יבמות 6 — parallel

6:1

this is a case of ass driving. And [you say that] it does not supersede even in such a case? But then what of the generally accepted rule that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition. Should it not be inferred from this case that it does not supersede! And if it be replied that the prohibitions of the Sabbath are different because they are more stringent, surely the following Tanna, [it may be pointed out,] speaks of prohibitions generally yet no one advances any objection. For it was taught: Since it might have been assumed that if his father had said to him, 'Defile yourself', or if he said to him, 'Do not restore,' he must obey him, 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! — The real reason is because this objection may be advanced: Those are in a different category since they are also essentials in the execution of the precept. But [the reason is because] it might have been assumed that this should be derived from the precept of the building of the Sanctuary. For it was taught: Since it might have been assumed that the building of the Sanctuary should supersede the Sabbath, it was explicitly stated, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary; it is the duty of all of you to honour Me. Now is not the case in point one of [a father's order to his son to] build or to demolish, and yet the reason [why it does not supersede the Sabbath is] because the All Merciful has written, 'Ye shall keep My Sabbaths', but had that not been written it would have superseded? — No; the case in point is one of ass driving. And [you say] that it does not supersede a prohibition even in such a case? But what of the generally accepted rule that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition? Should we not infer from this case that it does not supersede! And if it be replied that the prohibitions of the Sabbath are different because they are of a more stringent nature, surely the following Tanna [it may be pointed out] speaks of prohibitions generally yet no one advances any refutation. For it was taught: Since it might have been assumed that if his father had said to him, 'Defile yourself', or if he said to him, 'Do not restore,' he must obey him, hence it was explicitly stated, Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father etc., it is the duty of all of you to honour Me! — The true reason is because this objection may be advanced: Those are in a different category since they are also essentials in the execution of the precept. [But the law relating to] essentials in the execution of a precept could be derived from the previously cited text! — That is so indeed. What need, then, was there for the text, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary? — It is required for the following deduction: As it might have been imagined that a man should reverence the Sanctuary, it was explicitly stated in the Scriptures, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary; the expression of 'keeping' was used in relation to the Sabbath and [in the same verse] that of 'reverence' in relation to the Sanctuary [in order that the following comparison may be made]: As in the case of 'keeping' used in relation to the Sabbath

—

6:2

one does not reverence the Sabbath but Him who ordered the observance of the Sabbath, so in the case of 'reverence' used in relation to the Sanctuary, one is not to reverence the Sanctuary but Him who gave the commandment concerning the Sanctuary. And what is regarded as the 'reverence of the Sanctuary'? — A man shall not enter the Temple mount with his stick, shoes or money bag or with dust upon his feet, nor may he use it for making a short cut; and spitting [is there forbidden] by inference a minori ad majus. This, however, might apply only to the time when the Sanctuary was in existence; whence is it deduced that the same holds good of the time when the Sanctuary no longer exists? It was expressly stated in Scripture, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary; as the 'keeping' that was used in relation to the Sabbath holds good forever, so also the 'reverence' used in relation to the Sanctuary must hold good forever. Really [the reason is because] it might have been assumed that this should be derived from the prohibition of kindling a fire [on the Sabbath]. For a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: Wherefore was it stated, Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations? 'Wherefore 'was it stated'! Surely if one is to follow R. Jose, Granted, however, [that it is according to the view of] R. Jose, might it not be suggested that R. Jose said that 'kindling a fire [on the Sabbath] is mentioned separately in order to indicate that it is a mere prohibition' [in the case only of] ordinary burning; the burning by the Beth din, [however, is surely a case of] boiling of the metal bar concerning which R. Shesheth said that there is no difference between the boiling of a metal bar and the boiling of dyes? — R. Shimi b. Ashi replied: This Tanna [requires Scriptural texts] not because elsewhere he holds that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition, but because this might have been obtained by inference a minori ad majus; and it is this that he meant to say: 'As regards the application of the text, Every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death, it might have been said to apply to the several kinds of labour other than that of the execution of a judicial death sentence, but that a judicial death sentence does supersede the Sabbath, by inference a minori ad majus:

—