לזכות ר' שמואל בנימין בן תישנה רחל לאה וכל בני ביתו!!
אמר רב יהודה בשופר של עולה לא יתקע ואם תקע יצא בשופר של שלמים לא יתקע ואם תקע לא יצא מ"ט עולה בת מעילה היא כיון דמעל בה נפקא לה לחולין, שלמים דלאו בני מעילה נינהו איסורא הוא דרכיב בהו [ולא נפקי לחולין] מתקיף לה רבא אימת מעל לבתר דתקע כי קא תקע באיסורא תקע אלא אמר רבא אחד זה ואחד זה לא יצא. הדר אמר אחד זה ואחד זה יצא מצות לאו ליהנות ניתנו.
Rav Yehudah said: One should not blow with a shofar taken from a burnt-.offering, but if he did
so he has performed his religious duty.
One should not blow with a shofar taken from a
peace-offering [שלמים], and if he did so he has not performed his religious duty. What is the reason? A
burnt-offering is subject to the rule of trespass, and once trespass has been committed with it, it
becomes unhallowed. Peace-offerings, on the other hand, not being subject to the rule of trespass, are still saddled with their prohibition, (and do not become unhallowed).
Rava strongly demurred
to this. When [he said], is the trespass committed? After he has blown; but when he blows, he does
so with something prohibited.
No, said Rava: Both in one case and the other, he has not performed
his religious duty. Later, however, he said: Both in one case and in the other he has performed his
religious duty, because religious precepts are not meant to provide physical enjoyment.
Asks the Ritva:
Even if he did an aveirah when he used the shofar of the שלמים - why should he not be yotzei?? It is true that it doesn't belong to him [but to hekdesh] but nevertheless one doesn't have to blow a shofar that belongs to him, so what is the problem?
The Ritva kindly offers two answers:
וי"ל דמ"מ איכא משום מצוה הבאה בעבירה כדאיתא בלולב הגזול א"נ שאם לא יצא לא עביד איסורא מוטב הוא לומר שלא יצא.
1] There is a מצוה הבאה בעבירה. Using the שופר is an עבירה so how can he do a mitzva by means of an עבירה??!
2] If we say that he is not yotzei then the איסור falls away so we prefer to say that he wasn't yotzei in order to prevent the איסור.
The second answer is apparently based on the rule כל מילתא דאמר רחמנא לא תעביד, אי עביד לא מהני - Anything Hashem says not to do, if one does it then it is not effective. The reason for this is [some suggest] that we want to fix the איסור. By ruling that one is not יוצא we have thereby fixed the איסור.
The שיטה מקובצת in מנחות ד wants to prove from our sugya that there is an איסור תורה to be נהנה from שלמים. But Rav Y. Sorotzkin [Gvuras Yitzchak Rosh Hashana 28a] argues that there is no proof. If the issue is whether we say אי עביד לא מהני, Rebbe Akiva Eiger says that there is a machlokes if אי עביד לא מהני applies to איסורי דרבנן as well, so maybe this is only an איסור דרבנן. If the issue is מצוה הבאה בעבירה then there are also opinions that this issue applies to איסורי דרבנן. So EITHER WAY you spin it - this could be an איסור דרבנן.
However there is a question on the Ritva [asked in the sefer משמרת שמועות]: If by saying that he is not יוצא we prevent an איסור - then why don't we say that he is also not יוצא when he blows with a שופר של עולה as we would thereby prevent the איסור מעילה??!!
However there is a question on the Ritva [asked in the sefer משמרת שמועות]: If by saying that he is not יוצא we prevent an איסור - then why don't we say that he is also not יוצא when he blows with a שופר של עולה as we would thereby prevent the איסור מעילה??!!
