overrides

For the Law ranks above affection for parents, so that a man may not for their sakes surrender his virtue, and it overrides love for a wife, so that if she transgress a man should rebuke her, and it governs love for children, so that if they are naughty a man should punish them, and it controls the claims of friendship, so that a man should reprove his friends if they do evil.

Rabbi Eliezer said: is it not logical: if slaughtering, which is [usually forbidden] as a labor, overrides Shabbat, shouldn’t these, which are [only forbidden] as mandated rest (shevut), override Shabbat? Rabbi Joshua said to him: let the festival prove this, for they permitted labor [on the festival] and forbade [activities forbidden because of] shevut. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: what is this, Joshua? What proof is a voluntary act in respect of a commandment! Rabbi Akiva answered and said: let sprinkling [purificatory waters] prove it, which is [performed] because it is a commandment and is [forbidden only] as a shevut, yet it does not override Shabbat; so you too, do not wonder at these, that though they are [required] on account of a commandment and are [forbidden only] as shevut, yet they do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: but in respect of that I am arguing: if slaughtering, which is a labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that sprinkling, which is [only] a shevut, should override Shabbat! Rabbi Akiva said to him: or the opposite: if sprinkling, which is [forbidden] as a shevut, does not override Shabbat, then slaughtering, which is [normally forbidden] on account of labor, is it not logical that it should not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva! You are uprooting what is written in the Torah, “at twilight, offer it at its set time” (Numbers 9:3), both on week-days and on Shabbat. He said to him: master, give me an appointed time for these as there is an appointed season for slaughtering! Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule: work which could be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughtering, which could not be done on the eve of Shabbat, does override Shabbat.

Rabbi Eliezer said: is it not logical: if slaughtering, which is [usually forbidden] as a labor, overrides Shabbat, shouldn’t these, which are [only forbidden] as mandated rest (shevut), override Shabbat? Rabbi Joshua said to him: let the festival prove this, for they permitted labor [on the festival] and forbade [activities forbidden because of] shevut. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: what is this, Joshua? What proof is a voluntary act in respect of a commandment! Rabbi Akiva answered and said: let sprinkling [purificatory waters] prove it, which is [performed] because it is a commandment and is [forbidden only] as a shevut, yet it does not override Shabbat; so you too, do not wonder at these, that though they are [required] on account of a commandment and are [forbidden only] as shevut, yet they do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: but in respect of that I am arguing: if slaughtering, which is a labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that sprinkling, which is [only] a shevut, should override Shabbat! Rabbi Akiva said to him: or the opposite: if sprinkling, which is [forbidden] as a shevut, does not override Shabbat, then slaughtering, which is [normally forbidden] on account of labor, is it not logical that it should not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva! You are uprooting what is written in the Torah, “at twilight, offer it at its set time” (Numbers 9:3), both on week-days and on Shabbat. He said to him: master, give me an appointed time for these as there is an appointed season for slaughtering! Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule: work which could be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughtering, which could not be done on the eve of Shabbat, does override Shabbat.

If one is seized by a ravenous hunger, they feed him even unclean things until his eyes light up [and he returns to health]. If one was bit by a mad dog, they do not feed him the lobe of its liver. But Rabbi Matia ben Harash permits it. Moreover Rabbi Matia ben Harash said: if one has pain in his throat, they may drop medicine into his mouth on Shabbat, because it is a possibility of danger to human life and every potential danger to human life overrides Shabbat.

[If one says,] “Konam that I do not benefit from the Children of Noah,” he may benefit from Israelites, and he is forbidden to benefit from the nations of the world. [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from the seed of Abraham,” he is forbidden [to benefit] from Israelites, but permitted [to benefit] from the nations of the world. [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from Israelites”, he may buy things from them for more [than their worth] and sell them for less. [If he says, “Konam] if Israelites benefit from me, he must buy from them for less and sell for more [than their worth], if they will listen to him. [If he says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from them, nor they from me”, he may benefit only from non-Jews. [If one says,] “Konam that I do not benefit from the uncircumcised”, he may benefit from uncircumcised Israelites but not from circumcised heathens”; [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from the circumcised,” he is forbidden to benefit from uncircumcised Israelites but not from circumcised non-Jews, because “uncircumcised” is a term applicable only to non-Jews, as it says, “For all the nations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart” (Jeremiah 9:25). And it says, “And this uncircumcised Philistine shall be [as one of them]” (I Samuel 17:6). And it says, “Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult” (II Samuel 1:20). Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: The foreskin is loathsome, since it is a term of disgrace for the wicked, as it says, “For all the nations are uncircumcised”. Rabbi Ishmael says: Great is circumcision, since thirteen covenants were made upon it. Rabbi Yose says: Great is circumcision, for it overrides the Sabbath. Rabbi Joshua ben Karha says: Great is circumcision for Moses’s punishment for neglecting it was not suspended even for one hour. Rabbi Nehemiah says: Great is circumcision, since it overrides the laws of leprosy. Rabbi says: Great is circumcision, for despite all of the commandments which Abraham fulfilled he was not designated complete until he circumcised himself, as it says, “Walk before me, and be complete” (Genesis 17:1). Another explanation: “Great is circumcision, for were it not for it, the Holy One, Blessed Be He, would not have created the world, as it says, “Were it not for my covenant by day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25).

[If one says,] “Konam that I do not benefit from the Children of Noah,” he may benefit from Israelites, and he is forbidden to benefit from the nations of the world. [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from the seed of Abraham,” he is forbidden [to benefit] from Israelites, but permitted [to benefit] from the nations of the world. [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from Israelites”, he may buy things from them for more [than their worth] and sell them for less. [If he says, “Konam] if Israelites benefit from me, he must buy from them for less and sell for more [than their worth], if they will listen to him. [If he says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from them, nor they from me”, he may benefit only from non-Jews. [If one says,] “Konam that I do not benefit from the uncircumcised”, he may benefit from uncircumcised Israelites but not from circumcised heathens”; [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from the circumcised,” he is forbidden to benefit from uncircumcised Israelites but not from circumcised non-Jews, because “uncircumcised” is a term applicable only to non-Jews, as it says, “For all the nations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart” (Jeremiah 9:25). And it says, “And this uncircumcised Philistine shall be [as one of them]” (I Samuel 17:6). And it says, “Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult” (II Samuel 1:20). Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: The foreskin is loathsome, since it is a term of disgrace for the wicked, as it says, “For all the nations are uncircumcised”. Rabbi Ishmael says: Great is circumcision, since thirteen covenants were made upon it. Rabbi Yose says: Great is circumcision, for it overrides the Sabbath. Rabbi Joshua ben Karha says: Great is circumcision for Moses’s punishment for neglecting it was not suspended even for one hour. Rabbi Nehemiah says: Great is circumcision, since it overrides the laws of leprosy. Rabbi says: Great is circumcision, for despite all of the commandments which Abraham fulfilled he was not designated complete until he circumcised himself, as it says, “Walk before me, and be complete” (Genesis 17:1). Another explanation: “Great is circumcision, for were it not for it, the Holy One, Blessed Be He, would not have created the world, as it says, “Were it not for my covenant by day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25).

A nazirite who was in doubt whether he had been defiled and in doubt whether he had been a confirmed leper, may eat consecrated food after sixty days, and drink wine and come into contact with the dead after one hundred and twenty days, since shaving on account of leprosy overrides [the prohibition against] the shaving of the nazirite only when [the leprosy] is certain, but when it is doubtful it does not override it.

One may reap on account of the saplings or in order to make a house for mourners or in order not to interrupt the bet hamidrash. One may not bind them in bundles but one may leave them in small heaps. The mitzvah of the omer is that it should be brought from the standing grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from the sheaves. The mitzvah is that it should be brought from moist (fresh) grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from dry grain. The mitzvah is that it should be reaped at night. If it was reaped at day it is valid. And it overrides the Shabbat.

The two loaves were eaten never earlier than on the second day and never later than on the third day. How so? [Normally] they were baked on the day before the festival and eaten on the festival, that is, on the second day. If the festival fell on the day after Shabbat, they would be eaten on the third day. The showbread was eaten never earlier than on the ninth day and never later than on the eleventh day. How so? [Normally] it was baked on the day before Shabbat and eaten on Shabbat [of the following week], that is on the ninth day. If a festival fell on the day before Shabbat, it would be eaten on the tenth day. If the two days of Rosh Hashanah [fell before Shabbat], it would then be eaten on the eleventh day. [Baking] overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy [high priest]: it overrides the festival but not the fast day (Yom Kippur).

The two loaves were eaten never earlier than on the second day and never later than on the third day. How so? [Normally] they were baked on the day before the festival and eaten on the festival, that is, on the second day. If the festival fell on the day after Shabbat, they would be eaten on the third day. The showbread was eaten never earlier than on the ninth day and never later than on the eleventh day. How so? [Normally] it was baked on the day before Shabbat and eaten on Shabbat [of the following week], that is on the ninth day. If a festival fell on the day before Shabbat, it would be eaten on the tenth day. If the two days of Rosh Hashanah [fell before Shabbat], it would then be eaten on the eleventh day. [Baking] overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy [high priest]: it overrides the festival but not the fast day (Yom Kippur).

Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: When Israel entered the Land and found there green grain standing, would that have been forbidden as new? He said to him, why not? So far green, even dry? He said to him, even dry, even cut. Then even grain in storage! So I am saying, Israel should not have eaten maẓẓot in the Passover nights! Rebbi Jonah said, after I left there, I wondered that I did not say to him, it is different because a positive commandment overrides a prohibition. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition even if it is not written next to it, it is understood. But according to Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition only if it is written next to it? What Gentile traders sold them, or following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said, any “coming” mentioned in the Torah means after 14 years, seven of their conquest, seven of the distribution. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana objected: Is it not written (Jos. 5:11): “They ate from the produce of the Land the day after the Pesaḥ,” on the sixteenth! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose objected before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written (Num. 33:3): “The day after the Pesaḥ, the Children of Israel left with raised hand before the eyes of all of Egypt.” Not on the fifteenth?

Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: When Israel entered the Land and found there green grain standing, would that have been forbidden as new? He said to him, why not? So far green, even dry? He said to him, even dry, even cut. Then even grain in storage! So I am saying, Israel should not have eaten maẓẓot in the Passover nights! Rebbi Jonah said, after I left there, I wondered that I did not say to him, it is different because a positive commandment overrides a prohibition. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition even if it is not written next to it, it is understood. But according to Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition only if it is written next to it? What Gentile traders sold them, or following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said, any “coming” mentioned in the Torah means after 14 years, seven of their conquest, seven of the distribution. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana objected: Is it not written (Jos. 5:11): “They ate from the produce of the Land the day after the Pesaḥ,” on the sixteenth! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose objected before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written (Num. 33:3): “The day after the Pesaḥ, the Children of Israel left with raised hand before the eyes of all of Egypt.” Not on the fifteenth?

Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: When Israel entered the Land and found there green grain standing, would that have been forbidden as new? He said to him, why not? So far green, even dry? He said to him, even dry, even cut. Then even grain in storage! So I am saying, Israel should not have eaten maẓẓot in the Passover nights! Rebbi Jonah said, after I left there, I wondered that I did not say to him, it is different because a positive commandment overrides a prohibition. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition even if it is not written next to it, it is understood. But according to Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition only if it is written next to it? What Gentile traders sold them, or following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said, any “coming” mentioned in the Torah means after 14 years, seven of their conquest, seven of the distribution. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana objected: Is it not written (Jos. 5:11): “They ate from the produce of the Land the day after the Pesaḥ,” on the sixteenth! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose objected before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written (Num. 33:3): “The day after the Pesaḥ, the Children of Israel left with raised hand before the eyes of all of Egypt.” Not on the fifteenth?

On the day" even on Shabbat; "First" even in the Provinces; "The first" this teaches that it overrides only the first day of the Festival.

But if so, ought it not override [the Shabbat] on any day? [If that were done] people would come to hold the lulav in light esteem. Let it [the aravah] override [Shabbat] on the first day of the Festival? It will not be clear [that it is the aravah that overrides Shabbat, for] people might say that it is the lulav which overrides it.

But if so, ought it not override [the Shabbat] on any day? [If that were done] people would come to hold the lulav in light esteem. Let it [the aravah] override [Shabbat] on the first day of the Festival? It will not be clear [that it is the aravah that overrides Shabbat, for] people might say that it is the lulav which overrides it.

He raised an objection against him: The lulav overrides Shabbat on the first day, and the aravah on the last day. On time the seventh day of the [ritual of the] aravah fell on Shabbat, and they brought saplings of aravot on the eve of Shabbat and placed them in the courtyard of the Temple. The Boethusians discovered them and took them and hid them under some stones.

The next day the ammei ha’aretz discovered them and removed them from under the stones, and the priests brought them in and stood them up on the sides of the altar. For the Boethusians do not admit that the beating of the aravah overrides Shabbat.

Our Rabbis taught: The [playing of the] flute overrides the Shabbat, the words of R. Yose bar Judah. But the Sages say: It does not override even the Festival. R. Yoseph said: The dispute concerns only the song that accompanied the sacrifices, since R. Yose holds that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is with an instrument, so it is considered Temple service and it overrides the Shabbat, whereas the Rabbis hold that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is the singing by voice, so the [playing of the instruments] is not considered Temple service and does not, therefore, override Shabbat But with regard to the singing at the Festival of Water-Drawing, all agree that it is a just an expression of rejoicing and does not, therefore, override the Sabbath.

Our Rabbis taught: The [playing of the] flute overrides the Shabbat, the words of R. Yose bar Judah. But the Sages say: It does not override even the Festival. R. Yoseph said: The dispute concerns only the song that accompanied the sacrifices, since R. Yose holds that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is with an instrument, so it is considered Temple service and it overrides the Shabbat, whereas the Rabbis hold that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is the singing by voice, so the [playing of the instruments] is not considered Temple service and does not, therefore, override Shabbat But with regard to the singing at the Festival of Water-Drawing, all agree that it is a just an expression of rejoicing and does not, therefore, override the Sabbath.

R. Yirmiyah b. Abba said that the dispute concerns only the music at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, since R. Yose b. Judah holds that even an added expression of rejoicing overrides the Shabbat, while the Rabbis hold that an added expression of rejoicing does not override [either] the Shabbat [or the Festival], but as regards the music which accompanied the sacrifices, all agree that it is [an integral part of] the worship and it overrides the Shabbat.

R. Yirmiyah b. Abba said that the dispute concerns only the music at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, since R. Yose b. Judah holds that even an added expression of rejoicing overrides the Shabbat, while the Rabbis hold that an added expression of rejoicing does not override [either] the Shabbat [or the Festival], but as regards the music which accompanied the sacrifices, all agree that it is [an integral part of] the worship and it overrides the Shabbat.

They raised an objection: [It was taught:] The music which accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah overrides Shabbat, the words of R. Yose b. Judah. The sages, however, rule that it does not override even the Festival. Is not this a refutation of R. Joseph? It is indeed a refutation.

Can we also say that they dispute only concerning the music which accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, but that with regard to the music that accompanied the sacrifices all agree that it overrides Shabbat, and this would, therefore, constitute a double refutation of R. Joseph?

R. Joseph could answer you: They dispute concerning the music that accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah and the same applies also to [that which accompanied] the sacrifices, and the reason that they disagree with regard to the Simchat Bet Hashoevah was in order to inform you of the extent of the view of R. Yose b. Judah, that even the music of the Simchat Bet Hashoevah overrides [the Shabbat].

But didn’t we teach: This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah, which overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival day. This [playing] does not override the Shabbat, but the playing which accompanied the sacrifices does override [the Shabbat]? Now whose view is it? If you were to say that it is that of R. Yose b. Judah, did he not state that the playing which accompanies the Simchat Bet Hashoevah also overrides Shabbat? Consequently it must be, the view of the Rabbis, and thus there is a double refutation of R. Joseph? It is indeed a refutation.

But didn’t we teach: This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah, which overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival day. This [playing] does not override the Shabbat, but the playing which accompanied the sacrifices does override [the Shabbat]? Now whose view is it? If you were to say that it is that of R. Yose b. Judah, did he not state that the playing which accompanies the Simchat Bet Hashoevah also overrides Shabbat? Consequently it must be, the view of the Rabbis, and thus there is a double refutation of R. Joseph? It is indeed a refutation.

Rava asked: Is between the reading of the Megillah and [attending to] a met mitzvah, which takes precedence? Shall I say that the reading of the Megillah takes precedence in order to publicize the miracle, or does perhaps [the burying of] the met mitzvah take precedence because of the respect due to human beings? After he asked the question, he himself answered it saying, Burying] the met mitzvah takes precedence, since a Master has said: Great is the [obligation to pay due] respect to human beings, since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah.