יבמות 5 — parallel

5:1

This is satisfactory according to the view of the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael; as to the Rabbis, however, how do they arrive at the deduction? — They derive it from his head; for it was taught: [Scripture stated], 'His head'; what need was there for it? — Whereas it has been stated, Ye shall not round the corners of your head, one might infer that [this law applies to] a leper also, hence it was explicitly stated, his head; and this Tanna is of the opinion that rounding all the head is also regarded as 'rounding'. This [conclusion, however,] may be refuted: The reason why the prohibition of 'rounding' [may be superseded is] because it is not applicable to everybody! — But [the inference] is derived from his beard; as it was taught: 'His beard'; what need was there for stating it? — Whereas it was said, Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard, one might infer that this prohibition applies also to a leprous priest, hence it was explicitly stated, 'his beard'. And since there is no object in applying it to a prohibition which is not incumbent upon everybody, let it be applied to a prohibition which is incumbent upon all. But this 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having imposed upon them additional commandments, and so even a prohibition which does not apply to everybody is not superseded in their case; [therefore] it was necessary to teach us that it does supersede. — In truth the inference comes from 'his head' [in the manner deduced by] the following Tanna. For It was taught: His head: what need was there for mentioning it? Whereas Scripture had stated, There shall no razor come upon his head, one might infer that the same prohibition is applicable to a leprous nazirite also, hence it was explicitly stated, 'his head'. This, 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. For, were not this the reason, what then of the accepted rule, that no positive precept may supersede a negative and positive precept combined; why not deduce the contrary from the law of the [leprous] nazirite? 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'! — The deduction, in fact, is made

—

5:2

from the first cited text: Since Scripture could have used the expression, Thou shalt make thee fringes, what need was there for that of 'twisted cords'? Consequently it must have been intended for the purpose of allowing that text to be used for the deduction. But this is required for the determination of the number [of threads, thus]: 'Twisted cord' implies two threads, [and so] 'twisted cords' implies four threads, therefore, one twisted cord is to be made [of the four] and from the middle of it separate threads are to hang down! — If so, Scripture should have stated, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff wool and linen: what need was there to add 'together'? Consequently it must have been intended for the purpose of allowing a free text for the deduction. But this text too is required for the deduction that two stitches form a combination and that one stitch does not! — If so, the All Merciful should have written, Thou shalt not wear wool and linen together; what need was there for inserting 'mingled stuff'? Hence it must be concluded that the purpose was to allow a free text for deduction. But is not this text still required [for the deduction that 'mingled stuff' is not forbidden] unless it was hackled, spun and twisted? — But [the fact is that] all this is deduced from the expression of 'mingled stuff'. So far it has been shewn that a positive precept supersedes a mere prohibition; where, however, do we find that it supersedes also a prohibition involving kareth, and that in consequence [the explicit expression] ''aleha' should be required to forbid it? And if it be replied that this might be deduced from circumcision, [it may be retorted]: Circumcision stands in a different category, for concerning it thirteen covenants were made! From the paschal lamb? — The paschal lamb also stands in a different category since it too involves kareth! From the daily offering? — The daily offering also stands in a different category since it is also a regular [offering]! [Now though] it cannot be derived from one it might be derived from two. From which shall it be derived? [If the reply is]: Let it be derived from circumcision and the paschal lamb, [it may be retorted]: These also involve kareth. From the paschal lamb and the daily offering? — Both are also intended for the Most High. From circumcision and the daily offering? — Both were also in force before the giving of the law, this being according to the view of him who holds that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the daily burnt-offering. Nor [can the derivation be made] from all of them, since they were all in force before the giving of the law. But [this is the reason for] the need of a special text: It might have been assumed that this should be derived from the precept of honouring one's father and mother; for it was taught: Since one might have assumed that the honouring of one's father and mother should supersede the Sabbath, it was explicitly stated, Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father, and ye shall keep My Sabbaths, it is the duty of all of you to honour Me. Now is not the case in point one where the parent said to him, 'Slaughter for me', or 'Cook for me'; and the reason [why the parent must not be obeyed is] because the All Merciful has written, 'Ye shall keep my Sabbaths', but had that not been so it would have superseded? — No;

—