QUESTION: Rav Yehudah says that one does not fulfill the Mitzvah of sounding the Shofar with a horn taken from an animal that was sanctified as a Korban Shelamim. When one blows such a Shofar, he transgresses the prohibition of Me'ilah, using sanctified property for personal benefit. Rava argues and says that one does fulfill the Mitzvah. He argues that there is no prohibition of Me'ilah in this case, because the only benefit one receives from the Shofar is the fulfillment of a Mitzvah, and "Mitzvos Lav Leihanos Nitnu" -- the benefit one derives from a Mitzvah is not considered benefit. Rava agrees that when the blowing of the Shofar does entail the transgression of a prohibition, the person does not fulfill the Mitzvah.

Why exactly does one not fulfill the Mitzvah when his act of blowing of the Shofar involves the transgression of a prohibition?

(a) In his first answer, the RITVA explains that the principle of "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah" prevents the person from fulfilling the Mitzvah.

This answer suffices according to the Rishonim who maintain that the principle of "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah" is a general rule that applies to all Mitzvos. However, some Rishonim maintain that the principle of "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah" applies only in the case of a Korban. One may not bring a Korban that was acquired through an Aveirah (such as theft), and one who does bring such a Korban does not fulfill his obligation. According to these Rishonim, the principle of "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah" is limited to the case of a Korban because the verse from which this principle is derived specifically refers to a Korban: "And you brought [for a sacrifice] a stolen animal, a blind animal, and a sick animal" (Malachi 1:13; Sukah 30a; see RAMBAN to Pesachim 35a, and Insights to Sukah 30:1). Since a Korban is offered specifically for the purpose of arousing the goodwill of Hash-m ("Meratzeh Hash-m"), when it is done through a transgression it cannot serve to arouse Hash-m's goodwill. When one fulfills any other Mitzvah through an Aveirah the Mitzvah is valid, except for the Mitzvah of Lulav (Sukah 29b), since the Mitzvah Lulav is also done for the sake of arousing the goodwill of Hash-m (see Rashi to Sukah 36b, DH Ela l'Rav). According to these Rishonim, the principle of "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah" should not apply to the Mitzvah of blowing the Shofar, and thus the question remains: why does one not fulfill the Mitzvah when his act involves an Aveirah?

The RITVA in Sukah suggests an answer to this question. He says that the Mitzvah of Shofar is also a Mitzvah which is performed to arouse the goodwill of Hash-m, as the Gemara earlier in Rosh Hashanah (26a) implies.

(b) Other Rishonim maintain that the principle of "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah" applies only when one uses an object which is labeled as forbidden due to an Aveirah, such as a stolen object (before Ye'ush). Accordingly, in the case of a Shofar of Hekdesh the principle of "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah" should not apply, because an object of Hekdesh is not an object with which a transgression was committed. Even after one uses it and commits Me'ilah, the object does not become labeled a stolen object.

The RITVA and TUREI EVEN explain that there is another reason why one does not fulfill the Mitzvah in this case. If one fulfills the Mitzvah when he blows a Shofar of Hekdesh, then he transgresses the prohibition of Me'ilah because he benefits from Hekdesh (Rav Yehudah maintains that "Mitzvos Leihanos Nitnu"). If, on the other hand, one does not fulfill the Mitzvah, then even though he blew sounds from the Shofar, he received absolutely no benefit from the Hekdesh and thus did not commit Me'ilah. The Torah does not allow a person to fulfill a Mitzvah when the very fulfillment of the Mitzvah will cause him to transgress an Aveirah. In such a case, the Torah seeks to prevent one from transgressing an Aveirah, and therefore the Torah says that he does not fulfill the Mitzvah.

QUESTION: The Gemara concludes that one transgresses the prohibition of Bal Tosif when he adds to a Mitzvah during the time that the obligation to fulfill the Mitzvah applies ("b'Zmano"), even if he does not intend to add to the Mitzvah. When the obligation to fulfill the Mitzvah does not apply ("she'Lo b'Zmano"), one transgresses Bal Tosif only if he intends to add to the Mitzvah.

If one transgresses Bal Tosif when he adds to a Mitzvah during the time that the obligation to fulfill the Mitzvah applies, then why does the Gemara earlier (16b) teach that an extra set of Teki'os is blown in order to confound the Satan? The sounding of the extra Teki'os is performed at the time the Mitzvah of Shofar is fulfilled, and thus it should be prohibited because of Bal Tosif (even if one does not intend to sound the extra Teki'os as part of the Mitzvah)! Even if the extra Teki'os are sounded after one has already fulfilled the Mitzvah of Shofar, they still should be considered "b'Zmano" because the Ba'al Toke'a might be called upon to blow the Shofar for people who have not yet heard it.

Moreover, the Rishonim point out that a person who blows the second set of Teki'os should have in mind that he fulfills the Mitzvah of Shofar with those blasts. Consequently, even if he does not sound the extra Teki'os at the time of the fulfillment of the Mitzvah, he still intends to do the Mitzvah at that time and thus the extra Teki'os should constitute Bal Tosif.

The same question applies in the case of a person who eats a second k'Zayis of Matzah on the first night of Pesach (such as the Afikoman), or a person who lifts a Lulav a second time in one day (such as to recite Hallel with it). Even though the person already fulfilled the Mitzvah, when he does the second act he certainly has in mind to fulfill the Mitzvah again, in which case Bal Tosif applies even when the act is done "she'Lo b'Zmano." Why is his act not considered a transgression of the prohibition of Bal Tosif? (TOSFOS)

(a) TOSFOS (DH Mena Teimra) answers that performing one Mitzvah two times does not constitute Bal Tosif. Only adding something which is not part of the Mitzvah constitutes Bal Tosif (such as adding a fifth Min to the Arba'as ha'Minim).

Tosfos asks, however, that according to this answer, when one places four Parshiyos in each of the four sections of the Tefilin Shel Rosh (instead of one Parshah in each section), or when one adds strings to Tzitzis, he should not transgress Bal Tosif. However, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (88a) implies that one transgresses Bal Tosif in such cases.

The RITVA (16b) answers that adding another Mitzvah does not constitute Bal Tosif as long as the essential appearance of the original Mitzvah is not altered in any way. By blowing a second set of Teki'os, the appearance of the Mitzvah is not altered. In contrast, the addition of an extra string to the Tzitzis changes the appearance of the Mitzvah, and thus Bal Tosif applies.

According to the Ritva, one who adds an extra Hadas to his Lulav does transgress Bal Tosif because he changes the appearance of the Mitzvah itself. According to Tosfos, however, there is nothing wrong with adding another Hadas because one merely repeats the Mitzvah that was already done. (See Insights to Sukah 34:2:d.)

(b) The RASHBA (16b) says that the extra Teki'os sounded in order to confound the Satan are a Mitzvah mi'Divrei Sofrim. The fulfillment of a Mitzvah d'Rabanan does not constitute Bal Tosif. Since the Rabanan decreed that this practice be observed, it becomes a Mitzvah mandated by the Torah because the Torah commands that we listen to what the Rabanan tell us to do (Devarim 17:11).

(c) The PISKEI HA'RID and the AGUDAH explain that as long as one does not recite a blessing when he performs the Mitzvah, he is not considered to have had intention to add to the Mitzvah. One does not transgress Bal Tosif when he adds to the Mitzvah at a time when there is no obligation to perform the Mitzvah unless he recites a blessing.

Does this apply to the extra Teki'os? As mentioned above, the extra Teki'os are considered to be sounded during the time of the Mitzvah, since a person who already blew the Shofar will blow it again if he finds a Tzibur which did not yet hear the Shofar. Accordingly, he should transgress Bal Tosif even if he does not have intention to add to the Mitzvah.

Apparently, the Rid and Agudah maintain that even though he might blow the Shofar again, his extra Teki'os are not considered Teki'os blown during the time of the Mitzvah of Teki'as Shofar. Perhaps the reason is because even if the Ba'al Toke'a finds people who have not yet heard Teki'as Shofar and he blows for them, he does not fulfill a Mitzvah incumbent on himself; he merely helps others fulfill their Mitzvah. (In contrast, a Kohen who finds a group of people who have not yet heard Birkas ha'Kohanim fulfills a Mitzvah himself when he blesses them.) (This approach is discussed at length by the TUREI EVEN.)