Previous daf

1) 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).

2)

(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 ha'Shaveh ba'Kol'.

(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 ha'Shaveh ba'Kol'.

(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), nullified.

(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.

5)

(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 now explain.

1. ... Shu'a - smooth (i.e. combed together - see Tosfos DH 'Ad', regarding all three terms).
2. ... Tavuy - spun.
3. ... Nuz - woven.

8)

(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.
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).

(b) Neither can we learn it from a combination of ...

1. ... Pesach and Milah - because both of them carry a Chiyuv Kareis.
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 Torah.

(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.

(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 Bo Kareis'.

(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*.