Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 12, 2022 | ื˜ืณ ื‘ืื“ืจ ื‘ืณ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 5

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Rachel Lopatin in honor of Cara Lopatin. โ€œWith lots of love, Eema and Abba.โ€

From where do we learn that a positive commandment override s a negative commandment, according to the rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael and hold that the words โ€œwool and linenโ€ in the verse next to the verse about tzitzit is necessary for itself and not free to learn this principle? The Gemara suggests three other answers โ€“ first, from a leper who is commanded to shave all his hair on his head, even though the Torah states a man canโ€™t shave his peot, the corners of his head. This answer is rejected as the negative commandment is one that is limited only to men and therefore not as strong as a regular negative commandment. The second attempt is from a kohen who is a leper who also shaves all of his head, including his whole bread, even though there is a commandment for kohanim not to shave the corners of their beards. Even though this too is limited, the Gemara thinks it was added to teach us also about all cases (as one could have learned from the previous case about the positive commandment overriding a negative one in limited prohibitions, therefore, this much teach something additional). But that too is rejected as it is still limited only to men (and kohanim) and canโ€™t be learned from the previous case as kohanim have many extra prohibitions so one may have thought to be strict here. The next attempt is from a nazir who is a leper and is commanded to cut his hair, despite the fact that a nazir is commanded not to cut his hair. However, that too is rejected as a nazir can undo his promise and not be a nazir if he wants and will be permitted to cut his hair. That weakens the negative commandment and therefore we cannot learn from there to other cases. The Gemara goes back to the verses about tzitzit and shaatnez and tries to derive it from certain words that may be unnecessary, until they finally conclude that it is derived from the wordย shaatnez, as that word is not necessary and can therefore be used to teach that a positive commandment can override a negative one. Next, the Gemara wants to prove that this principle applies as well to negative commandments that are punishable by karet. They try to learn it from brit milah, the Paschal sacrifice, daily Tamid sacrifice, a combination of some of the previous ones, and honoring oneโ€™s parents, but all attempts are rejected.

ืชื™ื ื— ืœืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื ื ืœื”ื•

ยง The Gemara comments: This works out well with regard to that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that all garments mentioned in the Torah are composed of linen or wool. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not accept this opinion, from where do they derive the principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition? As stated previously, the conclusion that the positive mitzva to place fringes on a garment overrides the prohibition against mixing linen and wool is derived from a free expression in a biblical verse; however, the expression is free for interpretation only in the opinion of the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

ื ืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืžืจืืฉื• ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจืืฉื• ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื ืชืงื™ืคื• (ืืช) ืคืืช ืจืืฉื›ื ืฉื•ืžืข ืื ื™ ืืฃ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื›ืŸ

The Gemara responds: They derive it from the verse mentioned with regard to the halakhot of the purification of a leper from his leprosy [tzaraโ€™at]: โ€œAnd it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave offโ€ (Leviticus 14:9). As it is taught in a baraita: Since it states โ€œall his hair,โ€ what is the meaning when the verse states โ€œhis headโ€? The baraita explains that as it is stated: โ€œYou shall not round the corners of your headsโ€ (Leviticus 19:27), i.e., it is prohibited to shave the corners of the head, I would derive that even a leper is included in this prohibition.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืืฉื• ื•ืงื ืกื‘ืจ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื”ืงืคืช ื›ืœ ื”ืจืืฉ ืฉืžื” ื”ืงืคื”

Therefore, the verse states explicitly: โ€œHis head,โ€ to teach that the mitzva that a leper must shave overrides the prohibition against rounding the corners of oneโ€™s head by shaving. The Gemara adds: And this tanna holds that the shaving of the entire head is considered rounding. Some Sages maintain that one violates the prohibition against rounding the corners of his head only when he leaves some hair intact and removes the corners alone. Conversely, this tanna holds that even when one removes all of the hair on the head, as a leper does when he performs his ritual shaving, as this act includes the corners, he thereby transgresses the prohibition against rounding the corners. This demonstrates that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.

ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœืœืื• ื“ื”ืงืคื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืœืื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื” ื‘ื›ืœ

The Gemara raises an objection against that claim. This proof can be refuted: What about the fact that the prohibition against rounding is specific in that this prohibition is not equally applicable for all, as it does not apply to women, and therefore other cases cannot be derived from it? One cannot learn from this halakha that a positive mitzva that applies only to some people overrides even a prohibition that applies equally to all people.

ืืœื ืืชื™ื ืžื–ืงื ื• ื“ืชื ื™ื ื–ืงื ื• ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืคืืช ื–ืงื ื ืœื ื™ื’ืœื—ื• ืฉื•ืžืข ืื ื™ ืืฃ ื›ื”ืŸ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื›ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ืงื ื•

Rather, the Gemara provides an alternative suggestion: The principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition is derived from the superfluous phrase: โ€œHis beardโ€ (Leviticus 14:9). As it is taught in a different baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states: โ€œHis beardโ€? After all, a beard is already included in the phrase: โ€œAll his hair.โ€ The baraita answers: As it is stated with regard to priests: โ€œNeither shall they shave off the corners of their beardโ€ (Leviticus 21:5), I would derive that even a leper who is a priest is included in this prohibition against shaving his beard. Therefore, the verse states โ€œhis beardโ€ in the case of a leper.

ื•ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœืœืื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื” ื‘ื›ืœ ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœืœืื• ื”ืฉื•ื” ื‘ื›ืœ

However, the shaving of oneโ€™s beard is also a prohibition that is not equally applicable for all, as it does not apply to women. Therefore, it is necessary to develop this argument further. And if this derivation from the term โ€œhis beardโ€ is not referring to the matter of a prohibition that is not equally applicable for all, as the principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition that does not apply equally for all has already been derived from the phrase โ€œhis head,โ€ then the repetition of this specific scenario must serve to expand upon the teaching. Consequently, refer it to the matter of a prohibition that is equally applicable for all, i.e., that a positive mitzva that is not equally applicable for all overrides even prohibitions that apply equally to all people.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ืชื™ืจื•ืช ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื” ื‘ื›ืœ ืœื ื“ื—ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื“ื—ื™

The Gemara rejects this proof: Still, it is necessary for the verse to state: โ€œHis beard.โ€ This phrase is not in fact superfluous at all, as it has a novelty: It could enter your mind to say that priests are different; since the verse includes for them additional mitzvot it is appropriate to be more stringent with them, and therefore one might think that a positive mitzva should not even override a prohibition that is not equally applicable for all. Consequently, the verse states: โ€œHis beard,โ€ and it thereby teaches us that even with regard to priests a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition that is not equally applicable for all. This means that the principle that a positive mitzva overrides even a prohibition that is equally applicable for all cannot be derived from here.

ืืœื ืืชื™ื ืžืจืืฉื• ื“ื”ืš ืชื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจืืฉื• ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืชืขืจ ืœื ื™ืขื‘ื•ืจ ืขืœ ืจืืฉื• ืฉื•ืžืข ืื ื™ ืืฃ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื•ื ื–ื™ืจ ื›ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืืฉื•

ยง Rather, the Gemara rejects this line of reasoning in favor of an alternative answer. The principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition is derived from a different interpretation of the phrase โ€œhis head,โ€ cited by this tanna. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œHe shall shave all his hair off his headโ€ (Leviticus 14:9); what is the meaning when the verse states: โ€œHis headโ€? The baraita explains: As it is stated with regard to a nazirite: โ€œNo razor shall come upon his headโ€ (Numbers 6:5), I would derive that even a leper who is a nazirite is prohibited from shaving his head upon purification. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œHis head.โ€ This teaches that the positive mitzva for a leper to shave overrides the prohibition of a nazirite.

ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ืฉืืœื” ื“ืื™ ืœื ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืขืฉื” ื“ื•ื—ื” ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื•ืขืฉื”

The Gemara responds that this proof can be refuted as well: What about the fact that the prohibition of a nazirite is not especially severe, as a leprous nazirite can request to have his nazirite vow dissolved by a Sage? Since he can nullify the prohibition against shaving, this prohibition is evidently not very severe, and therefore one cannot prove anything with regard to all of the prohibitions of the Torah from this case. The Gemara adds: As, if you do not say this, that the prohibitions of a nazirite are not as severe as other prohibitions, that halakhic ruling that we maintain that a positive mitzva does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva would be negated.

ืœื™ื’ืžืจ ืžื ื–ื™ืจ ืืœื ืžื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ื’ืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ืฉืืœื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ืฉืืœื”

The Gemara explains the previous claim: Let us derive the opposite of this principle from the case of a nazirite, as in this case the positive mitzva for a leper to shave apparently overrides both the positive mitzva for a nazirite to grow hair and the prohibition against shaving. Rather, what is the reason that we do not derive this principle from the case of a nazirite? The reason is that there is room to refute this proof in the aforementioned manner: One cannot learn from a nazirite, as a leprous nazirite can request to have his nazirite vow dissolved. So too, there is room to refute the proof from the halakha of a nazirite that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition, as he can request to have his vow dissolved.

ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื

ยง If so, no proof can be brought from the case of a nazirite. Rather, the Gemara offers a different explanation: Actually,

ืžืงืจื ืงืžื ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืฆื™ืฆื™ืช ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš ื’ื“ื™ืœื™ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื ื•ื™ื™

they learn this from the first verse, which permits a mixture of diverse kinds of wool and linen in ritual fringes. As for the previous claim that in the opinion of the Rabbis the phrase โ€œwool and linenโ€ is not superfluous and therefore there is no cause to derive from the juxtaposed verses, the answer is as follows: If so, that no homiletical interpretation can be derived from this source, let the verse say only: You shall make fringes for yourself. Why do I need the expression โ€œtwisted fringesโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:12)? Conclude from this that this phrase is free, i.e., a homiletical interpretation can be derived by the juxtaposition of verses due to this superfluous phrase.

ื”ืื™ ืœืฉื™ืขื•ืจื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ื’ื“ื™ืœ ืฉื ื™ื ื’ื“ื™ืœื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ืขืฉื” ื’ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืคื•ืชืœื”ื• ืžืชื•ื›ื•

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This term, โ€œtwisted fringes,โ€ comes to teach the measure of ritual fringes, i.e., the requisite number of strings for the fringes, as it is taught: Twisted fringe, in the singular, indicates that it is entwined, which requires at least two strings. Consequently, when the verse says โ€œtwisted fringesโ€ in the plural, it is referring to four strings. This means that one must prepare a twisted fringe and double it over from the middle, so that there are eight strings. Consequently, the term โ€œtwisted fringesโ€ is not superfluous at all.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ื™ื—ื“ื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื ื•ื™ื™

The Gemara responds: If so, that this phrase is not extraneous at all, and therefore it cannot be used as a homiletical interpretation by the juxtaposition of verses, let the verse say merely: You shall not wear diverse kinds [shaโ€™atnez]. Why do I need the verse to add the phrase โ€œwool and linen togetherโ€? Conclude from this that this phrase is free, and a homiletical interpretation can be derived from the juxtaposition of verses.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืชื•ื›ืฃ ืฉืชื™ ืชื›ื™ืคื•ืช ื—ื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืชื›ื™ืคื” ืื—ืช ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ื™ื—ื“ื• ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื ื•ื™ื™

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: And still, it is necessary for the verse to state โ€œwool and linen togetherโ€ to teach another halakha concerning diverse kinds: When one combines a woolen garment with a linen garment, if he stitches two stitches with a needle, this is considered attachment, but a single stitch is not attachment. This halakha is derived from the term โ€œtogether,โ€ which indicates that they are attached as one. The Gemara answers: If so, let the Merciful One write: You shall not wear wool and linen together. Why do I need the verse to add the phrase โ€œdiverse kindsโ€? Conclude from this that this phrase is free.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืฉื•ืข ื˜ื•ื•ื™ ื•ื ื•ื– ืืœื ื›ื•ืœื” ืžืฉืขื˜ื ื– ื ืคืงื

The Gemara comments: And still, it is necessary for the verse to state โ€œdiverse kinds [shaโ€™atnez],โ€ as this is interpreted as an acronym that teaches that the halakha of diverse kinds applies only when it is smooth combed [shoa], spun [tavui] as a thread, and attached [noz], but without these characteristics the connection is not considered diverse kinds. Rather, the Gemara explains that the entire interpretation is derived from the term โ€œdiverse kinds.โ€ Since the Torah uses the highly distinctive word โ€œshaโ€™atnez,โ€ in addition to functioning as the above acronym it serves as the source of the verbal analogy with the term in the verse: โ€œNeither shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds [shaโ€™atnez] mingled togetherโ€ (Leviticus 19:19), from which it may be inferred that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื“ืืชื™ ืขืฉื” ื•ื“ื—ื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื’ืจื™ื“ื ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื›ืจืช ื”ื™ื›ื ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื“ื“ื—ื™ ื“ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืขืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืกืจื”

ยง The Gemara returns to the issue of a mitzva overriding a prohibition: We have found that a positive mitzva overrides a regular prohibition. However, where do we find that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition that includes karet, as the phrase โ€œwith herโ€ is necessary to prohibit her? It was mentioned previously that the superfluous phrase โ€œwith herโ€ teaches that the mitzva of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition against taking a wifeโ€™s sister. However, why is this necessary? Why would it have been assumed that a positive mitzva is so powerful that it overrides even a prohibition that is punishable by karet?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžืžื™ืœื” ืžื” ืœืžื™ืœื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื ื›ืจืชื• ืขืœื™ื” ืฉืœืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ื‘ืจื™ืชื•ืช

And if you suggest an answer and say: Let us derive this claim from the mitzva of circumcision, as there is a positive mitzva to perform circumcision on the eighth day of the boyโ€™s life even on Shabbat, and this mitzva overrides the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat, which is punishable by karet, one could respond: What about the fact that circumcision is an extremely important and severe positive mitzva, as thirteen covenants were established over it? The term โ€œcovenantโ€ is mentioned thirteen times in the chapter of circumcision (Genesis, chapter 17).

ืžืคืกื— ืžื” ืœืคืกื— ืฉื›ืŸ ื›ืจืช

The Gemara adds: And if you say it is derived from the slaughter of the Paschal lamb, which overrides Shabbat and is therefore a positive mitzva that overrides a prohibition punishable by karet, this too can be rejected: What about the fact that the Paschal lamb is different, as it is a positive mitzva that is so severe that its neglect entails karet for those who do not bring it, unlike all other positive mitzvot?

ืžืชืžื™ื“ ืžื” ืœืชืžื™ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ืชื“ื™ืจ

The Gemara offers yet another suggestion: Perhaps it is derived from the daily offering, which was slaughtered every day, even on Shabbat. This is a positive mitzva that overrides the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat, which is punishable by karet. The Gemara rejects this claim as well: What about the fact that the daily offering is special in that it is frequent? Since the mitzva of the daily offering is performed every day, it is perhaps especially important, whereas a positive mitzva that applies only at certain times might not be powerful enough to override a severe prohibition.

ืžื—ื“ื ืœื ืืชื™ื ืชื™ืชื™ ืžืชืจืชื™ ืžื”ื™ ืชื™ืชื™ ืžืžื™ืœื” ื•ืคืกื— ืฉื›ืŸ ื›ืจืช ืžืคืกื— ื•ืชืžื™ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ืฆื•ืจืš ื’ื‘ื•ื”

The Gemara says: Clearly, the principle cannot be derived from any single one of these cases. However, let it be derived from two of these cases combined together, by analyzing their common features. The Gemara asks: From which two cases can it be derived? If one would say that it can be derived from circumcision and the Paschal lamb, the factor common to both is their particular severity, as their neglect entails karet. If one would seek to derive this from the Paschal lamb and the daily offering, these have a different common factor, as both are a requirement of the altar in the Temple, not for personal benefit.

ืžืžื™ืœื” ื•ืชืžื™ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉื ื• ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื“ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื” ืฉื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœืช ืชืžื™ื“ ื”ื•ื” ื•ืžื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื ืžื™ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉื ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื“ื‘ื•ืจ

Likewise, if one would suggest deriving the principle from circumcision and the daily offering, this too must be rejected, as both of these mitzvot were known by the Jewish people before the word of God was revealed at Mount Sinai. And this is according to the opinion of the one who said that the burnt-offering brought by the Jewish people in the desert was the daily offering. And moreover, from all of these together, i.e., circumcision, the Paschal lamb, and the daily offering, it is also not possible to derive a conclusion, as all three of these were known before the word of God was revealed. If so, no principle can be derived from these three mitzvot.

ืืœื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืชื™ืชื™ ืžื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืื‘ ื•ืื

ยง Rather, the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: The inference from โ€œwith herโ€ is necessary, as were it not for this inference it might be assumed that the mitzva of levirate marriage overrides the prohibition against marrying oneโ€™s wifeโ€™s sister despite the fact that this prohibition incurs karet, since it could enter your mind to say that this halakha is derived from the mitzva of honoring oneโ€™s father and mother.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืื‘ ื•ืื ื“ื•ื—ื” ืฉื‘ืช ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ืืžื• ื•ืื‘ื™ื• ืชื™ืจืื• ื•ืืช ืฉื‘ืชื•ืชื™ ืชืฉืžื•ืจื• ื›ื•ืœื›ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื™

As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that honoring oneโ€™s father and mother overrides Shabbat; therefore, the verse states: โ€œYou shall fear every man his mother and his father and you shall keep My Shabbatot, I am the Lord your Godโ€ (Leviticus 19:3). The baraita explains the derivation from the verse: All of you, both parent and child, are obligated in My honor, and therefore honoring oneโ€™s parents does not override the honor of God, Who commanded the Jewish people to observe Shabbat.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ืœื™ ื‘ืฉืœ ืœื™ ื•ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืช ืฉื‘ืชื•ืชื™ ืชืฉืžื•ืจื• ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื“ื—ื™ ืœื

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What, is it not referring to a situation where his father said to him: Slaughter for me, cook for me, or any other labor prohibited on Shabbat on pain of karet? And the reason that the Merciful One specifically writes: โ€œKeep My Shabbatot,โ€ is to warn against violating the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat, a transgression which incurs karet, for the purpose of honoring oneโ€™s parents. It may therefore be inferred that if that was not so, the positive mitzva would override Shabbat. It is therefore possible to deduce from here that in general, positive mitzvot override even prohibitions that entail karet. The Gemara rejects this proof: No,

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 1 (2-16): Visual Tools for Yevamot

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For Chapter...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 2-8 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will begin learning Masechet Yevamot. We will learn about the mitzvah of Yibum, Levirate Marriage, and who...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Can a Positive Commandment Override a Negative One? – Gefet 29

Does a Positive Commandment Override a Negative Commandment for Which the Punishment is Karet? Why is One Allowed to Marry...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 5: Shaatnez as a Classic Contradiction

When the mitzvah and the prohibition essentially come together, as with shaatnez and tzitzit - such that the positive commandment...

Yevamot 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 5

ืชื™ื ื— ืœืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื ื ืœื”ื•

ยง The Gemara comments: This works out well with regard to that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that all garments mentioned in the Torah are composed of linen or wool. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not accept this opinion, from where do they derive the principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition? As stated previously, the conclusion that the positive mitzva to place fringes on a garment overrides the prohibition against mixing linen and wool is derived from a free expression in a biblical verse; however, the expression is free for interpretation only in the opinion of the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

ื ืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืžืจืืฉื• ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจืืฉื• ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื ืชืงื™ืคื• (ืืช) ืคืืช ืจืืฉื›ื ืฉื•ืžืข ืื ื™ ืืฃ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื›ืŸ

The Gemara responds: They derive it from the verse mentioned with regard to the halakhot of the purification of a leper from his leprosy [tzaraโ€™at]: โ€œAnd it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave offโ€ (Leviticus 14:9). As it is taught in a baraita: Since it states โ€œall his hair,โ€ what is the meaning when the verse states โ€œhis headโ€? The baraita explains that as it is stated: โ€œYou shall not round the corners of your headsโ€ (Leviticus 19:27), i.e., it is prohibited to shave the corners of the head, I would derive that even a leper is included in this prohibition.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืืฉื• ื•ืงื ืกื‘ืจ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื”ืงืคืช ื›ืœ ื”ืจืืฉ ืฉืžื” ื”ืงืคื”

Therefore, the verse states explicitly: โ€œHis head,โ€ to teach that the mitzva that a leper must shave overrides the prohibition against rounding the corners of oneโ€™s head by shaving. The Gemara adds: And this tanna holds that the shaving of the entire head is considered rounding. Some Sages maintain that one violates the prohibition against rounding the corners of his head only when he leaves some hair intact and removes the corners alone. Conversely, this tanna holds that even when one removes all of the hair on the head, as a leper does when he performs his ritual shaving, as this act includes the corners, he thereby transgresses the prohibition against rounding the corners. This demonstrates that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.

ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœืœืื• ื“ื”ืงืคื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืœืื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื” ื‘ื›ืœ

The Gemara raises an objection against that claim. This proof can be refuted: What about the fact that the prohibition against rounding is specific in that this prohibition is not equally applicable for all, as it does not apply to women, and therefore other cases cannot be derived from it? One cannot learn from this halakha that a positive mitzva that applies only to some people overrides even a prohibition that applies equally to all people.

ืืœื ืืชื™ื ืžื–ืงื ื• ื“ืชื ื™ื ื–ืงื ื• ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืคืืช ื–ืงื ื ืœื ื™ื’ืœื—ื• ืฉื•ืžืข ืื ื™ ืืฃ ื›ื”ืŸ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื›ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ืงื ื•

Rather, the Gemara provides an alternative suggestion: The principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition is derived from the superfluous phrase: โ€œHis beardโ€ (Leviticus 14:9). As it is taught in a different baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states: โ€œHis beardโ€? After all, a beard is already included in the phrase: โ€œAll his hair.โ€ The baraita answers: As it is stated with regard to priests: โ€œNeither shall they shave off the corners of their beardโ€ (Leviticus 21:5), I would derive that even a leper who is a priest is included in this prohibition against shaving his beard. Therefore, the verse states โ€œhis beardโ€ in the case of a leper.

ื•ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœืœืื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื” ื‘ื›ืœ ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœืœืื• ื”ืฉื•ื” ื‘ื›ืœ

However, the shaving of oneโ€™s beard is also a prohibition that is not equally applicable for all, as it does not apply to women. Therefore, it is necessary to develop this argument further. And if this derivation from the term โ€œhis beardโ€ is not referring to the matter of a prohibition that is not equally applicable for all, as the principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition that does not apply equally for all has already been derived from the phrase โ€œhis head,โ€ then the repetition of this specific scenario must serve to expand upon the teaching. Consequently, refer it to the matter of a prohibition that is equally applicable for all, i.e., that a positive mitzva that is not equally applicable for all overrides even prohibitions that apply equally to all people.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ืชื™ืจื•ืช ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื” ื‘ื›ืœ ืœื ื“ื—ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื“ื—ื™

The Gemara rejects this proof: Still, it is necessary for the verse to state: โ€œHis beard.โ€ This phrase is not in fact superfluous at all, as it has a novelty: It could enter your mind to say that priests are different; since the verse includes for them additional mitzvot it is appropriate to be more stringent with them, and therefore one might think that a positive mitzva should not even override a prohibition that is not equally applicable for all. Consequently, the verse states: โ€œHis beard,โ€ and it thereby teaches us that even with regard to priests a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition that is not equally applicable for all. This means that the principle that a positive mitzva overrides even a prohibition that is equally applicable for all cannot be derived from here.

ืืœื ืืชื™ื ืžืจืืฉื• ื“ื”ืš ืชื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจืืฉื• ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืชืขืจ ืœื ื™ืขื‘ื•ืจ ืขืœ ืจืืฉื• ืฉื•ืžืข ืื ื™ ืืฃ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื•ื ื–ื™ืจ ื›ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืืฉื•

ยง Rather, the Gemara rejects this line of reasoning in favor of an alternative answer. The principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition is derived from a different interpretation of the phrase โ€œhis head,โ€ cited by this tanna. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œHe shall shave all his hair off his headโ€ (Leviticus 14:9); what is the meaning when the verse states: โ€œHis headโ€? The baraita explains: As it is stated with regard to a nazirite: โ€œNo razor shall come upon his headโ€ (Numbers 6:5), I would derive that even a leper who is a nazirite is prohibited from shaving his head upon purification. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œHis head.โ€ This teaches that the positive mitzva for a leper to shave overrides the prohibition of a nazirite.

ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ืฉืืœื” ื“ืื™ ืœื ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืขืฉื” ื“ื•ื—ื” ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื•ืขืฉื”

The Gemara responds that this proof can be refuted as well: What about the fact that the prohibition of a nazirite is not especially severe, as a leprous nazirite can request to have his nazirite vow dissolved by a Sage? Since he can nullify the prohibition against shaving, this prohibition is evidently not very severe, and therefore one cannot prove anything with regard to all of the prohibitions of the Torah from this case. The Gemara adds: As, if you do not say this, that the prohibitions of a nazirite are not as severe as other prohibitions, that halakhic ruling that we maintain that a positive mitzva does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva would be negated.

ืœื™ื’ืžืจ ืžื ื–ื™ืจ ืืœื ืžื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ื’ืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ืฉืืœื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ืฉืืœื”

The Gemara explains the previous claim: Let us derive the opposite of this principle from the case of a nazirite, as in this case the positive mitzva for a leper to shave apparently overrides both the positive mitzva for a nazirite to grow hair and the prohibition against shaving. Rather, what is the reason that we do not derive this principle from the case of a nazirite? The reason is that there is room to refute this proof in the aforementioned manner: One cannot learn from a nazirite, as a leprous nazirite can request to have his nazirite vow dissolved. So too, there is room to refute the proof from the halakha of a nazirite that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition, as he can request to have his vow dissolved.

ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื

ยง If so, no proof can be brought from the case of a nazirite. Rather, the Gemara offers a different explanation: Actually,

ืžืงืจื ืงืžื ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืฆื™ืฆื™ืช ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš ื’ื“ื™ืœื™ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื ื•ื™ื™

they learn this from the first verse, which permits a mixture of diverse kinds of wool and linen in ritual fringes. As for the previous claim that in the opinion of the Rabbis the phrase โ€œwool and linenโ€ is not superfluous and therefore there is no cause to derive from the juxtaposed verses, the answer is as follows: If so, that no homiletical interpretation can be derived from this source, let the verse say only: You shall make fringes for yourself. Why do I need the expression โ€œtwisted fringesโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:12)? Conclude from this that this phrase is free, i.e., a homiletical interpretation can be derived by the juxtaposition of verses due to this superfluous phrase.

ื”ืื™ ืœืฉื™ืขื•ืจื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ื’ื“ื™ืœ ืฉื ื™ื ื’ื“ื™ืœื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ืขืฉื” ื’ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืคื•ืชืœื”ื• ืžืชื•ื›ื•

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This term, โ€œtwisted fringes,โ€ comes to teach the measure of ritual fringes, i.e., the requisite number of strings for the fringes, as it is taught: Twisted fringe, in the singular, indicates that it is entwined, which requires at least two strings. Consequently, when the verse says โ€œtwisted fringesโ€ in the plural, it is referring to four strings. This means that one must prepare a twisted fringe and double it over from the middle, so that there are eight strings. Consequently, the term โ€œtwisted fringesโ€ is not superfluous at all.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ื™ื—ื“ื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื ื•ื™ื™

The Gemara responds: If so, that this phrase is not extraneous at all, and therefore it cannot be used as a homiletical interpretation by the juxtaposition of verses, let the verse say merely: You shall not wear diverse kinds [shaโ€™atnez]. Why do I need the verse to add the phrase โ€œwool and linen togetherโ€? Conclude from this that this phrase is free, and a homiletical interpretation can be derived from the juxtaposition of verses.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืชื•ื›ืฃ ืฉืชื™ ืชื›ื™ืคื•ืช ื—ื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืชื›ื™ืคื” ืื—ืช ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ื™ื—ื“ื• ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื ื•ื™ื™

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: And still, it is necessary for the verse to state โ€œwool and linen togetherโ€ to teach another halakha concerning diverse kinds: When one combines a woolen garment with a linen garment, if he stitches two stitches with a needle, this is considered attachment, but a single stitch is not attachment. This halakha is derived from the term โ€œtogether,โ€ which indicates that they are attached as one. The Gemara answers: If so, let the Merciful One write: You shall not wear wool and linen together. Why do I need the verse to add the phrase โ€œdiverse kindsโ€? Conclude from this that this phrase is free.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืฉื•ืข ื˜ื•ื•ื™ ื•ื ื•ื– ืืœื ื›ื•ืœื” ืžืฉืขื˜ื ื– ื ืคืงื

The Gemara comments: And still, it is necessary for the verse to state โ€œdiverse kinds [shaโ€™atnez],โ€ as this is interpreted as an acronym that teaches that the halakha of diverse kinds applies only when it is smooth combed [shoa], spun [tavui] as a thread, and attached [noz], but without these characteristics the connection is not considered diverse kinds. Rather, the Gemara explains that the entire interpretation is derived from the term โ€œdiverse kinds.โ€ Since the Torah uses the highly distinctive word โ€œshaโ€™atnez,โ€ in addition to functioning as the above acronym it serves as the source of the verbal analogy with the term in the verse: โ€œNeither shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds [shaโ€™atnez] mingled togetherโ€ (Leviticus 19:19), from which it may be inferred that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื“ืืชื™ ืขืฉื” ื•ื“ื—ื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื’ืจื™ื“ื ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื›ืจืช ื”ื™ื›ื ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื“ื“ื—ื™ ื“ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืขืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืกืจื”

ยง The Gemara returns to the issue of a mitzva overriding a prohibition: We have found that a positive mitzva overrides a regular prohibition. However, where do we find that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition that includes karet, as the phrase โ€œwith herโ€ is necessary to prohibit her? It was mentioned previously that the superfluous phrase โ€œwith herโ€ teaches that the mitzva of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition against taking a wifeโ€™s sister. However, why is this necessary? Why would it have been assumed that a positive mitzva is so powerful that it overrides even a prohibition that is punishable by karet?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžืžื™ืœื” ืžื” ืœืžื™ืœื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื ื›ืจืชื• ืขืœื™ื” ืฉืœืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ื‘ืจื™ืชื•ืช

And if you suggest an answer and say: Let us derive this claim from the mitzva of circumcision, as there is a positive mitzva to perform circumcision on the eighth day of the boyโ€™s life even on Shabbat, and this mitzva overrides the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat, which is punishable by karet, one could respond: What about the fact that circumcision is an extremely important and severe positive mitzva, as thirteen covenants were established over it? The term โ€œcovenantโ€ is mentioned thirteen times in the chapter of circumcision (Genesis, chapter 17).

ืžืคืกื— ืžื” ืœืคืกื— ืฉื›ืŸ ื›ืจืช

The Gemara adds: And if you say it is derived from the slaughter of the Paschal lamb, which overrides Shabbat and is therefore a positive mitzva that overrides a prohibition punishable by karet, this too can be rejected: What about the fact that the Paschal lamb is different, as it is a positive mitzva that is so severe that its neglect entails karet for those who do not bring it, unlike all other positive mitzvot?

ืžืชืžื™ื“ ืžื” ืœืชืžื™ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ืชื“ื™ืจ

The Gemara offers yet another suggestion: Perhaps it is derived from the daily offering, which was slaughtered every day, even on Shabbat. This is a positive mitzva that overrides the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat, which is punishable by karet. The Gemara rejects this claim as well: What about the fact that the daily offering is special in that it is frequent? Since the mitzva of the daily offering is performed every day, it is perhaps especially important, whereas a positive mitzva that applies only at certain times might not be powerful enough to override a severe prohibition.

ืžื—ื“ื ืœื ืืชื™ื ืชื™ืชื™ ืžืชืจืชื™ ืžื”ื™ ืชื™ืชื™ ืžืžื™ืœื” ื•ืคืกื— ืฉื›ืŸ ื›ืจืช ืžืคืกื— ื•ืชืžื™ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ืฆื•ืจืš ื’ื‘ื•ื”

The Gemara says: Clearly, the principle cannot be derived from any single one of these cases. However, let it be derived from two of these cases combined together, by analyzing their common features. The Gemara asks: From which two cases can it be derived? If one would say that it can be derived from circumcision and the Paschal lamb, the factor common to both is their particular severity, as their neglect entails karet. If one would seek to derive this from the Paschal lamb and the daily offering, these have a different common factor, as both are a requirement of the altar in the Temple, not for personal benefit.

ืžืžื™ืœื” ื•ืชืžื™ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉื ื• ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื“ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื” ืฉื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœืช ืชืžื™ื“ ื”ื•ื” ื•ืžื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื ืžื™ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉื ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื“ื‘ื•ืจ

Likewise, if one would suggest deriving the principle from circumcision and the daily offering, this too must be rejected, as both of these mitzvot were known by the Jewish people before the word of God was revealed at Mount Sinai. And this is according to the opinion of the one who said that the burnt-offering brought by the Jewish people in the desert was the daily offering. And moreover, from all of these together, i.e., circumcision, the Paschal lamb, and the daily offering, it is also not possible to derive a conclusion, as all three of these were known before the word of God was revealed. If so, no principle can be derived from these three mitzvot.

ืืœื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืชื™ืชื™ ืžื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืื‘ ื•ืื

ยง Rather, the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: The inference from โ€œwith herโ€ is necessary, as were it not for this inference it might be assumed that the mitzva of levirate marriage overrides the prohibition against marrying oneโ€™s wifeโ€™s sister despite the fact that this prohibition incurs karet, since it could enter your mind to say that this halakha is derived from the mitzva of honoring oneโ€™s father and mother.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืื‘ ื•ืื ื“ื•ื—ื” ืฉื‘ืช ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ืืžื• ื•ืื‘ื™ื• ืชื™ืจืื• ื•ืืช ืฉื‘ืชื•ืชื™ ืชืฉืžื•ืจื• ื›ื•ืœื›ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื™

As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that honoring oneโ€™s father and mother overrides Shabbat; therefore, the verse states: โ€œYou shall fear every man his mother and his father and you shall keep My Shabbatot, I am the Lord your Godโ€ (Leviticus 19:3). The baraita explains the derivation from the verse: All of you, both parent and child, are obligated in My honor, and therefore honoring oneโ€™s parents does not override the honor of God, Who commanded the Jewish people to observe Shabbat.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ืœื™ ื‘ืฉืœ ืœื™ ื•ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืช ืฉื‘ืชื•ืชื™ ืชืฉืžื•ืจื• ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื“ื—ื™ ืœื

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What, is it not referring to a situation where his father said to him: Slaughter for me, cook for me, or any other labor prohibited on Shabbat on pain of karet? And the reason that the Merciful One specifically writes: โ€œKeep My Shabbatot,โ€ is to warn against violating the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat, a transgression which incurs karet, for the purpose of honoring oneโ€™s parents. It may therefore be inferred that if that was not so, the positive mitzva would override Shabbat. It is therefore possible to deduce from here that in general, positive mitzvot override even prohibitions that entail karet. The Gemara rejects this proof: No,

Scroll To Top