Rosh Hashanah 28b — the Talmud in English

But here,

with regard to the shofar, the mitzva does not depend on eating or bodily enjoyment, but on an action, as

“a remembrance of the shofar blast” is written

about it.

And this one,

who did not intend to perform the act of blowing the shofar,

is merely acting without purpose,

and his action is not considered “the act of blowing.” Therefore, one might have said that he has not fulfilled his obligation.

This teaches us:

Rabba teaches us that no mitzvot require specific intention.

It follows

from here that

Rabba holds: mitzvot—

do not require intention

to fulfill one’s obligation through them.

They raise an objection from a source

that contradicts Rabba’s statement, from what we learned in the Mishna [Berakhot 13]:

As we learned: A person

was reading from the Torah, and the time for reciting the reading

of the Shema arrived, while at that time he was reading the Torah passage of the Shema;

If he directed his heart—

he has fulfilled his obligation. But if not—

he has not fulfilled his obligation.

What

does the Mishna mean by “directed his heart”?

Is it not

that the tanna, a sage of the Mishnaic era, intended to say that if he

directed his heart to fulfill his obligation,

he fulfills it?

It follows from here that mitzvot require intention to fulfill one’s obligation.

And we reject this:

No!

The Mishna means that if he directed his heart

to read.

The Gemara immediately asks: If the Mishna is speaking of directing his heart

to read,

how can it distinguish between directing his heart to read and not directing his heart to read,

when he is reading in any case?

He is reading the Shema, and surely he is not reading it automatically, without intending to read it!

And we answer: The Mishna is speaking of

one who is reading to proofread.

As long as he does not intend to read the text, his reading is not proper, because he reads the words according to their written form, including the letters that are present or absent in the written text, rather than pronouncing them as they are read.

Come and hear a proof

from another source that mitzvot require intention. We learned in our Mishna:

If one was passing behind a synagogue, or if his house was adjacent to a synagogue, and he heard the sound of the shofar

on Rosh HaShana,

or the sound of the Scroll

on Purim,

If he directed his heart—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

But if not—

he has not fulfilled his obligation.

What

does the Mishna mean when it says “directed his heart”?

Is it not

that its intention is to say that

if he directed his heart to fulfill his obligation?!

It follows from here that if he did not intend to fulfill his obligation, he did not fulfill it, because mitzvot require intention.

And we reject this:

No!

The Mishna means that if he directed his heart

to hear,

he fulfills his obligation. But if he did not direct his heart to hear, he did not hear, and therefore he did not fulfill his obligation.

We ask: Does he really need special intention

to hear?

But he heard it

on his own!

Since mitzvot do not require intention, and he heard it, why did he not fulfill his obligation?

And we answer: As long as he did not direct his heart, he does not know that it is a person’s blowing, because the listener

thinks

that this sound is merely

the braying of a donkey.

Therefore, he did not fulfill his obligation.

They raise an objection from a source

that contradicts Rabba [who says that mitzvot do not require intention], from a beraita, a Tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, discussing the blowing of the shofar: As it was taught:

If the listener intended, but the blower did not intend,

or if

the blower intended, but the listener did not intend,

he has not fulfilled his obligation—

until both the listener and the blower intend.

The intention of this beraita must also be examined: Does it refer to the intention to hear, or to the intention to fulfill one’s obligation?

It is understandable

that what we learned,

“the blower intended but the listener did not intend,”

refers to the intention to hear. As long as the listener did not intend, he

thinks it is merely the braying of a donkey.

Therefore, he did not fulfill his obligation.

But

what we learned,

“the listener intended but the blower did not intend”—

how can such a case occur?

In what circumstances can such a situation exist?

Could he possibly think that his blowing is nothing more than the braying of a donkey?!

Rather,

is it not

necessarily speaking

of one who blows for music!

It is clear from the beraita that one who blows for music has not fulfilled his obligation [because mitzvot require intention], contrary to Rabba’s statement!

And we answer:

Perhaps he was producing only short, bark-like sounds.

Perhaps the case is one in which the person did not blow the required measure of a shofar blast [as explained below, 33b], but produced short sounds resembling barks.

Therefore, he must intend to produce a blast of the required measure.

But if it is known that he produced a blast of the required measure, even one who blows for music fulfills his obligation, in accordance with Rava’s view.

He said

and challenged

Abaye

Rabba:

If so, from now on,

since you say that one who performs a mitzva without intention is considered as though he intended, then a person

who sleeps on the eighth day

of the festival of Assembly

in a sukka,

without intending to fulfill a mitzva,

should be flogged,

because he violates the prohibition of “you shall not add.”

Although he did not intend it as a mitzva, his action should nevertheless be considered an act of mitzva even without his intention!

Yet it is an accepted ruling that one who sleeps in a sukka on the eighth day without intending it as a mitzva is not flogged!

He said

and answered

him,

Rabba: The reason he does not violate “you shall not add” is that

I maintain: one violates the prohibition concerning mitzvot

only

when performing them

within

the period when they are required,

at their proper time.

For example, one who places five passages in his phylacteries during the time when the mitzva of phylacteries applies, or five ritual fringes on a garment during the time when the mitzva of ritual fringes applies, or five species in the lulav during the time of taking the lulav.

Only in such a case does he violate “you shall not add.” But one who adds a day to the days established by the Torah, or an hour to the hours established by the Torah, does not violate “you shall not add.”

Even if he intended it as a mitzva, he does not violate “you shall not add.”

Rav Shaman bar Abba raises an objection

to Rabba’s answer, which stated that one violates “you shall not add” only during the time of the mitzva, from what was taught in a beraita:

As it was taught:

From where is it derived concerning a kohein who ascends the platform to bless the people, a kohein having the status of a member of the priestly family serving in the Temple, that he may not say: Since the Torah has given me permission to bless Israel,

I will add

to them

one blessing of my own,

such as

blessing them with the verse [Deuteronomy 1]:

“May the Lord, God of your fathers, add to you

as you are a thousand times over, and bless you as He spoke to you.”

The Torah therefore states

[it says for this reason]:

“You shall not add to the matter.”

But here,

in the example brought in the beraita,

once he has completed his blessing,

since the kohein has already blessed Israel as required,

its time has passed,

meaning that the time of his obligation has ended.

And

nevertheless,

it teaches that he has violated

“you shall not add”!

And we answer:

Here we are dealing with a case in which he had not finished.

The case is one in which the kohein added another blessing in the middle of the Priestly Blessing, before he had completed all the blessings.

And we ask:

But it was taught: A kohein who

finished

the Priestly Blessing and added one blessing violates “you shall not add”!

!

finished one blessing

out of the three blessings of the Priestly Blessing.

And we ask:

But it was taught: “He finished all his blessings”,

and added a blessing of his own, he violates “you shall not add”!

And we answer:

Here is different:

the Priestly Blessing is different, because

once another congregation happens to come before him, he blesses them again,

and since, if another congregation comes before him, he will again recite the Priestly Blessing,

the entire day is its proper time!

Therefore, the entire day is its time, even if he has already blessed them; consequently, if he adds a blessing of his own, he violates “you shall not add.”

Поэтому всё время дня считается для него установленным временем, даже если он уже благословил; следовательно, если он добавляет собственное благословение, он нарушает запрет «не прибавляй».

We inquire about this:

And what indication is there

that one may say that since, if another congregation happens to come before him, he would bless it, this is considered adding during the proper time?

And we answer: It is derived

from what we learned

concerning the application of sacrificial blood:

There are offerings whose blood is placed on the altar with only one placement. These are the firstborn offering, the animal tithe, and the Paschal offering.

But the blood of the burnt offering, peace offering, guilt offering, and thanksgiving offering is placed on the altar in two placements that constitute four. That is, the kohein throws the blood on two opposite corners of the altar, and the blood spreads across the altar’s four walls [each throwing spreads over the two walls meeting at that corner].

And we learned in tractate Zevachim [80a]:

Blood

that is given in one placement

[the blood of the firstborn offering, the animal tithe, and the Paschal offering]

that became mixed with blood that is given in one placement,

such as the blood of one firstborn offering that became mixed with the blood of another firstborn offering or with the blood of an animal-tithe offering,

shall be given

some of the mixture

in one placement,

so that blood from both offerings that became mixed together has been placed on the altar.

Likewise, blood that is given on the altar

in four placements

[the blood of peace offerings, thanksgiving offerings, guilt offerings, and burnt offerings, which are given on the altar in two placements that constitute four] that became mixed with blood given

in four placements,

shall be given,

while mixed together, on the altar

in four placements.

But blood given

in four placements

that became mixed with blood given

in one placement

[for example, the blood of a firstborn offering that became mixed with the blood of a burnt offering] is the subject of a dispute among the Tannaim:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It shall be given in four placements.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: It shall be given in one placement.

Rabbi Eliezer said

to Rabbi Yehoshua: According to your statement that it shall be given in one placement—

he thereby violates “you shall not diminish”!

After all, the blood of a burnt offering must be given in four placements.

Rabbi Yehoshua said

to Rabbi Eliezer: According to your statement that it shall be given in four placements—

he thereby violates

the prohibition of

“you shall not add”!

After all, the blood of a firstborn offering must be given only in one placement!

Rabbi Eliezer said

to Rabbi Yehoshua: According to my position, he does not violate “you shall not add,” because

“you shall not add” was stated only when it is

by

itself,

and not when it is mixed with other blood.

When it is mixed with other blood, the additional placements are not made in order to add placements to blood that does not require them; rather, they are made in order to give four placements to the blood that does require them.

It is only because the bloods are mixed together that the blood of the firstborn offering is also given in four placements.

Rabbi Yehoshua said

to Rabbi Eliezer:

“You shall not diminish” was stated only when it is

by

itself,

and not when it is mixed with other blood.

[Since, when the bloods are mixed, he violates neither “you shall not add” nor “you shall not diminish,” Rabbi Eliezer’s statement that it should be given in four placements is understandable, so that he should not diminish the mitzva. Rabbi Yehoshua holds that since after the fact one fulfills the obligation by giving one placement, there is no need to give more. Rabbi Yehoshua further explains his reasoning below.]

Rabbi Yehoshua further said:

Even if he does violate “you shall not diminish,” that is preferable to violating “you shall not add.” Because:

When you did not give

the four placements required for blood requiring four placements,

you violated

indeed

“you shall not diminish,” but

you

did not perform an act

of prohibition

with your hands;

you merely refrained from fulfilling a mitzva through inaction.

But

when you gave

the four placements of blood requiring only one placement,

you violated

by doing so

“you shall not add,”

and you performed an act

of prohibition

with your hands.

One who performs a prohibited act with his hands is not comparable to one who sits and does nothing.

The following question may be asked about this Mishna:

But here,

in this case,

once he has given it,

since he has given

one placement of

the blood of the

firstborn offering

mixed with the blood of a burnt offering,

its time has already passed.

For by the first placement he has fulfilled his obligation to give the blood of the firstborn offering.

And

nevertheless

it teaches that he violates “you shall not add”

[if the blood had not been mixed with other blood]!

Is it not

that the reason is

because we say: Since, if

another

firstborn offering

had happened to come before him,

he would again sprinkle from it,

he would have to sprinkle from the blood of that firstborn offering—therefore,

the entire day is its proper time!

The entire day is considered its proper time.

In other words, the fact that the person has already fulfilled his obligation does not mean that this is outside the time of the mitzva, since he might become obligated in that same mitzva at that time—for example, if another firstborn offering should come before him.

This supports Rabba’s answer: a kohein who adds to his blessings violates “you shall not add,” since the entire day is its proper time.

And we ask:

From what

can this prove Rabba’s reasoning that the entire day is considered the proper time?

Perhaps

что

Rabbi Yehoshua holds that one who adds to

the

mitzvot

violates them through “you shall not add”

even outside their proper time!

Therefore, one who gives four placements violates “you shall not add,” even though the time has passed once he fulfilled his obligation with the first placement of blood.

And we answer: Indeed, no proof can be brought from here for Rabba’s statement.

Rather, Rabba derived from here that Rav Shaman bar Abba’s objection must be rejected, as follows:

And

we mean this:

We must understand

the objection of

Rav Shaman bar Abba,

who challenged Rabba from the beraita stating that a kohein who adds a blessing to the Priestly Blessing violates “you shall not add,” and proved from there that even after the time of the mitzva has passed one violates “you shall not add”—

Why did he leave the Mishna and raise his objection from a beraita?

Why did he set aside the Mishna mentioned above, which makes clear that one who adds to the placement of the blood of a firstborn offering violates “you shall not add,” and instead challenge Rabba from the beraita? After all, the Mishna is more authoritative than the beraita, and it is preferable to raise an objection from a Mishna.

If so,

let him raise the objection

[challenge him]

from the Mishna!

Rather, necessarily,

why did he not raise the objection from the Mishna,

why did Rav Shaman bar Abba not challenge him from our Mishna? It is because

since, if another firstborn offering happened to come before him,

he would have to sprinkle from it.

Therefore,

the entire day is its proper time.

For if another firstborn offering happened to come before him, he would have to sprinkle its blood on the altar, and therefore the entire day is considered its proper time.

If so, according to Rav Shaman bar Abba,

the beraita as well,

the beraita that speaks of a kohein who adds to the Priestly Blessing, can be explained as follows:

Since, if

another congregation

happened to come before him, he would again

go and

bless—

therefore,

the entire day is its proper time,

the entire day is its proper time.

From here Rabba proved that Rav Shaman bar Abba’s objection must be rejected, based on what can be demonstrated from Rav Shaman’s own words: he himself accepts this principle.

And Rav Shaman bar Abba

answered his objection by distinguishing between the placement of blood and the Priestly Blessing, as follows:

There,

in the case of the firstborn offering,

it is not possible for him not to give it.

If another firstborn offering should come before him, he has no option of refraining from giving its blood, since it is forbidden to cause sacrificial offerings to be lost. Therefore, the entire day is its proper time.

Therefore, one cannot challenge Rabba’s statement from there, since he said that one violates “you shall not add” only during the time of the mitzva.

But

here,

in the case of the Priestly Blessing, even if another congregation should come before him, he is not obligated to bless it.

Rather,

if he wishes,

he

blesses.

If he wishes,

he

does not bless.

It follows that the entire day is not its proper time, because the kohanim are obligated to bless Israel only once a day. [Tosafot.] This is provided that the congregation calls them to stand and bless them. [The Ritva.]

In summary: Rabba’s view is that mitzvot do not require intention.

And Abaye challenged: If so, one who sleeps in a sukkah on the eighth day should be flogged for violating the prohibition against adding to a mitzva?!

Rabba answered that one violates the prohibition against adding to a mitzva only during the time when the mitzva is obligatory. That is, whenever it is possible that the mitzva might present itself and he might perform it, that is considered its time.

Rava said

another answer to Abaye’s challenge as to why one who sleeps in a sukkah on the eighth day is not flogged]:

Although we said that mitzvot do not require intention, specifically

to fulfill

the mitzva,

there is no need [

it is not necessary]

for intention.

But

to violate

the prohibition against adding to a mitzva, one

requires intention

to perform it as a mitzva; and if he did not intend to perform it as a mitzva, he does not violate the prohibition against adding to a mitzva.

We challenge this:

But what of the four applications of blood for Rabbi Yehoshua,

who said that one does not apply the four applications from the blood of the firstborn offering, because

to violate

the prohibition against adding to a mitzva would result,

and there is no need for intention.

After all, he does not intend, when making the four applications, to apply the blood of the firstborn offering; rather, he intends only to apply the blood of the burnt offering. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yehoshua said that he violates the prohibition against adding to a mitzva.

Rabbi Eliezer also agrees in this case that, had its blood not been mixed with the blood of another offering, he would violate the prohibition against adding to a mitzva. [Ritva]!

It is therefore necessarily impossible to say that intention is required in order to violate the prohibition against adding to a mitzva.

Rather, Rava said:

with regard to

fulfilling

the mitzva,

it does not require

any

intention.

But with regard to

violating

the prohibition against adding to a mitzva, there is a distinction:

During its time,

the mitzva,

does not require intention.

Therefore, even one who makes the four blood applications without intention violates the prohibition against adding to a mitzva.

Outside its time,

it requires intention.

Therefore, one who sleeps in a sukkah on the eighth day does not violate the prohibition against adding to a mitzva.

Rabbi Zeira said to his attendant,

his servant, before the sounding of the shofar: