Previous daf

1)

(a) Rabah *validates* a Shofar-blast that one heard partially inside a pit and partially outside, but *invalidates* a blast that one heard partially before dawn-break and partially afterwards. We initially interpret Rabah to mean that he is Yotze in the first case, even if he was standing outside the pit and part of what he heard was an echo.
In that case, why should there be a difference between the two cases?

(b) We already proved however (on the previous Daf) that one needs to hear the entire blast, and not just the end.
So how do we establish Rabah?

(c) What is then the Chidush? Why might we have thought that he is not Yotze?

(a) May one blow Lechatchilah on a Shofar of a Shelamim or of an Olah?

(b) Why, Bedieved, according to Rav Yehudah, is one Yotze by the latter but not by the former?

(c) When must the horn have been removed from the head of the Olah?

(d) Is Me'ilah not applicable by Shelamim at all?

(a) How does Rava prove Rav Yehudah's theory by Olah incorrect?

(b) On what grounds does he nevertheless rule leniently, even by Shelamim?

(c) Rav Yehudah accepted Rava's ruling (though it is very difficult to understand, since Rava was born on the same day as Rav Yehudah died - see Rabeinu Chanan'el, and Tosfos DH 'Amar'), to permit (Bedieved) Shofar blasts that were blown on a Shofar of Avodah-Zarah.
What do we learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Abeid Te'Ab'dun ... "?

(d) Then why does he forbid those blown on a Shofar of an Ir ha'Nidachas?

(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).
What is the reason for this?

(b) May he blow for him 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.
When are they both permitted and when are they forbidden?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about someone who is under the influence of demons? Is he considered sane or insane?

(b) Then what did they mean when they sent to Shmuel's father that someone who is forced to eat Matzah, is Yotze? Who forced him?

(c) What did Rava derive from there with regard to someone who blows Shofar for the musical experience (or to chase away a demon)?

(d) Why might we otherwise have drawn a distinction between someone who is forced to eat Matzah and someone who blows Shofar for other motives?

6)

(a) What major principle can we learn from Rava (in the previous question)?

(b) How will Rava explain 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?

(c) How will he explain our Mishnah which requires someone walking behind a Shul who hears the Shofar, to have Kavanah in order to be Yotze?

(d) And how will he explain the Beraisa which requires the *Ba'al Tokei'a* to have Kavanah for the listener to be Yotze? Why is the fact that the Tana also requires the *listener* to have Kavanah, not a problem?

(a) According to Rava (who does not require Kavanah in order to perform a Mitzvah), why will a person who sleeps in the Sukah on Shemini Atzeres not receive Malkos for transgressing the La'av of 'Bal Tosif'?

(b) Then why does a Kohen who adds a Berachah to the three Pesukim of Birchas Kohanim transgress 'Bal Tosif' (Why do we not say there too, that, once he has concluded the Mitzvah, the time of the Mitzvah is over).

(c) Initially, we tried to answer that the Beraisa speaks when the Kohen had *not yet completed* the first of the three Berachos.
How do we then explain the Beraisa that explicitly states that he *has*?

(a) What does one do with the blood of ...

1. ... one Bechor which got mixed up with the blood of another?
2. ... one Chatas which got mixed up with the blood of another?

(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.
Why is that?

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees with him for two reasons. Fistly, because of the La'av of 'Bal Tosif' (according to him, one only transgresses 'Bal Tigra' that when the Chatas is on its own).
What is the second reason?

(a) How do 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)?

(b) How does this proof misfire, and turn into a possible counter-proof *against* 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).
Why could he not have asked from the Mishnah in Zevachim? How is Rava's principle (that 'Bal Tosif' does not apply after once the time of the Mitzvah has terminated) finally disproved?

(a) Rava then differentiates between *fulfilling a Mitzvah* without Kavanah and transgressing the *La'av of *Bal Te'acher* without Kavanah.
How do we initially explain Rava?

(b) We disprove the original 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 Kevanah.
So how do we amend Rava's statement?

(c) How will this answer the original Kashya on Rava 'Ela me'Ata, ha'Yashein ba'Sukah Yilakeh'?