Rosh Hashanah

, whereas in this case it is written a memorial of blowing the trumpet1 and this man is merely amusing himself.2 Therefore we are told [that this argument does not apply]. We conclude from this that in Raba's opinion religious precepts do not need to be performed with deliberate intention. The following objection was raised against this view: ‘If a man was reading the [passage of the shema’] in the Torah and the time of reading [the shema’] arrived, if he put his mind to it, he has performed his religious duty’ . Does this not mean, ‘put his mind to perform his religious duty’? — No; it means, [put his mind] to read [distinctly]. To read? But he is reading! — We speak of one who is reading to correct [the scroll].3 Come and hear: ‘IF HE WAS PASSING BEHIND THE SYNAGOGUE, OR IF HIS HOUSE WAS ADJOINING THE SYNAGOGUE, AND HE HEARD THE SOUND OF THE SHOFAR OR OF THE READING OF THE MEGILLAH, IF HE PUT HIS MIND TO IT HE THEREBY PERFORMED HIS RELIGIOUS DUTY, BUT IF NOT HE DID NOT PERFORM HIS RELIGIOUS DUTY’. Does not this mean, ‘if he put his mind to perform his religious duty’? — No; [it means, if he put his mind] to hear. To hear? But he is hearing! — He may think, it is merely an ass braying. The following objection was raised against this view: ‘If the hearer [of the shofar] put his mind to the act but not the performer,4 or the performer put his mind but not the hearer, he did not perform his religious duty; [he does not do so] until both hearer and performer put their minds to the act’. I understand the case where the performer put his mind but not the hearer, as the latter may have thought it was merely an ass braying. But that the hearer should put his mind and not the performer — how can this happen? Is it not where the latter blows merely to make music?5 — Perhaps [it refers to a case] where he merely [as it were] barks.6 Said Abaye to him:7 But if that is so, then one who sleeps in the Sukkah8 on the eighth day should be flogged?9 — He replied: [Not so], because I maintain that commandments cannot be transgressed [by adding to them] save in their proper season. R. Shaman b. Abba raised the following objection against this view: ‘Whence do we learn that a priest who mounts the platform10 should not say, "Because the Torah has given me permission to bless Israel, I will add a blessing of my own, as for instance, The Lord, the God of your fathers, add unto you"?11 Because it says, Ye shall not add unto the word’.12 Now here, since he has finished blessing them,13 the time of the precept has passed, and yet it states that he transgresses? — Here we are dealing with the case where he has not yet finished the blessings. But the statement runs, ‘he has finished’? — That means, he has finished one blessing.14 But it states, ‘he finished all his blessings’? — There is a special reason in this case; seeing that, if he comes across another congregation, he may bless again, the whole day is reckoned as the proper time.15 But what is your ground for saying so? — Because we have learnt: If blood which has to be sprinkled [on the altar] once16 has been mixed with other blood which had to be sprinkled once, the whole should be sprinkled once. If blood which has to be sprinkled four times17 has been mixed with other blood which has to be sprinkled four times, the whole must be sprinkled four times. If blood which has to be sprinkled four times is mixed with blood which has to be sprinkled once, R. Eleazar says the whole should be sprinkled four times. R. Joshua says it should be sprinkled once. Said R. Eleazar to him: By doing so he transgresses the precept of ‘thou shalt not diminish’!18 To which R. Joshua retorted, By doing your way, he transgresses the precept of thou shalt not add.19 Said R. Eleazar to him: The precept ‘thou shalt not add’ applies only when the act is repeated on the same subject.20 To which R. Joshua replied: The precept ‘thou shalt not diminish’ applies only where the act is withheld from the same subject.20 R. Joshua said further to him: If you do not sprinkle [four times], you transgress the rule of ‘thou shalt not diminish’, but you do not perform any positive action,21 When you do sprinkle, you transgress the rule of ‘thou shalt not add’ and you do perform a positive action.22 Now here, as soon as he has made one sprinkling for the firstborn, its time is past, and yet it says that he transgresses the precept of ‘thou shalt not add’; and is not the reason for this because we say that since, if he gets hold of another firstborn he can sprinkle its blood, the whole day is reckoned its proper time? — [No.] Perhaps R. Joshua was of opinion that precepts may be transgressed even out of their proper time.23 We argue thus.24 Why does R. Shaman b. Abba leave the Mishnah and bring his objection from the Baraitha? Let him bring his objection from the Mishnah! What is the reason why he does not adduce the Mishnah? On the ground that, if he [the priest] gets hold of another firstborn he can sprinkle its blood, the whole day is its proper time. But in the case mentioned in the Baraitha also, seeing that, if he comes across another congregation he may bless again, the whole day is the proper time! What says R. Shaman b. Abba to this? — In that case [of the blood], he is bound to sprinkle;25 in this case, if he likes he may bless, and if he likes he need not bless. Raba says: For the performance of his religious duty, he does not require to put his mind to it. For transgression [by adding to the precept], he does require to put his mind. But what of the sprinkling of blood, where, according to R. Joshua, he transgresses though he does not put his mind to it?26 Raba therefore [corrected himself and] said: For the performance of the religious duty he does not require to put his mind to it; for [being accounted to have committed a] transgression [by adding to the precept] if [the act is done] in proper time, he does not require to put his mind to it; if it is not done in its proper time he does require to put his mind to it. R. Zera said to his attendant: obligation. requires intention. not mean to, v. Deut. IV, 2. thus the objection against Raba stands.