## Rosh Hashanah Daf 28b

###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:1
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:1)

אֲבָל הָכָא, ״זִכְרוֹן תְּרוּעָה״ כְּתִיב, וְהַאי מִתְעַסֵּק בְּעָלְמָא הוּא — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רָבָא: מִצְוֹת אֵין צְרִיכוֹת כַּוָּונָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But here,** with regard to a *shofar*, **it is written: “A memorial of blasts”** (Leviticus 23:24), which might have been understood as requiring conscious intent, **and this one was merely acting unawares,** without having any intent whatsoever of performing the mitzva. Therefore, Rava **teaches us** that the absence of intent does not invalidate fulfillment of the mitzva, even in the case of *shofar*. The Gemara concludes: **Apparently, Rava maintains** that the fulfillment of **mitzvot does not require intent.** That is to say, if one performs a mitzva, he fulfills his obligation even if he has no intention of doing so.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:2
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:2)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הָיָה קוֹרֵא בַּתּוֹרָה וְהִגִּיעַ זְמַן הַמִּקְרָא, אִם כִּוֵּון לִבּוֹ — יָצָא, וְאִם לָאו — לֹא יָצָא. מַאי לָאו, כִּוֵּון לִבּוֹ: לָצֵאת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raised an objection to** this conclusion from what we learned in a mishna: If **one was reading** the passage of *Shema* **in the Torah, and the time of reciting** *Shema* **arrived, if he focused his heart, he has fulfilled** his obligation, **but if not, he has not fulfilled** his obligation. The Gemara reasons: **What, is it not that he focused his heart to fulfill** his obligation, and if he failed to do so, he has not fulfilled his duty, therefore implying that the fulfillment of mitzvot requires intent?


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:3
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:3)

לֹא: לִקְרוֹת. לִקְרוֹת?! הָא קָא קָרֵי! בְּקוֹרֵא לְהַגִּיהַּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **No,** the mishna means that he intended **to read** the passage. The Gemara asks in astonishment: **To read? But he is** already **reading** it, for the mishna explicitly states: If one was reading in the Torah. The Gemara answers: We are discussing **one who was reading** from a Torah scroll in order **to correct** it, uttering the words indistinctly. The mishna teaches that if such an individual intends to articulate the words correctly, he has fulfilled his obligation.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:4
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיָה עוֹבֵר אֲחוֹרֵי בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בֵּיתוֹ סָמוּךְ לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, וְשָׁמַע קוֹל שׁוֹפָר אוֹ קוֹל מְגִילָּה, אִם כִּוֵּון לִבּוֹ — יָצָא, וְאִם לָאו — לֹא יָצָא. מַאי לָאו, אִם כִּוֵּון לִבּוֹ לָצֵאת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another objection: **Come** and **hear** that which we learned in our mishna: If **one was passing behind a synagogue, or his house was adjacent to the synagogue, and he heard the sound of** the ***shofar* or the sound of the Scroll** of Esther, **if he focused his heart, he has fulfilled** his obligation, **but if not, he has not fulfilled** his obligation. **What, is it not** that **he focused his heart to fulfill** his obligation, and if he failed to do so, he has not fulfilled his duty, therefore implying that the fulfillment of mitzvot requires intent?


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:5
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:5)

לֹא — לִשְׁמוֹעַ. לִשְׁמוֹעַ?! וְהָא שָׁמַע! סְבוּר, חֲמוֹר בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **No,** the mishna means that he intended **to hear** the sound of the *shofar*. The Gemara immediately asks: **To hear? But he** already **hears** it, since the mishna explicitly states: And he heard the sound of the *shofar*. The Gemara answers: We are discussing one **who thinks** that **it is merely** the sound of **a donkey** that he is hearing, and in this case, where the listener thinks that the sound was not that of a *shofar*, he does not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, the mishna teaches that it is sufficient that one have intent and know that he is hearing the sound of a *shofar*.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:6
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:6)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: נִתְכַּוֵּון שׁוֹמֵעַ וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּון מַשְׁמִיעַ, מַשְׁמִיעַ וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּון שׁוֹמֵעַ — לֹא יָצָא, עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּון שׁוֹמֵעַ וּמַשְׁמִיעַ. בִּשְׁלָמָא נִתְכַּוֵּון מַשְׁמִיעַ וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּון שׁוֹמֵעַ — כְּסָבוּר חֲמוֹר בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, אֶלָּא נִתְכַּוֵּון שׁוֹמֵעַ וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּון מַשְׁמִיעַ — הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? לָאו בְּתוֹקֵעַ לָשִׁיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raised an objection to** this answer from a *baraita*: If **the hearer** of the *shofar* **had intent, but the sounder** of the *shofar* **did not have intent,** or if **the sounder** of the *shofar* had intent, **but the hearer did not have** intent, **he has not fulfilled** his obligation, **until** both **the hearer and the sounder have intent. Granted,** with regard to the case where **the sounder had intent, but the hearer did not have intent,** Rava can say that this is referring to a case where the hearer **thinks** that **it is merely** the sound of **a donkey** and he did not have intent to hear the sound of a *shofar*. **But** with regard to the case where **the hearer had intent, but the sounder did not have intent,** under **what circumstances** can this case **be found? Is it not** where **he sounds** a *shofar* **for music** and despite the intent of the hearer he has not fulfilled his obligation? This implies that unless the sounder of the *shofar* has intent to fulfill the mitzva the hearer does not fulfill his obligation.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:7
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:7)

דִּלְמָא דְּקָא מְנַבַּח נַבּוֹחֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **Perhaps** the *baraita* is referring to a case **where he sounded bark-like blasts** with the *shofar*, i.e., he did not sound the *shofar* in the proper manner, but merely acted unawares without intent to perform the mitzva. The *baraita* teaches us that if he has intent to sound the blasts in the correct manner, he has fulfilled his obligation.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:8
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הַיָּשֵׁן בַּשְּׁמִינִי בַּסּוּכָּה — יִלְקֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: **However, if** that is **so,** that the fulfillment of a mitzva does not require intent, **one who sleeps in a *sukka* on the Eighth Day of Assembly should receive lashes** for violating the prohibition against adding to mitzvot, since he is adding to the mitzva of: “You shall dwell in *sukkot* for seven days” (Leviticus 23:42). Since, according to Rava, even if one did not intend to observe the mitzva of *sukka* but slept in the *sukka* for a different reason, his sleeping in the *sukka* constitutes the fulfillment of a mitzva to dwell there, then, if one did so at an inappropriate time, he is considered to have transgressed the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot. Yet the Sages instituted that in the Diaspora one must observe *Sukkot* for eight days.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:9
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:9)

אָמַר לוֹ, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: מִצְוֹת אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him:** This is **because I say** that **mitzvot can be transgressed only** by adding to them **in their** prescribed **times.** But if one adds to a mitzva outside of the period of obligation for the mitzva, there is no violation of the prohibition against adding to mitzvot. On the Eighth Day of Assembly there is no longer a mitzva to sleep in the *sukka*. Therefore, sleeping in the *sukka* on that day does not constitute a prohibited act.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:10
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:10)

מֵתִיב רַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא: מִנַּיִן לְכֹהֵן שֶׁעוֹלֶה לַדּוּכָן, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר: הוֹאִיל וְנָתְנָה לִי תּוֹרָה רְשׁוּת לְבָרֵךְ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹסִיף בְּרָכָה אַחַת מִשֶּׁלִּי, כְּגוֹן: ״ה׳ אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם יוֹסֵף עֲלֵיכֶם״ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תוֹסִיפוּ עַל הַדָּבָר״. וְהָא הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּבָרֵיךְ לֵיהּ — עָבְרָה לֵיהּ זִמְנֵיהּ, וְקָתָנֵי דְּעָבַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shemen bar Abba raised an objection** from that which was taught in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **that a priest who went up to the platform** to recite the Priestly Blessing **should not say: Since the Torah granted me permission to bless the Jewish people, I will add a blessing of my own,** which is not part of the Priestly Blessing stated in the Torah, **for example:** “May **the Lord God of your fathers make you** a thousand times **as many as you are”** (Deuteronomy 1:11)? It is derived from **the verse** that **states: “You shall not add to the word** which I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:2). **But here, since** the priest already **recited** the Priestly **Blessing, the time** of the mitzva **has passed,** and according to Rava, after the prescribed time for performing a mitzva, one does not transgress the prohibition against adding to mitzvot, yet **it** nevertheless **teaches that he has transgressed.**


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:11
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:11)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בִּדְלָא סַיֵּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here? With** a case **where he did not complete** the fixed text of the blessing but added to it in the middle.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:12
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:12)

וְהָתַנְיָא סִיֵּים! סִיֵּים בְּרָכָה אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **Isn’t it taught** explicitly in a parallel *baraita*: If **he completed** the Priestly Blessing. The Gemara answers: The *baraita* means that **he completed one blessing,** i.e., the first verse of the Priestly Blessing, but he still has two more blessings to recite.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:13
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:13)

וְהָתַנְיָא: סִיֵּים כׇּל בִּרְכוֹתָיו! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִלּוּ מִתְרְמֵי לֵיהּ צִבּוּרָא אַחֲרִינָא, הָדַר מְבָרֵךְ — כּוּלֵּיהּ יוֹמָא זִמְנֵיהּ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: **Isn’t it taught** in another *baraita* dealing with the same issue: If **he completed all of his blessings.** The Gemara explains: **Here,** with regard to the Priestly Blessings, **it is different, since if he encounters another congregation, he may recite the blessings again,** from which we learn that **the entire day is the** prescribed **time** of the mitzva. Therefore, even if he added a blessing of his own only after he finished reciting all three verses of the Priestly Blessing, he is still considered to have added to the mitzva in its prescribed time, and he therefore transgresses the prohibition against adding to mitzvot.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:14
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:14)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא — דִּתְנַן: הַנִּיתָּנִין בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת, שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בַּנִּיתָּנִין מַתָּנָה אַחַת — יִנָּתְנוּ מַתָּנָה אַחַת. מַתַּן אַרְבַּע בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע — יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And from where do you say** that if a mitzva may be performed again, the whole day is considered its prescribed time? **As we learned** in a mishna: If the blood of sacrifices **that require** only **one sprinkling,** such as the firstborn offering, **became mingled with** the blood of other sacrifices that **require** only **one sprinkling,** the mixture of blood **is sprinkled once.** Similarly, if the blood of sacrifices that require **four sprinklings,** such as burnt-offerings, became mingled **with** the blood of other sacrifices that require **four sprinklings,** the mixture **is sprinkled four times.**


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:15
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:15)

מַתַּן אַרְבַּע בְּמַתַּן אַחַת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתַּן אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, if the blood of an offering that requires **four sprinklings** became mingled **with** the blood of an offering that requires only **one sprinkling,** the *tanna’im* disagree: **Rabbi Eliezer says:** The mixture of blood **is sprinkled four times.** And **Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is sprinkled once.**


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:16
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:16)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹבֵר עַל ״בַּל תִּגְרַע״! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹבֵר עַל ״בַּל תּוֹסִיף״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer said to** Rabbi Yehoshua: But if he sprinkles the blood only once, **he** thereby **transgresses** the prohibition: **Do not diminish,** which renders it prohibited to take away any element in the performance of a mitzva, as he has not sprinkled the blood of an offering requiring four sprinklings, i.e., the burnt-offering in the proper manner. **Rabbi Yehoshua said to** Rabbi Eliezer: But according to your position, that he must sprinkle the blood four times, **he** thereby **transgresses** the prohibition: **Do not add,** which renders it prohibited to add elements to a mitzva, e.g. an offering requiring one sprinkling, like the firstborn animal.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:17
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:17)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״בַּל תּוֹסִיף״ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״בַּל תִּגְרַע״ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer said** to Rabbi Yehoshua: The prohibition: **Do not add, is stated only** in a case **where** the blood stands **by itself,** but not when it is part of a mixture. **Rabbi Yehoshua said** to Rabbi Eliezer: Likewise, the prohibition: **Do not diminish, is stated only** in a case **where** the blood stands **by itself.**


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:18
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:18)

וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כְּשֶׁלֹּא נָתַתָּ — עָבַרְתָּ עַל ״בַּל תִּגְרַע״ וְלֹא עָשִׂיתָ מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיָדֶךָ, כְּשֶׁנָּתַתָּ — עָבַרְתָּ עַל ״בַּל תּוֹסִיף״ וְעָשִׂיתָ מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיָדֶךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua said further,** in defense of his position: **When you do not sprinkle** four times, even if **you transgress** the prohibition: **Do not diminish, you do not perform the act with your** own **hand,** since it is merely an omission, not an action. Whereas **when you sprinkle** four times, **you transgress** the prohibition: **Do not add,** with regard to one of the sacrifices, **and you perform the act with your** own **hand,** i.e., you transgress the Torah’s command by means of a positive act. If one is forced to deviate from the words of the Torah, it is preferable to do so in a passive manner. The Gemara concludes the citation from the mishna.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:19
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:19)

וְהָא הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּיָהֵיב לֵיהּ מַתָּנָה מִבְּכוֹר — עָבְרָה לֵיהּ לְזִמְנֵיהּ, וְקָתָנֵי דְּעָבַר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תּוֹסִיף״. לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מִתְרְמֵי לֵיהּ בּוּכְרָא אַחֲרִינָא — הָדַר מַזֶּה מִינֵּיהּ, כּוּלֵּיהּ יוֹמָא זִמְנֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to derive from here that if the mitzva may be performed again the whole day is considered its prescribed time: **And here, once he has already offered** one **sprinkling** of the blood **of the firstborn** as required, **its time has passed,** since he has already completed the mitzva of sprinkling the blood of the firstborn, and **it** nevertheless **teaches** that **he transgresses** the prohibition: **Do not add. Is it not because we say** as follows: **Since if he encounters another firstborn** to be sacrificed, **he would sprinkle** of its blood **again?** If so, **the entire day is** considered the prescribed **time** for the mitzva of sprinkling.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:20
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:20)

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִצְוֹת עוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶן אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **From where** do you conclude that this is so? **Perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua maintains** that **mitzvot can be transgressed** by adding to them **even outside their** prescribed **times.** Therefore, this source provides no proof.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:21
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:21)

אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: רַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא מַאי טַעְמָא שָׁבֵיק מַתְנִיתִין וּמוֹתֵיב מִבָּרַיְיתָא, לוֹתֵיב מִמַּתְנִיתִין! מַתְנִיתִין מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מוֹתֵיב? כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מִתְרְמֵי לֵיהּ בּוּכְרָא אַחֲרִינָא בָּעֵי מַזֶּה מִינֵּיהּ — כּוּלֵּיהּ יוֹמָא זִמְנֵיהּ הוּא, בָּרַיְיתָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּאִי מִתְרְמֵי צִבּוּרָא אַחֲרִינָא הָדַר מְבָרֵךְ — כּוּלֵּיהּ יוֹמָא זִמְנֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **This is** what **we** were **saying** when we cited this mishna: **What is the reason that Rav Shemen bar Abba set aside the mishna,** which deals with the sprinkling of blood, **and raised an objection from a *baraita*? He should have raised an objection from the mishna,** which is more generally accepted. **What is the reason that he does not raise an objection** from **the mishna? Since** he knows that it can be argued as follows: **Because if he encounters another firstborn he will be required to sprinkle** its blood. Therefore **the entire day is** considered **the** prescribed **time** of the mitzva. If so, with regard to **the *baraita* as well,** it can be argued that **because if he encounters another congregation, he may recite** the Priestly **Blessing again, the whole day is** considered **its** prescribed **time.**


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:22
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:22)

וְרַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא? הָתָם, לָא סַגִּי דְּלָא יָהֵיב. הָכָא, אִי בָּעֵי — מְבָרֵךְ, אִי בָּעֵי — לָא מְבָרֵךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what is the opinion of **Rav Shemen bar Abba,** who raised the objection from the *baraita*? The Gemara explains: **There, it is not possible to refrain** from **sprinkling** the blood of another firstborn that comes his way, so the entire day is certainly its prescribed time. But **here, if he wishes, he may bless** the other congregation, and **if he wishes, he may refrain from blessing** them, since he is obligated to recite the Priestly Blessing only once a day.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:23
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:23)

רָבָא אָמַר, לָצֵאת — לָא בָּעֵי כַּוָּונָה, לַעֲבוֹר — בָּעֵי כַּוָּונָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava** himself **said:** There is no difficulty at all, since **the fulfillment** of a mitzva **does not require intent,** but **the transgression** of the prohibition: Do not add, or: Do not diminish, **requires intent.**


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:24
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:24)

וְהָא מַתַּן דָּמִים לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּלַעֲבוֹר וְלָא בָּעֵי כַּוָּונָה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לָצֵאת — לָא בָּעֵי כַּוָּונָה. לַעֲבוֹר, בִּזְמַנּוֹ — לָא בָּעֵי כַּוָּונָה, שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ — בָּעֵי כַּוָּונָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** in the case of **the sprinkling of blood, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, the transgression** of the prohibition: Do not add, **does not require intent,** since he holds that if one added to the required sprinklings, he transgresses. **Rather, Rava said:** One must say as follows: **The fulfillment** of a mitzva **does not require intent,** and **the transgression** of the prohibition: Do not add, **during the** prescribed **time** of the mitzva, **does not require intent,** and the sprinkler of the blood therefore transgresses, as Rabbi Yehoshua maintains. However, the transgression of the prohibition: Do not add, when it is **not in its** prescribed **time,** e.g., in the case of sleeping in the *sukka* on the Eighth Day of Assembly, **requires intent** to fulfill the mitzva, and in the absence of such intent, there is no transgression.


###### Rosh Hashanah 28b:25
[Rosh Hashanah 28b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/28b:25)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the intent required in order to fulfill the mitzva of *shofar*, **Rabbi Zeira said to his servant:**