Yevamot 6aיבמות ו׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Yevamot 6a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
6aו׳ א

לאו דמחמר ואפי' הכי לא דחי

the reference is not to a situation where a father demanded that his child perform prohibited labor on Shabbat that entails karet. Rather, he instructed him to transgress the prohibition against driving a laden animal. Although it is prohibited to cause animals to work on Shabbat, this does not entail the penalty of karet, as it has the status of a regular prohibition. And this shows that if one’s father told him to desecrate Shabbat by driving a donkey, even so, the positive mitzva to honor one’s parents does not override the prohibition against driving a laden animal.

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

§ The Gemara asks: If so, rather than that principle in which we maintain that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition, let us derive from here that it does not override even a regular prohibition. Just as it was inferred above from the case of ritual fringes, in which the positive mitzva overrides the prohibition against diverse kinds, that all other positive mitzvot similarly override any prohibition, perhaps one should infer from the case of honoring one’s parents that positive mitzvot do not override prohibitions at all.

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

And if you say that one should not infer this from here, as the prohibitions of Shabbat are different in that they are more serious, and for this reason the mitzva to honor one’s parents does not override these prohibitions, this cannot be the case, as the tanna speaks generally of a father who instructs a son to perform a regular prohibition, not to desecrate Shabbat, and he does not raise any difficulty of this kind.

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

As it is taught in a different baraita: One might have thought that if one’s father said to his son, who is a priest or nazirite: Be rendered ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, so as to bring me an item from a ritually impure place, or if he said to him: Do not return this lost item, it might have been supposed that his son should obey him. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall fear every man his mother and his father and you shall keep My Shabbatot, I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:3). This verse teaches: All of you are obligated in My honor. This proves that the tanna does not differentiate between desecrating Shabbat, which is a severe prohibition, and a priest becoming ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, which is a lighter prohibition.

אלא משום דאיכא למיפרך

§ Rather, the Gemara rejects this line of reasoning and accepts the claim that the baraita does not speak of one whose father asked him to desecrate Shabbat by performing a prohibited labor that entails karet, but of a father who instructed his son to drive a laden animal. As for the difficulty that this apparently indicates that a positive mitzva does not override any type of prohibition, the reason that this is not the case is because there is room to refute this argument.

מה להנך שכן הכשר מצוה

The Gemara explains how the previous claim can be countered: What about the fact that these instructions of a father are different, as when one drives an animal on Shabbat in honor of his parents this is merely preparation for the mitzva of honoring one’s parents, since the son is not actually feeding or clothing his father at the time. Consequently, this is not a proper fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and therefore the case of a father who instructs his son to drive an animal cannot be used as a source with regard to other instances.

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

Rather, it could enter your mind to say: The principle that a positive mitzva overrides even a prohibition that entails karet is derived from the building of the Temple. As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that the building of the Temple should override Shabbat; therefore, the verse states: “You shall keep My Shabbatot and revere My Sanctuary, I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:30), which means that all of you are obligated in My honor. God is honored when Shabbat is observed, and He demands the observance of Shabbat even when the Temple is being built.

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

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What, is it not referring to building the Temple by performing prohibited labors on Shabbat whose violation entails karet, such as building and demolishing? And the reason the building of Temple does not override Shabbat is that the Merciful One specifically writes: “Keep My Shabbatot,” from which it may be inferred that if that were not so, the positive mitzva would override Shabbat. It is therefore possible to deduce from here that in general, positive mitzvot override even prohibitions that entail karet.

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

The Gemara responds: No, here too the reference is to the prohibition against driving a laden animal, and even so the positive mitzva to build the Temple does not override the prohibition against driving a laden animal on Shabbat. The Gemara asks again, as before: If so, rather than that principle in which we maintain that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition, let us derive from here that it does not override even a regular prohibition.

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

And if you say that prohibitions of Shabbat are different in that they are more severe, this cannot be the case, as the tanna speaks generally and he does not raise any difficulty of this kind as it is taught in the aforementioned baraita: One might have thought that if one’s father said to his son who is a priest or nazirite: Be rendered ritually impure, or if he said to him: Do not return this lost item, it might have been supposed that his son should obey him. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall fear every man his mother and his father and you shall keep My Shabbatot, I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:3), which means: All of you are obligated in My honor.

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

Rather, there is no proof from here with regard to all Torah prohibitions, because there is room to refute that argument as follows: What about the fact that these instances of driving an animal on Shabbat are merely a preparation for the mitzva of building the Temple, and is not a mitzva in itself? The Gemara raises a difficulty: Let the halakha that preparation for a mitzva does not override a prohibition be derived from there, the case of honoring one’s parents, as stated previously. Why repeat this matter with regard to the building of the Temple?

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

The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so. And why do I need the verse: “You shall keep My Shabbatot, and revere My Sanctuary” (Leviticus 19:30)? After all, the halakha that the building of the Temple does not override the prohibition against driving an animal on Shabbat is derived from the case of honoring one’s parents. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to derive that which is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that a person should be in reverence of the Temple and turn the Temple itself into an object of worship. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall keep My Shabbatot, and revere My Sanctuary.” The term keeping is stated with regard to Shabbat, and the term reverence is stated with regard to the Temple. Just as in the case of keeping stated with regard to Shabbat,