init

3 years ago · 78c4fa8c3b
commit 78c4fa8c3b
1 changed files with 393 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/393
+++ b/393
@ -0,0 +1,393 @@
 tav reish tzadi. Can be yotzei megillah from the shatz even if reading along with him from a chumash. And he shouldnt because the guy next to him might be "yitein daato" to what he's saying, which is from a chumash; and even he himself might yitein daato to what he's saying instead of what that shatz is saying. Is this shomea ke'oneh? Is it as if he was the shatz himself? Or is it just the din as if he was the shatz? Or is this a third thing, not like shlichus with attribution or identity-changing; rather it's just "nesinas libo", and as long as the source of the words is mitoch ha'ksav, the idea that materializes in his mind is motzi him? (If it is this third thing, is it 'shomea ke'oneh', or a different concept?)
 Shofar. Woman can't be motzi a man, she's not bar chiyuva, even though she gets a mitzva if she does it, so the mitzva is shayach to her, unlike a goy or a katan.
 Chazaras haShatz? Can one say half the words along with shatz and be yotzei?
 doctype html
 html(lang='en')
 head
   title Hello, World!
 body
 source  Rosh Hashana 27b - mishna
  text  achorei beis kneses, kol shofar or kol megilla, if kiven libo yatza, if not lo yatza
 source  Rosh Hashana 28a
  text  mudar hanaa from shofar, maayan
  text  mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu
  text  if there's an incidental hanaa, he's over on the neder
    note  later, "incidental hanaa" is used by "mitzvos tzrichos kavana (la-tzeis)" to make a "mis'asek" into a "lav mis'asek"
  text  so the "mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu" means the hanaa from being yotzei is not a hanaa
  text  so one maaseh can have a tzad mitzva and a tzad acher
 source  Rosh Hashana 28a-b
  text  kfao v'achal matza - yatza (source: shalchu leih l'avuh d'Shmuel; is this a braisa?; did they send the braisa because it's the halacha?)
  text  Rava says: "zos omeres - hatokea lashir - yatza", because mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana (the Gemara says later "alma ka'savar Rava mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana", but the Rishonim say it already here; I wonder if there's another pshat, that the Gemara can only say "alma" later?)
    source  Pnei Yehoshua
      note  The following are not quite in the order presented in the Pnei Yehoshua.
      text  The "shalchu leih le-avuh di-Shmuel" don't say "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana",
      text  because maybe maaseh she-haya kach haya.
      text  But why doesn't Rava say straight "zos omeres: mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana"?
      text  It can't be le-afukei what the Gemara is about to bring that shofar has extra kavana requirements due to "zichron teruah",
      text  because then Rava can't learn from the matza case to shofar which has extra requirements.
      text  It seems to me (Pnei Yehoshua), then, that "shalchu leih" teaches that "ein tzrichos kavana" is even when lo neicha leih to do the mitzva (e.g. kaf'uhu ve-achal matza), he's still yotzei; not just when done "bi-stama". So Rava is explaining to us that this is the chiddush of "shalchu leih" because by "tokea la-shir" also he's megaleh daas that lo neicha leih la-tzeis be-hai tekia (because he knows that it's chovas ha-yom yet he's doing it la-shir instead of la-tzeis), which we wouldn't have known if he said plainly "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana".
        note  Still, why can Rava learn from matza to shofar even though one could think that shofar needs extra kavana due to "zichron terua"?
          note  I think the answer is because, as Pnei Yehoshua says later on "Rashi mahu de-teima" that le-fi ha-emes lo mashma leih (le-Rava) klal hai taama, so he's making his "zos omeres" already being in that world.
            note  According to this, when the Gemara says that Rava's "zos omeres" is "pshita", it shows that the "stam Gemara" also doesn't hold of "zichron terua" nor "kvar neheneh". So mi-stama the rest of the shakla ve-taria also doesn't hold of these; they're only trying to say that "mitzvos tzrichos kavana"; which means they're arguing not only against Rava, but also against "shalchu leih". This makes a nafka minah le-halacha of whether we say "neheneh" makes him be yotzei (as many poskim do say; they'd have to read this Gemara differently).
  text  The Gemara (I think; if not, Rav Ashi) says that Rava isn't telling us a chiddush; the matza and shofar cases are the same
  text  The Gemara (I think; if not, Rava) says that one could say that he's yotzei by matza because the Torah said "eat matza" and he did; whereas by shofar the Torah wrote "zichron terua" but this tokea lashir is mis'asek be'alma
    source  Rashi
      text  Since he got hanaa from eating the matza, he's not misasek. The proof (I think he's bringing a proof, not just a parallel) is that even (why "even"?) by a chiyuv chatas, if one eats cheilev or does arayos while he's mis'asek, he's still chayav chatas.
        note  See notes on Krisos 19 for what the "cheilev/arayos" cases is (among a bunch of other mis'asek cases).
        source  Pnei Yehoshua
          text  Rava, however, nevertheless makes his diuk from matza to shofar because he doesn't hold of these svaros at all. "Neheneh" doesn't apply to "achila al yedei kefia". Even by "arayos/chalavim al yedei kefia" it's not shayach to apply "neheneh" to be mechayev him a chatas. (For why Rava doesn't hold of "zichron terua", see Pnei Yehoshua later on Gemara "aval hacha zichron terua kesiv")
            note  This means that "neheneh" really is a svara, it just doesn't apply by kefia. But by stam (i.e. lack of kavana), or even a "lo neicha leih la-tzeis" case which doesn't have a kefia (e.g. something dumya to "tokea la-shir" that has hanaas ha-guf, like eating matza to show how fast he can eat or for some kind of contest), all agree he'd be yotzei (even man de-amar tzrichos kavana). This is a big nafka minah le-halcha.
          text  Therefore, Rava is medayek from "shalchu leih" that "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana klal" (i.e. even where lo neicha leih la-tzeis, like kaf'uhu where he was anus).
    note  there is a potential chiluk within "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana" - matza has hanaas haguf so it's not misasek. "Misasek" plus "lo kivein libo la'tzeis" is lo yatza, but "lo kivein" alone is yotzei
    note  it's true that "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana", but the mitzva is the maaseh defined by the Torah, and a "mis'asek" maaseh is not a maaseh. So since matza has hanaas haguf and so his maaseh achilah is indeed a maaseh achila which is what the Torah said to do, so he's yotzei; but by "tokea lashir" the Torah said it has to be a "zichron terua", which is a maaseh zechira not just a maaseh tekia (for which he is mechavein, obviously).
    note  really "mitzvos tzrichos kavana", and the definition of "lo kivein" is "mis'asek"; and if there's hanaa then he's not called mis'asek
    source  Ritva
      text  We know from "mis'asek in cheilev/arayos" that by lavin there is a chiluk between "neheneh" and "lo neheneh"; but 'asehs are unclear whether they have such a chiluk.
        note  The Ritva is mashma that asehs are all the same; if one needs kavana latzeis, they all do, and if one doesn't, none of them do even if mis'asek.
    source  Pnei Yehoshua
      text  These are two svaros that both matza and shofar are different from other miztvos: matza needs less kavana and shofar needs more.
      text  Rava doesn't hold of either of these svaros, though. "Zichron terua" is for a different drasha (as I (Pnei Yehoshua) will later explain), and "neheneh" doesn't apply to "achila al yedei kefia" (as I (Pnei Yehoshua) explained by Rashi "mahu de-teima").
      text  Rava is be-ikar saying that "shalchu leih" teaches us that "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana"; the only reason he's speaking at all is le-afukei from these two svaros. The rest of the shakla ve-taria of the Gemara is against ikar milseih de-Rava that "ein tzrichos kavana", but agrees that these two svaros are not shayach.
      text  Indeed, it's barur to me (Pnei Yehoshua) that Rashi means to make this point when he says "ka mashma lan... de-mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana". (His point is not that ikar milseih de-Rava is le-afukei these svaros, and the rest of the Gemara is saying that these svaros are good, but agrees that "shalchu leih" teaches "ein tzrichos kavana". This is clear from the whole shakla ve-taria, especially from Abayei's "ela me-ata ha-yashen ba-sukkah ba-shemini yilkeh".)
  text  Ka mashma lan Rava. Alma, Rava holds "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana".
    source  Rashi
      text  Indeed tokea lashir is mis'asek legabei "zichron terua", but it doesn't matter because "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana"
        note  See notes on 33b. We see that a "mis'asek gamur" who doesn't even have kavana for the maaseh itself is definitely not yotzei. So why does Rashi call a "tokea lashir" a "mis'asek"? The Maharsha asks this as well.
          note  See notes on 33b. We see that there are different levels of "mis'asek", but the word "mis'asek" can be applied to all of them. So, granted a "tokea lashir" has "kavana litkoa", but he doesn't "kavana latzeis", so on some level he can be called a "mis'asek", even within Rava.
        source  Pnei Yehoshua
          text  I (Pnei Yehoshua) already explained that Rashi does not interpret that Rava is teaching us to not say the svaros of "neheneh" and "zichron terua", rather to teach us that "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana".
          text  However, I saw that the Maharsha asks on this Rashi that even Rava (on 33b) agrees that "mis'asek eino yotzei", so Rashi should've said "ka mashma lan that tokea la-shir is not mis'asek", just as Rava says there. (This is mashma that ikar milseih de-Rava is le-afukei the svaros of "neheneh" and "zichron terua".)
            note  This is mashma that Pnei Yehoshua grips the Maharsha as holding that before any drashos, "tokea la-shir" is not "mis'asek", and the function of the "zichron terua" drasha is to raise the bar of required kavana such that "tokea la-shir" is bi-chlal "mis'asek".
              note  I would think Pnei Yehoshua is conflating "zichron terua" and "mis'asek": just because extra kavana is required doesn't mean lack of that kavana is "mis'asek", it just means he didn't do what's required. For example, there's a requirement to understand "shema Yisrael", but I wouldn't say that not understanding it is "mis'asek".
                note  Maybe the extra kavana from "zichron terua" (and also "shema") is its own separate maaseh (even though it's not its own mitzva, rather a cheilek of the mitzva), and so lack of kavana is indeed "mis'asek" le-gabei that maaseh. It's like any other "mis'asek" case where he doesn't even have kavana for the dry act; here too, he doesn't have kavana for the "dry act" of "making a zichron" (or understanding "shema").
          text  I (Pnei Yehoshua) already explained above that it's impossible to learn Rashi like this (from the mashma'us of the shakla ve-taria of the rest of the Gemara).
            note  The Maharsha could hold that since the Gemara already established that it doesn't hold of "neheneh" nor "zichron terua" (in that it initially said that Rava is pshita), it agrees with Rava that "shalchu leih" teaches "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana". So the shakla ve-taria, which as Pnei Yehoshua pointed-out is clearly fighting to say "tzrichos kavana", is be-ikar against "shalchu leih", and it only talks to Rava because he adopts "shalchu leih" le-halacha.
          text  Rather, this Rashi is to be read as follows. All agree that "tokea la-shir" is bi-chlal "mis'asek", and indeed the stam lashon of "mis'asek" connotes "tokea la-shir" (or similar); and once we learn from "shalchu leih" that "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana", "tokea la-shir" would be yotzei even though it's mis'asek. The problem is that the Mishna on 32b says "ha-mis'asek lo yatza". So one of the ways to reconcile these is that shofar is different in that it has an extra requirement of "zichron terua". However, it's pashut to Rava that "zichron terua" is used for another drasha. So the way he reconciles the Mishna with "shalchu leih" is that the "mis'asek" in "ha-mis'asek lo yatza" is "nabach nabuchei". (It's an ukimta, not a re-definition that "mis'asek" cannot connote (or even include) "tokea la-shir".)
            note  This is not mashma on 33b, where the Gemara says (to be madcheh Rava's reading of the Mishna) "maybe also 'tokea la-shir' is called 'mis'asek'"; as if it's a chiddush to call "tokea la-shir" "mis'asek".
          text  However, the fact that "nabach nabuchei lo yatza" is pashut, and the Mishna didn't need to say it.
          text  So Rava would say that it's only included as a prelude to the seifa of "ha-shomea min ha-mis'asek lo yatza", which is the Mishna's ikar chiddush.
            note  The reason the Mishna didn't say its main chiddush straight, without the prelude, is because the din of the shomea could go either way, and we would've read "mis'asek" as "tokea la-shir" that "ha-shomea mi-mennu lo yatza af al pi she-ha-tokea yatza". With the prelude, we know that the "mis'asek" that the Mishna is talking about is the one who himself is not yotzei, namely "nabach nabuchei".
            note  So there are different levels of "mis'asek".
          text  I'll explain next why "ha-shomea min ha-mis'asek lo yatza" is a chiddush.
          text  The Tosafos "aval hacha" also learn like this, not like the Maharsha gripped them.
    source  Tosafos
      text  "Tokea lashir" is not called "mis'asek".
        note  This is the same hava-amina/maskana as on 33b.
    source  Ritva
      text  Asehs don't require kavana latzeis...
  text  kashya on Rava, that's mashma that mitzvos tzrichos kavana: "haya koreh ba-Torah (krias shema); im kivein libo, yatzta; im lo kivein libo, lo yazta"
  text  incomplete answer: "kivein libo" doesn't mean "kavana la-tzeis", rather "kavana to read"
  text  kashya on this answer, due to misunderstanding: how then can there be a case of "im lo kivein libo", that he doesn't realize that he's reading? he's reading!
    note  mashma that if he's on some other auto-pilot, lo yatza even if mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana. but don't bring proof from a shoteh or someone in his sleep, because they're patur intrinsically from all mitzvos. (see Shulchan Aruch, hilchos achilas matza [I think siman 475, but I forgot])
    note  mashma that if mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana, he still needs kavana to do the ma'aseh; I guess otherwise he'd be mis'asek
  text  actual answer: "kivein libo" doesn't mean "kavana la-tzeis", rather "kavana to read properly, not like a magiah"
    note  I don't think "kavana" means literally kavana; rather that he happened to be speaking properly. But I guess I hear a tzad that "koreh ka-din" and "koreh ke-magihim" are two different ma'asim, so if he's doing one and ended-up accidentally doing the other, it's mis'sek.
  text  Mishna that holds "tzrichos kavana", against Rava: if one was traversing the back of the beis knesses or was in his house which was adjacent to the beis knesses, and he heard "kol shofar" or "kol megilla": if he was "kivein libo", he's yotzei, and if not, he's not yotzei. Doesn't the required "kivein libo" mean "kivein la-tzeis"?
  text  No, the required "kivein libo" means "kivein li-shmoa".
  text  How, then, can there ever be a case of "lo kivein libo li-shmoa"? He can hear it!
    note  According to Rava's upcoming answer, it's not so important how this step grips Rava concerning shmi'a (i.e. whether it means his guf hears even if he doesn't realize it, or if he realizes he's hearing but doesn't recognize it as megilla or shofar, or if he recognizes it as megilla or shofar but doesn't know there's a chiyuv/mitzva to hear it because he doesn't know it's Rosh Hashana or Purim, or if he recognizes it's Rosh Hashana or Purim but he doesn't know halacha and doesn't know there's a chiyuv to hear them).
  text  The case in the Mishna is that the tekia was such that it could have been recognized as a tekias shofar or mistaken for a donkey's cry. So "(lo) kivein libo" means whether he properly identified it as a tekias shofar.
  text  A baraisa that holds "tzrichos kavana", against Rava: If, by tekias shofar, the shome'a had kavana but not the mashmi'a, or the mashmi'a had kavana but not the shome'a, he's not yoztei; not until both the shome'a and the mashmi'a are mechavein. Your (Rava) definition of "lo kivein" (namely that he mistook the tekia for a donkey's cry) only works for the "lo kivein shome'a" case, but not the "lo kivein mashmi'a" case (since the mashmi'a obviously knows that he's blowing a shofar and therefore hearing a shofar, not a donkey). It must be, then, that his "lo kivein" case is "tokea la-shir"; and the baraisa says "lo yatza".
    note  What does "lo yatza" mean? Shouldn't it say "lo yatz'u"? Or maybe it just said it with a lashon megumgam so as to pair the two cases in the same statement?
  text  Maybe really "tokea la-shir" is yotzei, and the case where the mashmi'a was not mechavein is even worse than "tokea la-shir", namely "nabach nabuchei".
    note  "Nabach nabuchei" is mis'asek. There are different interretations in the Rishonim what counts as "nabach nabuchei".
  text  Abayei asked Rava: according to you, one who sleeps (stam, without kavana to do mitzvas yeshivas sukka) in his sukka on Shmini Atzeres should be chayav on "bal tosif". We know, however, that he's not.
    note  It's not clear if this is davka in chutz la-aretz, or even in Eretz Yisrael, or only in Eretz Yisrael.
      note  If only chutz la-aretz, is he 'over because Shmini Atzeres in chutz la-aretz is also safek Sukkos, so there's makom to say that sleeping in the sukka has shaychus to being a "mitzva"; but in Eretz Yisrael he wouldn't be 'over because there's no shaychus? Or, is this even (or only) in Eretz Yisrael, and there is shaychus since it's samuch to yemei Sukkos so it looks like he's mosif days to Sukkos? Or, even where it's not samuch to Sukkos, he's 'over by sleeping there at any time of the year?
    note  Mashma that at this step, the svara of "ein tzrichos kavana" doesn't mean that the dry act *in this context* is by definition a mitzva, because on Shmini Atzeres it's not. Rather any dry act which would be a "mitzva" (even a "virtual mitzva" that would incur "bal tosif") if he'd have kavana la'asos mitzva, is in fact a mitzva even without that kavana.
    note  I'd say that mistama the guy doesn't want to incur an aveira, so stam daas is to have in mind not to do any mitzva. But the Gemara doesn't say this. So then is he 'over because it was only "stam daas" to not do a mitzva, but if he had positive daas not to do a mitzva he wouldn't be 'over? Or is he 'over even with positive daas?
  text  What I (Rava) meant to say was that one cannot be 'over on a "mitzva" if it's not bi-zmano
    note  So, is this only in Eretz Yisrael where it's truly "she-lo bi-zmano", but chutz la-aretz is safek Sukkos so it could be "zmano"; or even in chutz la-aretz it's not "bi-zmano"?
  text  Rav Shemen bar Aba asked against Rava that there's a Mishna/baraisa that an "eino mechavein le-mitzva" can be 'over on "bal tosif" even "she-lo bi-zmano": How do we know that a Kohen shouldn't give the tzibbur an extra bracha after he finishes the standard "birkas kohanim", thinking that since the Torah gave him reshus to bless the tzibbur with "birkas kohanim", he can add another one at the end? "Lo sosifu al ha-davar".
    note  Mashma that he knows that only "birkas kohanim" is a mitzva and not the extra bracha, but that mitzva shows the "retzon ha-Torah" wants kohanim to give the tzibbur brachos, any bracha?
    note  Does this step hold that it's "bal tosif" due to the fact that the extra bracha is samuch to the "mitzva-dikeh" brachos such that it looks like he's trying to extend the mitzva itself?
  text  As I (Rava) maintain, if he'd add an extra bracha at the end, it's "she-lo bi-zmano" and he wouldn't be 'over. Here he's 'over because he didn't finish "birkas kohanim" yet, so it's still "zmano".
  text  But the lashon was "siyem", mashma that he finished "birkas kohanim"? So it's not zimneih.
  text  "Siyem" here means "he finished one of the three brachos of birkas kohanim". So it is zimneih.
  text  But it says "siyem kol birkosav". So it's not zimneih.
  text  (Even then) it's zimneih, because since if he'd chance upon another tzibbur, he may do birkas kohanim for them too. Indeed, how do I know this? From the following mishna: If the blood of two korbanos got mixed, both of which only require one matana on the mizbeiach; only one matana of the mixture is required to be yotzei both. Similarly, if both require four matanos, four matanos of the mixture is yotzei both. But, if one requires four matanos and the other requires only one: it's a machlokes. R' Elazar (Eliezer?) says to do four, because doing one would be "bal tigra", and doing four is not "bal tosif" because that only applies when the "extra" mitzvah stands alone (whereas here it's a mixture); and R' Yehoshua says to do one, because doing four would be "bal tosif", and doing one is not "bal tigra" because that's only when the "undone" mitzvah would have been done by itself, but here it's mixed; in addition, even if one would mi-ma nafshach be 'over on "bal tigra" or "bal tosif", it's still preferrable to do one than four, because it's a passive aveira as opposed to a "be-yadaim" aveira. End of mishna. In R' Yehoshua, who holds doing four would be "bal tosif", even though he doesn't have kavana to do an extra mitzva with that portion of the blood, the reason must be that it's considered zimneih even though after the first matana he finished its mitzva because if he'd chance upon another bechorhe'd be able to do its matan damim. The same applies to a kohen who finished his birkas kohanim and wants to give the tzibbur another non-mitzva bracha.
    note  I thought that since he's not doing "the mitzvah" of birkas kohanim, the only reason it counts as a mitzvah (so as to be 'over on "bal tosif") even without kavana to do a mitzvah is because it's samuch to the original mitzvah. I don't think anybody would say shaking lulav during Kislev is "bal tosif", only on Shemini Atzeres. So why, just because he can do the mitzvah of birkas kohanim all day, is it considered "zimneih"? What about before birkas kohanim?
    note  Mi-stama the guy in the mishna has specifically in mind to not do a mitzva with the extra matanos, because he doesn't want to incur an aveira. The svara of "ein tzrichos kavana" extends even to that?
    note  In both the "birkas kohanim" case and the "matan damim" case, is he 'over "bal tosif" even without kavana to do an extra mitzva because he's in the "ballpark" of doing *a* mitzva, namely to give an independent bracha on the tzibbur by a kohen (who are sanctioned by the Torah to bless the tzibbur); and to mitzvas matan damim with the other blood in the mixture? Or, would he be 'over even with a dry act, even though he mi-stama has kavana to not do a mitzva so as not to incur an aveira?
      note  Rashi here ("la-avor ba'i kavana") is mashma similar to this.
  text  Maybe really even when one can repeat the mitzva all day, it's not considered "zimneih" of the mitzva he just finished doing, and R' Yehoshua holds "ein tzrichos kavana" to the point that even when the kavana-less act is she-lo bi-zmano it counts as a mitzva le-inyan being 'over on "bal tosif".
    note  Well then according to R' Yehoshua, "ha-yashen be-sukka ba-shemini" yilkeh? The Gemara above asked bi-fshitus that this is not the halacha.
      note  Tosafos asks this, and says that this is only according to the "hava amina" version of R' Yehoshua.
    note  Don't we see, then, that R' Yehoshua holds "ein tzrichos kavana", which is a siyua to Rava? Why is the Gemara fighting so hard against Rava if there's a Tanna (in a mishna no less) who holds like him? And even R' Elazar/Eliezer holds "ein tzrichos kavana", because the only reason he said that the guy is not 'over on "bal tosif" is because it was a mixture. So everyone in the mishna holds "ein tzrichos kavana". Further, if all this is true, then why don't any of the Rishonim who hold "ein tzrichos kavana" bring a prooof from this?
  text  This is what we (Rava) meant in our retort to R' Shemen: Why did you (R' Shemen) ask from "birkas kohanim" (that one can be 'over "bal tosif" even she-lo bi-zmano) which is a braisa, instead of from "matan damim" which is a mishna (that we see R' Yehoshua holds that the guy is 'over on "bal tosif" even she-lo bi-zmano)? I (Rava) assume that he didn't ask from the mishna, because he'd read it like I do (that since he can bring bechorim all day, it's "zimneih"); and if so, he should apply the same concept to the "birkas kohanim" braisa.
  text  (All right, this is how Rava reads these sources.) But, the reason R' Shemen didn't ask from the mishna of "matan damim" is because the aseh *is* to do matan damim to every bechor that comes his way during that day, so clearly that saeh applies the entire day without a break, and so it's considered "zimneih" (not like Rava's reading). He did ask from the braisa of "birkas kohanim" because since if he chances upon another tzibbur, the original aseh (the one that creates a chiyuv) does not apply; rather, he can choose whether to be mekayem the aseh again; so once he fulfills his chiyuv with the first tzibbur, it's no longer zimneih (and R' Shemen's question on Rava is that we see that he incurs "bal tosif" even she-lo bi-zmano).
    source  Rashi
      text  By the "if he chances upon another" of kodshim (bechor), he doesn't lose out.
        note  I'm not sure how to read this. Maybe that he doesn't lose the opportunity to be mekayem a mitzvas chiyuv; as opposed to "birkas kohanim", all the other brachos are just a kiyum of a mitzvas reshus.
 source  Rosh Hashana 28b-29a
  text  Rava holds that kavana (la-tzeis) is not required to be yotzei a mitzva, but kavana (le-shum mitzva) *is* required to be 'over on "bal tosif".
  text  But we saw the "matan damim" case above, where he's 'over on "bal tosif" even without kavana for mitzvas matan damim.
  text  Correct. Rather, Rava holds that kavana (le-mitzva) is *not* required bi-zman the ikar mitzva (upon which he's "mosif" an "extra" mitzva) to be 'over on "bal tosif", but it *is* required she-lo bi-zmano (after the ikar mitzva is satisfied such that it no longer applies and any further kiyumim of that mitzva are just a reshus).
  text  (Once on the subject of Rava/"mitzvos tzrichos kavana", the Gemara relates the following maaseh.) R' Zeira told his shamash "be mechavein and be tokea for me". So we see R' Zeira holds that the mashmia requires kavana.
    note  The Gemara *doesn't* say "we see mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana", rather just that the *mashmia* needs kavana. (See the Rishonim for what sort of kavana is needed.)
    source  Rif 7b
      text  Both the shomea and mashmia need to have kavana for each other.
      text  We see this from R' Zeira told his shamash to have him in mind for tekia.
      text  A shliach tzibbur is "daateih a-kuleih alma", as we see from "achorei beis ha-knesses".
      source  Riaz
      source  Shiltei ha-gibborim
      source  Maor ha-Katan "le-fum sugya de-shamaata.."
        source  Milchemes Hashem
          text  ...
        text  The sugya comes out that Rava holds "mitzvos ein trichos kavana", and "la-avor (be-bal tosif) bi-zmano (shel mitzva) lo ba'i kavana", and "la-avor she-lo bi-zmano ba'i kavana".
        text  This is the maskana in Perek ha-Motze Tefillin.
        text  Therefore, the halcha is not like R' Zeira who told his shamash to make a tekia (shel mitzva) and to have him in mind.
        text  This is how I (the Maor) learn. However, the Rif brings R' Zeira and leaves-out Rava.
        text  However, some hold that R' Zeira also holds "ein tzrichos kavana" just like Rava (so the Rif wouldn't be arguing with me); R' Zeira never specified that the tekia has to be a tekia shel mitzva, he just needs kavana for the maaseh to be a tekia and for that tekia to apply to the shomea (R' Zeira) as well.
        text  However, Rashi says that R' Zeira meant "t'ka le-hotzieni"; so clearly R' Zeira holds "tzrichos kavana" (which argues on Rava).
        text  I (the Maor) think Rashi is correct, for two reasons.
        text  One reason is that if R' Zeira held "ein tzrichos kavana", then why would he require the mashmia to have the shomea in mind for the dry-act of the tekia? "Yatziva be-ar'a u-giora bi-shmei shmaya"? Isn't it logical that "kavana la-tzeis" is more important ("chamura") than "kavanas mashmia le-shomea"?
          note  What's this svara? I'd think that to transfer a maaseh, even a dry act, is more difficult than when he does the maaseh himself, which in that situation is inherently a maaseh mitzva?
            note  An answer is that shofar is different because the ikar mitzva is shemia not tekia, so if the dry tekia is considered a "tekia shel mitzva" due to "ein tzrichos kavana", all each one needs is a dry shmia; there's no reason for the "yesh sovrim" to say that the tokea has to have "kavana le-hashmia" (this answer came from being me-dayek from the lashon of "le-hashmia", which is not mashma a "transfer" of a maaseh (to make it as if the shomea was tokea himself), rather simply to make himself heard so a shomea could do his own (i.e. not transferred) maaseh shmia).
        text  The second reason is that the Gemara here (29a) says that R' Zeira holds like R' Yossi, and in Pesachim (114b) we learn that R' Yossi holds "tzrichos kavana", and that the Rabanan hold "ein tzrichos".
        text  Therefore, we don't pasken neither like R' Yossi nor R' Zeira; and we won't try to make dochek answers to my proofs to make R' Zeira agree with Rava.
        text  I (the Maor) write a bit about this topic in Perek Arvei Pesachim.
  text  ...
  text  ...The case of "lo kivein libo" is when he was "nabach nabuchei" ("merely blowing" - see mefarshim).
    source  Rashba Rosh Hashana 28b "de-ka nabach nabuchei"
      text  Rashi said that he wasn't tokea the proper shiur.
      text  Kasheh on this: how then is he yotzei?
      text  One answer is that Rashi means that he didn't *have in mind* to be tokea the shiur, yet alsa be-yado. (I supposed his lips continued by themselves; it happens often with baalei tokea when they blow more than the required 9 tekios just by way of inertia.)
        note  So "kivein libo" means he realized it was the shiur, even though he only had in mind for it to be a regular tekia, not a tekia shel mitzvah la-tzeis bah. And "lo kivein libo" means that he didn't even realize that he had the shiur, even though he still had kavana for a dry maaseh tekia, which I guess makes him a mis'asek.
          note  How is the "lo kivein libo" case considered mis'asek? He had kavana for tekia after all!
            note  I don't think that the answer is that less-than-the-shiur is called "nebicha", and more than the shiur is called "tekia".
              note  What makes nebicha a different maaseh than tekia? In English we'd call both "blowing". Is the definition of a maaseh talui on what that maaseh is called in lashon ha-kodesh? Why does Aramaic count?
                note  See my chosen answer, according to which "nebicha" is indeed the same as "tekia" in terms of the dry act; but we use the word "tekia" because it connotes a "ma'aseh mitzva".
            note  I think the answer is similar to the chiluk brought in the Rambam by achilas mazta: if he didn't even realize it was Pesach, he's not yotzei even though "kaf'uhu ve-achal" is yotzei. So here, too, although he doesn't need kavana la-tzeis, he does need to realize that what he did is a ma'aseh miztva. If he doesn't realize it's a ma'aseh miztva, he's mis'asek.
              note  This narrows the machlokes in "mitzvos tzrichos kavana". Before, I thought that "ein tzrichos kavana" meant that the ma'aseh is inherently ("be-gufo" or "be-atzmuso") a mitzva; it's not a separate parallel ma'aseh; whereas "tzrichos kavana" holds that it is indeed a separate ma'aseh and mimeila the only way to not be mis-asek is to have kavana for it. Now, from here, I see that even "ein tzrichos kavana" holds that the mitzva is a separate ma'aseh; he just holds that the bar for kavana is lower: he just needs to realize that what he did was a mitzva.
      text  Another answer is that Rashi here meant like what he said later (33b) that the definition of "mis'asek" is that he was just blowing air (i.e. no kavana for tekia at all) and somehow a shofar appeared and he blew the proper shiur.
        note  So when Rashi says "he didn't blow the proper shiur", he means that he didn't know it was going to be a tekia at all, and mimeila there was no shiur tekia.
        note  We learn from here that one can have kavana li-tekia (even a non-mitzvah tekia; as opposed to kavana li-nebicha) in the middle of the tekia; it doesn't have to be from the outset; because he initially didn't know it would be eligible to be a mitzvah/tekia at all; and what's more, he only found out later that the tekia lasted the proper shiur, so he only began having kavana li-tekia *after* it became a tekia. Up until that point, it's mis'asek, which is not yotzei le-kuleih alma.
          note  It's not clear, though, at what point he realized it was a maaseh tekia: when the shofar appeared at his mouth (so the entire shiur tekia happened while he knew that he was doing a maaseh tekia even though he didn't start like that); once he got the shiur and kept going a little (so none of the shiur tekia was in the context of the "kavana li-tekia", yet this kavana can make him "eino mis'asek" lemafrea); and within this it's not clear whether he kept going a little after his realization (so at least the kavana came *during* the maaseh), or if he only realized *after* he finished that alsa be-yado (so even kavana toch kedei dibur, or something, works).
  text  If it's not bi-zman ha-mitzva, one needs kavana to be me-kayem the miztva in order to be 'over on "bal tosif".
    note  The Mishna Berura says that when one takes a talis from the shul for kavod for an aliyah, it's mi-stama be-toras she'eila not matana al menas le-hachzir, and a talis she'ula is patur from tzitzis, so he doesn't make a bracha on it. My question is that even though the talis is patur from tzitzis, isn't he still mekayem the mitzva if it does have tzitzis? According to "ein tzrichos kavana", then, he should make a bracha. So, the halacha should be just like taking a talis from the shul for tefilla, where one should specifically have kavana for "matana al menas le-hachzir" to ensure he makes a bracha; so as not to be machnis himself into the "tzrichos kavana" machlokes.
 source  Rosh Hashana 28b-29a
  note  ...(keep in mind for when I write notes on this: "achorei beis ha-knesses" is mashma even outside the walls of the beis ha-knesses [from the fact that it's asur mishum chashad to walk achorei beis ha-knesses], so we see a shliach tzibbur is mechavein to be motzi whoever hears, not only whoever is in the beis ha-knesses. Actually we see the same more clearly from "haya be-veiso".)
  text  ... R' Zeira tolds his shamash: "make a tekia and be mechavein for me".
    source  Rashba "amar leih R' Zeira..."
      text  The Rif included this "R' Zeira" story.
      text  Even though we hold like Raba and Rava, and like "shalchu leih le-avuh di-Shmuel" and R' Ashi, who all hold "ein tzrichos kavana".
      text  Still, the Rif holds that R' Zeira also holds "ein tzrichos kavana", since he never said "be mechavein for a mitzva", rather just "make a tekia"; and "be mechavein for me" means "le-hashmi'eini", not "le-hotzieni". That's why the Rif copied the words of the Gemara verbatim, and din't mention "mitzva" anywhere.
      text  The Maor agrees that this is how you read the Rif.
        note  I was medayek this from when the Rashba said "ve-hiksha alav" which is mashma that the Maor's ensuing proof that R' Zeira argues on Rava, is meant to be against the Rif, as if the Rif holds that R' Zeira does not argue on Rava.
      text  However, the Maor is mashma that R' Zeira does indeed argue on Rava and holds "tzrichos kavana", since the Gemara here says that R' Zeira holds like R' Yosi, who holds "tzrichos kavana" (as it says in Pesachim 114b). Indeed, Rashi here interprets R' Zeira as saying "be mechavein le-hotzieni".
        note  How does the Rashba get out of the fact that the Gemara equates R' Zeira with R' Yosi?
      text  The Maor himself holds "ein tzrichos kavana" because we pasken like the Rabanan de-R' Yosi; so the halacha is neither like R' Yosi nor R' Zeira.
      text  Anyway, kaima lan that "ein tzrichos kavana".
        note  I'm not sure if this is still part of the mashma'us of the Maor, or the Rashba himself saying that it doesn't really matter how you learn R' Zeira because anyway we'd pasken like Rava. I don't think this question has a nafka minah.
 source  Rosh Hashana 33b
  text  On the mishna "mis'asek lo yazta", the gemara is medayek that a "mis'asek to the point that he doesn't even know he's tokea" is not yotzei, but a "tokea lashir" is indeed yotzei even though he has no "kavana latzeis", which is a proof to Rava on 28a-b
  text  It's not a proof, because maybe "tokea lashir" is also "mis'asek". (But of course Rava holds that the mishna means that only "mis'asek gamur" is not yotzei
    interpretation  In "mitzvos tzrichos kavana", the problem with an "eino mechavein" is that he's considered "mis'asek". So, Rava reads the mishna that of course "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana", but specifically "tokea lashir"
    interpretation  ...
 source  Krisos 19a(bottom)-20b
  text  (The gemara brings a bunch of mis'asek cases, and eino mechavein cases, and shogeg, and meleches machsheves. Skim the whole thing first, then go back.)
  text  Rashi: Kavana to eat a chatichas shuman, and that chaticha turns-out to be cheilev, is called "shogeg", where all agree he has to bring a korban (although not necessarily the same one as a mezid, or even a mis'asek whenever mis'asek is chayav), since he had kavana for achila and for that very chaticha
  text  Rashi: Kavana to eat a different chaticha, with kavana that the chaticha shuman (whether it really is or not), is the "mis'asek" that Rav Nachman is talking about. It's usually patur, but here it's chayav because he's neheneh.
    note  Later on this amud, Rashi says that Rava/Abayei hold that "mis'asek" is only when he has kavana for heter (Shmuel holds even for issur). But here the Gemara is noseh-ve'nosein within Rava/Abayei.
    note  "ve'noda she'zeh cheilev ve'zeh shuman" is mashma that if it's not noda, rather he thinks both are shuman, is patur even though there's hanaa.
      question  But I'm not sure if this is a good diuk due to the "two chatichos of cheilev, one of which he thought was shuman" case; why should it matter what he thought the "other" piece was?
 source  Pesachim 114a(bottom)-b
  text  ...
  source  Rif 24b
    text  R' Yossi: even though he already did tibul with (the vegetable called) chazeres (which is one of the acceptable vegetables for "maror"), it's a mitzva (i.e. chiyuv) to bring him more chazeres (so he can do the mitzva of "maror")
      source  Maor haKatan "ha de-tanya R' Yossi omer..."
        text  The Gemara derives from this that R' Yossi holds mitzvos tzrichos kavana
        text  R' Yossi is azil le-taameih that we see in Rosh Hashana 29a that for mitzvas shofar, the tokea has to have the shomea in mind (and vice-versa). Therefore, we see that in general kavana is a requirement.
          note  We see that there's intrinsically no chiluk between doing the mitzva oneself and doing the mitzva through someone else; both require kavana. We see it's intrinsic to the svara of "tzrichos kavana" from the fact that the same svara underlying being yotzei through someone else is used for being yotzei by oneself; one may think that to transplant a mitzva requires kavana le-kuleih alma, and the machlokes of "tzrichos kavana" is only by being yotzei oneself.
            note  The fact that it's intrinic means that the inverse is also true: if "ein tzrichos kavana" then even a transplanted mitzva doesn't need kavana
        text  The Rif brought this R' Yossi to imply that this is the halacha.
        text  The Rif is also azil le-taameih that in Rosh Hashana he also is mashma that he holds like R' Yossi.
          note  I didn't find the Rif on Rosh Hashana in an old Gemara; I'll have to try Oz veHadar or something.
          source  Milchemes Hashem on this Maor "ve-od ha de-tanya R' Yossi omer..."
            text  He (the Maor) is correct that the Rif holds "tzrichos kavana" (as do "the rishonim", and we even see R' Hai holds this).
            text  I (the Milchemes) will explain more in Rosh Hashana, iyH.
            text  In fact, it's muchach that the halacha is "tzrichos kavana", because both R' Chisda (who kaima lan kavaseih ) and R' Huna (and Reish Lakish after him) hold "tzrichos kavana".
            text  ...
        text  I (the Maor), however, disagree with the Rif. Rather, the halacha is like the Rabanan of R' Yossi.
        text  The source of the Rabanan's shitta is the beraisa "achal (matza) be-lo miskavein, yatza"
        text  We also see this shitta by (Rosh Hashana 28a) "shalchu leih le-avuh di-Shmuel: kaf'uhu le-echol matza, yatza", which the Gemara interprets that "la-tzeis, lo ba'i kavana" 
          source  Ra'avad (on 25a) on this Meor "ve-hahi de-amar leih..."
        text  I (the Maor) pasken like the Rabanan because Rabanan are adif. That's why I don't have to pasken like R' Zeira (Rosh Hashana 28b last line), because the Gemara there ended-up that he holds like R' Yossi, and as mentioned, Rabanan are adif.
          note  If the Rabanan are adif, why did R' Zeira not pasken like them? (And also R' Chisda and R' Huna and Reish Lakish [Pesachim 114a-115a])
        text  Rav Hai Gaon said that even though we pasken "ein tzrichos kavana", one should still be ragil to have kavana for the mitzva being done.
          note  Then how does Gemara know that R' Zeira holds like R' Yossi that "tzrichos kavana"? Maybe he just wants to do the mitzva the best way? Shuv ra'isi the Shiltei ha-Gibborim (Rif 7b of Rosh Hashana) says this, and is in fact his mekor.
          note  I think this is only shayach for someone who's being lazy about concentrating on what he's doing, and does "mitzvas anashim melumada"; but most of the cases in the Gemaras where the guy didn't have kavana was not out of laziness (e.g. tokea la-shir).
    source  Ran "Gemara: mitzva le-havi matza ve-chazeres..."
 source  Pesachim 114b(bottom)-115a
  text  The general protocol on leil ha-seder is to first do tibul with a vegetable that doesn't count as "maror" (with only a bracha "ha-adama"), and then after matza to do tibul sheini (in charoses this time) with a "maror" vegetable (with a bracha "al achilas maror").
    source  Rashi
      text  The reason he makes a "ha-adama" by the tibul rishon is because it's "asur leihanos me-olam ha-zeh be-lo bracha".
        note  Why would I think otherwise? Why is he even mentioning this?
      text  This "ha-adama", in turn, is poter the eventual achilas maror.
        note  We see from here that if "mitzvos tzrichos kavana" (as R' Huna and R' Chisda are about to hold, though Rashi doesn't says this explicitly), then even though achilas maror is a hanaa, he's only yotzei if he has kavana la-tzeis. This seems to be a machlokes rishonim, whether "kvar neheneh" is a svara even if "mitzvos tzrichos kavana".
  text  What should one do if he only has "maror" vegetables?
  text  R' Huna holds he first eats with only "ha-adama", and later eats with "al achilas maror".
  text  R' Chisda says that can't be, because it's not proper to make an "al achilas maror" if in metzius he already ate maror (regardless of whether it was le-sheim miztva or not).
    source  Tosafos
      text  We see that R' Chisda holds "tzrichos kavana" (like Reish Lakish), because his only problem is "kvar milei kreiso", not that the bracha by the second achila is a bracha le-vatala (since he was yotzei maror by the first achila).
        note  Is this even if he has explicit kavana "she-lo la-tzeis", so that he can do the mitzva (with its bracha) after mazta (as is the correct way)?
      text  Also, if R' Chisda held "ein tzrichos kavana", he wouldn't say to try to get other non-maror vegetables.
        note  When did he say this?
      text  Even though the ikar mitzva of maror is by the second achila (i.e. after matza), the bracha of "al achilas maror" by the first achila works for the second one also, just like by tekias shofar where the bracha by "tekios di-meyushav" work for the "tekios de-amida" (which are the ikar).
      text  So now it comes out that all these amoraim hold "tzrichos kavana".
      text  Also, we see that the redactor of the Talmud (the "mesader ha-Shas) holds "tzrichos kavana", from the fact that he felt it necessary to tell us "hilchesa ke-R' Chisda".
        note  Because if he held "ein tzrichos kavana", the protocol would automatically be like R' Chisda's (though for a different reason), so we'd be me-kayem R' Chisda's shitta anyway.
      text  The halacha is not like "avuh di-Shmuel" (in Rosh Hashana 28a), who holds "ein tzrichos kavana".
        note  Mashma that Rava's interpretation of avuh di-Shmuel is correct; namely, that "ein tzrichos kavana" so "tokea la-shir yatza". So that explains why the Gemara there says "pshita" even though Rava said there is a possible alternative interpretation of avuh di-Shmuel.
      text  Even though there's a braisa here (Pesachim 114b) that "achlan be-lo miskavein yatza", and this wasn't brought there (Rosh Hashana 28a-b) as a proof for Rava (that "ein tzrichos kavana").
      text  There's no proof to Rava from that, because by "midi de-achila" one doesn't need that much kavana (as is required for tefila or tekia) to be yotzei.
        note  Is this the same svara as "kvar neheneh", or is this a somewhat lower level (which may be mashma from the lashon of Tosafos that "lo ba'i kavana kulei hai", which is mashma that ketzas kavana miha ba'i).
        note  If this is true, why does the Gemara (both here and there) say that "tzrichos kavana" is a machlokes tanaim and is the same machlokes as that of the amoraim? We see that R' Yossi holds "tzrichos kavana" even by "midi de-achila" (Pesachim 114a-b), and the Rabanan hold "ein tzrichos kavana" even by tekia (Rosh Hashana 29a). I'd rather say that once "ka mashma lan (Rava)" (Rosh Hashana 28b top), we fell off that midi de-achila is different, so the only machlokes left (both for tanaim and amoraim) is by "tzrichos kavana".
      text  Similarly, the braisos from there (Rosh Hashana 28b-29a) which show "tzrichos kavana", are not brought here.
      text  This is because those braisos were by tefila and tekia, which require more kavana than "midi de-achila", which is our topic here.
  text  Rather, R' Chisda holds that by the first achila he should make both "ha-adama" and "al achilas maror", and by the second achila not make anything.
  text  "Hilchesa ke-R' Chisda", although R' Acha breih d'Rava would go around trying to get non-maror vegetables in order not to get into this machlokes.
    note  When did the redactors of the Gemara insert the statement "Hilchesa ke-R' Chisda"; before or after the ma'aseh with R' Acha? If before, that means that when we say "hilchesa ke-R' Chisda", we don't mean it to be a strong as "halacha ke-beis Hillel" (where even the frummest people don't bother satisfying the opinion of beis Shammai). If after, then the only reason R' Acha was machmir is because the halcha was not yet decided in his day. (In this pshat, it's not clear whether "hilchesa ke-R' Chisda" means that R' Huna is gor-nisht or not.)
    note  If for us, R' Huna is gor-nisht, we see the hashkafa that even the frummest people don't have to be matriach in order to do the standard seder protocol. (The only reason R' Acha was machmir is because there was a machlokes, not because it's a non-standard protocol).
    note  But if, for us, R' Huna is not gor-nisht, we see the hashkafa that a regular person doesn't have to be matriach to satisfy the non-hilchesa opinion, but a frummy is welcome to, and it's evven praiseworthy.
 source  Sanhedrin 62b
  text  ...
 source  Rambam Chametz u'Matza 6:3
 source  Rambam Shofar 2:4-5
 source  Shulchan Aruch 422:3
  text  The "shatz-tzibur" protocol on how to say hallel together and the doubled pesukim, are all according to each one's minhag.
    source  Magen Avraham 8
      text  In general it's asur to say half of a pasuk. (The Kol Bo says that this may not apply to Kesuvim.)
      text  Therefore, when recital of a pasuk is split between the shatz and the tzibur, each yachid has to hear the part that the shatz says in order to use shomea ke-oneh.
        note  We see that "shomea ke-oneh" even works from the tzibur to the shatz.
      text  (The rest of this Magen Avraham is not related to our topics.)
    source  Pri Chadash 2 (~3/4 down: "kasav R' Yerucham...")
      text  R' Yerucham (nesiv 12) says: im yatza motzi - a non-baki always, a baki only if he answered "hallelukah".
      text  The Bedek ha-Bayis doesn't know where in the Gemara he got this from.
      text  I (the Pri Chadash) think it comes from the end of Perek Ra'uhu Beis Din "kol ha-brachos af al pi she-yatza motzi" which is only for a non-baki, which the Shulchan Aruch (273:4) himself brings, whereas a baki is only yotzei if he answers after the me-varech, as we see in Perek Lulav ha-Gazul "if the gadol recited for him, he must answer 'hallelukah'" (which is mashma that it's me'akev), and this is where the reciter was already yotzei; but if he wasn't already yotzei, he can be motzi even a baki and even if he doesn't answer anything, as we see in Perek Shelosha she-Achlu "shnayim she-achlu ke-echad, echad mehem yotzeh be-virkas chaveiro" where the Gemara asks "mai ka-mashma lan, tanina 'shama ve-lo ana yatza'".
      text  However, to me (the Pri Chadash) it's mistaber that in all cases (i.e. even where the reciter was already yotzei, and the listener is a baki [as I came out in Siman 273], and even if he didn't answer anything) the listener is yotzei, because shomea ke-oneh.
        note  All of these different opinions indicate that "shomea ke-oneh" is a source-less svara, and so even though the Gemara doesn't relate a case of the biggest chiddush, there's (possibly) no reason to say "ein lecha bo ela chiddusho" (as it seems the Pri Chadash holds), because the svara itself intrinsically applies to all cases.
        note  According to this, the concept of "shomea ke-oneh" is simply entertaining the words in one's mind. I think there's a spectrum within this concept, which is why there are other opinions; not because the other opinions grip the svara of "shomea ke-oneh" in a totally different way; but I have no proof to this.
    source  Pri Chadash 3
      text  (See my notes on Magen Avraham here for intro.)
      text  This, in fact, is the mekor for "shomea ke-oneh": the Gemara (where?) says "he (the shatz) says 'baruch haba', and they (the tzibur) say 'be-sheim Hashem'; mi-kan le-shomea ke-oneh".
      text  The Rambam has a different girsa, that the tzibur also says "baruch ha-ba", so obviously "shomea ke-oneh" isn't employed, and so this can't be a mekor for it..
      text  There are three possible alternative mekoros for shomea ke-oneh.
        note  It's not clear to me if all three are definitely valid mekoros, or if each one has a tzad that it's not a good mekor so at least one of them can be a mekor. If the latter, it would be interesting to identify the tzedadim against these mekoros.
      text  The first mekor: the Gemara says that the shatz says 'ana Hashem hatzlicha na' and the tzibur then repeating it, upon which the Gemara says "mi-kan she-im ba li-chpol, kofel", so without "shomea ke-oneh" each one said it only once, so it must be "shomea ke-oneh" exists.
      text  The second mekor: we see that the tzibur says "hallelukah" after the shatz says the first part of the pasuk.
      text  This may be the reason why (our minhag is that) the tzibur says together with the shatz "baruch ha-ba" (which deviates from the minhag of the Gemara). (... I don't understand his implied question)
        note  According to this, do we still have to say that the Rambam had a different girsa in the Gemara?
      text  The third mekor: the shatz says "yomar na Yisrael" and the tzibur says "hodu lashem ki tov".
      text  This also explains why (according to our minhag) the tzibur can say with the shatz "baruch ha-ba". (... Again, I don't understand his implied question.)
        note  According to this, do we still have to say that the Rambam had a different girsa in the Gemara?
 Where to pick up next time: two interpretations of Rosh Hashana 33b; apply to Rashi on 28b on "ka mashma lan"
 korban nesanel quotes Ran's terutz of the stira in Rambam between shofar and matza (which I think is that by matza there's hanaa). But Ritva says that all asehs should have the same din, and the "hanaa" chiluk only applies to lavin
 I saw somewhere that a nidah who fell in a mikveh remains temeah because she was mis'asek. Look-up what would be by a kli which doesn't have a mitzvah, or a person who wants to (or has to) go into the mikdash.
 Mis'asek
  First see Rosh Hashana 28a(bottom)-28b(top), just to be able to segway into "mis'asek"
  Not one definition; has levels
  Proof: Krisos 19a(bottom)-19b; (possibly Rosh Hashana 33b(top), so don't see it yet; see "mitzvos tzrichos kavana" section below, later)
  First though, see only first part of mishna there, and gemara on it, for the "cheilev/arayos" case
  hanaa
    cheilev/arayos - nis-chalfu ha-gufim va'adayin eino yode'a be-eizeh paga ve'od eino yode'a she-ha-echad she-nis-kavein lo hu chaticha de-issurah
      ? how does "hanaa" make it "eino mis'asek"; he still doesn't know what he's doing ?
  Go back to showing that there are many levels of "mis'asek" from the rest of the mishna/gemara
  nis-chalfu hagufim
    mechavein le-heter
      both gufim are asur
      one guf is heter, and the other is asur
    mechavein le-isur (the isurim are equal -- both kares/korban, or lav/korban, etc.)
  nis-chalef hamaaseh/osoh guf (i.e. paga be-guf she-niskavein lo, ve-nis-kavein le-heter (either: chashav she-ha-guf) heter, or she-hu bi-zman heter, or she-maaseh zeh mutar)
    (see "Shabbos", which has gezeiras ha-kasuv of "asher chata *bah*" / requirement of meleches machsheves)
  Shabbos
    "asher chata *bah*"
    safek
      bi-zman (Shabbos ve'Yom haKippurim)
        bein ha-shemasos: three-way safek: entire melacha done on Shabbos, entire done on Yom Kippur, miktzas on Shabbos and miktzas on Yom Kippur
        ba-yom ve-safek be-eizeh yom
      safek be-(me'ein)-eizo melacha
    nis-chalef ha-guf
      shem echad (nis-kavein le-ilan te'einim zo u-paga be-ilan te'einim zo)
      shtei shemos
        nis-kavein le-ilan te'einim u-paga be-anavim
        be-anavim shechoros u-paga bi-levanos
    chashav she-ha-guf shel heter / she-ein zeh maaseh melacha (nis-kavein la-chatoch ha-talush, ve-chatach ha-mechubar)
      machlokes Rava/Abayei
      ? not domeh to shogeg because ... ?
    nis-chalef shem ha-maaseh (nis-kavein le-hagbiah ha-talush, ve-chatach ha-me-chubar)
 Shabbos - eino mechavein
  Diff. w/ mis'asek: mis'asek on some level doesn't realize what's going on; "eino mechavein" knows, but it's not the point of the ma'aseh
  p'sik reisheih
  lav p'sik reisheih
    ? Is this a heter to take the chance, and mimeila when it ends-up being a melacha he's not chayav (but only bec. what would be the point of the heter in the first place?) ?
    ? Or is it that once he doesn't know it'll be a melacha, once it happens, it's a kind of mis'asek, since he didn't mean to do it ?
 Shabbos - shogeg
 Shabbos - melacha she-einah tzricha le-gufah
 mitzvos tzrichos kavana
  mitzvos aseh
    tokea la-shir: Rosh Hashana 32b(bottom),33b(top)
      Usually a dichuy to a proof is: "Rava could be correct that mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana, and so toke'a la-shir is yotzei", but there's no proof because maybe "toke'a la-shir" is considered mis'asek
        But according to this reading, the reason (pashut-pshat) that "tokea la-shir" is considered "mis'asek" is gufa because he's not mechavein la-tzeis; if so, how can Rava hold "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana"?--every case would be mis'asek.
        So it must be that the dichuy is _not_ granting that Rava _may_ be correct but has no proof; rather it's saying that the tzad that the mishna doesn't support Rava is not merely a lack of support, rather a proof _against_ him.
          This "leima"/dichuy fits with the "pshita"/dichuy on 28a(bottom)-b(top) (at least acc. Rashi) that Rava says that "kaf'u'hu le-echol matza" isn't a proof that "mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana"/"toke'a la-shir yatza", because maybe "mitzvos tzrichos kavana" and the problem with "eino me-chavein" is that he's considered "mis'asek"
      Pnei Yehoshua (Rosh Hashana 28b "u-v-pei'-Rashi d-qm'l") vs Maharsha (that same Rashi): P"Y holds "toke'a la-shir" is "mis'asek" even after the "qm'l", and Maharsha holds it's not (actually that's gufa what the qm'l is)
    achorei beis knesses (shofar/megillah)
    kaf'u'hu le-echol matza
      Rosh Hashana 28a(bottom)-28b(top):
        Rashi: Rava has hava amina that hanaa by matza makes it "lav mis'asek"
          Not be-feirush whether this svara stays le-maskana
        Pesaachim 114b: says this case is machlokes tana'im; same tana'im as in hemshech of Roash Hashana: mashma that acc. "man de-amar tzrichos kavana" he's not yotzei matza; in fact same by chazeres/maror. So mashma that "hanaa" isn't le-maskana.
      Ran (Rosh Hashana Rif24b) says for Rambam that hanaa is le-maskana; that's why he says this matza case is "yatza" even though he holds "tzrichos kavana" by shofar
    koreh ba-Torah (Shema)
    niddah she-nafla la-mikveh
      Hagahos Rosh in Rosh Hashana 3:11
    ? nafal t'mei-mes la-mikveh ?
    ? nafal kli la-mikveh ?
    diff. w/ "li-shmah" (tefillin, tzitzis, sukah): li-shmah creates a cheftza with which a mitzva can be done; kavana (obviously only in the world of "man de'amar tzrichos kavana") creates a ma'aseh mitzva itself
    tefillin
      hanacha
    tzitzis
      levisha
        levisha le-shem kavod (borrowing from shul for aliyah la-Torah), even though he's aware that he would be me-kayem a mitzvah if he's koneh be-matana al menas le-hachzir, still since it's just le-shem kavod, he only has kavana to borrow, which is patur from tzitzis, and so he can't make a bracha on it.
          mashma that if it did belong to him, he would have to make a bracha, even though he's only wearing it le-shem kavod; which is mashma that mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana; but we know that mechaber holds tzrichos kavana, and everybody holds safek brachos le-hakel, so why would he make a bracha?
            maybe the answer is that since there's an issur to wear it without tzitzis, he's careful that it's kasher, and mimeila he's also mechavein for the aseh.
        levisha stam
    sukah
      yeshiva
    Pnei Yehoshua (Rosh Hashana 28a-29a): gives his mahalach in the entire sugya of "mitzvos tzrichos kavana", in Rosh Hashana, Pesachim, and Krisos, and possibly other places (I forgot).
  aseh - echad motzi es chaveiro
    Rosh Hashana 32b(bottom)&33b(top)
      "shome'a mi-tokea she'eino mechavein le-hotzi"
        mashma that both in the gemara's "leima" and it's dichuy that the problem with "eino mechavein _le-hotzi_" is NOT "mis'asek", which makes sense. Rather it's a problem with "mitzvos tzrichos kavana".
          Why should there be a chisaron in "kavana la-tzeis"? What's the svara? Everyone has kavana for himself. I thought the role of kavana is that now this ma'aseh is a mitzva.
          Is this "leima"/dichuy only shayach to shofar, where the mitzva is shmi'a not teki'a, so there's a tzad that the shome'a's kavana alone is enough; or is it a generally-applicable discussion?
      ? doesn't talk about "shome'a mi-tokea she'eino mechavein la-tzeis"; what would be the din ?
        if we say that an "eino me-chavein la-tzeis", such as "toke'a la-shir", is called "mis'asek" (like top of 33b), then "lo yazta"; but that was just a dechiya; what would Rava say?
          What Rava holds, I think depends on whether the two R' Yossis ("mitzva le-havi chazeres" [i.e. "tzrichos kavana"], "ad she-ye-chavein shom'a u-mashmia" [i.e. "le-hotzi tzarich kavana"]) are independent of each other.
            If they're the same, that if you hold one you must hold the other, then "lo yatza" because he's a "shome'a min ha-mis'asek".
            ? But if they're independent, then "", so what would be the din?
    Rosh Hashana 28b(bottom)-29a(top)
  lavin
    bi-zmano
    she-lo bi-zmano
 shome'a ke-oneh
 maor hakatan on Rif in Pesachim
 Mashma that R' Zeira that mashmia must be mechavein for the shomea, is the same shitta as kavana needed for maror.
 I think they're two different things, but he lumps them together as the same idea: "ba'einan kavana"
 So I think that idea of kavana is just "glue" associating the baal ha-maaseh to the maaseh.
 It's not that kavana transforms the maaseh into a mitzvah-maaseh, nor does it make it that the guy is doing two maasim at once (namely the dry act and the maaseh-mitzvah). Rather, the dry act, under the right circumstances, is inherently a mitzvah. But, the only way for a person to be yotzei is to be associated with that maaseh.
 There are two ways to say it.
 One is that a maseh mitzvah needs an extra level of association.
 The second way is that the kavana transforms the baal hamaaseh into a "mitzvah-doer" (i.e. instead of transforming the maaseh, it transforms the gavra).
 In any event, this makes the idea of "kvar neheneh" more palatable. Hanaah can be glue; it makes a strong association.