Explanation: This refers to purposely doing so. If he did so, meaning accidentally, he fulfills his obligation as he usurped it accidentally and it therefore became Chulin. However, one may not usurp on purpose in a way that the object becomes Chulin.

Implied Question: When he differentiated between an Olah and a Shelamim, he could have differentiated instead by an Olah itself between whether he did so purposely or accidentally. (Why didn't he do so?)

Answer: However, he wanted to differentiate as well between the accidental usage of an Olah and that of a Shelamim.

Question: This is difficult. What is the difference between our case and the case of a Shelamim where he does not fulfill his obligation because Mitzvos are given for benefit?

Text: Rabeinu Chananel's text here reads Rava (and not Rav Yehudah, and it is therefore possible that Rava argues on Rav Yehudah's law regarding Shelamim).

Question #1: This is difficult. In Chulin (89a), the Beraisa states that if he blows with it he does not fulfill his obligation? (How can Rava says he does?)

Question #2: There is a similar difficulty from the statement of Rava in Yevamos (103b) that if someone does Chalitzah with a sandal that is not his or a sandal of idolatry his Chalitzah is valid, and we do not say it did not have the amount of size required!

Answer: I explained all of this in Chulin (ibid.) and in Sukah (31b, DH "b'Asheirah").

Observation: In Nedarim (16b), Abaye differentiates between someone who swears that "the benefit from a Sukah is forbidden to me" and "I will not have benefit from this Sukah." Abaye explains that he can forbid the Sukah upon himself as it is not beholden to him, but he cannot forbid himself on the Sukah as he needs the Sukah.

Observation (cont.): Rava asks Abaye, are Mitzvos given for benefit? Rather, Rava says, one case is where he says, "the sitting in a Sukah is upon me" and one is where he says, "I swear that I will not sit in a Sukah."

Observation (cont.): According to Rava, the implication is that here too if he said, "the benefit from a Shofar is forbidden to me" he is permitted to blow a Shofar for the Mitzvah as Mitzvos are not given for benefit. However, if he said, "the blowing a Shofar is forbidden to me" he is forbidden to blow the Shofar for the Mitzvah even according to Rava, just as he is forbidden to sit in a Sukah in a similar case.

Observation (cont.): This is unless we would differentiate that there is benefit one has by sitting in a Sukah regardless of whether there is a Mitzvah to sit there or not. However, regarding Shofar there is no benefit from blowing a Shofar, as people do not intend to listen to its sound.

Question: There is a difficulty with the Gemara in Nedarim (ibid.). It implies that only if he swore that "he will not sit in a Sukah" it is ineffective to forbid himself to sit in a Sukah, since he is bound to it. However, if he swears, "the sitting in a Sukah is forbidden to me" it is like a Konam and indeed forbidden. If so, how can the Mishnah there say that there is a stringency regarding Nedarim over Shevuos? They both can apply regarding the same item!

Answer: The Mishnah means that Nedarim take effect regarding anything, meaning that they involve a person forbidding an object to himself. This is as stated in Nedarim (2b) that Nedarim and Charamim forbid objects upon oneself. This is as opposed to Shevuos where a person forbids himself from using an item. Accordingly, Nedarim apply anytime unless he mentions forbidding benefit (regarding a Mitzvah), as Mitzvos are not given for benefit.

Implied Question: He differentiates between saying, "the sitting of a Sukah is upon me" and "I swear I will not sit (in the Sukah)." (Why does he make this difference?)

Answer: He only means to say that there is a difference between a Neder and Shevuah, namely that a Neder causes an object to be forbidden no matter how he says it while a Shevuah causes himself to be forbidden from an item no matter how he says it.

Explanation: The reason that the Gemara had to teach Mudar Hana'ah from one's friend, from a Shofar, and from a spring is because a Mudar Hana'ah from one's friend does not usually have in mind (to forbid) a Mitzvah unless he explicitly says so, but if he is Mudar Hana'ah from a spring or a Shofar I might have thought that they are forbidden (even for a Mitzvah); therefore the Gemara teaches these as well.

Explanation: This is because the performance of Mitzvos does not require intent.

Observation: This seems to be the subject of an argument in Pesachim (114b). The Gemara says there that when they bring it (the vegetables) in front of him he should dip the Chazeres (for Karpas if he has no other vegetables, even though this is also used for Maror). The Gemara there states that if it was Dmai, he fulfills his obligation. If he ate it without intent (as he was merely intending to do Karpas not Maror), he fulfills his obligation.

Observation (cont.): The other Beraisa states that Rebbi Yosi says that even though he dipped the Chazeres, it is still a Mitzvah to bring the Chazeres and Charoses again (this implies specifically for the Mitzvah of Maror). The Gemara there deduces that this is not just to make a sign (to make the children ask), as he states it is a Mitzvah. Rather, it is because Mitzvos require intent.

Implied Question: Rava here deduced from our Mishnah and he did not quote the Beraisa there that seems to show clearly that Mitzvos do not require intent. (Why didn't he quote the Beraisa from Pesachim?)

Answer: I might think that Mitzvos may be performed without intent only if they are like Maror which is a Rabbinic commandment, not if they are a Torah commandment.

Implied Question: The Gemara asks questions on Rava from Beraisos quoted later and it does not ask a question from Rebbi Yosi in Pesachim. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because one could say that when Rebbi Yosi said "Mitzvah," he meant to make a sign (so that the children should ask).

Explanation: One might think that blowing a Shofar for music is considered someone who is merely performing an action without intent to produce any specific sound, and the Gemara later (32b) says that someone who is merely performing an action without specific intent to blow a certain sound does not fulfill his obligation (even if he blew the correct Tekios).

Implied Question: He could not have said that the case is where the person blowing did not have intent to cause others hearing the Shofar to fulfill their obligation. (Why?)

Answer: He understands as he deduces later that one who causes others to hear is like one who hears for himself (that he really only must intend that he himself hears the Tekios, see Hagaos Maharav Mei'Ranshburg), implying that intent is not needed.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he does not blow the proper amount required for a Tekiah, as stated in our Mishnah.

Question: This is difficult, as even if he would have intent he would not fulfill the Mitzvah by doing so!

Explanation #2: It appears to me that "Menavech Nevuchi" means that he does not intend to blow the proper amount of Tekiah, but he ends up doing so anyways.

Observation #1: Perhaps this is what is intend by Rashi's explanation (above a).

Observation #2: Alternatively, it is like Rashi's explanation later (33b) that Misasek refers to someone who blows into a Shofar and happens to produce a proper Tekiah (although this was not his intent).

Question: There is a difficulty regarding why the Gemara brought up the argument regarding sprinkling blood from a mixture of sacrifices. Why is this better than a Kohen who goes to recite Birkas Kohanim? (See Pnei Yehoshua and others regarding why this question is not sufficiently answered in the Gemara.)

Answer: A Kohen who intends to recite a blessing and add another blessing could possibly transgress, even though it is not in the proper time. However, here that he does not intend to add and only adds do to the doubt caused by the mixture of the blood, he very possibly would not transgress unless it was in the proper time. Rather, we definitely say that this is considered in the proper time, as if the blood of a Bechor was brought to him he would sprinkle from it again. The same applies to the Kohen for this reason.

Question #1: The Gemara earlier (16b) asks, "Why do we blow Tekios and Teruos when seated and while standing? This is in order to confuse the Satan." Isn't this transgressing Bal Tosif?

Question #2: Additionally, the Gemara says later (34a) that three Teruos were stated on Rosh Hashanah, two are Torah commands and one is Rabbinic in nature. Some say that two are Rabbinic in nature. Doesn't this transgress Bal Tosif? Even though it has already passed and they have fulfilled their Mitzvah, if another congregation needs to hear the Shofar being blown one would do so again as it is considered its time!

Question #2 (cont.): Additionally, even if this is not its time, since he intends to do the Mitzvah he transgresses Bal Tosif, as Rava concludes later that if one intends to transgress when it is not the proper time he requires intent.

Answer: This is as I explained earlier (16b) that it is not possible to transgress Bal Tosif when doing a Mitzvah twice. Similarly, even if a Kohen were to bless one congregation many times, he does not transgress Bal Tosif unless he adds a blessing that is not found in Birkas Kohanim such as "Hash-m should add on to you etc." or something similar.

Answer (cont.): Similarly, if he takes a Lulav many times a day (during Sukos) or he eats on Pesach many Kzeisim of Matzah he does not transgress Bal Tosif. Sprinkling the blood of any sacrifice that must be sprinkled once many times in the same place does not cause one to transgress Bal Tosif. He only transgress if he sprinkles it on the other corners. Similarly, with the Hadas and Aravah of the Lulav, even if he takes many Hadasim and many Aravos he does not transgress Bal Tosif, even according to the opinion that the four species must be tied together, unless he adds a different specie.

Question: However, this is difficult, as accordingly if one would put many strings on his Tzitzis and many Parshiyos in his Tefilin in one Bayis he should not transgress Bal Tosif.

Implied Answer: One cannot prove anything from Sukah where he does not transgress if he makes four walls even though we say that two plus a third that is a Tefach is kosher. (Why not?)

Question: Certainly if he makes four walls it is better, as this is more comparable to a regular dwelling!

Explanation: For example, the case could be when the blood of a firstborn that requires one sprinkle is mixed with the blood of an Olah and Shelamim that require two sprinkles that are four. The case cannot involve a Chatas that requires four separate sprinkles on the four corners of the altar, as those sprinkles must be above the Chut ha'Sikra and these are below the Chut ha'Sikra.

Explanation: Therefore, it is better that we do not lessen the Mitzvah.

Explanation #1: Therefore, once he fulfills his obligation with one, why require him to do four?

Explanation #2: Additionally, it is better to do one than four, as he proceeds to explain.

Explanation: One who sleeps in the Sukah on Shemini Atzeres receives lashes according to Rebbi Yehoshua, and on Shemini when it is possibly the seventh day he should not sit in the Sukah. However, the Gemara concludes that this is incorrect.

Observation: Our Gemara implies that if a Kohen already blessed the congregation once that day, he does not transgress the positive commandment of "Say to them" for the rest of that day (even if he is called again and does not go). This is as the Gemara says, "if he wants, he does not have to bless."