Generally speaking, as we learned in Massekhet Makkot
, punishments meted out by Jewish courts were given only when the perpetrator committed an act forbidden by the Torah
. If, however, the person neglected to perform a positive commandment, the Torah does not punish him in any way (although the Sages
enacted punishments whose aim was to encourage performance of positive mitzvot
). Similarly, negative commandments that do not involve forbidden actions – referred to in the Gemara
as lav she-ein bo ma’aseh
– are not punishable, since there was no forbidden action that was done.
Where does the law of temurah fit in? Since trying to exchange a sanctified animal with another appears to involve speech but no action, is it considered to be a lav she-ein bo ma’aseh, or, perhaps, the act of speaking is considered significant?
On today’s daf
is brought quoting
as teaching that there are three exceptions to the rule of no punishment for a lav she-ein bo ma’aseh
. The three exceptions are nishba
(taking a false oath), meimar
(announcing one’s intent to switch one consecrated animal for another) u’mekalel et haveiro ba-shem
(cursing one’s fellow while invoking the name of God).
In discussing our case – temurah – the Gemara concludes that it really does not belong in this list. is quoted as telling the individual who brought the above teaching “Do not read: ‘And one who exchanges’, because his very words constitute an action.” Since his words effect a real change of status in the second animal, which becomes consecrated, we view his speech as an action in this case.
point out that there are other examples of speech for which punishment is given, e.g. eidim zomemin (witnesses that are found to be testifying falsely since they were not at the scene that they describe) or motzi shem ra (someone who falsely accuses his wife of premarital infidelity), and explain that in those cases the Torah itself clearly states the punishments associated with those statements.