פירוש על ראש השנה 56:30

It teaches us: That even though he is acting unawares, he has fulfilled [the commandment], since commandments do not require intent.

But here: One who blows for the music (lashir) is merely acting unawares. And later in the last chapter (Rosh Hashanah 32b), we learn (in a mishnah), "One who [blows] acting unawares has not fulfilled [his obligation]."

The time of reciting: Of reciting the Shema; and he was reading the section of Shema in the Torah.

Reading to correct it: There is not even reading here. Rather he is garbling [it].

But [a case] where the hearer had intent, but the sounder did not have intent, how is that found?: He could not find to say, such that the sounder did not have intent to have the listener fulfill [his obligation] - as [this baraita] implied to him the same as that which [the Gemara] inferred at the end of the discussion: [The sounder] sounds for himself, like [the hearer] hears for himself. Hence he does not require intention.

Where he sounded bark-like blasts: And he did not blow like the measure of the blast that is explained in our mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 33b) in the last chapter.

Where he sounded bark-like blasts: [Rashi] explained, it is because, "he did not blow like the measure of the blast that is explained in our mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 33b)." But that is difficult. As, if so, even if he had had intent, he also would not fulfill [his obligation]. So it appears to me, he sounded bark-like blasts, since he did not intend to blow the measure of the blast, but he [nevertheless] blew the measure of the blast. And perhaps this is what [Rashi] means to say. Or also (another answer) is that it is similar to what [Rashi] explained later in the last chapter (Rosh Hashanah 33b) - he was acting unawares, as he [only] blasted the shofar, but it came out for him as a [proper] blow.

However, if so: That one who does not have intent is as if he has intent.

One who sleeps in a sukkah on the eighth day: Not for the sake of the commandment.

Should receive lashes: As behold, he is adding to the commandment. So he is transgressing on account of do not add.

Commandments can only be transgressed, with do not add, in their times. For example, five species in a lulav, five compartments in tefillin or five fringes on a talit. But the addition of a day upon days or an hour upon hours is not an addition.

Where he did not complete: But he rather added it in the middle.

It taught, "He completed": In the baraita.

That require one sprinkling: For example, the blood of a firstborn animal that was mixed with the blood of another firstborn; or the blood of the tithe.

Require one sprinkling: And behold there is [blood] from both of them in it, so it counts for both of them.

Four sprinklings: Peace-offerings, a guilt-offering, a burnt offering and a thanksgiving-offering.

Perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua maintains, etc.: So from these two mishnahs and from the baraita, there is what to object against Rava

This is what we were saying: We who brought support from this, the reason of which is because if he encounters another, etc. - this is what we could say to Rav Shemen.

What is the reason that he set aside the mishnah, etc.: He set aside our mishnah, "Those that require one sprinkling" - it is a mishnah in [the chapter entitled] Shechitat Kodeshim.

He should have raised an objection from the mishnah: Since it is more powerful to ask [about].

It is not possible that he not sprinkle: If he encounters another [sacrifice]; since we do not waste sanctified foods.

The fulfillment does not require intent: As if he did not have intent, he [still] fulfilled his obligation.

The transgression requires intent: He must have intent for the sake of the commandment. And if not, he has not transgressed.

But [what about the case of] the sprinkling of blood, etc.: As he does not have intent for the sake of the firstborn with the other sprinklings; yet Rabbi Yehoshua says [that] behold he is transgressing do not add.