(Rabah): If a person heard part of the note inside the pit and part outside, he is Yotzei.

If he heard part of it before dawn and part after, he is not Yotzei.

Question (Abaye): Why should there be any difference between the two cases - in both he heard part in a non-mandated way?

Answer (Rabah): The night is not a valid time for Shofar at all, but the pit is a valid place for Shofar as far as the people in the pit are concerned.

We see here that Rabah holds that it suffices to hear the end of the Shofar blast alone, and by inference to hear the beginning alone.

Question: We see that this is not so, as if the end Teki'ah was double-length, it still does not count as the first Teki'ah of the next set!?

Answer: The note has not been separated into two.

Question: "If someone blows a Shofar into a pit, cistern or barrel, then he is Yotzei if he hears the sound of the Shofar, but not if he hears the echo" - but why doesn't the first part of the note (before it combines with the echo) suffice?

Answer: Rabah meant that hearing part of it in the pit and part outside is valid for the one who blows; as he emerges, the sound is always in the same place as he is.

Question: If so, what is the Chidush?

Answer: One might have thought that sometimes his head emerges before the Shofar does.

(R. Yehudah): One should not use the Shofar of an Olah, but if one does so, one is Yotzei.

One should not use the Shofar of a Shelamim, and if one does so, one is not Yotzei.

Question: Why the different rulings?

Answer: An Olah is subject to Me'ilah; once this has happened, it becomes Chulin. A Shelamim is not subject to Me'ilah and does not become Chulin; it simply retains its Isur.

Question (Rava): He is only Mo'al the Olah after he has blown it; when it was blown, it was still forbidden!

Answer (Rava): It must be that he is not Yotzei in either case.

Retraction (Rava): In both cases he is Yotzei, as mitzvos are not for our benefit anyway (so there is no Me'ilah involved).

(R. Yehudah): One should not use the Shofar of idolatry, but if one does so, one is Yotzei.

One should not use the Shofar of an Ir ha'Nidachas, and if one does so, one is not Yotzei.

The reason is that everything in an Ir ha'Nidachas is considered to lack any requisite measurement.

(Rava): One who vows not to receive benefit from another may still have him blow the Shofar for his mitzvah.

One who vows not to receive benefit from a Shofar may still blow it for his mitzvah.

(Rava): One who vows not to receive benefit from another may have him sprinkle the waters of the Chat'as over him in winter but not in summer.

One who vows not to receive benefit from a spring may immerse in it for the purpose of a mitzvah in winter alone.

(Sent to Shmuel's father): If a person was forced to eat matzah, he is Yotzei.

Question: Who forced him?

Suggested answer: A demon.

Rejection: A Beraisa states that if a person suffers temporary insanity, he is rated as insane for those periods!

Answer (R. Ashi): He was forced by Persians.

(Rava): This shows that if one blows a Shofar for its music, one can also thereby fulfill the mitzvah.

Question: Obviously it shows this - it's the identical point!

Answer: One might have thought that whereas the matzah consumption is the same in each case, a Shofar blown without intent for the mitzvah is not the Zichron Teru'ah required by the Pasuk.

We see from Rava's ruling about blowing a Shofar for its music that he holds that mitzvos do not require Kavanah.

Question: We find that someone who reads the Leyning during the process of reading the Chumash is only Yotzei if he had Kavanah, presumably to be Yotzei!

Answer: It means that he had Kavanah to read it.

Question: But he was indeed reading it!

Answer: He could be reading it for the purpose of checking it, which would only be a mumble.

Question: We find that if someone was passing by a Shul and heard the Shofar or Megillah, then he is Yotzei only if he had Kavanah, presumably to be Yotzei!?

Answer: It means that he had Kavanah to hear it.

But he did indeed hear it?

Answer: He might have thought that it was a donkey braying.

Question: We find that both the Shofar-blower and the listener must have Kavanah. The case of only the listener having Kavanah is surely where the person only blew it for its music - and he is not Yotzei!?

Answer: It is referring to a case where the person did not intend to blow it for the requisite Shiur.

Question (Abaye): If a mitzvah can be fulfilled even unintentionally, then someone who slept in a Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres should receive Malkus for Bal Tosif!?

Answer (Rava): One can only transgress Bal Tosif during the period of obligation for the mitzvah.

The Gemara now discusses Rava's statement that one can only transgress Bal Tosif during the period of obligation for the mitzvah:

Question (R. Sh'man bar Aba): We find in a Beraisa that a Kohen may not add on his own Berachah to the Berachos because of Bal Tosif, even though after he has said the requisite Berachos, it is no longer the period of obligation for the mitzvah!?

Suggested answer: This is referring to a case where he had not finished the requisite Berachos.

Question: The Beraisa states that he did finish!?

Answer: He finished one Berachah, but not all of them.

Question: The Beraisa states that he finished all of them!?

Replacement answer: This case has no set period for the mitzvah, since he can give Berachos whenever he finds a congregation, as we see from the following:

(Mishnah): If blood which requires four sprinklings was mixed up with that which requires only one (e.g. Bechor) -

(R. Eliezer): It should have four sprinklings, so as to avoid Bal Tigra; Bal Tosif can only be transgressed on a single item.

(R. Yehoshua): It should have one sprinkling, so as to avoid Bal Tosif; Bal Tigra can only be transgressed on a single item, and furthermore it is better to passively transgress Bal Tigra by not doing something, than to actively transgress Bal Tosif by doing something.

Here, as soon as he has done one sprinkling, the Bechor obligation has ended, and yet there is still a problem of Bal Tosif, surely because since another Bechor could arise, the mitzvah is present all day!

Question: Perhaps R. Yehoshua simply holds that Bal Tosif can even be transgressed outside of the time of the mitzvah!

Answer: The intent is as follows: R. Sh'man bar Aba chose to ask from the Beraisa about Kohanim rather than from the Mishnah about blood, because in the Mishnah the Bal Tosif is due to the mitzvah being applicable all day - yet the same can be said for the Kohanim!

R. Sh'man bar Aba's response is that it is an obligation to sprinkle blood if there is another Bechor, but there is no obligation for a Kohen to bless people again (so the time for the mitzvah has ended).

Rava (now providing an alternate answer as to why there is no Bal Tosif for sleeping in a Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres): Although fulfilling a mitzvah does not require Kavanah, transgressing Bal Tosif with it does require Kavanah.

Question: Surely according to R. Yehoshua there was going to be Bal Tosif with the additional sprinkling even though there was no Kavanah!?

Answer (Rava): Transgressing Bal Tosif with a mitzvah does not require Kavanah if done during the time of the mitzvah, but it does if done beyond the time.