## Yevamot Daf 5a

###### Yevamot 5a:1
[Yevamot 5a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5a:1)

תִּינַח לְתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. לְרַבָּנַן, מְנָא לְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara comments: **This works out well** with regard to that **which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught,** that all garments mentioned in the Torah are composed of linen or wool. However, **according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who do not accept this opinion, **from where do they** derive the principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition? As stated previously, the conclusion that the positive mitzva to place fringes on a garment overrides the prohibition against mixing linen and wool is derived from a free expression in a biblical verse; however, the expression is free for interpretation only in the opinion of the *tanna* from the school of Rabbi Yishmael.


###### Yevamot 5a:2
[Yevamot 5a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5a:2)

נָפְקָא לְהוּ מֵ״רֹאשׁוֹ״. דְּתַנְיָא: ״רֹאשׁוֹ״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תַקִּיפוּ (אֶת) פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אַף מְצוֹרָע כֵּן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **They derive it from** the verse mentioned with regard to the *halakhot* of the purification of a leper from his leprosy [*tzara’at*]: “And it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off **his head** and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off” (Leviticus 14:9). **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: Since it states “all his hair,” **what** is the meaning when **the verse states “his head”?** The *baraita* explains that **as it is stated: “You shall not round the corners of your heads”** (Leviticus 19:27), i.e., it is prohibited to shave the corners of the head, **I** would **derive** that **even a leper is** included in this prohibition.


###### Yevamot 5a:3
[Yevamot 5a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5a:3)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״רֹאשׁוֹ״. וְקָא סָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא הַקָּפַת כׇּל הָרֹאשׁ שְׁמָהּ הַקָּפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states** explicitly: **“His head,”** to teach that the mitzva that a leper must shave overrides the prohibition against rounding the corners of one’s head by shaving. The Gemara adds: **And this *tanna* holds** that **the shaving of the entire head is considered rounding.** Some Sages maintain that one violates the prohibition against rounding the corners of his head only when he leaves some hair intact and removes the corners alone. Conversely, this *tanna* holds that even when one removes all of the hair on the head, as a leper does when he performs his ritual shaving, as this act includes the corners, he thereby transgresses the prohibition against rounding the corners. This demonstrates that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.


###### Yevamot 5a:4
[Yevamot 5a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5a:4)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְלָאו דְּהַקָּפָה, שֶׁכֵּן לָאו שֶׁאֵין שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection against that claim. This proof **can be refuted: What** about the fact **that the prohibition against rounding** is specific **in that this prohibition is not equally applicable for all,** as it does not apply to women, and therefore other cases cannot be derived from it? One cannot learn from this *halakha* that a positive mitzva that applies only to some people overrides even a prohibition that applies equally to all people.


###### Yevamot 5a:5
[Yevamot 5a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5a:5)

אֶלָּא: אָתְיָא מִ״זְּקָנוֹ״. דְּתַנְיָא: ״זְקָנוֹ״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אַף כֹּהֵן מְצוֹרָע כֵּן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זְקָנוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara provides an alternative suggestion: The principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition **is derived from** the superfluous phrase: **“His beard”** (Leviticus 14:9). **As it is taught** in a different *baraita*: **What** is the meaning when **the verse states: “His beard”?** After all, a beard is already included in the phrase: “All his hair.” The *baraita* answers: **As it is stated** with regard to priests: **“Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard”** (Leviticus 21:5), **I** would **derive** that **even a leper who is a priest is included** in this prohibition against shaving his beard. Therefore, **the verse states “his beard”** in the case of a leper.


###### Yevamot 5a:6
[Yevamot 5a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5a:6)

וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְלָאו שֶׁאֵין שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְלָאו הַשָּׁוֶה בַּכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, the shaving of one’s beard is also a prohibition that is not equally applicable for all, as it does not apply to women. Therefore, it is necessary to develop this argument further. **And if** this derivation from the term “his beard” **is not** referring to **the matter of a prohibition that is not equally applicable for all,** as the principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition that does not apply equally for all has already been derived from the phrase “his head,” then the repetition of this specific scenario must serve to expand upon the teaching. Consequently, **refer it to the matter of a prohibition that is equally applicable for all,** i.e., that a positive mitzva that is not equally applicable for all overrides even prohibitions that apply equally to all people.


###### Yevamot 5a:7
[Yevamot 5a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5a:7)

וְאַכַּתִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: שָׁאנֵי כֹּהֲנִים, הוֹאִיל וְרִיבָּה בָּהֶן הַכָּתוּב מִצְוֹת יְתֵירוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ לָאו שֶׁאֵין שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל לָא דָּחֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּדָחֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **Still,** it **is necessary** for the verse to state: “His beard.” This phrase is not in fact superfluous at all, as it has a novelty: It could **enter your mind to say** that **priests are different; since the verse includes for them additional mitzvot** it is appropriate to be more stringent with them, and therefore one might think that a positive mitzva should **not even override a prohibition that is not equally applicable for all.** Consequently, the verse states: “His beard,” and it thereby **teaches us that** even with regard to priests a positive mitzva **overrides** a prohibition that is not equally applicable for all. This means that the principle that a positive mitzva overrides even a prohibition that is equally applicable for all cannot be derived from here.


###### Yevamot 5a:8
[Yevamot 5a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5a:8)

אֶלָּא, אָתְיָא מֵ״רֹאשׁוֹ״ דְּהָךְ תַּנָּא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״רֹאשׁוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״תַּעַר לֹא יַעֲבוֹר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אַף מְצוֹרָע וְנָזִיר כֵּן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״רֹאשׁוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rather,** the Gemara rejects this line of reasoning in favor of an alternative answer. The principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition **is derived** from a different interpretation of the phrase **“his head,”** cited **by this *tanna*. As it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “He shall shave all his hair off his head” (Leviticus 14:9); **what** is the meaning when **the verse states: “His head”?** The *baraita* explains: **As it is stated** with regard to a nazirite: **“No razor shall come upon his head”** (Numbers 6:5), **I** would **derive** that **even a leper who is a nazirite** is prohibited from shaving his head upon purification. Therefore, **the verse states: “His head.”** This teaches that the positive mitzva for a leper to shave overrides the prohibition of a nazirite.


###### Yevamot 5a:9
[Yevamot 5a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5a:9)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְנָזִיר מְצוֹרָע שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּשְׁאֵלָה. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי — הָא דְּקַיְימָא לַן דְּאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds that this proof **can be refuted** as well: **What** about the fact that the prohibition of a nazirite is not especially severe, **as a leprous nazirite can request** to have his nazirite vow dissolved by a Sage? Since he can nullify the prohibition against shaving, this prohibition is evidently not very severe, and therefore one cannot prove anything with regard to all of the prohibitions of the Torah from this case. The Gemara adds: **As, if you do not say this,** that the prohibitions of a nazirite are not as severe as other prohibitions, **that** halakhic ruling **that we maintain** that **a positive mitzva does not override** both **a prohibition and a positive mitzva** would be negated.


###### Yevamot 5a:10
[Yevamot 5a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5a:10)

לִיגְמַר מִנָּזִיר! אֶלָּא, מִנָּזִיר מַאי טַעְמָא לָא גָּמְרִינַן, דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּשְׁאֵלָה. הָכִי נָמֵי אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּשְׁאֵלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the previous claim: **Let us derive** the opposite of this principle **from** the case of **a nazirite,** as in this case the positive mitzva for a leper to shave apparently overrides both the positive mitzva for a nazirite to grow hair and the prohibition against shaving. **Rather, what is the reason** that **we do not derive** this principle **from** the case of **a nazirite?** The reason is **that there is room to refute** this proof in the aforementioned manner: One cannot learn from a nazirite, **as** a leprous nazirite **can request** to have his nazirite vow dissolved. **So too, there is room to refute** the proof from the *halakha* of a nazirite that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition, **as** he **can request** to have his vow dissolved.


###### Yevamot 5a:11
[Yevamot 5a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5a:11)

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ If so, no proof can be brought from the case of a nazirite. **Rather,** the Gemara offers a different explanation: **Actually,**