Parshas Acharei Mos-Kedoshim 5785
- Torah Tavlin
- 7 days ago
- 3 min read
שבועות דף ד.
"אכל ולא אכל לא לקי"
Our Gemara is מדייק that if one swore, I will eat this ככר, but doesn’t eat it, he is not חייב מלקות because it is a לאו שאין בו מעשה and one does not receive מלקות for that. תוס' asks, how do we know the reason he doesn’t get מלקות is because it’s a לשב"מ? Maybe the issue is that it’s a התראת ספק? Because when we warn him to eat the ככר now or he’ll be oiver his שבועה, this is only a ספק, as there is still time left in the day for him to eat it and satisfy his שבועה? Tosfos answers that it’s משמע from the משנה that even if he would take this ככר and throw it into the ים eliminating any chance of completing his שבועה, he would still be פטור from מלקות. Yet in this case,warning him right before he throws the ככר into the sea, that he must eat it now at risk of violating his שבועה, would not be considered a התראת ספק. So, the only reason possible for him not to get מלקות in this case must be that not eating it is aשב ואל תעשה and on that one does not get מלקות. The פני יהושע brings this תוס' and says: "לולי דבריהם" it would seem that throwing the ככר into the sea should be considered a לאו שיש בו מעשה. Since he swore to eat this ככר, if he throws it into the sea, he is being עובר his שבועה בקום ועשה! He remains with a צ"ע. The מצפה איתן explains: the מעשה of throwing the ככר into the ים is not אסור, it only prevents him from eating it and the result of not eating it happens ממילא which is בשב ואל תעשה. In this situation, we aren’t מצרף a מעשה of היתר (throwing the ככר into the sea), to a איסור that comes about later as a result. He says this is תוס' לשיטתו (לקמן יז) that explains regarding one who becomes טמא while in the עזרה that must leave asap. If he doesn’t, according to the מ"ד that holds לשב"מ אין לוקין עליו he would not get מלקות. This is because his original entry into the עזרה was בהיתר and we are not מצרף that מעשה של היתר to the איסור of not leaving which is not a מעשה, so this remains a לאו שאין בו מעשה. However, this seems to contradict [נזיר יז. ד"ה אילימא] תוס' that says: regarding someone who enters a בית הקברות and while inside accepts נזירות on himself and is now assur to become טמא. תוס' explains the reason he could get מלקות for not leaving is because this would be considered a לאו שיש בו מעשה. Presumably, Tosfos is using the original entry into the cemetery which was done בהיתר, to be מצרף to the איסור of שהייה in the בית הקברות. This is contrary to how we are explaining Tosfos here. ע"ש.
Theמנחת חינוך (ח' אות י') points out: we know if one does not want to be מקיים a מצות עשה, beis din is כופין אותו. Although it doesn’t say anywhere מפורש, it seems a דבר פשוט, that if one wants to be עובר a לא תעשה בקום ועשה, we would certainly not allow him to be עובר. This is because a לא תעשה transgressed בקום ועשה, is more חמור than being עובר a עשה בשב ואל תעשה. Furthermore, if one is about to be עובר a לאו בשב ואל תעשה, we should also be כופין. This is מצד הסברא. Just like we are כופה one who doesn’t want to do an עשה, which he is being עובר בשב ואל תעשה, so too, it should follow, by a לא תעשה שאין בו מעשה if one wants to be oiver this עבירה, even if it’s בשב ואל תעשה, we should be כופין. Why should this be less than being oiver a מצות עשה by being a שוא"ת?