daf bit: Ketuvot 40

[cellio]

(Preface: instead of doing another year of parsha bits I decided a few weeks ago to do teachings from the talmud, following the daf yomi cycle (even though I'll be doing this weekly rather than daily).)

In discussing laws related to marriage, the talmud raises the question of the precedence of positive and negative commandments. Rav Kahana says the positive commandment always supersedes the negative one, but Rabbi Zevid of Nehardea says this is only true when performing the negative commandment would make it impossible to perform the positive one. He gives the following example: it is forbidden to remove leprosy by surgery, but should it occur in a certain place, we are nonetheless required to perform the positive commandment of circumcission. (40a)

Comments

[caryabend.livejournal.com]

I wonder what sin the poor infant committed to get leprosy there!

[cellio]

I wondered what could have happened in just eight days, yes. :-) But perhaps it refers to other cases, like the person who wasn't circumcised as an infant and must do it at bar mitzvah? Or a convert? (This daf does not go into these deails, though of course it could and probably is covered elsewhere.)

[dsrtao]

I have a suspicion that when Torah says leprosy -- tzaras? -- it's not the modern disease we call leprosy.

[cellio]

Oh, almost certainly not. (I was going to say tzara'at in my post, but that was an assumption -- I was working from a translation and hadn't hunted the word down in the Aramaic.)

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Um.

How is what R Zevid saying different from what R Kahana is saying? R Kahana says that "positive commandment supercedes negative comandment", and then R Zevid says "no, positive commandment supercedes negative comandment, when they conflict."

[cellio]

There are apparently cases where the positive does not override the negative, like when the negative is punishable by excommunication.

In the case brought in the daf, the rabbis argue that there is another way to get out of the predicament. I found a better explanation than anything I've been able to write myself. (Warning: the subject matter is a little unpalatable.)

[kerryp.livejournal.com]

Huzzah!!! I am very excited about your Talmud exegesis, although, I will miss your Parsha commentary. I look forward to reading your journal on Thursdays. Are you learning from the Artscroll Schottenstein Talmud, or something else?

[cellio]

Thanks!

I'm actually using an online version (Soncino), working from the English translation, for these "daf bits". (It's easier to skim the entire page looking for something to share that way.) When I study with my rabbi we use the Schottenstein edition and work from the Aramaic (plus English notes, and he translates for me). Given the fluencies described, I imagine the online group will study in English, though I don't know which translation.