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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 12, 2022 | 讟壮 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • 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 – Shabbat March 12

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, click here.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Rachel Lopatin in honor of Cara Lopatin. 鈥淲ith lots of love, Eema and Abba.鈥

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 鈥渨ool and linen鈥 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 鈥 first, from a leper who is commanded to shave all his hair on his head, even though the Torah states a man can鈥檛 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 can鈥檛 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 word聽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 one鈥檚 parents, but all attempts are rejected.

转讬谞讞 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇专讘谞谉 诪谞讗 诇讛讜

搂 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.

谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪专讗砖讜 讚转谞讬讗 专讗砖讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转拽讬驻讜 (讗转) 驻讗转 专讗砖讻诐 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗祝 诪爪讜专注 讻谉

The Gemara responds: They derive it from the verse mentioned with regard to the halakhot of the purification of a leper from his leprosy [tzara鈥檃t]: 鈥淎nd 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 off鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). As it is taught in a baraita: Since it states 鈥渁ll his hair,鈥 what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渉is head鈥? The baraita explains that as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your heads鈥 (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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专讗砖讜 讜拽讗 住讘专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛

Therefore, the verse states explicitly: 鈥淗is head,鈥 to teach that the mitzva that a leper must shave overrides the prohibition against rounding the corners of one鈥檚 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.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诇讗讜 讚讛拽驻讛 砖讻谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇

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.

讗诇讗 讗转讬讗 诪讝拽谞讜 讚转谞讬讗 讝拽谞讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜驻讗转 讝拽谞诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗祝 讻讛谉 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝拽谞讜

Rather, the Gemara provides an alternative suggestion: The principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition is derived from the superfluous phrase: 鈥淗is beard鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). As it is taught in a different baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淗is beard鈥? After all, a beard is already included in the phrase: 鈥淎ll his hair.鈥 The baraita answers: As it is stated with regard to priests: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard鈥 (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 鈥渉is beard鈥 in the case of a leper.

讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇诇讗讜 讛砖讜讛 讘讻诇

However, the shaving of one鈥檚 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 鈥渉is beard鈥 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 鈥渉is head,鈥 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.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讗谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讬讘讛 讘讛谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 诇讗 讚讞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讚讞讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: Still, it is necessary for the verse to state: 鈥淗is beard.鈥 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: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 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.

讗诇讗 讗转讬讗 诪专讗砖讜 讚讛讱 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讗砖讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 转注专 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 注诇 专讗砖讜 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗祝 诪爪讜专注 讜谞讝讬专 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专讗砖讜

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 鈥渉is head,鈥 cited by this tanna. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair off his head鈥 (Leviticus 14:9); what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淗is head鈥? The baraita explains: As it is stated with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淣o razor shall come upon his head鈥 (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: 鈥淗is head.鈥 This teaches that the positive mitzva for a leper to shave overrides the prohibition of a nazirite.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇谞讝讬专 诪爪讜专注 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讜 讘砖讗诇讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛

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.

诇讬讙诪专 诪谞讝讬专 讗诇讗 诪谞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讜 讘砖讗诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讜 讘砖讗诇讛

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.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐

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

诪拽专讗 拽诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 爪讬爪讬转 转注砖讛 诇讱 讙讚讬诇讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

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 鈥渨ool and linen鈥 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 鈥渢wisted fringes鈥 (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.

讛讗讬 诇砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讙讚讬诇 砖谞讬诐 讙讚讬诇讬诐 讗专讘注讛 注砖讛 讙讚讬诇 讜驻讜转诇讛讜 诪转讜讻讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This term, 鈥渢wisted fringes,鈥 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 鈥渢wisted fringes鈥 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 鈥渢wisted fringes鈥 is not superfluous at all.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讬讞讚讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

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 [sha鈥檃tnez]. Why do I need the verse to add the phrase 鈥渨ool and linen together鈥? Conclude from this that this phrase is free, and a homiletical interpretation can be derived from the juxtaposition of verses.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇转讜讻祝 砖转讬 转讻讬驻讜转 讞讬讘讜专 讜转讻讬驻讛 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讘讜专 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讬讞讚讜 砖注讟谞讝 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: And still, it is necessary for the verse to state 鈥渨ool and linen together鈥 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 鈥渢ogether,鈥 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 鈥渄iverse kinds鈥? Conclude from this that this phrase is free.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 砖讜注 讟讜讜讬 讜谞讜讝 讗诇讗 讻讜诇讛 诪砖注讟谞讝 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara comments: And still, it is necessary for the verse to state 鈥渄iverse kinds [sha鈥檃tnez],鈥 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 鈥渄iverse kinds.鈥 Since the Torah uses the highly distinctive word 鈥sha鈥檃tnez,鈥 in addition to functioning as the above acronym it serves as the source of the verbal analogy with the term in the verse: 鈥淣either shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds [sha鈥檃tnez] mingled together鈥 (Leviticus 19:19), from which it may be inferred that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.

讗砖讻讞谉 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讙专讬讚讗 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻专转 讛讬讻讗 讗砖讻讞谉 讚讚讞讬 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 注诇讬讛 诇诪讬住专讛

搂 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 鈥渨ith her鈥 is necessary to prohibit her? It was mentioned previously that the superfluous phrase 鈥渨ith her鈥 teaches that the mitzva of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition against taking a wife鈥檚 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?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪诪讬诇讛 诪讛 诇诪讬诇讛 砖讻谉 谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转

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 boy鈥檚 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 鈥渃ovenant鈥 is mentioned thirteen times in the chapter of circumcision (Genesis, chapter 17).

诪驻住讞 诪讛 诇驻住讞 砖讻谉 讻专转

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?

诪转诪讬讚 诪讛 诇转诪讬讚 砖讻谉 转讚讬专

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.

诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讗转讬讗 转讬转讬 诪转专转讬 诪讛讬 转讬转讬 诪诪讬诇讛 讜驻住讞 砖讻谉 讻专转 诪驻住讞 讜转诪讬讚 砖讻谉 爪讜专讱 讙讘讜讛

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.

诪诪讬诇讛 讜转诪讬讚 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讘讜专 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛讜讛 讜诪讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 砖讻谉 讬砖谞谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讘讜专

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬转讬 诪讻讘讜讚 讗讘 讜讗诐

Rather, the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: The inference from 鈥渨ith her鈥 is necessary, as were it not for this inference it might be assumed that the mitzva of levirate marriage overrides the prohibition against marrying one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 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 one鈥檚 father and mother.

讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讻讘讜讚 讗讘 讜讗诐 讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗诪讜 讜讗讘讬讜 转讬专讗讜 讜讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讻讜诇讻诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讻讘讜讚讬

As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that honoring one鈥檚 father and mother overrides Shabbat; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall fear every man his mother and his father and you shall keep My Shabbatot, I am the Lord your God鈥 (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 one鈥檚 parents does not override the honor of God, Who commanded the Jewish people to observe Shabbat.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讞讜讟 诇讬 讘砖诇 诇讬 讜讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讚讞讬 诇讗

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: 鈥淜eep My Shabbatot,鈥 is to warn against violating the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat, a transgression which incurs karet, for the purpose of honoring one鈥檚 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 month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • 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 – Shabbat March 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 5 – Shabbat March 12

转讬谞讞 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇专讘谞谉 诪谞讗 诇讛讜

搂 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.

谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪专讗砖讜 讚转谞讬讗 专讗砖讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转拽讬驻讜 (讗转) 驻讗转 专讗砖讻诐 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗祝 诪爪讜专注 讻谉

The Gemara responds: They derive it from the verse mentioned with regard to the halakhot of the purification of a leper from his leprosy [tzara鈥檃t]: 鈥淎nd 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 off鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). As it is taught in a baraita: Since it states 鈥渁ll his hair,鈥 what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渉is head鈥? The baraita explains that as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your heads鈥 (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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专讗砖讜 讜拽讗 住讘专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛

Therefore, the verse states explicitly: 鈥淗is head,鈥 to teach that the mitzva that a leper must shave overrides the prohibition against rounding the corners of one鈥檚 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.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诇讗讜 讚讛拽驻讛 砖讻谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇

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.

讗诇讗 讗转讬讗 诪讝拽谞讜 讚转谞讬讗 讝拽谞讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜驻讗转 讝拽谞诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞讜 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗祝 讻讛谉 诪爪讜专注 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝拽谞讜

Rather, the Gemara provides an alternative suggestion: The principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition is derived from the superfluous phrase: 鈥淗is beard鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). As it is taught in a different baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淗is beard鈥? After all, a beard is already included in the phrase: 鈥淎ll his hair.鈥 The baraita answers: As it is stated with regard to priests: 鈥淣either shall they shave off the corners of their beard鈥 (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 鈥渉is beard鈥 in the case of a leper.

讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇诇讗讜 讛砖讜讛 讘讻诇

However, the shaving of one鈥檚 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 鈥渉is beard鈥 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 鈥渉is head,鈥 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.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讗谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讬讘讛 讘讛谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 诇讗 讚讞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讚讞讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: Still, it is necessary for the verse to state: 鈥淗is beard.鈥 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: 鈥淗is beard,鈥 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.

讗诇讗 讗转讬讗 诪专讗砖讜 讚讛讱 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讗砖讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 转注专 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 注诇 专讗砖讜 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗祝 诪爪讜专注 讜谞讝讬专 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专讗砖讜

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 鈥渉is head,鈥 cited by this tanna. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair off his head鈥 (Leviticus 14:9); what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淗is head鈥? The baraita explains: As it is stated with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淣o razor shall come upon his head鈥 (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: 鈥淗is head.鈥 This teaches that the positive mitzva for a leper to shave overrides the prohibition of a nazirite.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇谞讝讬专 诪爪讜专注 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讜 讘砖讗诇讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛

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.

诇讬讙诪专 诪谞讝讬专 讗诇讗 诪谞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讜 讘砖讗诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讜 讘砖讗诇讛

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.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐

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

诪拽专讗 拽诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 爪讬爪讬转 转注砖讛 诇讱 讙讚讬诇讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

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 鈥渨ool and linen鈥 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 鈥渢wisted fringes鈥 (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.

讛讗讬 诇砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讙讚讬诇 砖谞讬诐 讙讚讬诇讬诐 讗专讘注讛 注砖讛 讙讚讬诇 讜驻讜转诇讛讜 诪转讜讻讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This term, 鈥渢wisted fringes,鈥 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 鈥渢wisted fringes鈥 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 鈥渢wisted fringes鈥 is not superfluous at all.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讬讞讚讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

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 [sha鈥檃tnez]. Why do I need the verse to add the phrase 鈥渨ool and linen together鈥? Conclude from this that this phrase is free, and a homiletical interpretation can be derived from the juxtaposition of verses.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇转讜讻祝 砖转讬 转讻讬驻讜转 讞讬讘讜专 讜转讻讬驻讛 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讘讜专 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讬讞讚讜 砖注讟谞讝 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: And still, it is necessary for the verse to state 鈥渨ool and linen together鈥 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 鈥渢ogether,鈥 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 鈥渄iverse kinds鈥? Conclude from this that this phrase is free.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 砖讜注 讟讜讜讬 讜谞讜讝 讗诇讗 讻讜诇讛 诪砖注讟谞讝 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara comments: And still, it is necessary for the verse to state 鈥渄iverse kinds [sha鈥檃tnez],鈥 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 鈥渄iverse kinds.鈥 Since the Torah uses the highly distinctive word 鈥sha鈥檃tnez,鈥 in addition to functioning as the above acronym it serves as the source of the verbal analogy with the term in the verse: 鈥淣either shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds [sha鈥檃tnez] mingled together鈥 (Leviticus 19:19), from which it may be inferred that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.

讗砖讻讞谉 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讙专讬讚讗 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻专转 讛讬讻讗 讗砖讻讞谉 讚讚讞讬 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 注诇讬讛 诇诪讬住专讛

搂 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 鈥渨ith her鈥 is necessary to prohibit her? It was mentioned previously that the superfluous phrase 鈥渨ith her鈥 teaches that the mitzva of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition against taking a wife鈥檚 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?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪诪讬诇讛 诪讛 诇诪讬诇讛 砖讻谉 谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转

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 boy鈥檚 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 鈥渃ovenant鈥 is mentioned thirteen times in the chapter of circumcision (Genesis, chapter 17).

诪驻住讞 诪讛 诇驻住讞 砖讻谉 讻专转

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?

诪转诪讬讚 诪讛 诇转诪讬讚 砖讻谉 转讚讬专

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.

诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讗转讬讗 转讬转讬 诪转专转讬 诪讛讬 转讬转讬 诪诪讬诇讛 讜驻住讞 砖讻谉 讻专转 诪驻住讞 讜转诪讬讚 砖讻谉 爪讜专讱 讙讘讜讛

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.

诪诪讬诇讛 讜转诪讬讚 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讘讜专 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛讜讛 讜诪讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 砖讻谉 讬砖谞谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讘讜专

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬转讬 诪讻讘讜讚 讗讘 讜讗诐

Rather, the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: The inference from 鈥渨ith her鈥 is necessary, as were it not for this inference it might be assumed that the mitzva of levirate marriage overrides the prohibition against marrying one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 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 one鈥檚 father and mother.

讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讻讘讜讚 讗讘 讜讗诐 讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗诪讜 讜讗讘讬讜 转讬专讗讜 讜讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讻讜诇讻诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讻讘讜讚讬

As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that honoring one鈥檚 father and mother overrides Shabbat; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall fear every man his mother and his father and you shall keep My Shabbatot, I am the Lord your God鈥 (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 one鈥檚 parents does not override the honor of God, Who commanded the Jewish people to observe Shabbat.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讞讜讟 诇讬 讘砖诇 诇讬 讜讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讚讞讬 诇讗

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: 鈥淜eep My Shabbatot,鈥 is to warn against violating the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat, a transgression which incurs karet, for the purpose of honoring one鈥檚 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