Yevamot 9

תינח לתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל לרבנן מנא להו

This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deduction from semukim that a positive precept supersedes a negative one. ');">¹</span> is satisfactory according to the view of the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since on the lines of his interpretation the text, 'wool and linen' is superfluous and consequently free for the deduction mentioned. ');">²</span> as to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who do not interpret 'garment' as denoting such as is of wool and flax. ');">³</span>

נפקא להו מראשו דתניא (ויקרא יד, ט) ראשו מה תלמוד לומר לפי שנאמר (ויקרא יט, כז) לא תקיפו (את) פאת ראשכם שומע אני אף מצורע כן

however, how do they arrive at the deduction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text, 'wool and linen', being required for the completion of the plain meaning of the text, there remains no superfluous expression for the deduction. V. supra n. 2. ');">⁴</span> — They derive it from his head;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 9, dealing with the purification of the leper. ');">⁵</span> for it was taught: [Scripture stated], 'His head';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 9, dealing with the purification of the leper. ');">⁵</span>

תלמוד לומר ראשו וקא סבר האי תנא הקפת כל הראש שמה הקפה

what need was there for it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was previously stated, and shave off all his hair (Lev. XIV, 8) which obviously includes that of the head. ');">⁶</span> — Whereas it has been stated, Ye shall not round the corners of your head,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX. 27. ');">⁷</span> one might infer that [this law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to round the corners of the head. ');">⁸</span>

איכא למיפרך מה ללאו דהקפה שכן לאו שאין שוה בכל

applies to] a leper also, hence it was explicitly stated, his head;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Indicating that, despite the general prohibition, it is the leper's duty to round his head. ');">⁹</span> and this Tanna is of the opinion that rounding all the head is also regarded as 'rounding'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the text speaks of rounding the corners. Such a rounding then, though generally forbidden, is in the case of a leper, permitted, because Scripture explicitly stated 'shave all the hair of his head' (Lev. XIV, 9). Thus it has been proved that the positive precept of the shaving of the leper supersedes the prohibition of rounding off one's head. Similarly, in the case of the levirate marriage, it might have been assumed that the positive precept of marrying the deceased brother's widow supersedes the prohibition of marrying a wife's sister; hence the necessity for a special text (v. supra 3b end and p. 10, n. 7) to prove that it does not. ');">¹⁰</span> This [conclusion, however,] may be refuted: The reason why the prohibition of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what as to the negative (command)'. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא אתיא מזקנו דתניא (ויקרא יד, ט) זקנו מה תלמוד לומר לפי שנאמר (ויקרא כא, ה) ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו שומע אני אף כהן מצורע כן ת"ל זקנו

'rounding' [may be superseded is] because it is not applicable to everybody!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'equal in all'; women being exempt. (V. Kid. 35b). The prohibition of the marriage of a wife's sister, however, is applicable to the man and to the woman, the brother-in-law as well as the sister-in-law. ');">¹²</span> — But [the inference] is derived from his beard;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which also occurs in the regulations for the purification of the leper. (V. Lev. XIV, 9). ');">¹³</span> as it was taught: 'His beard';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which also occurs in the regulations for the purification of the leper. (V. Lev. XIV, 9). ');">¹³</span>

ואם אינו ענין ללאו שאין שוה בכל תנהו ענין ללאו השוה בכל

what need was there for stating it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that it was previously mentioned (Lev. XIV, 8) that the leper must 'shave off all his hair', which obviously includes that of his beard. ');">¹⁴</span> — Whereas it was said, Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 5. ');">¹⁵</span> one might infer that this prohibition applies also to a leprous priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of shaving the corners of one's head having been addressed to the priests. V. Lev. XXI, 1ff. ');">¹⁶</span>

ואכתי איצטריך סד"א שאני כהנים הואיל וריבה בהן הכתוב מצות יתירות אפילו לאו שאין שוה בכל לא דחי קמ"ל דדחי

hence it was explicitly stated, 'his beard'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Indicating that in the case of a leprous priest the precept of shaving supersedes the prohibition of 'shaving'. ');">¹⁷</span> And since there is no object in applying it to a prohibition which is not incumbent upon everybody,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That such a prohibition is superseded by a positive precept having been deduced supra from 'his head'. ');">¹⁸</span> let it be applied to a prohibition which is incumbent upon all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it has been proved that a positive precept supersedes any prohibition even if the latter is generally applicable. Marriage between a levir and his deceased brother's widow who is his wife's sister might, consequently, have been assumed to be permitted had not an explicit text pointed to its prohibition. ');">¹⁹</span>

אלא אתיא מראשו דהך תנא דתניא ראשו מה ת"ל לפי שנאמר (במדבר ו, ה) תער לא יעבור על ראשו שומע אני אף מצורע ונזיר כן ת"ל ראשו

But this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text, 'his beard'. ');">²⁰</span> is still required [for its own context]! For since it might have been assumed that as priests are different from [other people]. Scripture having imposed upon them additional commandments, and so even a prohibition which does not apply to everybody is not superseded in their case; [therefore] it was necessary to teach us that it does supersede.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, can the same text which is required for the purpose mentioned also be used for a general deduction. ');">²¹</span> — In truth the inference comes from 'his head' [in the manner deduced by] the following<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., '(manner) of that'. ');">²²</span>

איכא למיפרך מה לנזיר מצורע שכן ישנו בשאלה דאי לא תימא הכי הא דקיימא לן דאין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה

Tanna. For It was taught: His head:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 9. ');">²³</span> what need was there for mentioning it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra, p. 16, n. 7. ');">²⁴</span> Whereas Scripture had stated, There shall no razor come upon his head,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 5 dealing with the laws of the nazirite. ');">²⁵</span>

ליגמר מנזיר אלא מנזיר מ"ט לא גמרינן דאיכא למיפרך שכן ישנו בשאלה ה"נ איכא למיפרך שכן ישנו בשאלה

one might infer that the same prohibition is applicable to a leprous nazirite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashal. Cur. edd. read, 'leper and nazirite'. ');">²⁶</span> also, hence it was explicitly stated, 'his head'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it is proved that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition. Cf. supra, note 7. ');">²⁷</span> This,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deduction from the nazirite. ');">²⁸</span>

אלא לעולם

however, may be refuted: The reason why a [leprous] nazirite [may shave his head] is because he is also in a position to obtain absolution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. [H] 'request', i.e., the nazirite may request a qualified person to disallow his vow and thus avoid the prohibition of shaving. ');">²⁹</span> For, were not this the reason,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if you will not say so'. ');">³⁰</span> what then of the accepted rule,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that which is established for us'. ');">³¹</span> that no positive precept may supersede a negative and positive precept combined; why not deduce the contrary from the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'let it be deduced'. ');">³²</span> of the [leprous] nazirite?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The shaving of a nazirite's head is forbidden (a) by the precept that he must grow his hair long and (b) by the prohibition of allowing a razor to come upon his head. ');">³³</span> Consequently, [it must be conceded that] the reason why no deduction may be made [from the law of the nazirite is] because it may be refuted [on the grounds] that in his case absolution is possible; so here also the refutation may be advanced, 'Since in his case absolution is possible'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence, then, is it proved that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition? ');">³⁴</span> — The deduction, in fact, is made