If one takes a horn of an animal that has been consecrated as a burnt offering, he should not use it to blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. However, if he did it, the following sequence of events occurs: since he misappropriated a part of the offering, he transgressed and owes a sacrifice. However, the misappropriated horn becomes his property. His blowing is now valid. By contrast, a peace offering belongs primarily to its owner, and the laws of misappropriation do not apply to it. Thus, if he blew its horn, it remained in its consecrated status, and the blowing is invalid as a mitzvah that came through transgression.Another take from Rava: When does the misappropriation occur? - After he has blown the shofar! When he was blowing, the shofar was still the property of the Temple, and the blowing is invalid. Thus, in both cases, it is invalid. Rava then reversed his opinion: in both cases, the blowing is valid. Why? The concept of benefit does not apply to mitzvot; instead, they are a yoke on one's neck. Thus, there is really no benefit and, consequently, no transgression involved in either case and in both cases, his blowing fulfills the mitzvah.
Rava also said, "One who blows a shofar just for music's sake has nevertheless fulfilled the mitzvah since doing mitzvot does not require the intent." How could Rava say this? Didn't we learn that if one passes by the synagogue and hears the shofar, he fulfills the obligation - but only provided that he has the intent!? Answers Rava: "What kind of intent is meant? - to hear the shofar!" But that's precisely what the rule says!? - Rava meant to hear the shofar as an instrument of music and not imagine that it is a braying donkey. What about the one who blows? He certainly knows that he is not a donkey but a human, blowing a shofar. - He is trying to make barking or some other unmusical sounds and accidentally produces musical sounds.
Art: The Donkey by Eugene Joseph Verboeckhoven
No comments:
Post a Comment