Yevamot 6a — the Talmud in English

For there would be no need to learn this from “I am the Lord,” since one must not obey a father’s command to desecrate Shabbat through an activity punishable by karet, such as when he says to him, “Slaughter for me,” or, “Cook for me,” on Shabbat.

Rather, “I am the Lord” comes to teach us that one may not obey them even to violate a

negative commandment

of

“leading an animal”

on Shabbat, which is not punishable by karet but is only a negative commandment.

This means that it is forbidden for a person to work with his animal [his donkey] on Shabbat—for example, by placing a load on it and leading it through the public domain [“leading” it].

The same applies to other activities that he does not perform himself, but instead causes his animal to perform.

The source of the prohibition is the verse, “You shall not perform any manner of work, you, your son, your daughter, your slave, your maidservant, your animal” [Exodus 20].

However, this is not included among the thirty-nine categories of labor on Shabbat for which one is liable to karet; it is only a prohibition against violating a negative commandment.

It follows that once again we have no source teaching that even a negative commandment punishable by karet is overridden by a positive commandment. The question therefore returns: Why is the word “her” needed to exclude a forbidden relative from the mitzva of levirate marriage?

The Gemara is surprised by the rejection of the proof:

If you say that “I am the Lord” comes to teach that one may not obey one’s father or mother when they command one to violate “leading an animal,” which is a negative commandment, a major difficulty arises:

Even so,

although this is only a negative commandment that is not punishable by karet,

it does not override

the prohibition against “leading an animal”!

If so, another major difficulty can be raised:

Rather,

this

principle that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment—

let us learn from here—

let us learn from this case

that a positive commandment does not override

a negative commandment at all.

And if you would say

to resolve this:

The negative commandments of Shabbat are different, because they are stringent,

as anyone who desecrates Shabbat is like one who worships idols. Therefore, even an ordinary negative commandment of Shabbat is not overridden by a mitzva.

There is still a difficulty:

But

we find a

Tanna

who

takes this as a general principle,

learning from the prohibition of Shabbat to other prohibitions in the world, that they are not overridden by a positive commandment.

And he does not raise the difficulty

that one cannot learn from the negative commandments of Shabbat, which are not overridden by a mitzva, because the negative commandments of Shabbat are more stringent.

As it was taught in a beraita: A person might think that if his father,

who is a

kohen,

commands his son: “Enter a cemetery and

become impure in order to return a lost item.” Or if he said to him: “Do not return”

a lost item,

might the son obey him

?

The verse therefore states:

[Leviticus 19]

“Every person shall fear his mother and his father, and you shall observe My Sabbaths

I am the Lord.”–

“I am the Lord”—

all of you are obligated in My honor!

But if the negative commandments of Shabbat are not overridden by the mitzva of honoring one’s father because they are more stringent, how does the Tanna in the beraita learn from Shabbat to the returning of a lost item?

Because of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts the interpretation that the beraita is referring to the negative commandment of leading an animal. Instead, it returns to its initial interpretation: the case concerns a father who commands his son to slaughter for him and cook for him on Shabbat.

This would provide a proof that only because the Torah says, “You shall observe My Sabbaths; I am the Lord” may the son not obey his father’s command to desecrate Shabbat, since both father and son are commanded to honor God, and honoring God takes precedence over honoring one’s father.

But as a matter of the general laws governing the overriding of prohibitions, a positive commandment overrides even a negative commandment punishable by karet. Therefore, the word “her” is necessary to teach that the mitzva of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition against forbidden relatives.

The Gemara raises another objection:

Rather,

there is still a difficulty: one cannot learn from the mitzva of honoring father and mother to the mitzva of levirate marriage,

because there is room to refute the comparison:

What is the special feature of these cases,

slaughtering and cooking on Shabbat for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzva of honoring father and mother,

that

they are

“preparation for a mitzva”!

In such a situation, when his father commands him to desecrate Shabbat for his father’s honor, the son cannot fulfill the mitzva of honoring his father unless he desecrates Shabbat. Thus, this desecration of Shabbat is “preparation for fulfilling the mitzva.” [“Preparation” means the exclusive means of making it possible].

Therefore, were it not for the exclusion in the verse, “I am the Lord,” the mitzva of honoring one’s father would override even the prohibition against labor on Shabbat, despite the fact that it is punishable by karet.

But in the mitzva of levirate marriage, intercourse with the levirate widow is not considered “preparation for a mitzva,” because the mitzva can be fulfilled without intercourse, since there is the option of performing chalitza for her. Therefore, one cannot learn from the mitzva of honoring father and mother that intercourse with a levirate widow who is a forbidden relative is permitted.

The question therefore returns: Why is the word “her” necessary?

The Gemara presents another approach:

Rather, it might have entered your mind to say that intercourse with a levirate widow who is a forbidden relative should be derived

from

the building of the Temple.

As it was taught in a beraita: One might think that the building of the Temple overrides Shabbat.

The verse therefore states:

[in Leviticus 19:3]

“You shall observe My Sabbaths, and you shall fear My Sanctuary

I am the Lord your God.”–

The verse teaches that

“all of you,”

even “the honor of the Sanctuary,”

are obligated in My honor.

The Gemara assumes:

Is it not so

that the beraita is dealing with

building and demolishing

on Shabbat for the purpose of building the Temple?

And the reason is that the Merciful One wrote, “You shall observe My Sabbaths

and you shall fear My Sanctuary—I am the Lord”;

but if not for this,

were it not for the special exclusion in the verse teaching that the building of the Temple does not override Shabbat because “all of you are obligated in My honor,”

it would override

the prohibition against labor on Shabbat, even in the labors of building and demolishing, for which one is liable to karet.

Therefore, the word “her” is necessary to teach that the mitzva of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition against a forbidden relative.

The Gemara rejects the proof:

No,

the verse was not needed to prohibit the labors of building and demolishing, because even without this verse we know that a positive commandment does not override a negative commandment punishable by karet.

Rather, the verse’s intention is to prohibit building the Temple on Shabbat even through the

negative commandment

of

“leading an animal,”

which is not punishable by karet; without the teaching of the verse, it would be overridden by the mitzva of building the Temple.

But the Gemara is surprised by this rejection, because if you interpret the teaching of the beraita as referring only to the negative commandment of leading an animal, a major difficulty arises:

Even so,

although this is only a negative commandment,

the mitzva of building the Temple does not override

the negative commandment of leading an animal!?

But rather,

this

principle that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment—

let us learn from here that a positive commandment does not override

a negative commandment at all!

And if you would say, the negative commandments of Shabbat are different, because they are stringent,

as one who desecrates Shabbat is like one who worships idols, and therefore they are not overridden by a positive commandment even when they are merely ordinary negative commandments without karet; one cannot learn from them to other negative commandments.

But

we find a

Tanna

who

takes this as a general principle,

learning from the negative commandments of Shabbat to other negative commandments that are not punishable by karet and are not overridden by the mitzva of honoring one’s father.

And he does not raise the difficulty!

We do not find that his words are challenged on the grounds of this distinction—that the negative commandments of Shabbat are more stringent and one cannot learn from them to other negative commandments.

As it was taught in a beraita: One might think that if his father,

who is a kohen, says to his son:

“Become impure

through contact with a corpse!”

Or if he said to him: “Do not return”

a lost item!

Might he obey him?

The verse therefore states: “Every person shall fear his mother and his father,

and you shall observe My Sabbaths; I am the Lord!”—

all of you are obligated in My honor!

Because of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts the rejection and says that the case indeed concerns the labors of building and demolishing.

At first glance, one could learn from the building of the Temple that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment punishable by karet. Therefore, the word “her” would be necessary to say that in the case of levirate marriage, the mitzva of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition against the forbidden relative.

But the Gemara presents another rejection:

Rather,

there is still no proof from here concerning levirate marriage.

Because there is room to refute the comparison: What is the special feature of these cases,

building and demolishing in the Temple,

that

they are

“preparation for a mitzva”!

For it is impossible to build the Temple on Shabbat without violating the labor of building. Therefore, were it not for the teaching from “I am the Lord,” the mitzva of building the Temple would override the prohibition against labor on Shabbat.

But this does not prove anything concerning the mitzva of levirate marriage, because intercourse is not considered “preparation for a mitzva,” since it is possible to perform chalitza for her.

The Gemara asks: If “I am the Lord” comes to say that even

preparation for a mitzva

does not override Shabbat, why did the verse have to repeat, concerning the building of the Temple, “You shall observe My Sabbaths and you shall fear My Sanctuary; I am the Lord,” in order to teach that the mitzva of building the Temple does not override Shabbat!?

It would have been enough for it to write, “Every person shall fear his mother and his father, and you shall observe My Sabbaths—I am the Lord,” to teach that even preparation for the mitzva of honoring one’s father does not override Shabbat, since “you and your father are obligated in My honor,” and

it follows for me—

from there!

From there, from the case of honoring one’s father, we could learn that the mitzva of the Temple also does not override Shabbat even when it is “preparation for a mitzva” [since it is impossible to build on Shabbat without violating the labor of building].

And if, nevertheless, the verse repeated the matter concerning the building of the Temple, saying that it does not override Shabbat because of the exclusion in the verse, “I am the Lord”—all of you are obligated in My honor—it follows that the verse came to teach that were it not for the special exclusion concerning building the Temple on Shabbat, the mitzva of building the Temple would override Shabbat even if it were not preparation for a mitzva.

Therefore, the word “her” is necessary to say that the mitzva of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition against a forbidden relative.

The Gemara resolves the difficulty, and consequently there is again no proof from here that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment punishable by karet:

Indeed, that is so:

the fact that the building of the Temple does not override Shabbat even though it is preparation for a mitzva is learned from the preparation for the mitzva of honoring one’s father, which does not override Shabbat.

And as for what we asked:

“You shall observe My Sabbaths and you shall fear My Sanctuary”—

why is it needed?

It is needed for that which was taught in a beraita:

One might think that a person should fear the Sanctuary.

The verse therefore states: “You shall observe My Sabbaths, and you shall fear My Sanctuary.”

“Observation” is stated with regard to Shabbat, and “fear

is stated with regard to the Sanctuary.

The verse equated them by writing them together in one verse, to teach you: