OUTLINES OF HALACHOS FROM THE DAF
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
1) IS INTENT REQUIRED FOR MITZVOS INVOLVING AN ACTION? [Mitzvos:Kavanah:action]
2) Also see DOES HEARING SHOFAR OR MEGILAH REQUIRE INTENT Rosh Hashanah 33 and THE INTENT REQUIRED FOR SHMA Berachos 13
1. Mishnah: They bring to him Chazeres (if he has no
other vegetable for Karpas). He dips (and eats)
Chazeres before eating Matzah. Afterwards, they
bring Matzah and Chazeres (for the Mitzvah of
(a) Mishnah: A healthy woman can permit a deaf, insane, or
blind woman to eat Terumah (by checking her for Dam
Nidah, and immersing her at the proper time).
2. Reish Lakish: This teaches that Mitzvos require
intent. The first time he ate Chazeres it was not
the time for the Mitzvah of Maror, and he blessed
like usual for a vegetable; perhaps he did not
intend for the Mitzvah. Therefore, he must eat Maror
i. If Mitzvos did not require intent, he would not
need to eat again, for he would be Yotzei the
3. Question #1: Perhaps Mitzvos do not require intent,
and he dips again to arouse the children!
i. Suggestion: If the Mishnah does not teach that
Mitzvos require intent, it should discuss a
different vegetable for Karpas!
4. Question #2 (Beraisa): If one ate Maror without
intent, he was Yotzei.
ii. Rejection: Had it discussed another vegetable,
we would have thought that one dips twice only
if he has another vegetable. Therefore the
Mishnah teaches that even if he has only
Chazeres, he dips twice.
5. Answer to both questions: Tana'im argue about this.
i. (Beraisa - R. Yosi): Even though he dipped (and
ate) Chazeres (for Karpas), it is a Mitzvah to
bring Chazeres, Charoses and two cooked foods.
6. Question: Perhaps R. Yosi holds that Mitzvos do not
require intent; he dips again to arouse the
children, like we said above!
7. Answer: If so, he would not call bringing Chazeres a
8. Rav Huna: The first time he eats Chazeres he blesses
Borei Peri ha'Adamah; the second time he blesses Al
9. Rav Chisda: He blesses Al Achilas Maror the first
10. The Halachah follows Rav Chisda.
11. Rosh Hashanah 28a: If one was forced (by Nochrim) to
eat Matzah, he was Yotzei.
12. Rava: This teaches that one who blows a Shofar for a
song is Yotzei (if he heard the right notes! Some
texts attribute this to Rabah.)
13. Question: Obviously these are the same! What is
14. Answer: One might have thought that he is Yotzei
there because the Mitzvah is merely to eat Matzah,
and he did so; but here "Zichron Teru'ah" is
required, and one who does not intend for the
Mitzvah is Mis'asek (which is not Yotzei (Mishnah
32b) - Rava teaches that this is not so.
15. Inference: Rava holds that Mitzvos do not require
16. Question (Mishnah: If one was reading Parashas Shma
in the Torah, and it was time for Kri'as Shma, he
was Yotzei only if he had intent.
i. Inference: He was Yotzei only if he had intent
to fulfill the Mitzvah; this teaches that
Mitzvos require intent!
17. Answer: No; it means, if he had intent to read he
18. Chulin 31a - Rav: If a Nidah immersed unwillingly
she is permitted to her husband, but forbidden to
19. R. Yochanan: She is forbidden even to her husband.
20. Question: What is the case of a Nidah immersing
against her will?
i. Suggestion: Rachel forcibly put Leah in a
ii. Rejection: If so, Rachel's intention would
suffice, and Leah would be permitted even to
21. Answer (Rav Papa): Rather, she fell from a bridge or
entered the water to cool off and fell in all the
1. Rif (Rosh Hashanah 7b): One is Yotzei Shofar only if
he and the blower both intended for this.
(a) Rebuttal (Or Zaru'a in Hagahos Ashri): R. Zeira is the
only Amora who says that Mitzvos require intent. Several
Amora'im and the Stam Gemara do not require intent. The
Halachah follows Rav, who says that accidental immersion
permits a Nidah to her husband (Chulin 31a).
i. Source #1 (Milchamos Hash-m): R. Zeira requires
intent for Mitzvos, and he is later than the
Amora'im who do not require intent. (We cannot
prove from the Gemara what Rava himself held.)
In Pesachim, Reish Lakish himself clearly holds
that Mitzvos require intent, and also Rav Huna,
who says that one blesses Al Achilas Maror the
second time he eats it.
ii. Source #2 (Rosh, Rosh Hashanah 3:11): In
Pesachim R. Yosi holds like R. Zeira, and
'Nimuko Imo' (the Halachah follows R. Yosi
because he had great reasons for his opinions).
The Yerushalmi learns from a Mishnah of Shofar
and Megilah that Mitzvos require intent. The
Bavli also sought to learn this from a Beraisa;
the rebuttals given are poor, for the text of
the Mishnah and Beraisa connotes otherwise.
2. Rambam (Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah 6:3): If one ate
Matzah without intention, e.g. Nochrim forced him to
eat, he was Yotzei.
(a) Pri Megadim (Petichah Klalis 3:5): It is unclear whether
or not one who was forced to eat Maror was Yotzei, for it
is bitter and harmful.
i. Magid Mishnah: Some say that he was Yotzei only
if he knew that it is Pesach and he is
obligated to eat
3. Rambam (Hilchos Kri'as Shma 2:1): One is Yotzei Shma
only if he had intent in the first verse.
4. Rambam (Hilchos Shofar 2:4): One who hears a Shofar
is not Yotzei unless he and the blower both intended
that he be Yotzei.
i. Question: Regarding Matzah, the Rambam says
that one is Yotzei even without intent!
ii. Answer #1 (Ra'avad brought in R. Mano'ach
(Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah ibid.), and Ran (DH
Lefichach) brought in Kesef Mishneh): The
Rambam holds that Mitzvos require intent.
However, we find that Mis'asek is normally
exempt from a Korban, except when a person
physically benefited from the transgression (it
is as if he intended). Similarly, one is Yotzei
without intent regarding Matzah because he
(a) Source (R. Yonah Berachos 6a DH Emnam): An action is in
place of intent. Speech depends on the heart, so if one
spoke without intent he did not do anything that can be
considered a Mitzvah.
iii. Answer #2 (Magid Mishnah): The Rambam holds
that since one merely hears the Shofar, intent
is required. Since one is Yotzei Matzah through
an action, intent is not required. This is
unlike Rabah, who equated these Mitzvos. The
Gemara inferred that Rabah holds that Mitzvos
require intent, but it did not say so about the
teaching that one who was forced to eat was
iv. Rebuttal (Magid Mishnah): We do not find a
distinction between Mitzvos regarding whether
or not intent is required. Perhaps the text of
the Rambam should say that he is not Yotzei
5. Rosh (10:25): If one ate Maror without intent, he
v. Defense of Answer #2 (Lechem Mishneh): Perhaps
this is the Gemara's answer why it is not
obvious that Matzah and Shofar are the same!
Presumably, the Magid Mishnah's text of the
Gemara omitted the question and answer, for he
says that there is no basis for his answer in
vi. Answer #3 (Yom Teru'ah 28a DH Amar): Even the
opinion that requires intention for immersion
agrees that if someone forced a Nidah to
immerse she is Tehorah (Chulin 31a), for intent
of one who forces another to do a Mitzvah helps
as if the latter intended.
vii. Question: Regarding Kri'as Shma, the Rambam
requires intent only in the first verse; this
is like the opinion that Mitzvos do not require
viii.Answer #1 (Lechem Mishneh): Perhaps saying
Kri'as Shma is considered an action, therefore
intent is not required like the Magid Mishnah
ix. Objection: The Magid Mishnah would not consider
speech to be an action. Also, he suggested that
the Rambam requires intent for Matzah; if so,
he must have another reason to distinguish Shma
from Shofar and Matzah!
x. Answer #2 (Lechem Mishneh): The Rambam holds
like the Milchamos Hash-m, who says that Rava
requires intent only in the first verse because
he holds that Mitzvos require intent; in Rosh
Hashanah, Rava answered on behalf of the
1. Shulchan Aruch (OC 60:4): Some say that Mitzvos do
not require intent.
(a) Beis Yosef (589, DH Lefichach): The Ro'oh learns from
here that one is Yotzei against his will; this is a
minority opinion, and we are not concerned for it.
i. Source (Gra DH Yesh): They follow the majority
who argue with R. Zeira and R. Yosi. Also, the
conclusion is that accidental immersion is
Metaher (Chulin 31a), and that one fulfills the
Mitzvah of Tefilin without intent (Eruvin 95b).
ii. Ran (Rosh Hashanah 7b DH Garsinan): The
argument is whether or not one needs intent to
be Yotzei, but all require him to know what he
is doing, e.g. he is eating Matzah and it is
Pesach. If not, it would have been better to
teach about this than about one who was forced!
iii. Rebuttal (R. Yerucham, brought in Beis Yosef
475 DH Kosav ha'Rambam): We must say that the
one who was forced to eat Matzah did not know
that it was Matzah or that it was Pesach. One
who does not want to be Yotzei is not Yotzei
against his will!
2. Some say that Mitzvos require intent to fulfill the
Mitzvah; this is the Halachah.
(a) Note: Presumably, Tosfos holds like the Rambam, who
requires eating a k'Zayis for Karpas (to obligate Netilas
Yadayim; see Bi'ur Halachah 573:3: DH Pachos), or at
least that one may do so. However, the Shulchan Aruch
(573:6) requires eating less than a k'Zayis to avoid a
Safek regarding a Berachah Acharonah. (Even though Rav
Huna surely requires a k'Zayis, it is possible that Rav
Chisda argues.) According to this, one is not Yotzei
regardless of intent, so Tosfos has no proof!
i. Source (in addition to the Rif's sources above
(b:1:i and b:1:ii - Tosfos 115a DH Maskif). If
Mitzvos did not need intent, there would be no
need for the Gemara to say that the Halachah
follows Rav Chisda. If one was Yotzei Maror the
first time, blessing Al Achilas Maror the
second time is a Berachah l'Vatalah!
(a) Source #1: Rosh Hashanah 28b expounds from Zichron
Teru'ah that intent is required.
ii. Question: Perhaps Mitzvos do not require
intent, but intent not to be Yotzei helps,
therefore the Gemara must Poskin like Rav
iii. Answer #1: It is unreasonable to Poskin like
Rav Huna and require everyone to have negative
intent (see Korban Nesan'el 10:70).
iv. Answer #2 (Bi'ur Mordechai, cited in Otzar
Meforshei ha'Talmud): Negative intent does not
help regarding a Mitzvah to eat.
v. Eshel Avraham (3): It is not clear whether or
not the opinion that requires intent requires
vi. Bi'ur Halachah (DH v'Yesh Omrim she'Tzrichos):
The Rashbam and the Acharonim (other than the
Eshel Avraham) say that the opinion that
requires intent requires it mid'Oraisa.
(b) Source #2 (Yom Teru'ah ibid.): Abaye (Rosh Hashanah 28b)
says that if Mitzvos do not require intent...one should
be liable for Bal Tosif. If all agree that mid'Oraisa
intent is not required, all would agree that one
transgresses Bal Tosif!
(a) Question: A Beraisa requires intent to hear the Megilah!
vii. Magen Avraham (3): Mitzvos mid'Rabanan do not
(b) Answer #1 (Pri Megadim, Petichah Klalis 3:5): A Mitzvah
from Nevi'im is considered like mid'Oraisa.
(c) Answer #2 (Pri Megadim, Pesichah l'Birchos ha'Shachar DH
Od Ra'isi Lehazkir): Perhaps the Magen Avraham holds that
it is a Safek whom the Halachah follows, therefore we are
stringent regarding Mitzvos mid'Oraisa (like the Ran,
Rosh Hashanah 7b DH Lefichach), but we are lenient about
viii.Mishnah Berurah (9). According to the Magen
Avraham, one would not repeat any Berachah said
without intent except for Birkas ha'Mazon,
since all other Berachos are mid'Rabanan.
However, the Gra does not distinguish
mid'Oraisa from mid'Rabanan; it appears that
also the Shulchan Aruch does not. The Chayei
Adam says that the argument is only when it is
reasonable to say that he had a different
intent, e.g. he was reading the Torah or
practicing to blow. However, if one did a
Mitzvah the usual way, e.g. he said Shma during
Shacharis or took the Lulav (at the time of
Hallel), even if he did not explicitly intend
for the Mitzvah, it is clear that did it to be
ix. Einayim l'Mishpat (Berachos 13a:6, citing Pri
Megadim): Intent is needed only for obligatory
Mitzvos such as Tefilin, not for Mitzvos such
as slaughter or immersion.
x. Yam Shel Shlomo (Chulin 2:13): The Torah
requires intent to slaughter Kodshim. We infer
that Chulin does not need intent to slaughter.
We require some intent (e.g. to cut or throw a
knife); otherwise, it is not considered a human
act. However, if one intended that it should
not be slaughter, it is not considered
slaughter. The argument about a Nidah who
immersed accidentally depends on whether or not
marital relations are considered Kodshim or
xi. Bach (625 DH ba'Sukos): When the Torah
specifies the reason for a Mitzvah, e.g.
wearing Tzitzis to remember the Mitzvos, Sukah
to remember Yetzi'as Miztrayim, Tefilin so that
by remembering Yetzi'as Miztrayim the Torah
will be fluent in our mouths, this intent is
needed to properly fulfill the Mitzvah.
xii. Kaf ha'Chayim (10,11): A Mitzvah without intent
is like a body without a Neshamah. Before any
Mitzvah or prayer one should say 'l'Shem
Yichud...', to unite Hashem's name and the
Shechinah. One must be extremely careful not to
say this without intent.
(d) OTHER APPLICATIONS
1. Mishnah Berurah (271:2): Normally, one who makes
Kidush at home does not intend to be Yotzei Kidush
mid'Oraisa in Shemoneh Esre (even according to the
opinions that one can be Yotzei) or through Kidush
in the Beis ha'Keneses. Since the Halachah is that
Mitzvos require intent, one should not consider
Kidush at home to be mid'Rabanan. Therefore, one
must be stringent if he is in doubt whether or not
he was Yotzei; also, one should not be Yotzei
through a child. (For mid'Oraisa laws we do not rely
on the Chazakah that a child brings Simanim
immediately after 12 or 13 years.)
2. Bi'ur Halachah (DH Miyad): On the other hand, since
some say that Mitzvos do not require intent, it is
possible that one was Yotzei mid'Oraisa in Shemoneh
Esre, and he cannot Motzi others who did not fulfill
their Chiyuv mid'Oraisa, e.g. a wife who did not
pray Ma'ariv. To fulfill (virtually) all the
opinions, in such a case one should specifically
intend not to be Yotzei in the Beis ha'Keneses.
3. Mishnah Berurah (296:36): There are varying opinions
whether or not Havdalah and the Berachah of Ner are
obligatory upon women. Therefore, it is best for a
husband to intend not to be Yotzei in the Beis
ha'Keneses in order that he can make Havdalah at
home for her.
Index to Halachah Outlines for Maseches Pesachim