יד מאי אולמיה דהאי עשה מהאי עשה סלקא דעתך הואיל ואמר מר גדול שלום שבין איש לאשתו שהרי אמרה תורה שמו של הקב"ה שנכתב בקדושה ימחה על המים
14 Moreover, according to R'Judah who maintains that the precept of letting [the dam] go was intended only in the first instance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on finding a bird's nest a man should immediately let the dam go, for as soon as he takes up the dam he thereby transgresses the law for which he incurs forty stripes (v. next Mishnah) . Thereafter he is not obliged to let her go at all, but may use it for any purpose.');"><sup>20</sup></span> there is now [after the transgression of the law] not even a positive precept!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It, therefore, cannot be suggested that the man had transgressed the law and taken the dam, for then according to R. Judah it may be used for all purposes.');"><sup>21</sup></span> - Rather, said Mar son of R'Ashi, we suppose the case where a man took up the dam in order to let it go, in which case there is no infringement of the negative precept; there is, however, a positive precept and [it might be suggested that] the positive precept [of the leper's offering] should override this positive precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By taking the dam he has not infringed the negative precept, since he took it for the purpose of letting it go, and even if he does not let it go it cannot be said that he has transgressed this negative precept retroactively. There now remains incumbent upon him the positive precept of letting it go, but this would be overridden if he were to retain it for the fulfilment of the positive precept of the leper's offering. The verse is therefore necessary to exclude this possibility.');"><sup>22</sup></span> But in what way is this positive precept more potent than that?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should the precept of the leper's offering be considered more important so as to override the precept of letting the dam go?');"><sup>23</sup></span>