1)

(a)Rabah rules that a Shofar-blast that one hears partially ...

1. ... inside a pit and partially outside it (despite the fact that he is standing outside the pit and part of what he heard was an echo) - is valid.

2. ... a blast that one heard partially before dawn-break and partially afterwards - is invalid.

(b)The problem Abaye has with this distinction is - that just as, as in the latter case, one is not Yotzei, due to the fact that before dawn-break is not a time of Chiyuv, so too, in the former case, one should not be Yotzei due to the fact inside the pit is not a location of Chiyuv.

(c)We solve the problem by pointing out that - whereas a pit is a location of Chiyuv at least for those who are standing inside it, before dawn-break is not a blast of Chiyuv for anybody.

(d)We extrapolate from here that - according to Rabah, one can be Yotzei with hearing the prolonged end of a note without hearing the beginning (or vice-versa).

2)

(a)We reconcile this with the Mishnah later, which only counts a doubled-length Teki'ah as only one note.

(b)Based on the what we already proved from the previous Mishnah ('ha'Toke'a l'Toch ha'Bor ... ') that one needs to hear the entire blast, and not just the end, we will re-establish Rabah (to conform with that) - when the Ba'al Toke'a 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 it (where he might well be hearing the echo during that brief period).

3)

(a)Rav Yehudah forbids blowing the Shofar of an Olah l'Chatchilah, though b'Di'eved one is Yotzei, whereas that of a Shelamim - he forbids even b'Di'eved.

(b)The reason that one is ...

1. ... Yotzei by the former is - because an Olah is subject to Me'ilah, in which case it goes out to Chulin.

2. ... not Yotzei by the latter - because a Shelamim is not subject to Me'ilah, but retains its Kedushah.

(c)The horn must have been removed from the head of the Olah before the Shechitah. Had it been removed after the Shechitah (Rashi actually says after the blood has been sprinkled) the skin and the horns belong to the Kohanim (and they lose their Kedushah).

(d)Me'ilah is applicable to the Emurim (the fat-pieces) of a Shelamim, once the animal has been Shechted.

4)

(a)Rava, who disagrees with Rav Yehudah ...

1. ... initially invalidates blowing on the Shofar of an Olah even b'Di'eved - because it is only after he has blown that the Shofar of the Olah goes out to Chulin. Meanwhile, he is benefiting from it b'Isur.

2. ... ultimately permits b'Di'eved even the Shofar of a Shelamim - because of the principle 'Mitzvos Lav Lehanos Nitnu' (the purpose of performing Mitzvos is not for our personal benefit, but to fulfill the commandments of Hash-m).

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Re'eh (in connection with Avodah-Zarah) "Abed Te'Abedun es Kol ha'Mekomos" - that all vessels that have been used for Avodah-Zarah (such as a Shofar) are Asur b'Hana'ah.

(c)Rav Yehudah (who seems to have arrived at the same conclusion as Rava (see also Tosfos DH 'Amar' [though he lived before him]) ruled - that the Shofar of Avodah-Zarah is permits (because of the principle "Mitzvos Lav Lehanos Ninhu' (as Rava just learned).

(d)He nevertheless forbids even b'Di'eved, 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, leaving us without a Kasher Shi'ur.

5)

(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 'Mitzvos Lav Lehanos Nitnu'.

(b)And the same will apply - 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 - though both are forbidden in the summer, since they both derive physical benefit from the cold water (which has nothing to do with the Mitzvah).

6)

(a)The Beraisa rules that someone who is under the influence of demons - is considered sane when he behaves in a sane manner, and insane, when he behaves accordingly.

(b)They sent to Shmuel's father - that someone who is forced to eat Matzah, is Yotzei.

(c)Based on the previous ruling, Rav Ashi interpreted this latter ruling - with regard to someone who is coerced by the Persians.

7)

(a)Rava derived from the previous ruling that if a person blows Shofar for the musical experience (or to chase away a demon) - he is nevertheless Yotzei.

(b)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 - in that the former has tasted the Matzah (which is the Mitzvah's main objective); 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).

(c)We can learn from Rava - that 'Mitzvos Ein Tzerichos Kavanah'.

(d)According to Rava ...

1. ... the Mishnah in Berachos, which requires someone who is reading the Parshah of Shema in the Torah, to have Kavanah in order to be Yotzei the Mitzvah of Shema - is referring (not to the intention of fulfilling the Mitzvah, but) to reading it accurately, without mistakes.

2. ... our Mishnah, which requires someone walking behind a Shul who hears the Shofar, to have Kavanah in order to be Yotzei - is referring, (not to the intention of being Yotzei, 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 note the same as 'Mis'asek', which means that if someone performs a Mitzvah inadvertently, he is not Yotzei. It is when he intends to perform it, but without the intention of being Yotzei, that Rava and Rebbi Zeira argue over in our Sugya.

3. ... the Beraisa which requires the Ba'al Toke'a to have Kavanah for the listener to be Yotzei - means Kavanah to blow properly (e.g. the right length of note).

(e)The fact that, in the latter case, the Tana also requires the listener to have Kavanah, is not a problem, because, as we just explained, he is referring to making sure that what he is hearing is the tone of a Shofar, and not that of a donkey braying.

8)

(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 Malkus for transgressing the Lav of 'Bal Tosif' - because, in his opinion, Bal Tosif only applies within the time period of the Mitzvah, but not once it has passed. Note: From the Gemara's question, it seems that in Bavel, they used to sleep in the Sukah on Shemini Atzeres (Otherwise, why do we ask ' ... Yilakeh?' Maybe one does?)

(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.

(c)Initially, we tried to answer that the Beraisa speaks when the Kohen had not yet completed the last of the three Berachos, in which case, the Beraisa which explicitly states that he has - speaks with reference to having completed the first Berachah.

(d)The extra Berachah referred to by the Tana is - the Pasuk in Devarim "Hash-m Elokei Avoseichem Yosef Aleichem Elef Pe'amim ... ".

9)

(a)If the blood of ...

1. ... one Bechor got mixed up with the blood of another - one simply sprinkles it once, like its Din.

2. ... one Chatas got mixed up with the blood of another - one sprinkles it on all four corners, 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).

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees with him for two reasons. Firstly, because of the Lav 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 (because of the principle 'Shev v'Al Ta'aseh Adif').

10)

(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)This proof misfire however, and turns into a possible counter-proof against Rava - because perhaps Rebbi Yehoshua holds that the Lav of 'Bal Tosif applies even after the time of the Mitzvah has passed.

(c)In fact, Rav Sh'man bar Aba deliberately asked on Rava from the Beraisa of Birchas Kohanim, and not from the Mishnah in Zevachim - because seeing as a Kohen is obligated to sprinkle the blood of as many Bechorim or Chata'os as come his way on that day, the time is definitely not up; whereas by Birchas 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 ...

(d)... yet 'Bal Tosif' still applies - a final disproof of Rava.

11)

(a)Rava now differentiates between fulfilling a Mitzvah without Kavanah, and transgressing the Lav of Bal Te'acher without Kavanah - which we initially understand literally (i.e. that one can never transgress 'Bal Te'acher' without express Kavanah to add to the Mitzvah).

(b)We disprove this explanation however, from Rebbi Yehoshua (in the Mishnah in Zevachim), who clearly considers Bal Te'acher applicable, even though he did not have Kevanah. We therefore emend Rava's statement, restricting it to outside the time period, but within the time-period one transgresses with Kavanah or without it.

(c)This explanation will also answer the Kashya on Rava's previous ruling 'Ela me'Ata, ha'Yashen ba'Sukah Yilakeh' - because, seeing as they slept in the Sukah because, in case it was the seventh day, they wanted to fulfill the Mitzvah of Sukah, and not in order to add to the Mitzvah of Sukah, one has not transgressed Bal Te'acher.