ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 5
YEVAMOS 5 - generously sponsored by Lee and Marsha Weinblatt of Teaneck,
N.J. -- may Hashem protect them and all that is theirs!
We just learned 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' from the Semuchim "Lo Silbash
Sha'atnez ... Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach". But that Derashah is learned by Tana
de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael exclusively. The Rabbanan disagree with it - because,
according to them, "Tzemer u'Fishtim", is not Mufneh (seeing as Begadim does
not necessarily mean wool or linen).
(a) The Pasuk writes in Kedoshim "Lo Sakifu Pe'as Roshchem". We learn from
the Pasuk "Rosho" - that the Mitzvah of a Metzora shaving off all the hair
of his head overrides the La'av of "Lo Sakifu ... ".
(b) This Tana must hold 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Sh'mah Hakafah' - because, if
he did not, then he would not require a Pasuk to permit shaving the hair of
a Metzora, seeing as by shaving off all his hair (which the Torah requires),
he does not contravene the La'av of "Lo Sakifu" anyway.
(c) We reject this as a source for 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' - because the
La'av that is being overridden ("Lo Sakifu") is a La'av that does *not*
pertain to everyone (i.e. women are Patur, as the Gemara explains in
Kidushin), so we could not from it La'avin that *do*.
(d) We know that the woman too, is Chayav for transgressing the La'av of
Achos Ishah - because of the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "ve'Nichresu ha'Nefashos
ha'Osos", which by virtue of the plural form used, implies that the woman
who is guilty of incest is Chayav no less than the man.
(a) The Torah writes "u'Pe'as Zekanam Lo Yegaleichu" - by Kohanim.
(b) The significance of the Pasuk "Zekano" is - that the obligation of a
Kohen who is a Metzora to shave off his beard, overrides the La'av of
"u'Pe'as Zekanam Lo Yegaleichu".
(c) We try to use this as our source for 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh', in spite
of having just refuted a similar proof, on the basis of a similar La'av
(that of 'Lo Sakifu') being a 'La'av she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol' - because we do
not require two sources to teach us 'Asei Docheh La'av she'Eino Shaveh
ba'Kol', so we apply the second Pasuk ('Im Eino Inyan') to a 'La'av
(d) We refute this proof, too - on the grounds that Kohanim are different
(because they have many extra Mitzvos), and we would therefore have thought
that the Mitzvah of shaving off their hair will *not* even override a La'av
she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol. So the Pasuk is needed to teach us that it *does*
(but it is not superfluous to learn from it that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh
(a) So we try to use as our source (for 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh') the
Beraisa which says that "Rosho" of Metzora overrides the Lo Sa'aseh of Nazir
"Ta'ar Lo Yavo Al Rosho". But we reject this proof too - on the grounds
that the La'av of a Nazir is perhaps less stringent, because it is possible
to have his Nazarite vow (together with any Mitzvos attached to it),
(b) We prove this refutation - on the grounds that, if this was a genuine
source for 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh', then we ought to go further and learn
from here that an Asei can even override a La'av together with an Asei
(because a Nazir has the additional Asei of "ke'Chol ha'Yotzei mi'Piv
Ya'aseh"), a ruling which we know to be incorrect.
(a) So we revert to our original Pasuk to learn 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'
(even according to the Rabbanan of Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael) from the
S'muchim of "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez ... Gedilim Ta'aseh Lecha". We first try
to learn it from the word "Gedilim" - and what makes "Gedilim" Mufneh is
that the Torah could have written "Tzitzis".
(b) We reject this however, on the grounds that "Gedilim" is needed - to
teach us that Tzitzis comprises four threads (because 'Gedil' implies a
minimum of *two*, and 'Gedilim' turns this into four - part Gedil and part
Pesil [which we learn from "Tzitzis"] - see Menachos 39b. Rashi there and
Shitah Mekubetzes. See also Tosfos here DH 'Gedilim').
(c) "Yachdav" too, is not Mufneh - because we learn from it that the two
materials must be properly joined (sewn with at least two stitches), in
order to be Chayav.
(d) We initially reject the contention that the word "Sha'atnez" is
Mufneh - because we need it to Darshen 'Shu'a Tavuy and Nuz' (which we will
We ultimately conclude that "Sha'atnez" is Mufneh after all - because
otherwise, the Torah should have written "Shu'a, Tavuy ve'Nuz", instead of
the shortened version of "Sha'atnez".
- ... Shu'a - smooth (i.e. combed together - see Tosfos DH 'Ad', regarding all three terms).
- ... Tavuy - spun.
- ... Nuz - woven.
(a) We now need to prove that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' even by a La'av
she'Yesh Bo Kareis (in order that "Alehah" should be required to preclude
Achos Ishto from the Mitzvah of Yibum). Despite the fact that it overrides
Shabbos, we cannot learn this from ...
1. ... B'ris Milah - which is special (and perhaps therefore different than
an ordinary Asei such as Yibum) inasmuch as Hashem made thirteen B'risos
with Yisrael on its account.
(b) Neither can we learn it from a combination of ...
2. ... Korban Pesach - because its Shechitah overrides Shabbos (making it
special (and possibly different than an ordinary Asei).
3. ... Korban Tamid - which is a regular (daily) Mitzvah (and therefore
special and different).
1. ... Pesach and Milah - because both of them carry a Chiyuv Kareis.
(c) The Tana who learns that the Olah that they brought at Har Sinai was not
the Olas Tamid might indeed learn 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh she'Yesh Bo
Kareis' from these two. According to him, the Olah that they brought at Har
Sinai was an Olas Re'iyah.
2. ... Pesach and Tamid - both of which are Tzorech Gavo'ah (for the needs
of Hashem [Ke'vayachol] as opposed to Yibum, which is for the needs of the
Yavam and the Yevamah).
3. ... Milah and Tamid - since they were both practiced already before Matan
(d) We cannot learn 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh she'Yesh Bo Kareis' from all
three, Milah, Pesach and Tamid - because all three were already practiced
before Matan Torah.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ish Imo ve'Aviv Tira'u, ve'es
Shabsosai Tishmoru, *Ani Hashem*" - that, seeing as parents are no less
obligated to obey Hashem than their children, they have no authority to
order their children to break Shabbos (or anything else that contravenes
Hashem's word for that matter).
(b) We try to learn from there that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh she'Yesh Bo
Kareis' - by inferring that, were it not for "Ani Hashem", one would be
obligated to obey his parents and break Shabbos, which is a 'La'av she'Yesh
(c) We refute this proof - by establishing Shabbos to mean the La'av of
Mechamer (driving one's donkey, for which there is *no* Kareis), rather than
other Melachos, for which there *is*.