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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 10, 2014 | 讟状讝 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 6

Study Guide Yevamot 6


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇讗讜 讚诪讞诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讚讞讬

the reference is not to a situation where a father demanded that his child perform prohibited labor on Shabbat that entails karet. Rather, he instructed him to transgress the prohibition against driving a laden animal. Although it is prohibited to cause animals to work on Shabbat, this does not entail the penalty of karet, as it has the status of a regular prohibition. And this shows that if one鈥檚 father told him to desecrate Shabbat by driving a donkey, even so, the positive mitzva to honor one鈥檚 parents does not override the prohibition against driving a laden animal.

讗诇讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讬讙诪专 诪讛讻讗 讚诇讗 诇讬讚讞讬

搂 The Gemara asks: If so, rather than that principle in which we maintain that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition, let us derive from here that it does not override even a regular prohibition. Just as it was inferred above from the case of ritual fringes, in which the positive mitzva overrides the prohibition against diverse kinds, that all other positive mitzvot similarly override any prohibition, perhaps one should infer from the case of honoring one鈥檚 parents that positive mitzvot do not override prohibitions at all.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讗讜讬 讚砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讬 讜讛讗 转谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讗 拽驻专讬讱

And if you say that one should not infer this from here, as the prohibitions of Shabbat are different in that they are more serious, and for this reason the mitzva to honor one鈥檚 parents does not override these prohibitions, this cannot be the case, as the tanna speaks generally of a father who instructs a son to perform a regular prohibition, not to desecrate Shabbat, and he does not raise any difficulty of this kind.

讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 讛讬讟诪讗 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转讞讝讬专 讬讻讜诇 讬砖诪注 诇讜 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 different baraita: One might have thought that if one鈥檚 father said to his son, who is a priest or nazirite: Be rendered ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, so as to bring me an item from a ritually impure place, or if he said to him: Do not return this lost item, it might have been supposed that his son should obey him. 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). This verse teaches: All of you are obligated in My honor. This proves that the tanna does not differentiate between desecrating Shabbat, which is a severe prohibition, and a priest becoming ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, which is a lighter prohibition.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱

Rather, the Gemara rejects this line of reasoning and accepts the claim that the baraita does not speak of one whose father asked him to desecrate Shabbat by performing a prohibited labor that entails karet, but of a father who instructed his son to drive a laden animal. As for the difficulty that this apparently indicates that a positive mitzva does not override any type of prohibition, the reason that this is not the case is because there is room to refute this argument.

诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讛讻砖专 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara explains how the previous claim can be countered: What about the fact that these instructions of a father are different, as when one drives an animal on Shabbat in honor of his parents this is merely preparation for the mitzva of honoring one鈥檚 parents, since the son is not actually feeding or clothing his father at the time. Consequently, this is not a proper fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and therefore the case of a father who instructs his son to drive an animal cannot be used as a source with regard to other instances.

讗诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬转讬 诪讘谞讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讘谞讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讜诪拽讚砖讬 转讬专讗讜 讻讜诇讻诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讻讘讜讚讬

Rather, it could enter your mind to say: The principle that a positive mitzva overrides even a prohibition that entails karet is derived from the building of the Temple. As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that the building of the Temple should override Shabbat; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall keep My Shabbatot and revere My Sanctuary, I am the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:30), which means that all of you are obligated in My honor. God is honored when Shabbat is observed, and He demands the observance of Shabbat even when the Temple is being built.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讘讜谞讛 讜住讜转专 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

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What, is it not referring to building the Temple by performing prohibited labors on Shabbat whose violation entails karet, such as building and demolishing? And the reason the building of Temple does not override Shabbat is that the Merciful One specifically writes: 鈥淜eep My Shabbatot,鈥 from which it may be inferred that if that were 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.

诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诪讞诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讚讞讬 讜讗诇讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讬讙诪专 诪讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讚讞讬

The Gemara responds: No, here too the reference is to the prohibition against driving a laden animal, and even so the positive mitzva to build the Temple does not override the prohibition against driving a laden animal on Shabbat. The Gemara asks again, as before: If so, rather than that principle in which we maintain that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition, let us derive from here that it does not override even a regular prohibition.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讗讜讬 讚砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讬 讜讛讗 转谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讗 拽讗 驻专讬讱 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 讛讬讟诪讗 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转讞讝讬专 讬讻讜诇 讬砖诪注 诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗诪讜 讜讗讘讬讜 转讬专讗讜讜讙讜壮 讻讜诇讻诐 讞讬讬讘讬诐 讘讻讘讜讚讬

And if you say that prohibitions of Shabbat are different in that they are more severe, this cannot be the case, as the tanna speaks generally and he does not raise any difficulty of this kind as it is taught in the aforementioned baraita: One might have thought that if one鈥檚 father said to his son who is a priest or nazirite: Be rendered ritually impure, or if he said to him: Do not return this lost item, it might have been supposed that his son should obey him. 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), which means: All of you are obligated in My honor.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讛讻砖专 诪爪讜讛 讛讻砖专 诪爪讜讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 诪讛转诐

Rather, there is no proof from here with regard to all Torah prohibitions, because there is room to refute that argument as follows: What about the fact that these instances of driving an animal on Shabbat are merely a preparation for the mitzva of building the Temple, and is not a mitzva in itself? The Gemara raises a difficulty: Let the halakha that preparation for a mitzva does not override a prohibition be derived from there, the case of honoring one鈥檚 parents, as stated previously. Why repeat this matter with regard to the building of the Temple?

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讜诪拽讚砖讬 转讬专讗讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬转讬讬专讗 讗讚诐 诪诪拽讚砖 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讜讗转 诪拽讚砖讬 转讬专讗讜 谞讗诪专讛 砖诪讬专讛 讘砖讘转 讜谞讗诪专讛 诪讜专讗 讘诪拽讚砖 诪讛 砖诪讬专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖讘转

The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so. And why do I need the verse: 鈥淵ou shall keep My Shabbatot, and revere My Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 19:30)? After all, the halakha that the building of the Temple does not override the prohibition against driving an animal on Shabbat is derived from the case of honoring one鈥檚 parents. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to derive that which is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that a person should be in reverence of the Temple and turn the Temple itself into an object of worship. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall keep My Shabbatot, and revere My Sanctuary.鈥 The term keeping is stated with regard to Shabbat, and the term reverence is stated with regard to the Temple. Just as in the case of keeping stated with regard to Shabbat,

诇讗 诪砖讘转 讗转讛 诪转讬讬专讗 讗诇讗 诪诪讬 砖讛讝讛讬专 注诇 讛砖讘转 讗祝 诪讜专讗 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 诇讗 诪诪拽讚砖 讗转讛 诪转讬讬专讗 讗诇讗 诪诪讬 砖讛讝讛讬专 注诇 讛诪拽讚砖

you do not revere Shabbat itself, as reverence is not mentioned in this context, but rather, one reveres He Who warned about the observance of Shabbat, so too, the same applies to the reverence stated with regard to the Temple: You do not revere the Temple itself but He Who warned about the Temple.

讜讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讜专讗 诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讗讚诐 讘讛专 讛讘讬转 讘诪拽诇讜 讘诪谞注诇讜 讘驻讜谞讚转讜 讜讘讗讘拽 砖注诇 讙讘讬 专讙诇讬讜 讜诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 拽驻谞讚专讬讗 讜专拽讬拽讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

The baraita explains: And what is the reverence of the Temple? In deference to the Temple, a person may not enter the Temple Mount with his staff, his shoes, his money belt [punda], or even the dust on his feet. One may not make the Temple a shortcut [kappendarya] to pass through it, and through an a fortiori inference, all the more so one may not spit on the Temple Mount, as no disrespect is meant by the other actions, whereas spitting is repulsive even in one鈥檚 own private home, and certainly on the Temple Mount.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讜诪拽讚砖讬 转讬专讗讜 诪讛 砖诪讬专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖讘转 诇注讜诇诐 讗祝 诪讜专讗 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 诇注讜诇诐

And I have derived only that one is obligated to act in this manner when the Temple is standing. From where do I derive that the mitzva to revere the Temple is in force when the Temple is not standing, i.e., that it is prohibited to be disrespectful toward the place where the Temple stood? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall keep My Shabbatot, and revere My Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 19:30). Just as the keeping stated with regard to Shabbat applies forever, so too, the reverence stated with regard to the Temple is forever.

讗诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬转讬 诪讛讘注专讛 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 转讘注专讜 讗砖 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转讬讻诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

搂 With regard to the issue at hand, the Gemara has not yet found an explanation as to why a specific inference was required to teach that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition that incurs karet. Rather, it might enter your mind to say that this claim might be derived from the halakha of kindling, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day鈥 (Exodus 35:3). What is the meaning when the verse states this, as the general prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat appears elsewhere?

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诇讗讜 讗讬 诇专讘讬 谞转谉 诇讞诇拽

The Gemara expresses puzzlement at this question: What is the meaning when the verse states this? What kind of question is this? If the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, the verse comes to teach that one who kindles fire on Shabbat merely violates a regular prohibition, which does not entail the penalty of stoning, unlike other prohibited labors. If the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, kindling was singled out to divide the various prohibited labors of Shabbat and to establish liability for the separate performance of each of them.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讘注专讛 诇诇讗讜 讬爪转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讞诇拽

As it is taught in a baraita: The prohibition against kindling was singled out from the general category of prohibited labors and written explicitly to teach that it is unlike other prohibited labors, as it is a regular prohibition, which does not entail the punishment of stoning. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Natan says: Kindling is like any other labor prohibited on Shabbat, and it was singled out to divide. In other words, by stating one prohibited labor separately, the Torah teaches that each labor on Shabbat constitutes its own separate prohibition. Consequently, one who unwittingly violates several categories of labor is obligated to bring as many sin-offerings as the prohibited labors he violated.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讗 诪讜砖讘讜转 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讜砖讘讜转 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

And Rava said in explanation of the question asked by the school of Rabbi Yishmael: For this tanna, the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 poses a difficulty with regard to his opinion. The baraita should be understood as follows: What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渉abitations鈥? What additional inference is indicated by this term, which might lead to the erroneous conclusion that this Shabbat prohibition applies only in certain places of habitation?

诪讻讚讬 砖讘转 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 讛讬讗 讜讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜抓 诇讗专抓 诪讜砖讘讜转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖讘转 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara explains why 鈥渉abitations鈥 cannot mean that Shabbat observance applies only in certain places. Since Shabbat is an obligation that applies to the body, i.e., to the individual himself and not to an external object, and there is a principle that obligations of the body apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, then why do I need the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 that the Merciful One writes with regard to Shabbat?

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讬砖 讞讟讗 诪砖驻讟 诪讜转 讜讛讜诪转 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘砖讗专 诪诇讗讻讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讛讜诪转 讘讞讜诇 讜诇讗 讘砖讘转

A student said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that since it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:22), I would derive that the death penalty is administered whether on a weekday or on a Shabbat. And how do I establish the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall keep Shabbat, for it is sacred to you; every one who profanes it shall surely be put to death鈥 (Exodus 31:14)? This verse applies to other prohibited labors, except for court-imposed capital punishment, which must be administered even on Shabbat. Or perhaps it is only the case that even court-imposed capital punishment is included in the list of prohibited labors on Shabbat. How, then, do I establish the verse: 鈥淎nd he is put to death鈥? This is referring to a weekday and not to Shabbat.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讘注专讜 讗砖 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转讬讻诐 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讜 讗诇讛 诇讻诐 诇讞拽转 诪砖驻讟 诇讚讜专讜转讬讻诐 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转讬讻诐

Surprisingly, the tanna reverts back to his earlier claim: Or perhaps it is only the case that capital punishments may be administered even on Shabbat? Therefore, the verse states by way of a verbal analogy: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day鈥 (Exodus 35:3) and below it says, at the end of the chapter dealing with murderers: 鈥淎nd these things shall be for you a statute of judgment to you throughout your generations in all your habitations鈥 (Numbers 35:29).

诪讛 诪讜砖讘讜转 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讛诇谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗祝 诪讜砖讘讜转 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讻讗谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讘注专讜

Just as the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 stated below, in Numbers, means in the court, where judgment is performed, so too, the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 stated here means in the court, i.e., in the place where judges preside. And the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire.鈥 Since one of the court-imposed death penalties is burning, which is performed by kindling fire, then evidently, court-imposed death penalties do not override Shabbat.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讞诇拽 讬爪转讛 讜讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讘注专讜 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讚讞讬

With the above conclusion in mind, the Gemara comments: What, is it not the case that the opinion of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is in accordance with that of Rabbi Natan, who said that the prohibition against kindling fire was singled out to divide, and therefore lighting a fire is punishable by karet and stoning? And if so, the reason why capital punishments are not administered on Shabbat is that the Merciful One writes: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire,鈥 from which it may be inferred that if it were not so, then court-imposed capital punishment would override Shabbat. In other words, the positive mitzva of legal execution would override the prohibition against lighting a fire on Shabbat, which incurs karet.

诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜转讬讛讜讬 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讘注专讛 诇诇讗讜 讬爪转讛 讛讘注专讛 讙专讬讚转讗

The Gemara rejects this: No, there is no proof from here, as it can be claimed that the opinion of the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that kindling fire is an ordinary prohibition. The Gemara retorts: And let it even be according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. You can say that when Rabbi Yosei said that kindling was singled out as a prohibition, he was referring to kindling alone, i.e., that lighting a regular fire is only a regular prohibition.

讛讘注专讛 讚讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬砖讜诇 驻转讬诇讛 讛讜讗

Conversely, the kindling by the court for the execution of burning is actually the cooking of a leaden wick. Since execution by burning involves melting, or cooking, a piece of lead, called a wick, and pouring it into the mouth of the convict, it therefore constitutes the prohibited labor of cooking, which is a different prohibition than kindling fire.

讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讛 诇讬 讘讬砖讜诇 驻转讬诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 讘讬砖讜诇 住诪谞讬谉

And Rav Sheshet said in this regard: What difference is there to me between cooking a wick, which is performed for court-imposed capital punishments, and what difference is there to me between the cooking of herbs used to dye curtains for the Tabernacle, from whose work the list of prohibited labors on Shabbat is derived? Since the court-imposed death penalty involves the prohibited labor of cooking, which according to all opinions incurs karet, this apparently indicates that without the special verse that renders this prohibited, one would have said that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition for which one is liable to receive karet.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讬转讬 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘砖讗专 诪诇讗讻讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讘诇 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讞讬讗 砖讘转 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

The Gemara rejects this argument as well. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: This tanna does not raise the possibility that a court-administered death penalty might override Shabbat because a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition. Rather, he entertains this option because he learns this by means of an a fortiori inference, and this is what he is saying: How do I establish the verse 鈥淓very one who profanes it shall surely be put to death鈥 (Exodus 31:14)? This applies to other prohibited labors, except for court-imposed capital punishment. However, it could be said that court-imposed capital punishment overrides Shabbat, by an a fortiori inference:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 6: The Temple Is Not for Practice

What specific mitzvot can override Shabbat? Shouldn't one fear the Beit HaMikdash itself? That would theoretically have impact on what...

Yevamot 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 6

诇讗讜 讚诪讞诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讚讞讬

the reference is not to a situation where a father demanded that his child perform prohibited labor on Shabbat that entails karet. Rather, he instructed him to transgress the prohibition against driving a laden animal. Although it is prohibited to cause animals to work on Shabbat, this does not entail the penalty of karet, as it has the status of a regular prohibition. And this shows that if one鈥檚 father told him to desecrate Shabbat by driving a donkey, even so, the positive mitzva to honor one鈥檚 parents does not override the prohibition against driving a laden animal.

讗诇讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讬讙诪专 诪讛讻讗 讚诇讗 诇讬讚讞讬

搂 The Gemara asks: If so, rather than that principle in which we maintain that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition, let us derive from here that it does not override even a regular prohibition. Just as it was inferred above from the case of ritual fringes, in which the positive mitzva overrides the prohibition against diverse kinds, that all other positive mitzvot similarly override any prohibition, perhaps one should infer from the case of honoring one鈥檚 parents that positive mitzvot do not override prohibitions at all.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讗讜讬 讚砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讬 讜讛讗 转谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讗 拽驻专讬讱

And if you say that one should not infer this from here, as the prohibitions of Shabbat are different in that they are more serious, and for this reason the mitzva to honor one鈥檚 parents does not override these prohibitions, this cannot be the case, as the tanna speaks generally of a father who instructs a son to perform a regular prohibition, not to desecrate Shabbat, and he does not raise any difficulty of this kind.

讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 讛讬讟诪讗 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转讞讝讬专 讬讻讜诇 讬砖诪注 诇讜 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 different baraita: One might have thought that if one鈥檚 father said to his son, who is a priest or nazirite: Be rendered ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, so as to bring me an item from a ritually impure place, or if he said to him: Do not return this lost item, it might have been supposed that his son should obey him. 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). This verse teaches: All of you are obligated in My honor. This proves that the tanna does not differentiate between desecrating Shabbat, which is a severe prohibition, and a priest becoming ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, which is a lighter prohibition.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱

Rather, the Gemara rejects this line of reasoning and accepts the claim that the baraita does not speak of one whose father asked him to desecrate Shabbat by performing a prohibited labor that entails karet, but of a father who instructed his son to drive a laden animal. As for the difficulty that this apparently indicates that a positive mitzva does not override any type of prohibition, the reason that this is not the case is because there is room to refute this argument.

诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讛讻砖专 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara explains how the previous claim can be countered: What about the fact that these instructions of a father are different, as when one drives an animal on Shabbat in honor of his parents this is merely preparation for the mitzva of honoring one鈥檚 parents, since the son is not actually feeding or clothing his father at the time. Consequently, this is not a proper fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and therefore the case of a father who instructs his son to drive an animal cannot be used as a source with regard to other instances.

讗诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬转讬 诪讘谞讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讘谞讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讜诪拽讚砖讬 转讬专讗讜 讻讜诇讻诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讻讘讜讚讬

Rather, it could enter your mind to say: The principle that a positive mitzva overrides even a prohibition that entails karet is derived from the building of the Temple. As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that the building of the Temple should override Shabbat; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall keep My Shabbatot and revere My Sanctuary, I am the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:30), which means that all of you are obligated in My honor. God is honored when Shabbat is observed, and He demands the observance of Shabbat even when the Temple is being built.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讘讜谞讛 讜住讜转专 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

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What, is it not referring to building the Temple by performing prohibited labors on Shabbat whose violation entails karet, such as building and demolishing? And the reason the building of Temple does not override Shabbat is that the Merciful One specifically writes: 鈥淜eep My Shabbatot,鈥 from which it may be inferred that if that were 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.

诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诪讞诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讚讞讬 讜讗诇讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讬讙诪专 诪讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讚讞讬

The Gemara responds: No, here too the reference is to the prohibition against driving a laden animal, and even so the positive mitzva to build the Temple does not override the prohibition against driving a laden animal on Shabbat. The Gemara asks again, as before: If so, rather than that principle in which we maintain that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition, let us derive from here that it does not override even a regular prohibition.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讗讜讬 讚砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讬 讜讛讗 转谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讗 拽讗 驻专讬讱 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 讛讬讟诪讗 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转讞讝讬专 讬讻讜诇 讬砖诪注 诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗诪讜 讜讗讘讬讜 转讬专讗讜讜讙讜壮 讻讜诇讻诐 讞讬讬讘讬诐 讘讻讘讜讚讬

And if you say that prohibitions of Shabbat are different in that they are more severe, this cannot be the case, as the tanna speaks generally and he does not raise any difficulty of this kind as it is taught in the aforementioned baraita: One might have thought that if one鈥檚 father said to his son who is a priest or nazirite: Be rendered ritually impure, or if he said to him: Do not return this lost item, it might have been supposed that his son should obey him. 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), which means: All of you are obligated in My honor.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讛讻砖专 诪爪讜讛 讛讻砖专 诪爪讜讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 诪讛转诐

Rather, there is no proof from here with regard to all Torah prohibitions, because there is room to refute that argument as follows: What about the fact that these instances of driving an animal on Shabbat are merely a preparation for the mitzva of building the Temple, and is not a mitzva in itself? The Gemara raises a difficulty: Let the halakha that preparation for a mitzva does not override a prohibition be derived from there, the case of honoring one鈥檚 parents, as stated previously. Why repeat this matter with regard to the building of the Temple?

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讜诪拽讚砖讬 转讬专讗讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬转讬讬专讗 讗讚诐 诪诪拽讚砖 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讜讗转 诪拽讚砖讬 转讬专讗讜 谞讗诪专讛 砖诪讬专讛 讘砖讘转 讜谞讗诪专讛 诪讜专讗 讘诪拽讚砖 诪讛 砖诪讬专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖讘转

The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so. And why do I need the verse: 鈥淵ou shall keep My Shabbatot, and revere My Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 19:30)? After all, the halakha that the building of the Temple does not override the prohibition against driving an animal on Shabbat is derived from the case of honoring one鈥檚 parents. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to derive that which is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that a person should be in reverence of the Temple and turn the Temple itself into an object of worship. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall keep My Shabbatot, and revere My Sanctuary.鈥 The term keeping is stated with regard to Shabbat, and the term reverence is stated with regard to the Temple. Just as in the case of keeping stated with regard to Shabbat,

诇讗 诪砖讘转 讗转讛 诪转讬讬专讗 讗诇讗 诪诪讬 砖讛讝讛讬专 注诇 讛砖讘转 讗祝 诪讜专讗 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 诇讗 诪诪拽讚砖 讗转讛 诪转讬讬专讗 讗诇讗 诪诪讬 砖讛讝讛讬专 注诇 讛诪拽讚砖

you do not revere Shabbat itself, as reverence is not mentioned in this context, but rather, one reveres He Who warned about the observance of Shabbat, so too, the same applies to the reverence stated with regard to the Temple: You do not revere the Temple itself but He Who warned about the Temple.

讜讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讜专讗 诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讗讚诐 讘讛专 讛讘讬转 讘诪拽诇讜 讘诪谞注诇讜 讘驻讜谞讚转讜 讜讘讗讘拽 砖注诇 讙讘讬 专讙诇讬讜 讜诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 拽驻谞讚专讬讗 讜专拽讬拽讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

The baraita explains: And what is the reverence of the Temple? In deference to the Temple, a person may not enter the Temple Mount with his staff, his shoes, his money belt [punda], or even the dust on his feet. One may not make the Temple a shortcut [kappendarya] to pass through it, and through an a fortiori inference, all the more so one may not spit on the Temple Mount, as no disrespect is meant by the other actions, whereas spitting is repulsive even in one鈥檚 own private home, and certainly on the Temple Mount.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讜诪拽讚砖讬 转讬专讗讜 诪讛 砖诪讬专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖讘转 诇注讜诇诐 讗祝 诪讜专讗 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘诪拽讚砖 诇注讜诇诐

And I have derived only that one is obligated to act in this manner when the Temple is standing. From where do I derive that the mitzva to revere the Temple is in force when the Temple is not standing, i.e., that it is prohibited to be disrespectful toward the place where the Temple stood? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall keep My Shabbatot, and revere My Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 19:30). Just as the keeping stated with regard to Shabbat applies forever, so too, the reverence stated with regard to the Temple is forever.

讗诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬转讬 诪讛讘注专讛 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 转讘注专讜 讗砖 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转讬讻诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

搂 With regard to the issue at hand, the Gemara has not yet found an explanation as to why a specific inference was required to teach that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition that incurs karet. Rather, it might enter your mind to say that this claim might be derived from the halakha of kindling, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day鈥 (Exodus 35:3). What is the meaning when the verse states this, as the general prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat appears elsewhere?

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诇讗讜 讗讬 诇专讘讬 谞转谉 诇讞诇拽

The Gemara expresses puzzlement at this question: What is the meaning when the verse states this? What kind of question is this? If the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, the verse comes to teach that one who kindles fire on Shabbat merely violates a regular prohibition, which does not entail the penalty of stoning, unlike other prohibited labors. If the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, kindling was singled out to divide the various prohibited labors of Shabbat and to establish liability for the separate performance of each of them.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讘注专讛 诇诇讗讜 讬爪转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讞诇拽

As it is taught in a baraita: The prohibition against kindling was singled out from the general category of prohibited labors and written explicitly to teach that it is unlike other prohibited labors, as it is a regular prohibition, which does not entail the punishment of stoning. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Natan says: Kindling is like any other labor prohibited on Shabbat, and it was singled out to divide. In other words, by stating one prohibited labor separately, the Torah teaches that each labor on Shabbat constitutes its own separate prohibition. Consequently, one who unwittingly violates several categories of labor is obligated to bring as many sin-offerings as the prohibited labors he violated.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讗 诪讜砖讘讜转 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讜砖讘讜转 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

And Rava said in explanation of the question asked by the school of Rabbi Yishmael: For this tanna, the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 poses a difficulty with regard to his opinion. The baraita should be understood as follows: What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渉abitations鈥? What additional inference is indicated by this term, which might lead to the erroneous conclusion that this Shabbat prohibition applies only in certain places of habitation?

诪讻讚讬 砖讘转 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 讛讬讗 讜讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜抓 诇讗专抓 诪讜砖讘讜转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖讘转 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara explains why 鈥渉abitations鈥 cannot mean that Shabbat observance applies only in certain places. Since Shabbat is an obligation that applies to the body, i.e., to the individual himself and not to an external object, and there is a principle that obligations of the body apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, then why do I need the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 that the Merciful One writes with regard to Shabbat?

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讬砖 讞讟讗 诪砖驻讟 诪讜转 讜讛讜诪转 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘砖讗专 诪诇讗讻讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讛讜诪转 讘讞讜诇 讜诇讗 讘砖讘转

A student said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that since it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:22), I would derive that the death penalty is administered whether on a weekday or on a Shabbat. And how do I establish the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall keep Shabbat, for it is sacred to you; every one who profanes it shall surely be put to death鈥 (Exodus 31:14)? This verse applies to other prohibited labors, except for court-imposed capital punishment, which must be administered even on Shabbat. Or perhaps it is only the case that even court-imposed capital punishment is included in the list of prohibited labors on Shabbat. How, then, do I establish the verse: 鈥淎nd he is put to death鈥? This is referring to a weekday and not to Shabbat.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讘注专讜 讗砖 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转讬讻诐 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讜 讗诇讛 诇讻诐 诇讞拽转 诪砖驻讟 诇讚讜专讜转讬讻诐 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转讬讻诐

Surprisingly, the tanna reverts back to his earlier claim: Or perhaps it is only the case that capital punishments may be administered even on Shabbat? Therefore, the verse states by way of a verbal analogy: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day鈥 (Exodus 35:3) and below it says, at the end of the chapter dealing with murderers: 鈥淎nd these things shall be for you a statute of judgment to you throughout your generations in all your habitations鈥 (Numbers 35:29).

诪讛 诪讜砖讘讜转 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讛诇谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗祝 诪讜砖讘讜转 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讻讗谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讘注专讜

Just as the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 stated below, in Numbers, means in the court, where judgment is performed, so too, the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 stated here means in the court, i.e., in the place where judges preside. And the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire.鈥 Since one of the court-imposed death penalties is burning, which is performed by kindling fire, then evidently, court-imposed death penalties do not override Shabbat.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讞诇拽 讬爪转讛 讜讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讘注专讜 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讚讞讬

With the above conclusion in mind, the Gemara comments: What, is it not the case that the opinion of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is in accordance with that of Rabbi Natan, who said that the prohibition against kindling fire was singled out to divide, and therefore lighting a fire is punishable by karet and stoning? And if so, the reason why capital punishments are not administered on Shabbat is that the Merciful One writes: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire,鈥 from which it may be inferred that if it were not so, then court-imposed capital punishment would override Shabbat. In other words, the positive mitzva of legal execution would override the prohibition against lighting a fire on Shabbat, which incurs karet.

诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜转讬讛讜讬 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讘注专讛 诇诇讗讜 讬爪转讛 讛讘注专讛 讙专讬讚转讗

The Gemara rejects this: No, there is no proof from here, as it can be claimed that the opinion of the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that kindling fire is an ordinary prohibition. The Gemara retorts: And let it even be according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. You can say that when Rabbi Yosei said that kindling was singled out as a prohibition, he was referring to kindling alone, i.e., that lighting a regular fire is only a regular prohibition.

讛讘注专讛 讚讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬砖讜诇 驻转讬诇讛 讛讜讗

Conversely, the kindling by the court for the execution of burning is actually the cooking of a leaden wick. Since execution by burning involves melting, or cooking, a piece of lead, called a wick, and pouring it into the mouth of the convict, it therefore constitutes the prohibited labor of cooking, which is a different prohibition than kindling fire.

讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讛 诇讬 讘讬砖讜诇 驻转讬诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 讘讬砖讜诇 住诪谞讬谉

And Rav Sheshet said in this regard: What difference is there to me between cooking a wick, which is performed for court-imposed capital punishments, and what difference is there to me between the cooking of herbs used to dye curtains for the Tabernacle, from whose work the list of prohibited labors on Shabbat is derived? Since the court-imposed death penalty involves the prohibited labor of cooking, which according to all opinions incurs karet, this apparently indicates that without the special verse that renders this prohibited, one would have said that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition for which one is liable to receive karet.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讬转讬 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘砖讗专 诪诇讗讻讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讘诇 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讞讬讗 砖讘转 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

The Gemara rejects this argument as well. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: This tanna does not raise the possibility that a court-administered death penalty might override Shabbat because a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition. Rather, he entertains this option because he learns this by means of an a fortiori inference, and this is what he is saying: How do I establish the verse 鈥淓very one who profanes it shall surely be put to death鈥 (Exodus 31:14)? This applies to other prohibited labors, except for court-imposed capital punishment. However, it could be said that court-imposed capital punishment overrides Shabbat, by an a fortiori inference:

Scroll To Top