Temurah 3b

תמורה ג׳ ע״ב

Learn Temurah 3b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Temurah 3b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Lashes without an action: vain and false oaths, תמורה, and cursing with God's name

Overview

This amud finishes the reading of 'כי לא ינקה ה'' that רבי יוחנן quoted from רבי מאיר. Only the Heavenly court refuses to clear someone who swore a שבועת שוא, but the earthly court gives him מלקות and that clears him, as אביי proves from the extra word 'ה''. רבי יוחנן then learns from the double 'לשוא' that a שבועת שקר also gets lashes. רבי אבהו asks which false oath this could be, and answers that it is a false oath about the past ('I ate' / 'I did not eat'). רבא explains why: a false oath learned from a vain oath must be about the past, like a vain oath. רבי ירמיה challenges this from a משנה in שבועות. The גמרא shows that the whole משנה follows רבי עקיבא and does not take away lashes from past-tense oaths. רבי יוחנן then removes 'one who makes a תמורה' from the list of sins without an action, because his speech counts as an action. Finally the גמרא learns lashes for cursing one's fellow with God's name from 'והפלא', after showing that a true oath is allowed. It ends by asking whether lashes are really enough for cursing, and that question continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (33)

1. StatementHeaven does not clear him, but the earthly court lashes and clears him
2. ChallengeMaybe he can never be cleared at all
3. ResolutionThe extra word 'ה׳' limits the verse to Heaven
4. QuestionWe have a source for a vain oath. What about a false oath?
5. ResponseThe word 'לשוא' appears twice
6. ChallengeWhich false oath? Not 'I won't eat' and he ate
7. ChallengeNor 'I will eat' and he didn't, since there are no lashes there
8. ChallengeWhy one who swore to eat and didn't is not lashed
9. ResolutionThe source is for an oath about the past
10. QuestionWhy is the past different from the future?
11. ResponseA false oath is compared to a vain oath
12. Challengeרבי ירמיה quotes a משנה about a future oath
13. Challenge'This is' seems to leave out the past oath
14. ResolutionThe word 'this is' only excludes an offering, following רבי ישמעאל
15. ChallengeThe second part of the משנה seems to exclude past-tense oaths from lashes
16. ResolutionThe second 'this is' only says no offering, following רבי עקיבא
17. ChallengeThe two halves of the משנה now follow two different תנאים
18. ResolutionThe whole משנה is רבי עקיבא, and the first 'this is' excludes 'I will eat'
19. QuestionWhy exclude the future oath specifically?
20. ResponseThe clause speaks about the future, so it excludes a future case
21. StatementDo not list the one who makes a תמורה
22. QuestionWhere do we learn lashes for cursing with God's name?
23. Response'והפלא' means lashes
24. ChallengeShould even a true oath get lashes?
25. ResolutionThe Torah openly allows a true oath
26. ChallengeMaybe the oath only settles the money, but lashes still apply
27. ResolutionThe verse 'by His name you shall swear' shows a true oath is allowed
28. ChallengeThat verse is needed for רב's rule about swearing to keep מצוות
29. ResolutionAnother verse also says 'by His name you shall swear'
30. ConclusionSo 'והפלא' teaches lashes for cursing a fellow with God's name
31. ChallengeMaybe 'והפלא' is about saying God's name for nothing
32. ResolutionCursing a fellow is surely no lighter than saying God's name in vain
33. ChallengeMaybe cursing is so bad that lashes are not enough