Yevamot 7
וּמָה עֲבוֹדָה, שֶׁהִיא חֲמוּרָה וְדוֹחָה שַׁבָּת — רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת״, שַׁבָּת, שֶׁנִּדְחֵת מִפְּנֵי עֲבוֹדָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ?
If the Temple service, which includes the sacrifice of offerings, is so severe that it overrides Shabbat, as offerings were brought on Shabbat, and yet the halakha of murder overrides it, i.e., the obligation to execute a sentenced convict overrides the Temple service, as it is stated with regard to one sentenced to death: “You shall take him from My altar, that he may die” (Exodus 21:14), then in the case of Shabbat, which is overridden by the Temple service, is it not right that the halakhot of murder should likewise override it?
וּמַאי ״אוֹ אֵינוֹ״ דְּקָאָמַר — הָכִי קָאָמַר: קְבוּרַת מֵת מִצְוָה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁדּוֹחָה אֶת הָעֲבוֹדָה, וְאֵין דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. הֲדַר אָמַר: קְבוּרַת מֵת מִצְוָה תִּדְחֶה שַׁבָּת מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא דּוֹחָה שַׁבָּת — קְבוּרַת מֵת מִצְוָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ,
§ The Gemara analyzes a puzzling statement in the above baraita. And what is the meaning of the claim: Or perhaps it is only the case that capital punishments may be administered even on Shabbat, which the tanna stated in an unexplained reversion to his previous suggestion? The Gemara explains that this is what he is saying: The a fortiori reasoning can be refuted, as the obligation to bury a corpse with no one available to bury it [met mitzva] can prove otherwise, as the obligation to bury a met mitzva overrides the Temple service, and yet it does not override Shabbat. The tanna then retracted his statement and said that one can claim that the burial of a met mitzva overrides Shabbat by means of the same a fortiori inference: If the Temple service overrides Shabbat, and the burial of a met mitzva overrides it.
מִ״וּלְאַחוֹתוֹ״, שַׁבָּת שֶׁנִּדְחֵת מִפְּנֵי עֲבוֹדָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא קְבוּרַת מֵת מִצְוָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ״.
The Gemara pauses in the middle of the a fortiori inference to explain this last point. This is derived from the superfluous phrase “or for his sister” in the verse “He shall not make himself ritually impure for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die” (Numbers 6:7), which is referring to a nazirite. This verse teaches that even a nazirite on his way to sacrifice the Paschal lamb must render himself ritually impure to bury a met mitzva. The Gemara resumes the a fortiori inference: If so, as Shabbat is overridden by the Temple service, is it not right that the burial of a met mitzva should override it? Therefore, the verse states: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day” (Exodus 35:3).
וּלְמַאי דִּסְלֵיק אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא דְּאָתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְדָחֵי לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, מַאי ״אוֹ אֵינוֹ״ דְּקָאָמַר?
This concludes Rav Shimi bar Ashi’s interpretation of the baraita, that the tanna suggested that a court-administered death penalty might override Shabbat not because of the principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition, but due to a potential a fortiori inference. The Gemara asks: And according to that which entered his mind at the outset, that the assumption of the tanna was indeed based on the principle that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition, what is the meaning of the clause: Or perhaps it is only the case that capital punishments may be administered even on Shabbat, that the tanna said? How should the baraita be explained according to the initial interpretation?
הָכִי קָאָמַר: מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״מְחַלְּלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת״ — בִּשְׁאָר מְלָאכוֹת חוּץ מִמִּיתַת בֵּית דִּין. אֲבָל מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין דָּחֵי שַׁבָּת, דְּאָתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְדָחֵי לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
The Gemara explains that this is what the tanna is saying: It would have been possible to say the following: How do I establish the verse “Every one who profanes it shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 31:14)? This applies to other prohibited labors, except for court-imposed capital punishment. However, court-imposed capital punishment overrides Shabbat, as a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition.
הֲדַר אָמַר: אֵימַר דְּאָמְרִינַן דְּאָתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְדָחֵי לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה גְּרֵידָא, לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּדָחֵי? הֲדַר אָמַר: אַטּוּ ״עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה״, לָאו לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה חָמוּר מִינֵּיהּ, וְקָאָתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְדָחֵי לֵיהּ?
The tanna then retracted his statement and said: You can say that we stated the principle that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition, yet this is true for a regular prohibition alone. However, did you hear that it overrides a prohibition that includes karet? The tanna then said, hinting at a counter-claim: Is that not to say, with regard to the principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition, that the prohibition is more stringent than the positive mitzva? After all, the court punishes one who violates a prohibition with lashes, which is not the case for a failure to uphold a positive mitzva. And yet by Torah law the positive mitzva comes and overrides it.
מָה לִי חוּמְרָא זוּטָא וּמָה לִי חוּמְרָא רַבָּה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ״.
If so, what difference is it to me if it is a case of a minor stringency and what difference is it to me if it is a major stringency? Once the Torah has stated that a positive mitzva supersedes a prohibition, there should be no difference between a relatively stringent prohibition and a lenient one. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall not kindle.” In sum, the Gemara has not found a clear proof for the opinion that a positive mitzva supersedes a prohibition that incurs karet.
אֶלָּא [אִיצְטְרִיךְ], סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: תִּיהְוֵי הַאי אֵשֶׁת אָח דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בַּכְּלָל וְיָצָא מִן הַכְּלָל לְלַמֵּד — לֹא לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמוֹ יָצָא, אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד עַל הַכְּלָל כּוּלּוֹ יָצָא.
Consequently, the Gemara suggests a different interpretation. The superfluous phrase “with her” indeed teaches that the obligation of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition with regard to women with whom relations are forbidden. However, this derivation is required not because one might have thought that a positive mitzva supersedes a prohibition that incurs karet. Rather, this phrase is necessary because it could enter your mind to say: Let this case of a brother’s wife, to whom the mitzva of levirate marriage applies, be treated in accordance with a well-established hermeneutical principle: A matter that was included in a generalization, but emerged to teach, emerged to teach not just about itself but to teach about the entire generalization.
דְּתַנְיָא: דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בַּכְּלָל וְיָצָא מִן הַכְּלָל וְכוּ׳, כֵּיצַד?
The Gemara explains the application of this principle to the current case. Since the prohibition proscribing a brother’s wife is included in the general prohibition with regard to women with whom relations are forbidden, it can be claimed that the halakha of levirate marriage renders not only a brother’s childless wife permitted, but in this case it renders permitted all women with whom relations are usually forbidden. As it is taught in a baraita that clarifies this hermeneutical principle: A matter that was included in a generalization, but emerged to teach, emerged to teach not just about itself but to teach about the entire generalization. How so?
״וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים וְטוּמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו״, וַהֲלֹא שְׁלָמִים בִּכְלָל קֳדָשִׁים הָיוּ, וְלָמָּה יָצְאוּ — לְהַקִּישׁ אֲלֵיהֶן, וְלוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה שְׁלָמִים מְיוּחָדִים קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ — אַף כֹּל קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ. יָצְאוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת.
The baraita provides an example of this principle by citing a verse: “But the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belong to the Lord, with his ritual impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:20). But aren’t peace-offerings included in the general category of all consecrated offerings? And why were they explicitly singled out from of the rest in the above verse? To draw an analogy between them and to say to you: Just as peace-offerings are unique in that they are consecrated for the altar, so too, this halakha that one who eats of them is liable to receive karet applies to all food that is consecrated for the altar, which excludes objects that are consecrated for the Temple maintenance.
הָכָא נָמֵי: הָא אֵשֶׁת אָח בִּכְלַל כׇּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָיְתָה, וְלָמָּה יָצְתָה — לְהַקִּישׁ אֵלֶיהָ, וְלוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה אֵשֶׁת אָח שַׁרְיָא — אַף כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת נָמֵי שַׁרְיָין.
The above baraita provided an example of the principle that an item singled out from a general category teaches a halakha with regard to the entire category. Here too, one can argue: This case of a brother’s wife was included in the general category of all women with whom relations are forbidden, and why was she singled out? To compare to her and say to you: Just as a childless brother’s wife is permitted, so too, all women with whom relations are forbidden are likewise permitted.
מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם: כְּלָל בְּאִיסּוּר, וּפְרָט בְּאִיסּוּר. הָכָא: כְּלָל בְּאִיסּוּר, וּפְרָט בְּהֶיתֵּר.
The Gemara raises an objection: Is it comparable? There, in the case cited as an example of this hermeneutical principle, the generalization, i.e., all offerings, are included in the prohibition against eating offerings while ritually impure, and the detailed case of peace-offerings is also included in the prohibition. Consequently, it can be said that the specific case was singled out to teach about the entire category. By contrast, here, in the case of levirate marriage with forbidden relatives, the generalization is included in the prohibition against engaging in forbidden relations, and yet the detailed case is permitted. Therefore, it cannot be said that the detail has been singled out so as to clarify some aspect of the general category; rather, its halakha differs from the rest.
הָא לָא דָּמֵי אֶלָּא לְדָבָר שֶׁהָיָה בַּכְּלָל, וְיָצָא לִידּוֹן בְּדָבָר הֶחָדָשׁ — שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לִכְלָלוֹ, עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִירֶנּוּ לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בְּפֵירוּשׁ. דְּתַנְיָא: דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בַּכְּלָל, וְיָצָא לִידּוֹן בְּדָבָר הֶחָדָשׁ — אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְהַחְזִירוֹ לִכְלָלוֹ, עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִירֶנּוּ לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בְּפֵירוּשׁ.
Instead, this case is comparable only to those that fit a different hermeneutical principle, concerning a matter that was included in a generalization but emerged to discuss a new matter. If a novel aspect or special ruling is taught with regard to a specific case within a broader general category, then you cannot return it to its generalization even for other matters, to the extent that this case has been entirely removed from the general category until the Torah explicitly returns it to its generalization. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a matter that was included in a generalization but emerged to discuss a new matter, you may not return it to its generalization until the Torah explicitly returns it to its generalization.
כֵּיצַד? ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט אֶת הַחַטָּאת וְאֶת הָעוֹלָה בִּמְקוֹם הַקֹּדֶשׁ כִּי כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם הוּא לַכֹּהֵן״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם״, וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם״?
How so? The baraita provides an example of this principle. With regard to the guilt-offering of a leper, the verse states: “And he shall slaughter the sheep in the place where they slaughter the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, in the place of the Sanctuary; for as the sin-offering is the priest’s, so is the guilt-offering” (Leviticus 14:13). As there is no need for the verse to state: “As the sin-offering…so is the guilt-offering,” since apparently this comparison does not teach anything new because the halakhot of guilt-offerings are already stated elsewhere (Leviticus 7:1–10), then what is the meaning when the verse states: “As the sin-offering…so is the guilt-offering”?
לְפִי שֶׁיָּצָא אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע לִידּוֹן בְּדָבָר הֶחָדָשׁ, בְּבֹהֶן יָד וּבֹהֶן רֶגֶל הַיְמָנִית. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא טָעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ —
Since the guilt-offering of a leper was specified from the general category of all guilt-offerings to discuss a new matter, i.e., that the blood is placed on the thumb of the right hand and the big toe of the right foot of the leper, one might have thought that this guilt-offering does not require placement of the blood and sacrificial parts on the altar, as for this guilt-offering the placement of blood on the leper is sufficient.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם הוּא״. מָה חַטָּאת טְעוּנָה מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ — אַף אָשָׁם טָעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.
Therefore, the verse states: “As the sin-offering…so is the guilt-offering” (Leviticus 7:13), to teach that just as the sin-offering requires placement of the blood and sacrificial parts on the altar, so too, the leper’s guilt-offering requires placement of the blood and sacrificial parts on the altar.
וְאִי לָא אַהְדְּרֵיהּ קְרָא — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לְמַאי דִּנְפַק — נְפַק, וּלְמַאי דְּלָא נְפַק — לָא נְפַק. הָכָא נָמֵי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אֵשֶׁת אָח דְּאִישְׁתְּרַא[י] — אִישְׁתְּרַאי, שְׁאָר עֲרָיוֹת — לָא.
The Gemara comments: And had the verse not explicitly restored this case of guilt-offering to its generalization, I would say: With regard to that which was excluded from the generalization as a novel ruling in this case, it was excluded, and with regard to that case which was not excluded, it was not excluded, and therefore the halakha would have been different in the various cases. Here, too, I would say: A brother’s wife who was permitted is permitted, whereas the other women with whom relations are forbidden were not permitted at all. Consequently, there is no proof from here that one might have thought that women with whom relations are forbidden are in fact permitted in levirate marriage.
אֶלָּא, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: תֵּיתֵי בְּ״מָה מָצִינוּ״ מֵאֵשֶׁת אָח. מָה אֵשֶׁת אָח מִיַּיבְּמָה — אַף אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה תִּתְיַיבֵּם.
§ Rather, the suggestion that other women with whom relations are usually forbidden might be permitted for levirate marriage was based on a different argument: It might enter your mind to say: Let this claim be derived by the hermeneutical principle of: What do we find with regard to, which is a principle of inductive reasoning involving a comparison between cases that include similar details. In other words, the halakha of all other women with whom relations are forbidden can be derived from that of a brother’s wife: Just as a brother’s wife enters levirate marriage, so too, a wife’s sister should enter into levirate marriage.
מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם חַד אִיסּוּרָא — הָכָא תְּרֵי אִיסּוּרֵי! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתְּרִי — אִישְׁתְּרִי.
The Gemara wonders about this: Is it comparable? How can one case be derived from the other? There, in the case of a brother’s wife, only one prohibition has been permitted, the prohibition with regard to a brother’s wife, whereas here, we are dealing with two prohibitions, both a brother’s wife and a wife’s sister. The Gemara answers: It is nevertheless necessary to refute this suggestion, lest you say: Since it is permitted, it is permitted. In other words, as the Torah permitted a brother’s wife in levirate marriage despite the fact that she is ordinarily forbidden, she remains permitted even if the additional prohibition with regard to a wife’s sister applies to her.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּאָמְרִינַן הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתְּרִי אִישְׁתְּרִי — דְּתַנְיָא: מְצוֹרָע שֶׁחָל שְׁמִינִי שֶׁלּוֹ בָּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח, וְרָאָה קֶרִי בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם, וְטָבַל, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין טְבוּל יוֹם אַחֵר נִכְנָס, זֶה — נִכְנָס.
And from where do you say that we state this reasoning of: Since it is permitted, it is permitted? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a leper whose eighth day, on which he becomes ritually pure from his leprosy and brings his last offerings to the Temple, occurs on the eve of Passover, and he experienced a seminal emission on that eighth day and then immersed in a ritual bath, the Sages said: Although any other individual who immersed himself that day for purification from his ritual impurity may not enter the Temple before sunset, this leper, who saw an emission of semen and immersed, may enter the Temple.
מוּטָב שֶׁיָּבֹא עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת וְיִדְחֶה עֲשֵׂה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה אֲפִילּוּ עֲשֵׂה לֵית בֵּיהּ,
The baraita explains the reason for this exception. It is better that a positive mitzva that includes karet, i.e., bringing the Paschal lamb at the right time, comes and overrides a positive mitzva that does not include karet, i.e., not entering the Temple in a state of ritual impurity. If the leper does not become purified of his leprosy he may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: By Torah law there is not even the overriding of a positive mitzva in this case of one who immersed himself during the day entering the Temple.
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּעֲמוֹד יְהוֹשָׁפָט בִּקְהַל יְהוּדָה לִפְנֵי הֶחָצֵר הַחֲדָשָׁה״. מַאי ״חָצֵר הַחֲדָשָׁה״? אָמַר (רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן): שֶׁחִדְּשׁוּ בָּהּ דְּבָרִים, וְאָמְרוּ: טְבוּל יוֹם לֹא יִכָּנֵס לְמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains his claim: As it is stated: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem, in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard” (II Chronicles 20:5). What is the meaning of “the new courtyard”? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is referring to the place where they issued new matters and said that one who immersed himself that day may not enter the camp of the Levites, which in Jerusalem is the Temple Mount, despite the fact that by Torah law no such prohibition applies.
וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: מַה טַּעַם? הוֹאִיל וְהוּתַּר לְצָרַעְתּוֹ — הוּתַּר לְקִרְויוֹ. מִי דָּמֵי לִדְעוּלָּא?
And with regard to this halakha itself, that a leper who experienced a seminal emission may nevertheless sacrifice offerings in the Temple, Ulla said: What is the reason that this is permitted to him? Since it is permitted for his leprosy, i.e., the Torah allowed him to enter the Temple Mount while still a leper to achieve full ritual purification, which requires that he sacrifice offerings, it is permitted with regard to his seminal emission as well. This shows that the tanna accepts the principle that as one prohibition is permitted, two prohibitions are likewise permitted. The Gemara rejects this argument: Is this assumption comparable to the case of Ulla?
