The daf this week discusses the principle that a positive commandment can override a negative commandment where necessary, specifically motivated by the case of wool techelet on a linen garment for tzitzit. What is the logic behind this concept, and how does it reflect on the question of when the ends do and do not justify the means in halacha?
Menachot 40
Questions? Comments? Email dinanddaf@gmail.com
- מנחות מ.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: סָדִין בְּצִיצִית – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּיבִין, וַהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to ritual fringes on a linen cloak, Beit Shammai deem the cloak exempt from ritual fringes due to the fact that the sky-blue strings must be made from wool, and there is a Torah prohibition against wearing a mixture of wool and linen. And Beit Hillel deem a linen cloak obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes. And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן רַבִּי צָדוֹק: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל הַמֵּטִיל תְּכֵלֶת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַמַּתְמִיהִין!
Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Tzadok says: But is it not the case that anyone who affixes sky-blue strings to a linen cloak in Jerusalem is considered nothing other than one of those who causes others to be astonished at their behavior, as it appears that he is violating the prohibition against wearing a garment containing wool and linen?
אָמַר רַבִּי: אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה אֲסָרוּהָ? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין.
The baraita concludes: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If so, that the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel and a linen cloak is required to have ritual fringes, why did the Sages prohibit attaching ritual fringes to linen garments in Jerusalem? It is because people are not well versed in the halakha and might ultimately wear garments of wool and linen even when it is not necessary for the mitzva of ritual fringes.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָא לְרָבָא: וְלִרְמוֹ בֵּי עַשְׂרָה וְנִפְּקוּ לְשׁוּקָא וּמִפַּרְסְמָא (למילתא) [מִילְּתָא]! כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּמַתְמְהוּ עִילָּוַן.
Rava bar Rav Ḥana said to Rava: If that is the concern, then let ten people take linen cloaks with ritual fringes and go out to the marketplace and thereby publicize the matter, i.e., that it is permitted to affix wool strings to a linen garment due to the mitzva. Rava answered: All the more so people would be astonished at us for acting in such an unconventional manner.
וְלִידְרְשַׁהּ בְּפִירְקָא! גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם קָלָא אִילָן.
The Gemara suggests: Let the Rabbis teach during their public lecture that affixing wool strings to a linen garment is permitted for the mitzva of ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: Wearing strings on a linen garment is prohibited because of a rabbinic decree due to the concern that people might use strings that were dyed blue with indigo [kala ilan], instead of with tekhelet, the sky-blue dye produced from the ḥilazon (see 44b), in which case they would not fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes and would violate the prohibition against wearing garments containing wool and linen.
וְלֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא לָבָן! כֵּיוָן דְּאֶפְשָׁר בְּמִינָן – לָא.
The Gemara suggests: Even if one’s blue strings are not dyed with tekhelet as required for the mitzva, let them be considered merely as white strings. In the absence of tekhelet one fulfills the mitzva with white strings, and therefore it should be permitted to affix white woolen strings to a linen garment. The Gemara explains: Since it is possible to affix white strings that are the same type of material as the garment, i.e., linen, and thereby fulfill the mitzva without overriding the prohibition against wearing a garment made from wool and linen, one may not affix white wool strings to a linen garment.
כִּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, אִם אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְקַיֵּים אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם – מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו – יָבוֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
The Gemara notes: This is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: Any place where you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition that clash with one another, if you are able to fulfill both of them, that is preferable; and if that is not possible, the positive mitzva shall come and override the prohibition. In this case, the clash is between the mitzva of ritual fringes and the prohibition against wearing a garment that contains wool and linen. One can fulfill both of them by using white strings that are linen instead of wool if the garment is made from linen.
Limitations
- יהושע ה:י-יא
וַיַּחֲנ֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בַּגִּלְגָּ֑ל וַיַּעֲשׂ֣וּ אֶת־הַפֶּ֡סַח בְּאַרְבָּעָה֩ עָשָׂ֨ר י֥וֹם לַחֹ֛דֶשׁ בָּעֶ֖רֶב בְּעַֽרְב֥וֹת יְרִיחֽוֹ׃
Encamped at Gilgal, in the steppes of Jericho, the Israelites offered the passover sacrifice on the fourteenth day of the month, toward evening.
וַיֹּ֨אכְל֜וּ מֵעֲב֥וּר הָאָ֛רֶץ מִמׇּחֳרַ֥ת הַפֶּ֖סַח מַצּ֣וֹת וְקָל֑וּי בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃
On the day after the passover offering, on that very day, they ate of the produce of the country, unleavened bread and parched grain.
- ירושלמי חלה ב:א, נח עמוד ב’ (יא עמוד א’ בדפוס וילנא)
רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאָרֶץ וּמָצָא קָמָה לֵחָה מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם חָדָשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ לָמָּה לֹא. עַד כְּדוֹן לֵחָה אֲפִילוּ יְבֵישָׁה. אָמַר לֵיהּ אֲפִילוּ יְבֵישָׁה אֲפִילוּ קְצוּרָה. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ חִטִּין בָּעֲלִיָיה. כָּךְ אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לֹא יֹאכְלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַצָּה בְּלֵילֵי הַפֶּסַח. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מִן דְּנַפְקוֹת תָּהִית דְּלֹא אָמְרָת לֵיהּ שַׁנְיָיה הִיא שֶׁמִּצְוַות עֲשֵׂה דוֹחָה לְמִצְוַות לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה דּוּ אָמַר מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה דוֹחָה בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ כְּתוּבָה בְצִידָּהּ נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי דּוּ אָמַר אֵין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה דוֹחָה לְמִצְוַה בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה כְתוּבָה בְצִידָּהּ מַה שֶׁיִהְיוּ תַגָּרֵי גּוֹיִם מוֹכְרִין לָהֶ[ם] וּכְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר כָּל בִּיאוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ בַתּוֹרָה לְאַחַר אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֶה שָׁנָה נֶאֶמְרוּ שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִילְּקוּ. הָתִיב רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא וְהָכְתִיב וַיֹּאכְלוּ מֵעֲבוּר הָאָרֶץ מִמָּחֳרַת הַפֶּסַח. לֹא בְּשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר. הָתִיב רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְהָכְתִיב מִמָּחֳרַת הַפֶּסַח יָצְאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיַד רָמָה לְעֵינַי כָל מִצְרַיִם. לֹא בַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר.
Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: When Israel entered the Land and found there green grain standing, would that have been forbidden as new? He said to him, why not? So far green, even dry? He said to him, even dry, even cut. Then even grain in storage! So I am saying, Israel should not have eaten maẓẓot in the Passover nights! Rebbi Jonah said, after I left there, I wondered that I did not say to him, it is different because a positive commandment overrides a prohibition. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition even if it is not written next to it, it is understood. But according to Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition only if it is written next to it? What Gentile traders sold them, or following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said, any “coming” mentioned in the Torah means after 14 years, seven of their conquest, seven of the distribution. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana objected: Is it not written (Jos. 5:11): “They ate from the produce of the Land the day after the Pesaḥ,” on the sixteenth! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose objected before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written (Num. 33:3): “The day after the Pesaḥ, the Children of Israel left with raised hand before the eyes of all of Egypt.” Not on the fifteenth?
3. תוס’ בקידושין לח. ד”ה אקרוב
אקרוב עומר והדר אכול – בירושלמי מקשה למה לא אכלו מצה מחדש ויבא עשה דבערב תאכלו מצות וידחה לא תעשה דחדש ומתרץ דאין עשה דקודם הדבור דוחה ל”ת דאחר הדבור אי נמי יש לומר דגזירה כזית ראשון אטו כזית שני:
In the Yerushalmi, he asks why they did not eat matzah from new grain (i.e., pre-korban omer grain): let the positive commandment of eating matzah on the first night of Pesach override the negative commandment of not eating new grain before the korban omer is given. And he answers that a positive commandment prior to Sinai does not override one after Sinai. Alternatively, perhaps this was a decree on the first olive’s worth of matzah (which is obligatory) because of a second olive’s worth of matzah (which is not).
4. ראש השנה לב:
מַתְנִי׳ שׁוֹפָר שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אֵין מַעֲבִירִין עָלָיו אֶת הַתְּחוּם, וְאֵין מְפַקְּחִין עָלָיו אֶת הַגַּל. לֹא עוֹלִין בָּאִילָן, וְלֹא רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה, וְלֹא שָׁטִין עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם, וְאֵין חוֹתְכִין אוֹתוֹ — בֵּין בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת, וּבֵין בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. אֲבָל אִם רָצָה לִיתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם אוֹ יַיִן — יִתֵּן…
MISHNA: With regard to the shofar of Rosh HaShana, one may not pass the Shabbat limit for it, i.e., to go and hear it, nor may one clear a pile of rubble to uncover a buried shofar. One may not climb a tree, nor may one ride on an animal, nor may one swim in water, in order to find a shofar to sound. And one may not cut the shofar to prepare it for use, neither with an object that is prohibited due to a rabbinic decree nor with an object that may not be used due to a prohibition by Torah law. However, if one wishes to place water or wine into the shofar on Rosh HaShana so that it emits a clear sound, he may place it, as this does not constitute a prohibited labor…
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? שׁוֹפָר עֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְיוֹם טוֹב עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה.
GEMARA: (There is a principle that a positive mitzva overrides a negative mitzva. With this in mind) what is the reason that one may not perform a prohibited labor on Rosh HaShana to fulfill the positive mitzva of sounding the shofar? Sounding the shofar is a positive mitzva, but performing prohibited labor on a Festival violates both the positive mitzva to rest and the prohibition against performing prohibited labor, and a positive mitzva does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva.
What is the logic?
5. דברים כב:יא-יב
לֹ֤א תִלְבַּשׁ֙ שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז צֶ֥מֶר וּפִשְׁתִּ֖ים יַחְדָּֽו׃ {ס}
You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen.
גְּדִלִ֖ים תַּעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֑ךְ עַל־אַרְבַּ֛ע כַּנְפ֥וֹת כְּסוּתְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּכַסֶּה־בָּֽהּ׃ {ס}
You shall make tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself.
6. מכילתא דר’ ישמעאל מסכתא דבחדש ז:ו
(שמות כ,ז) [“זָכוֹר אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ.”] “זָכוֹר” (דברים ה,יא) וְ”שָׁמוֹר”, שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּדִבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ. (שמות לא,יד) “מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת”, (במדבר כח,יט) “וּבְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת שְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה תְּמִימִם”, שְׁנֵיהֶם נֶאֶמְרוּ בְדִבּוּר אֶחָד. (ויקרא יח,טז) “עֶרְוַת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה”, (דברים כה,ה) “יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ”, שְׁנֵיהֶם נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּדִבּוּר אֶחָד. (דברים כב,יא) “לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז”, (דברים כב,יב) “גְּדִלִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לָּךְ”, שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּדִבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ, מַה שֶּׁאֵי אֶפְשָׁר לְאָדָם לוֹמַר כֵּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (תהלים סב,יב) “אַחַת דִּבֶּר אֱלֹהִים, שְׁתַּיִם זוּ שָׁמָעְתִּי, כִּי עֹז לֵאלֹהִים.” וְאוֹמֵר: (ירמיה כג,כט) “הֲלוֹא כֹה דְבָרִי, כָּאֵשׁ! נְאֻם יי, וּכְפַטִּישׁ יְפֹצֵץ סָלַע.”
(Ibid. 20:8) “Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it”: “Remember” and “Keep” (the Sabbath day to sanctify it [Devarim 5:12]) were both stated in one pronouncement. (Exodus 31:14) “Its profaners shall be put to death” and (Numbers 28:9) “And on the Sabbath day, (sacrifice) two yearling lambs” were both stated in one pronouncement (Leviticus 18:16) “the nakedness of your brother’s wife” and (Devarim 25:5) “Her yavam (levir, i.e., her brother-in-law) shall come upon her” were both stated in the same pronouncement. (Ibid. 22:11) “You shall not wear sha’atnez, wool and linen together” and (Ibid. 12) “Fringes (involving sha’atnez) shall you make for yourself” were both stated in the same pronouncement — something beyond the powers of a human being to say. As it is written (Psalms 62:12) “One thing has G–d spoken, these two have I heard.” (Jeremiah 23:29) “Is My word not like fire, says the L–rd (and like a hammer shattering rock!”)
7. תוס’ מנחות מ: ד”ה תכלת
…ואור”ת דהכא נמי אשמעינן דאפילו בלילה אין בה משום כלאים אף על גב דלאו זמן ציצית היא דלגמרי התיר הכתוב כלאים של ציצית…
…And Rabbenu Tam says that it also teaches that even at night there is no prohibition of mixed fibers even though it is not a time that tzitzit are required, for Scripture completely allowed mixed fibers in tzitzit…
8. רמב”ן שמות כ:ח
ואמת הוא ג”כ כי מדת זכור רמזו במצות עשה, והוא היוצא ממדת האהבה והוא למדת הרחמים, כי העושה מצות אדוניו אהוב לו ואדוניו מרחם עליו, ומדת שמור במצות לא תעשה, והוא למדת הדין ויוצא ממדת היראה, כי הנשמר מעשות דבר הרע בעיני אדוניו ירא אותו, ולכן מצות עשה גדולה ממצות לא תעשה, כמו שהאהבה גדולה מהיראה, כי המקיים ועושה בגופו ובממונו רצון אדוניו הוא גדול מהנשמר מעשות הרע בעיניו, ולכך אמרו דאתי עשה ודחי לא תעשה
And it is true that the property of“remember” refers to positive commandments, and that is what comes from the attribute of love, and it is for the attribute of mercy, for one who fulfills the command of their master is beloved to the master, and the master has mercy over them. And the property of “guard” is in the negative commandments, and that is for the attribute of justice and comes from the attribute of fear: for one who guards from doing that which is bad in the eyes of their master fears that master. Therefore, a positive commandment is greater than a negative commandment, just as love is greater than fear. For one who does the will of their master with their body and their possessions is greater than one who keeps from doing bad in their master’s eyes. And therefore they said that a positive commandment can override a negative commandment.
ומפני זה יהיה העונש במצות לא תעשה גדול ועושין בו דין כגון מלקות ומיתה, ואין עושין בו דין במצות עשה כלל אלא במורדין, כמו לולב וציצית איני עושה, סוכה איני עושה, שסנהדרין היו מכין אותו עד שיקבל עליו לעשות או עד שתצא נפשו:
And because of this the punishment for a negative commandment is great, and they prosecute using lashes and death and the like, but that is not done for a positive commandment at all, except for those who actively rebel, like saying, “I won’t do lulav and tzitzit, I won’t do Sukkah,” where Sanhedrin would strike the person until they accepted to do it or until they died.
9. שמות כג:יג
וּבְכֹ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־אָמַ֥רְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶ֖ם תִּשָּׁמֵ֑רוּ וְשֵׁ֨ם אֱלֹהִ֤ים אֲחֵרִים֙ לֹ֣א תַזְכִּ֔ירוּ לֹ֥א יִשָּׁמַ֖ע עַל־פִּֽיךָ׃
Be on guard concerning all that I have told you. Make no mention of the names of other gods; they shall not be heard on your lips.
10. רש”י שמות כג:יג
ובכל אשר אמרתי אליכם תשמרו. (מכילתא) לעשות כל מצות עשה באזהרה שכל שמירה שבתורה אזהרה היא במקום לאו:
And be on guard concerning all that I have told you: to give all positive commandments a warning, for every “guarding” in the Torah is a warning of a negative commandment.
11. חזקוני שם Hizkiyah ben Manoah, 13th c France
תשמרו. תהיו נזהרים, חוזר וכולל כל אזהרותיו, דוגמא: ארור אשר לא יקים וגו’ (דברים כז:כו). ד”א אזהרה לכל מצוות עשה, כמו שפירש”י, מכאן אמרו בכל התלמוד עשה דוחה ל”ת, שהרי בכלל עשה יש ל”ת עמו, דתשמרו הוי ל”ת:
Be on guard: Be careful. It goes back and includes all of the warnings – e.g., “Cursed is one who does not uphold…(Devarim 27:26).” Another explanation: a warning for all positive commandments, as Rashi explained. Based on this they said in all of the Talmud that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment, for within each positive commandment is a negative commandment with it, as “be on guard” is a negative commandment.
12. קובץ שעורים קד’ סי’ קמ”ד
R. Elchanan Wasserman, Lithuania, murdered by Nazi collaoborators in 1941
ומדברי הראב”ד מבואר דדחיית עשה לל”ת היא בשביל קיום המצוה גרידא אפי’ היכא דליכא ביטול מצוה כלל, כמו במ”ע שהז”ג בנשים…ובהגהות הגרע”א לאו”ח סי’ י’ דעתו בפשיטות דהדחיה היא רק אם תתבטל העשה ולא בשביל קיומה וזהו נגד דעת הראב”ד. ויש לחקור במצות מצה כל שבעה, אם דוחה ל”ת מדאורייתא, לתירוץ שני שבתוס’, קידושין ל”ח כיי”ש, כיון דקיים מצוה באכילתה:
And from the words of the Ra’avad, it is understood that a positive commandment overriding a negative commandment is due to the simple fulfilment of the positive commandment – even where they would otherwise be no nullification of the mitzvah, such as in the case of a time-bound commandment for women…and in the notes of R. Akiva Eiger to Orach Chaim chapter 10, his opinion is clearly that the overriding is only if otherwise the positive commandment would be nullified rather than allowing the overriding even to fulfill a commandment (that is not obligatory). And this is against the opinion of the Ra’avad. And it is worth examining regarding matzah throughout Pesach (which is a fulfillment rather than an obligation) whether it overrides the negative commandment according to the Biblical law, per Tosfot’s second answer on Kiddushin 38 for one fulfills a mitzvah by eating it.
What about מצוה הבאה בעבירה?
13. ריטב”א עירובין ק. ד”ה מתן
…לפי שלא אמרו דאתי עשה ודחי לא תעשה אלא כגון כלאים בציצית ומילה בצרעת שהלאו בא מעצמו על מצות עשה והיא מצוה שיש בה קום עשה וא״א לה בלא דחייה אבל…בפשיעתו גרם…כיון שבשביל פשיעתו הוא אין לנו לבטל הלאו מפני קיום העשה וכזה כתב הראב״ד ז״ל ואחרים מן המפרשים ז״ל…
…They only said that a positive commandment can override a negative commandment in cases like mixed fibers in tzizitz and circumcision if there is a leprous scab there, where the negative commandment emerges on its own against the positive commandment, and it is a commandment that requires active performance which is impossible without overriding the negative commandment. However…if one caused it oneself…because it was one’s own negligence, we cannot nullify the negative commandment before the performance of the positive commandment. And so wrote Ra’avad and others among the commentators of blessed memory.
