were referring to someone whom the Persians forced.
(c) Rava derived from there that if a person blows Shofar for the musical
experience (or to chase away a demon) - he is nevertheless Yotze.
(d) If not for Rava, we might have drawn a distinction between someone who
is forced to *eat Matzah* on the one hand, and someone who *blows Shofar*
for other motives, on the other - because the former derives benefit from
the Matzah (and the main objective of eating Matzah is the benefit of
tasting it); whereas, blowing the Shofar is not just in order to hear it,
but, as the Torah writes in Emor "Zichron Teru'ah" (implying that one must
have the intention to blow it).
(a) We can learn from Rava that 'Mitzvos Ein Tz'richos Kavanah'.
(b) According to Rava, the Mishnah in Berachos, which requires someone who
is reading the Parshah of Shema in the Torah, to have Kavanah in order to be
Yotze the Mitzvah of Shema - is referring, not to the intention of
fulfilling the Mitzvah, but to read it accurately, without mistakes (which
will render him not Yotze).
(c) He will explain our Mishnah, which requires someone walking behind a
Shul who hears the Shofar, to have Kavanah in order to be Yotze - to refer,
not to the intention of being Yotze, but to the intention of hearing the
tone of a Shofar (and not the braying of a donkey, which he may well mistake
it for). Note: this is similar to the question of 'Mis'asek': that if
someone does not mean to perform an act, he can never be Yotze. It is when
he intends to perform it, but without the intention of being Yotze, that
Rava and Rebbi Zeira in our Sugya argue.
(d) And the Beraisa which requires the *Ba'al Tokei'a* to have Kavanah for
the listener to be Yotze - Rava will explain to mean Kavanah to blow
*properly* (e.g. the right length of note). The fact that the Tana also
requires the *listener* to have Kavanah, is not a problem - as we explained
in c. (that he should hear the tone of a Shofar, and not that of a donkey
(a) According to Rava (who does not require Kavanah in order to perform a
Mitzvah), a person who sleeps in the Sukah on Shemini Atzeres will not
receive Malkos for transgressing the La'av of 'Bal Tosif' - because, in his
opinion, Bal Tosif only applies within the time period of the Mitzvah, and
not once it has passed. Note: From the Gemara's question, it seems that in
Bavel, they used to sleep in the Sukah (Otherwise, what is the Kashya? Maybe
one does receive Malkos for sleeping in the Sukah)?
(b) A Kohen who adds a Berachah to the three Pesukim of Birchas Kohanim
transgress 'Bal Tosif' - because the time period of the Mitzvah has not
terminated, seeing as, if he goes to another community, the Mitzvah to bless
them still applies to him.
(c) Initially, we tried to answer that the Beraisa speaks when the Kohen had
*not yet completed* the first of the three Berachos. The Beraisa that
explicitly states that he *has* - speaks when he has completed the first of
the three Berachos.
(a) If the blood of ...
1. ... one Bechor got mixed up with the blood of another - one simply
sprinkles it once like its Din.
(b) If the blood of a Chatas got mixed up with the blood of a Bechor, Rebbi
Eliezer holds that it must be sprinkled four times - otherwise, he argues,
one will have transgressed 'Bal Tigra' (detracting from the four Haza'os
that a Chatas is Chayav).
2. ... one Chatas got mixed up with the blood of another - one sprinkles it
on all four corners, like its Din.
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees with him for two reasons. Firstly, because of
the La'av of 'Bal Tosif' (according to him, one only transgresses 'Bal
Tigra' when the Chatas is on its own). Secondly, because whenever performing
clashes with not performing, it is better to transgress by *not* performing,
than by *performing* ('Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh Adif').
(a) We try to prove from the Mishnah in Zevachim that as long as the Mitzvah
can be performed again, the time is not considered up (like Rava maintains)
- because, otherwise, according to Rebbi Yehoshua, the moment he has
sprinkled the Matanah of the Bechor, the time of the Mitzvah has passed, so
why will he then transgress 'Bal Tosif' by sprinkling the other three?
(b) Perhaps, we counter, Rebbi Yehoshua rules that he transgresses 'Bal
Tosif', because he holds that the La'av of 'Bal Tosif applies even after the
time of the Mitzvah has passed (a Kashya on Rava?
(c) In fact, Rav Sh'man bar Aba also knew about that Mishnah in Zevachim,
and he deliberately asked on Rava from the *Beraisa* of Birchas Kohanim (and
not from the *Mishnah* in Zevachim) - because in the Mishnah in Zevachim,
the time is definitely not up, seeing as a Kohen is obligated to sprinkle
the blood of as many Bechorim or Chata'os as come his way on that day;
whereas by Birkas Kohanim, where, once a Kohen has Duchened, he is no longer
*obligated* to Duchen a second time, the time of the Mitzvah is considered
over. Nevertheless, we see that 'Bal Tosif' still applies, leaving us with a
Kashya on Rava.
(a) Rava then differentiates between *fulfilling a Mitzvah* without Kavanah,
and transgressing the *La'av of *Bal Te'acher* without Kavanah - which we
understood literally (i.e. that one can never transgress 'Bal Te'acher'
without Kavanah to do so).
(b) We disprove that version of his statement however, from Rebbi Yehoshua
(in the Mishnah in Zevachim), who clearly considers Bal Te'acher applicable
even though he did not have Kavanah. Consequently, we now explain that -
*within* the time period of the Mitzvah, Rava concedes that one transgresses
Bal Te'achar even *without Kavanah* (like the case of Rebbi Yehoshua). And
it is *outside the time period* that he requires *Kavanah* in order to
transgress 'Bal Te'achar'.
(c) This explanation answers the original Kashya on Rava 'Ela me'Ata,
ha'Yashein ba'Sukah Yilakeh' - because, seeing as they slept in the Sukah
because, in case it was the *seventh* day, thy wanted to fulfill the Mitzvah
of Sukah, and not in order to add to the Mitzvah of Sukah, that is not
called Kavanah to add.