Yevamot 13

ומה עבודה שהיא חמורה ודוחה שבת רציחה דוחה אותה שנאמר (שמות כא, יד) מעם מזבחי תקחנו למות שבת שנדחת מפני עבודה אינו דין שתהא רציחה דוחה אותה

If the Temple service which is of high importance and supersedes the Sabbath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Labour prohibited on the Sabbath may be performed in connection with the service of the Temple. ');">¹</span> is itself superseded by [a death sentence for] murder, as it is said, Thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 14. This is taken to mean that he may he removed from the altar even if he has to perform service thereon. ');">²</span>

ומאי או אינו דקאמר ה"ק קבורת מת מצוה תוכיח שדוחה את העבודה ואין דוחה את השבת הדר אמר קבורת מת מצוה תדחה שבת מק"ו ומה עבודה שהיא דוחה שבת קבורת מת מצוה דוחה אותה

how much more reasonable is it that the Sabbath which is superseded by the Temple service should be superseded by [a death sentence for] murder'. How, then, could it be said, 'Or it might rather [etc.]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 6b. Since the inference was made a minori ad majus how could anyone dispute it? ');">³</span> — He means this: The burial of a meth mizwah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴</span>

מולאחותו שבת שנדחה מפני עבודה אינו דין שתהא קבורת מת מצוה דוחה אותה ת"ל (שמות לה, ג) לא תבערו

might prove [the contrary], since it supersedes the Temple service<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest may defile himself by the burial of a meth mizwah though he thereby becomes disqualified from performing the Temple service. V. Meg. 3b. ');">⁵</span> and does not nevertheless supersede the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Burial is forbidden on the Sabbath. So also, it could be argued, the execution of a death sentence, though it supersedes the Temple service, need not necessarily supersede the Sabbath. ');">⁶</span>

ולמאי דסליק אדעתיה מעיקרא דאתי עשה ודחי ל"ת מאי או אינו דקאמר

Then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Saying again, 'Or it might rather etc.', supra 6b. ');">⁷</span> he argued: It might be inferred a minori ad majus that the burial of a meth mizwah should supersede the Sabbath, [thus]: If the Temple service which super sedes the Sabbath is superseded by the burial of a meth mizwah, by deduction from Or for his sister,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 7; v. Meg. 3b. ');">⁸</span>

ה"ק מה אני מקיים (שמות לא, יד) מחלליה מות יומת בשאר מלאכות חוץ ממיתת ב"ד אבל מיתת ב"ד דחי שבת דאתי עשה ודחי ל"ת

how much more should the Sabbath which is superseded by the Temple service be superseded by the burial of a meth mizwah; hence it was explicitly stated, Ye shall kindle no fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXV, 3. ');">⁹</span> [etc].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the continuation, v. supra 6b. ');">¹⁰</span>

הדר אמר אימר דאמרינן דאתי עשה ודחי לא תעשה לא תעשה גרידא ל"ת שיש בו כרת מי שמעת ליה דדחי הדר אמר אטו עשה דוחה את ל"ת לאו לא תעשה חמור מיניה וקאתי עשה ודחי ליה

According to our previous assumption, however, that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition, what is meant by, 'Or it might rather [etc.]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 27, n. 8. How, in view of this assumption, could any other conclusion be arrived at? ');">¹¹</span> — It is this that was meant: 'As regards the application of the text, Every one that profaneth it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sabbath. ');">¹²</span>

מה לי חומרא זוטא ומה לי חומרא רבה ת"ל לא תבערו

shall surely be put to death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXI, 14. ');">¹³</span> it might have been said to apply to the several kinds of labour other than the execution of a judicial death sentence, but that a judicial death sentence does supersede the Sabbath, for a positive precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the man worthy of death be put to death (v. Deut. XXI, 22). ');">¹⁴</span>

אלא [איצטריך] סד"א תיהוי האי אשת אח דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא ללמד על הכלל כולו יצא

supersedes the prohibition. Then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By saying again, 'Or it might rather', supra 6b. ');">¹⁵</span> he argued: It might be suggested that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition in the case of a mere prohibition only; has it, however, been heard to supersede a prohibition which involves <i>kareth</i>? Then he concluded: 'Even where<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH, a.l. ');">¹⁶</span>

דתניא דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל וכו' כיצד

a positive precept supersedes a prohibition, is not the prohibition of a more serious nature than the precept?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A transgression of the prohibition involves the serious penalty of flogging, while the non-performance of the precept is no punishable offence. ');">¹⁷</span> And yet the positive precept comes and supersedes the prohibited; on what grounds, then, should a distinction be made between a minor and a major prohibition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a positive precept supersedes an ordinary prohibition so it should also supersede one which involves kareth. ');">¹⁸</span>

(ויקרא ז, כ) והנפש אשר תאכל בשר מזבח השלמים וטומאתו עליו והלא שלמים בכלל קדשים היו ולמה יצאו להקיש אליהן ולומר לך מה שלמים מיוחדים קדשי מזבח אף כל קדשי מזבח יצאו קדשי בדק הבית

Hence it was explicitly stated, Ye shall kindle no fire<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXV, 3. ');">⁹</span> [etc.].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 3. ');">¹⁹</span>

הכא נמי הא אשת אח בכלל כל העריות היתה ולמה יצתה להקיש אליה ולומר לך מה אשת אח שריא אף כל עריות נמי שריין

But<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now that it is concluded that the need of the Scriptural text prohibiting the execution of a death sentence on Sabbath is because otherwise the permissibility thereof might have been argued a minori, and not on the ground of the principle that a positive command supersedes a prohibition, there is no proof available for the assumption that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition which involves kareth, and thus the original question again arises: What need was there for the specific text of Lev. XVIII, 18, ''aleha' (supra p. 8), to indicate the obvious? (i.e., that the positive precept of the levirate marriage does not supersede the prohibition of marrying a consanguineous relative). ');">²⁰</span> [this is the reason why a specific text] was needed:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note. ');">²¹</span>

מי דמי התם כלל באיסור ופרט באיסור הכא כלל באיסור ופרט בהיתר

It might have been assumed that this [case of a] brother's wife should be regarded as a subject which was included in a general proposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of incest, Lev. XVIII, 29. ');">²²</span> and was subsequently singled out in order to predicate another law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage of the widow of a deceased childless brother. ');">²³</span>

הא לא דמי אלא לדבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לידון בדבר החדש שאי אתה יכול להחזירו לכללו עד שיחזירנו לך הכתוב בפירוש דתניא דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לידון בדבר החדש אי אתה רשאי להחזירו לכללו עד שיחזירנו לך הכתוב בפירוש

the predication of which is not intended to apply to itself alone but to the whole of the general proposition. For it was taught: 'A subject which was included in a general proposition and was subsequently singled out, etc. How [is this to be understood]? But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings [that pertain unto the Lord], having his uncleanness upon him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 20. ');">²⁴</span> were not peace-offerings included among the other holy things?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 3, where the penalty of kareth is pronounced for eating consecrated things during one's uncleanness. ');">²⁵</span>

כיצד (ויקרא יד, יג) ושחט את הכבש במקום אשר ישחט את החטאת ואת העולה במקום הקדש כי כחטאת האשם הוא לכהן שאין ת"ל כחטאת האשם ומה ת"ל כחטאת האשם

Why, then, were they subsequently singled out? In order that [the others] may be compared to them, and in order to tell you that as peace-offerings are distinguished by being consecrated objects of the altar so must also all other things<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the eating of which during one's uncleanness the penalty of kareth is incurred. ');">²⁶</span> be consecrated objects of the altar, the objects consecrated for Temple repair only being excluded.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ker. 2b. If these were eaten by one in a state of uncleanness no obligation is incurred. ');">²⁷</span>

לפי שיצא אשם מצורע לידון בדבר החדש בבהן יד ובהן רגל הימנית יכול לא יהא טעון מתן דמים ואימורים לגבי מזבח

Similarly here it might have been argued:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reading with BaH [H]. Cur. edd. retain [H] with no sign of abbreviation. ');">²⁸</span> Since a brother's wife was included among all the other forbidden relatives, why was she singled out? In order that [the others] may be compared to her, and in order to tell you that as a brother's wife is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be married to the levir if her husband died childless. ');">²⁹</span> so also are all the other forbidden relatives permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note. A text was consequently needed to intimate that the law was not so, ');">³⁰</span> Are these, however, similar? There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of consecrated objects. ');">³¹</span> both the general proposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 3. ');">³²</span> and the particular specification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 20. ');">²⁴</span> relate to a prohibition, but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Levirate marriage and forbidden relatives. ');">³³</span> the general proposition relates to a prohibition while the particular specification relates to something which is permitted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, could the two be compared? ');">³⁴</span> This, surely, is rather to be compared to an object that was included in a general proposition and was subsequently singled out in order to be made the subject of a fresh statement, which you cannot restore to the restrictions of the general proposition unless Scripture specifically restores it; for it was taught: Anything which was included in a general proposition and was subsequently excluded in order to be made the subject of a fresh statement, cannot be restored to the restrictions of the general proposition unless Scripture has explicitly restored it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, as the case of a brother's wife has not been restored to the general proposition, what need was there for the specific text of Lev. XVIII, 18? ');">³⁵</span> How<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the continuation of the quotation. ');">³⁶</span> [may this principle be illustrated]? And he shall kill the he-lamb in the place where they kill 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 13, dealing with the leper's guilt-offering. ');">³⁷</span> Now since there was no need to state, 'As the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the place of killing was indicated at the beginning of the verse while the other regulations concerning this sacrifice are found in the laws of the guilt-offering in Lev. VII, 1ff. ');">³⁸</span> why did Scripture explicitly state. As the sin-offering so the guilt-offering? Because seeing that the guilt-offering of the leper was singled out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the laws relating to other guilt-offerings. ');">³⁹</span> in order to impart a new law concerning the thumb of the right hand and the great toe of the right foot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XIV, 14. ');">⁴⁰</span> it might have been assumed that it required no application of blood to, and no burning of the prescribed portions of the sacrifice upon the altar;