Yevamot 11

Chapter 11

א לאו דמחמר ואפי' הכי לא דחי

1 this is a case1 of ass driving.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where a father ordered his son to desecrate the Sabbath by driving an ass; a prohibition which, unlike slaughtering or cooking, does not involve the penalty of kareth. V. Shab. 154a. ');">2 And [you say that] it does not supersede3

ב אלא דקיימא לן דאתי עשה ודחי לא תעשה ליגמר מהכא דלא לידחי

2 even in such a case?4 But then what of the generally accepted rule that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition. Should it not be inferred from this case that it does not supersede!5 And if it be replied that the prohibitions of the Sabbath are different6

ג וכ"ת שאני לאוי דשבת דחמירי והא תנא בעלמא קאי ולא קפריך

3 because they are more stringent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the infringement of any one of the laws of the Sabbath is regarded as the sin of idolatry (v. 'Er. 69b), even a mere prohibition which does not involve kareth, cannot be superseded by a positive precept. ');">7 surely the following Tanna, [it may be pointed out,] speaks of prohibitions generally8 yet no one advances any objection.9

ד דתניא יכול אמר לו אביו היטמא או שאמר לו אל תחזיר יכול ישמע לו ת"ל (ויקרא יט, ג) איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמורו כולכם חייבין בכבודי

4 For it was taught: Since it might have been assumed that if his father had said to him,10 'Defile yourself',11 or if he said to him, 'Do not restore,'12

ה אלא משום דאיכא למיפרך

5 he must obey him, it was explicitly stated, Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and ye shall keep my Sabbaths,13 it is the duty of all of you to honour Me!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it has been shewn that prohibitions generally may be compared with those of the Sabbath. The suggestion, therefore, that the parents' order supra concerned the performance of the act of ass driving is untenable. If, consequently, the order must have consisted of a request to perform an act involving the penalty of kareth, that case well supplies a satisfactory answer to the question (supra 5b) as to what need was there for the text, ''aleha', in Lev. XVIII, 18. ');">14 — The real reason15

ו מה להנך שכן הכשר מצוה

6 is because this objection may be advanced: Those16 are in a different category17 since they are also essentials in the execution of the precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is a preparation of the precept'. The precept of honouring a father cannot possibly be performed by the son unless he actually executes the act of slaughtering or of cooking, which he has been ordered by his father to do, so that the fulfilment of the positive precept (honouring one's parents) is entirely dependent on its superseding the prohibition (that, e.g., of cooking). Hence it was necessary to have an explicit text to indicate that, even in such a case, a positive precept does not supersede a prohibition. In the case of the levirate marriage, however, the infringement of the prohibition is not absolutely essential to the fulfilment of the precept, since, instead of the marriage, halizah may be arranged, and the question remains, what need is there of the verse ''aleha'. ');">18

ז אלא סד"א תיתי מבנין בית המקדש דתניא יכול יהא בנין בית המקדש דוחה שבת ת"ל (ויקרא יט, ל) את שבתותי תשמורו ומקדשי תיראו כולכם חייבין בכבודי

7 But [the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the text, ''aleha' (Lev. XVIII, 18) was needed to indicate that wherever the deceased childless brother's widow was the living brother's forbidden relative no levirate marriage must take place. ');">19 is because] it might have been assumed that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a positive precept supersedes a prohibition involving kareth and consequently that the levirate marriage may take place even in such a case (v. previous note). ');">20 should be derived from the precept of the building of the Sanctuary. For it was taught: Since it might have been assumed that the building of the Sanctuary should supersede the Sabbath, it was explicitly stated, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary;21

ח מאי לאו בבונה וסותר וטעמא דכתב רחמנא את שבתותי תשמורו הא לאו הכי דחי

8 it is the duty of all of you to honour Me. Now is not the case in point one of [a father's order to his son to] build or to demolish,22 and yet the reason [why it does not supersede the Sabbath is] because the All Merciful has written, 'Ye shall keep My Sabbaths',23 but had that not been written it would have superseded?24

ט לא לאו דמחמר ואפילו הכי לא דחי ואלא דקיימא לן דאתי עשה ודחי ל"ת ליגמר מהכא דלא דחי

9 — No; the case in point is one of ass driving.25 And [you say] that it26 does not supersede a prohibition even in such a case?27

י וכ"ת שאני לאוי דשבת דחמירי והא תנא בעלמא קאי ולא קא פריך דתניא יכול אמר לו אביו היטמא או שאמר לו אל תחזיר יכול ישמע לו תלמוד לומר איש אמו ואביו תיראו וגו' כולכם חייבים בכבודי

10 But what of the generally accepted rule that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition? Should we not infer from this case that it does not supersede! And if it be replied that the prohibitions of the Sabbath are different28 because they are of a more stringent nature,29 surely the following Tanna [it may be pointed out] speaks of prohibitions generally30

יא אלא משום דאיכא למיפרך מה להנך שכן הכשר מצוה הכשר מצוה תיפוק לי מהתם

11 yet no one advances any refutation.31 For it was taught: Since it might have been assumed that if his father had said to him,32 'Defile yourself',33

יב אין הכי נמי ואת שבתותי תשמורו ומקדשי תיראו למה לי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא יכול יתיירא אדם ממקדש תלמוד לומר את שבתותי תשמורו ואת מקדשי תיראו נאמרה שמירה בשבת ונאמרה מורא במקדש מה שמירה האמורה בשבת

12 or if he said to him, 'Do not restore,'34 he must obey him, hence it was explicitly stated, Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father etc.,35 it is the duty of all of you to honour Me!36 — The true reason37 is because this objection may be advanced: Those38 are in a different category39 since they are also essentials in the execution of the precept.40 [But the law relating to] essentials in the execution of a precept could be derived from the previously cited text!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from there', from Lev. XIX, 3, and this superfluous text serves to extend the principle of a positive precept superseding a negative precept involving kareth to a case such as levirate marriage. Hence the need of the text ''aleha'. ');">41 — That is so indeed. What need, then, was there for the text, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary?23 — It is required for the following deduction:42 As it might have been imagined that a man should reverence the Sanctuary, it was explicitly stated in the Scriptures, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary;23 the expression of 'keeping' was used in relation to the Sabbath and [in the same verse] that of 'reverence' in relation to the Sanctuary [in order that the following comparison may be made]: As in the case of 'keeping' used in relation to the Sabbath

Previous Chapter Next Chapter