MyDaf Gemaraboards

א מקום תורה

You are not connected. Please login or register

Temurah 3b Ayn bo ma'aseh

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Temurah 3b Ayn bo ma'aseh Empty Temurah 3b Ayn bo ma'aseh on Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:02 am

The gemara brings R' Yochanan that there are three lo ta'asehs that have malkus even though they don't have an action, a ma'aseh. One of them is temurah. R' Yochanan himself says here in the gemara
לא תתני ומימר, משום דבדיבורו עשה מעשה
"Don't teach temurah, because [there] an action is done with his words" (Rashi - it makes chulin into kodoshim).
I hadn't understood what this really explains: R' Yochanan had three special isurim on his list; why is he excluding this one, and why would it be different? Presumably the others have to be special as well; why else do they carry malkus?
Anyhow, I think Rashi answers this:
לא תיתני מימר־ בכלל שאר לאוין שאין בהן מעשה
"Don't teach temurah - in the category of lav'im that don't have an action."
He's not telling the tana to leave it off his list of three; he's telling him to leave it off a different list somewhere, a list of things that shouldn't have malkus because they have no action. All three here are probably to be left off that list.

View user profile

2Temurah 3b Ayn bo ma'aseh Empty Re: Temurah 3b Ayn bo ma'aseh on Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:09 am

Pretty clear that what I wrote is wrong. The gemara seems to be offering this as an explanation why, unlike the other two or three on R' Yochanon's list, this one doesn't need to be justified by a posuk. It "has a ma'aseh", more than the others. (See further on that makdim trumah to bikkurim, if it is on the list, has the same kind of ma'aseh where chulin is given a whole new existence as kodesh.)
I am still puzzled how R' Yochanon could say this to the tana, when he is listed as the author of the statement above that there are three on the list. Why are we quoting him as one of the chain of chachamim passing along the statement, if here he is saying that the statement is wrong and fixing it?

I had been wondering why the other ones were different; in particular, why isn't swearing falsely another example of a "ma'aseh" in one's words, by creating a חלות on the object (if there is one) that makes it forbidden? Is kodesh somehow a different category? But the truth is that according to the end of the gemara on shevuah, we are talking about אכלתי ולא אכלתי, specifically about the past, and (as far as I know) there is no issue of a חלות on an object.

View user profile

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum