- Blowing with the horn of an olah or shelamim
Rav Yehudah said: בשופר של עולה לא יתקע ואם תקע יצא – One should not blow with the shofar of an olah, but if he did blow with it, he has fulfilled his chiyuv. בשופר של שלמים לא יתקע ואם תקע לא יצא – One should not blow with the shofar of a shelamim, and if he did, he has not fulfilled his chiyuv. What is the difference between them? עולת בת מעילה היא – An olah is subject to me’ilah. Therefore, once he blew its horn and thereby committed me’ilah with it, the horn goes out to the unconsecrated state. But shelamim are not subject to the laws of me’ilah, and therefore, even when their horns are blown, איסורא הוא דרכיב בהו ולא נפקא לחולין – the prohibition rests upon them and they do not go out to an unconsecrated state. Rava challenged this interpretation, saying that the blower of the olah’s horn only commits me’ilah after he blew the horn, but while he was blowing it, באיסורא תקע – he blew while the horn was still in a prohibited state. Rava initially said that one does not fulfill his chiyuv with the olah and shelamim horns, but then subsequently stated that one does fulfill his chiyuv with both of them, because מצות לאו ליהנות ניתנו – mitzvos were not given to Yisroel for the purpose of deriving benefit from their fulfillment. Rashi explains that mitzvos were not given to derive benefit from their fulfillment but were given as a yoke upon one’s neck.
- התוקע לשיר יצא
They sent to Shmuel’s father the following statement: כפאו ואכל מצה יצא – If one compelled another to eat matzah on Pesach, the latter has fulfilled his chiyuv. After clarifying that the case was where Persians compelled the person to eat the matzah, Rava said: זאת אומרת התוקע לשיר יצא – This ruling indicates that one who blows a shofar on Rosh Hashanah for the purpose of playing a song, has nonetheless fulfilled his chiyuv. The Gemara asks that this is obvious, given that both cases are where the person had no intent to fulfill the mitzvah. The Gemara answers that without Rava’s inference one might have thought in the case of matzah, אכול מצה אמר רחמנא והא אכל – the Torah said, “Eat matzah,” and this coerced person in fact ate matzah and fulfilled the mitzvah, whereas in the second case, "זכרון תרועה" כתיב – it is written that on Rosh Hashanah there shall be a remembrance of shofar blasts, והאי מתעסק בעלמא הוא – and this one is merely a preoccupied individual, and therefore does not fulfill the mitzvah. קא משמע לן, that Rava is coming to inform us that they are indeed analogous, and the shofar blower also fulfills his chiyuv. From here we see, that Rava holds מצות אין צריכות כוונה – mitzvos do not require intent.
- The question whether one requires kavanah to violate בל תוסיף
The Gemara brings a number of challenges to Rava’s opinion that מצות אין צריכות כוונה. Abaye said to Rava: But now, according to your opinion, הישן בשמיני בסוכה ילקה – one who sleeps in a succah on the eighth day of Succos should receive malkus for performing the mitzvah for an additional day? Rava responded: That is not so, שאני אומר מצות אינו עובר עליהן אלא בזמנן – for I say with regards to mitzvos, that one transgresses for adding onto them, only during their designated time of performance. Rashi brings the examples of one adding a fifth compartment to his head tefillin or taking five species during the seven days of Succos. Simply repeating a mitzvah after the time of its performance has passed, is not a violation. After numerous challenges, Rava modifies his statement, that the rule with respect to violating בל תוסיף, is that during the mitzvah’s designated time, kavanah is not required, שלא בזמנו בעי כוונה – but not during its designated time, it does require kavanah.
