Temurah 8

אפטורא קאי והכי קאמר

was speaking of exempting [from lashes];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose b. R. Hanina's statement has reference to the first Tanna who holds that transgression of a negative command which does not involve an action is not punishable with lashes. R. Jose thereupon declares that the case also of one who named terumah before bikkurim is exempt from lashes for the same reason. This is contrary to the assumption held hitherto that R. Jose made him liable to lashes.');">¹</span>

לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו

and he says thus: Transgression of a negative command which does not involve an action is not punishable with lashes.

משום רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמרו

[The Rabbis] said in the name of R'Jose son of R'Hanina: Also one who names terumah before bikkurim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is also exempt from the punishment of lashes.');">²</span>

אף המקדים תרומה לביכורים

And why is it that one who exchanges is punishable [with lashes]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated above, that the case of one who exchanges is an exception to the rule that the transgression of any negative law in order to merit punishment with lashes must involve an action, for here, in exchanging, no action is taken.');">³</span>

ומאי שנא מימר דלקי משום דבדיבורו עשה מעשה מקדים תרומה לביכורים נמי לילקי משום דבדיבורו עשה מעשה

[Assumedly] because with his very words<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Let this unconsecrated animal be instead of that consecrated animal'.');">⁴</span>

א"ר אבין

he performs an action.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The hullin (unconsecrated animal) becoming sacred.');">⁵</span>

שאני התם דלאו שניתק לעשה הוא דכתיב

Then the case of one who names terumah before bikkurim should also be punishable with lashes, since with his words he performed an action?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By naming it he invests the fruit with the holiness of terumah.');">⁶</span>

(במדבר יח, כח) מכל מעשרותיכם תרימו

- Said R'Abin: It is different there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the naming of terumah before bikkurim.');">⁷</span>

יתיב רב דימי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא

for [the prohibition of not delaying the priestly dues] is a negative command that is remediable by a positive command,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A negative command the transgression of which must be repaired by a succeeding act. Now if he violates the prohibition by not naming the priestly dues in their right sequence, he can rectify the matter by setting aside the priestly due which has been omitted. In such a case, where a forbidden act can be repaired, there is no punishment of lashes.');">⁸</span>

א"ל אביי

since it is written: Out of all you gifts ye shall offer every heave offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 29.');">⁹</span>

וכל לאו שניתק לעשה לא לקי

R'Dimi was once sitting and repeating this tradition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the reason why one is not punishable with lashes where one names terumah before bikkurim is because the prohibition is remediable by the positive command.');">¹⁰</span>

והא מימר דלאו שניתק לעשה הוא ולקי

Abaye asked him: And is it true that every negative command which is remediable by a positive command is not punishable [with lashes]?

דתנן

Is there not the case of one who exchanges [an unconsecrated animal for a consecrated animal] which is a negative command remediable by a positive command and is yet punishable with lashes?

לא שאדם רשאי להמיר אלא שאם המיר מומר וסופג את הארבעים הוי להו תרי לאוי וחד עשה ולא אתי חד עשה ועקר תרי לאוי

For we have learnt in our Mishnah: NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE BUT THAT IF ONE DID SO, THE SUBSTITUTE IS SACRED AND HE RECEIVES FORTY LASHES.

והרי אונס דחד לאו וחד עשה ולא אתי חד עשה ועקר לאו

- [The case of one who exchanges is different, for]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek.');">¹¹</span>

דתניא

here are two negative commands<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'He shall not alter nor change it'.');">¹²</span>

אונס שגירש אם ישראל הוא מחזיר ואינו לוקה ואם כהן הוא לוקה ואינו מחזיר

and one positive command<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy' (Lev. XXVII, 10) .');">¹³</span>

כהנים קאמרת

and one positive command cannot displace two negative commands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore he who exchanges is punishable with lashes.');">¹⁴</span>

כהנים טעמא אחרינא הוא דרבי רחמנא קדושה יתירא

But is there not the case of one who violates [a woman] for which act there is one negative command<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He may not put her away all his days (Deut. XXII, 29) .');">¹⁵</span>

כתנאי (שמות יב, י) לא ישאירו ממנו עד בקר בא הכתוב ליתן עשה אחר לא תעשה לומר שאין לוקין עליו דברי רבי יהודה

and one positive command,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And she shall be his wife (ibid) .');">¹⁶</span>

רבי יעקב אומר

and yet the positive command does not displace the negative command?

לא מן השם הוא זה אלא משום דהוה לאו שאין בו מעשה וכל לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו

For it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mak. 15a.');">¹⁷</span>

מכלל דרבי יהודה סבר לוקין עליו

If one violates [a maiden] and then divorces her [after marriage],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is forbidden by the Scripture.');">¹⁸</span>

ורבי יעקב האי והנותר ממנו עד בקר באש תשרופו למאי אתא

if he is an Israelite he takes her back and is not punished [with lashes];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For after committing the transgression he can always carry out the positive command by re-marrying her,');">¹⁹</span>

מיבעי ליה לכדתנן

but if he is a priest, he is punished [with lashes]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he cannot take her back after divorcing her, as a priest is forbidden to re-marry a divorcee. Therefore he cannot repair the act and the positive command does not as a result displace the transgression.');">²⁰</span>

העצמות והגידין והנותר ישרפו בששה עשר

and he does not take her back!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' You have therefore here a difficulty for the one who maintains that a transgression of a negative command which is remediable by a positive command is not punishable with lashes.');">²¹</span>

חל ששה עשר להיות בשבת ישרפו בשבעה עשר לפי שאין דוחין לא את השבת ולא את יום טוב

- You mention the case of priests.

ואמר חזקיה וכן תנא דבי חזקיה

Their case is different, for the Divine Law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the merciful one'.');">²²</span>

מ"ט אמר קרא

invests them with added sanctity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason therefore is not because a positive command does not displace a negative command, but because we are stricter in the case of a priest than in that of an Israelite, and therefore a priest is liable to lashes.');">²³</span>

(שמות יב, י) והנותר ממנו עד בקר באש תשרופו בא הכתוב ליתן בוקר שני לשריפתו

This is a matter of dispute between Tannaim:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is a difference of opinion among Tannaim as to whether or not the transgression of a negative command which involves no action is punishable with lashes.');">²⁴</span>

אמר אביי

And ye shall let nothing remain of it until the morning and that which remains of it until morning ye shall burn with fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 10.');">²⁵</span>

כל מילתא דאמר רחמנא לא תעביד אם עביד מהני

Scripture here has come to state a positive command<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And that which remains, etc.'.');">²⁶</span>

דאי סלקא דעתך לא מהני אמאי לקי

following a negative command in order to inform us that one is not punishable with lashes on account thereof.

רבא אמר

So R'Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who therefore holds that transgression of a negative command which is remediable by a positive command is not punishable with lashes.');">²⁷</span>

לא מהני מידי והאי דלקי משום דעבר אמימרא דרחמנא הוא

R'Jacob says: This comes not under this head,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is not the real reason why one is exempt from lashes.');">²⁸</span> but the reason is because it is a negative command [the transgression of] which involves no action,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since to leave over the remains of the Paschal lamb entails no action.');">²⁹</span> and the transgression of a negative command in which no action is involved is not punishable with lashes. This implies [does it not] that R'Judah holds that it is punishable with lashes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we see that there is a difference of opinion among Tannaim as to whether transgression of a negative law which does not entail an action is punishable with lashes.');">³⁰</span> And according to R'Jacob, what does the text: 'And that which remains of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire' come to teach? It is required for what we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pes. 83a.');">³¹</span> The bones, the tendons and that which remains of the Paschal lamb are burnt on the sixteenth [of Nisan].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not on the fifteenth, for it is forbidden to burn holy things on festivals.');">³²</span> If the sixteenth [of Nisan] fell on the Sabbath they are burnt on the seventeenth, because the burning of sacred things does not supersede either the Sabbath or Festivals. And Hezekiah said, and so taught a Tanna of the School of Hezekiah: What is the reason? Scripture says: 'That which remains of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire'; the text came to give a second morning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'morning' being mentioned twice in the same verse.');">³³</span> for its burning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text therefore means as follows: One must not leave the remains of the Paschal lamb until the next morning, i.e., the fifteenth; but that which remains till the second morning, you shall burn it in fire, i.e., on the sixteenth which is the intermediate day of the festival.');">³⁴</span> Said Abaye: Any act which the Divine Law forbids<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'said, " do="" not"'.');"="">³⁵</span> , if it has been done, it has legal effect;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what has been done is valid.');">³⁶</span> for if you were to think that the act has no legal effect, why then is one punishable [on account thereof with lashes]? Raba however said: The act has no legal effect at all, and the reason why one is punishable with lashes on account thereof is because one has transgressed a command of the Divine Law.