Explanation: Since wool Lavan strings exempt linen [garments], also linen Lavan strings exempt wool.

Limitation: This is only in a place where Techeiles [is fulfilled]. Where there is no [fulfillment of] Techeiles, it is forbidden, since it is not Kosher with its own species.

Source - Citation (Menachos 40a): One may not put Tzitzis on a linen garment due to Kala Ilan (imitation Techeiles).

Citation (cont.) Question: The Kala Ilan strings are no worse than Lavan!

Citation (cont.) Answer: Because we can fulfill Lavan with its species (linen, there is no Heter for Sha'atnez), like Reish Lakish taught. (When we can fulfill the Aseh and the Lav, Ein Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh.)

Implied question: We could have answered that they hold unlike R. Yehudah, and they do not require that it is Muchach or Mufneh!

Answer: The Gemara prefers to answer even if they hold like R. Yehudah.

Rhetorical question: Who argues with Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael? It is R. Shimon ben Elazar.

Question: R. Shimon ben Elazar and the other Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael in Shabbos (27a) agree that without a Ribuy, we say that Stam Begadim are wool or linen!

Answer (Ri): We discuss [here the author of] the Beraisa in Menachos 39b;

Citation (39b - Rav Nachman): Silk is exempt from Tzitzis.

Citation (cont.) Question (Rava - Beraisa): One must put Tzitzis on garments of silk, Klach and Serikin.

The Gemara answered that they are obligated mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa they are exempt. Rava challenged Rav Nachman based on Rava's opinion that they are obligated mid'Oraisa.

He holds like that Beraisa that he cited. He does not hold like Rav Nachman, who answers there that it is mid'Rabanan.

Explanation #1: In Nazir (58a), we explain that the Tana who establishes "Rosho" to teach about [a Metzora who is] a Nazir holds that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh (cutting all the hair on the head) is not considered Hakafah;

Therefore, he cannot establish it to discuss when he is not a Nazir. (Hakafah is permitted to one who is not a Nazir. We would not need a verse to permit this!)

The Tana who establishes Rosho to override a mere Lav (but not for a Nazir, who has also an Aseh to grow his hair) holds that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah. (Therefore, we need a source to permit a regular man, who has just a Lav.)

Explanation #2: All agree that it (Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh) is considered Hakafah.

One Tana establishes it to discuss a Nazir, who has an Aseh and a Lav, for we do not need a verse to override a mere Lav. We know this from Gedilim (which overrides Sha'atnez)!

The other Tana establishes Rosho to [teach about overriding a Lav] alone;

He holds that we cannot learn from Gedilim, for we need to it for Rava's teaching, that wool and linen exempt all materials, and not [to teach about] overriding the Lav of Sha'atnez.

This Tana infers from Rosho that generally, Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh.

Question: How can we learn from "Rosho"? We can ask like we ask here, that the Lav is not Shavah b'Chol. (We may learn that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh only for such Lavim.)

Implied suggestion: Perhaps this is not a proper challenge.

Rejection: If so, we should learn from Zekano that [an Aseh] is Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh!

Answer: The Sugya in Nazir holds that even if Rosho was not written, we would establish Zekano to teach [even] about a Kohen, for Zekano connotes both Kohanim and Yisre'elim.

Implied question: Rosho does not connote both a Nazir and one who is not a Nazir!

Answer: That is because the verse discusses Stam people, who are not Nezirim;

Therefore, since it says Zekano, to teach that it is Docheh a Lav and an Aseh, we do not need Rosho to teach about a Lav she'Ein Shavah b'Chol;

Since we do not need it to teach about a Lav she'Ein Shavah b'Chol, we use it to teach about a Lav she'Shavah b'Chol.

Explanation #1: However, our Sugya holds that we would not establish Zekano to discuss Kohanim had it not written Rosho;

We need Rosho to teach about Zekano, that it refers to Kohanim, and it (the Aseh for a Metzora to shave) overrides Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh, and we cannot learn anything from Rosho itself.

Explanation #2: Our Sugya holds that we need Rosho to teach that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah;

The Sugya in Nazir (57b) holds that from reasoning, we know that it is considered Hakafah.

Question: We need Rosho and Zekano for a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal, like we say in Sotah (16a)!

Citation (16a): Just like the Prat is a place of gathered hair...

Answer: We could have expounded this from "Gavos Einav" (his eyebrows).

Observation: We could have said that we need Zekano to override an Aseh v'Lo Sa'aseh;

We could learn from Rosho only a Lav. We could not learn from here that in general, Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh;

Here is different, for the Lav and Aseh are not Shavah b'Chol, like we say in Nazir (58b).

Suggestion: We should learn from here that it (an Aseh) is Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh she'Eino Shavah b'Chol!

Objection #1: If so, what was the question (Bava Metzi'a 30a) regarding "v'His'alamta" - sometimes you may ignore an Aveidah, e.g. if a Kohen sees it in a cemetery?

The Gemara asked that obviously [he must ignore it], for the Aseh [to return an Aveidah] does not override the Lav and Aseh (of Tum'as Kohanim).

The Lav and an Aseh are Ein Shavah b'Chol! (If an Aseh overrides them, the Kohen should be commanded to return the Aveidah!)

Answer (Ri): There, the primary question was that monetary matters do not override Isurim.

Objection #2 - Citation (Bava Metzi'a 32a) Suggestion: If [a Kohen's] father told him to become Tamei, or not to return an Aveidah, perhaps he should obey him!

The Gemara brings a verse to reject this, and asks "we already know this, for Ein Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh!"

What was the question? The Lav and Aseh of Tum'ah are not Shavah [b'Chol]. They apply only to Kohanim!

Answer (Ri): The question was only from "do not return the Aveidah." Why do we need a verse? The Lav and an Aseh [of ignoring an Aveidah] are Shavah b'Chol!

Objection #3: Below (20a), we say that a widow who fell to Yibum to a Kohen Gadol does Chalitzah, but not Yibum;

Citation (20a) Question: Granted, if she fell from Nisu'in, an Aseh (Yibum) is not Docheh Lo Sa'aseh (a widow) v'Aseh (a Kohen Gadol must marry a virgin);

Citation (cont.): However, if she fell from Eirusin, an Aseh should be Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh!

Summation of Tosfos' question: Why do we understand the case from Nisu'in [that the Aseh is not Docheh]? The Lav and an Aseh are not Shavah b'Chol!

Strengthening of question: Also there (21a), regarding the argument of Rav Acha and R. Elazar about Bi'as Kohen Gadol with a widow, we say that all agree that [if she was widowed] from Nisu'in, it does not exempt [from Zikah l'Yibum], for Ein Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh!

Answer (Ri): There is different. The Lav and an Aseh of shaving is more Eino Shavah b'Kol, for it does not apply to all women;

Regarding a widow to a Kohen Gadol, she transgresses just like the Kohen who has Bi'ah with her. We read "Lo Yikachu" (plural, to include an Isur on her) "Lo Sikach".

The Aseh of Yibum is not Docheh (the Lav and an Aseh of a widow from Nisu'in), even though [regarding men] it applies only to Kohanim.

Rejection (of Suggestion): Some say that we do not learn from Zekano to a general case, even Eino Shavah b'Kol, because the Aseh of Metzora is stronger than other Mitzvos Aseh;

This is because Shalom is great. Through becoming Tahor, he becomes permitted to have relations.

Support: In Chulin (141a), we say that if not for "Shale'ach Teshalach", one might have thought that [taking a bird to offer for Taharas] Metzora overrides the Aseh of Shilu'ach ha'Kan, for it is preferable, because Shalom is great.

In our Sugya we could have said that we do not learn from the Aseh of Metzora because Shalom is great. However, even without this we properly rejected [the Limud from Metzora].

Also, here we reject and say that we cannot even learn that it is Docheh an Aseh.

Limitation: However, we can resolve this reason (Shalom is great) only with the opinion (Mo'ed Katan 7b) that forbids a Metzora Muchlat from having relations, but not according to the opinion that permits. (For the latter, Taharas Metzora is no greater than others Mitzvos Aseh.)

Explanation: [We should learn from Nazir] that it overrides [a Lav and an Aseh].

Question: Just the contrary! We should learn from Kivud Av v'Em that it is not Docheh a Lav and an Aseh of [a Kohen] becoming Tamei, or not returning an Aveidah!

Answer: We cannot learn from Kivud Av v'Em, since it is Hechsher Mitzvah (it merely enables a Mitzvah, e.g. to serve the parent. Becoming Tamei or not returning an Aveidah is not itself the Mitzvah), like we say below.

Question: If we come to learn from here that it is Docheh, we really need v'His'alamta (Bava Metzi'a 30a) to teach that a Kohen ignores an Aveidah in a cemetery;

Since there it is not Docheh, we should learn in general that it is not Docheh!

Answer: There, we do not need the verse for this. It is clear that it is not Docheh, like we say there, "also, monetary laws are not Docheh Isurim."

Question: We should learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah of Kohen and Nazir that in general, an Aseh is Docheh a Lav and an Aseh!

Citation (Nazir 58b): We do not learn from Kohen and Nazir from each other... We do not learn from them in general, for one can ask like we said.

I.e. Nezirus can be annulled through She'elah (a Chacham can retroactively uproot the vow to be a Nazir. Therefore, the Isurim are weaker. Isurim of) a Kohen are Eino Shavah b'Chol.

Why don't we learn from them through Tzad ha'Shavah?

Answer: We can ask anything against a Tzad ha'Shavah, even if it is not a leniency or stringency. Here we can ask that both of them are Isurim of shaving, one on his head and one on his beard.

Alternate text: Some do not have in the text "like we said." This opinion explains that "we could ask" refers to what it says after this "Rav said..."

Explanation: He explains that we can ask that Rav said that one may lighten the hair from his entire body with a razor. We conclude that he permits like a razor.

Since their Isurim are light, an Aseh is Docheh them.

Question: We should learn from Kohen, Nazir and Bris Milah, which is Docheh [cutting off] Tzara'as, like it says in Shabbos (132b)!

Answer #1: It seems that this is like Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad. We could have learned one of them (Kohen or Nazir) from Milah and the other. It turns out that one of them was unnecessary. (Therefore, they do not teach to other matters.)

Answer #2: Also, if we would learn from them, why would we need a verse to permit Sha'atnez in Tzitzis, to permit a mere Lav?

Rejection: We could reject this like I will explain below.

In Nazir, we could have said so, like I explained, just the Gemara was not concerned to elaborate.

Observation: In Menachos (42a), it seems that we require eight strings.

Question: What is the source that we fold each string into two? Perhaps one ties each at its end to the Talis!

Answer: If we would explain "he makes a Gedil and is Poslehu mi'Tocho" to mean that he makes like a Pesilah (wick) and folds it in the middle, this would be fine.

However, Rashi explained that "Poslehu mi'Tocho" means that two thirds are Anaf (hang straight). He does not make all of it Gedilim (windings. If so, the question is difficult.)

Observation: Even without this, we need this! Without "Yachdav", it would be forbidden to wear wool and linen, even if they are not connected one to the other at all.

Explanation #1: (Rivan): The wool and linen are Shu'a (smoothed) and Tavuy (spun) together.

Rejection: If so, what is the case of Sha'atnez in Tzitzis? There must be two strings of Techeiles wool without the linen!

Explanation #2: Rather, each is Shu'a by itself.

R. Tam's opinion: Nuz does not mean woven, like Rashi says;

Question #1: Why should it be different than Shu'a and Tavuy, which are each by itself, and Nuz refers to wool and linen together?!

Question #2: In Nidah (61b), regarding one who put a thread of linen in a wool garment... we ask "we should say Shu'a or Tavuy or Nuz!"

According to Rashi, without Nuz it cannot be Sha'atnez!

Suggestion: Perhaps the Gemara asked "we should say Shu'a and Nuz, or Tavuy and Nuz, or Nuz alone!"

Rejection: Since Nuz suffices by itself, why did the Torah write [an allusion to] Shu'a and Tavuy?!

Conclusion (R. Tam): Nuz is Shazur (twined). Also Nuz is each by itself alone;

The Torah warns about Sha'atnez of wool alone (i.e. the wool is Shu'a Tavuy v'Nuz by itself) and of linen alone, not to make a garment of them together. We learn from Yachdav.

Question (R. Yitzchak ha'Lavan - Mishnah): One is liable for Kil'ayim only for what is spun and woven, for it says Sha'atnez - Shu'a Tavuy v'Nuz.

Inference: Nuz is woven.

Answer (R. Tam): The Mishnah does not come to expound all [that we learn from] Sha'atnez, since it does not say Shu'a Tavuy v'Arug;

It brings Sha'atnez only for Tavuy and Nuz. We learn woven from Yachdav.

Explanation: Since the Torah wrote "Sha'atnez", and not "Kil'ayim", we learn that it must be Shu'a Tavuy v'Nuz;

Since it did not write explicitly Shu'a Tavuy v'Nuz, this makes it free to expound Semuchim.

Question: Perhaps it is only for Rava's teaching, to expound from Semuchim that wool and linen exempt even not their own material! What is the source that it comes to permit Sha'atnez?

Answer: "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez Tzemer u'Fishtim Yachdav; Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach" from them. It says so in Nazir (58a).

Question: How can we learn from here in general? Sha'atnez is different, for it is totally permitted in Bigdei Kehunah!

Answer (Ri): Also there, it is because the Aseh of [wearing] Bigdei Kehunah overrides the Lav of Sha'atnez. It is not totally permitted.

However, if not for Sha'atnez [in Tzitzis], we could not have learned in general from Bigdei Kehunah;

Reason #1: This is because this is their Mitzvah [of Bigdei Kehunah], and there is no other way to fulfill it, like I explained above that we do not learn from Eshes Ach.

Reason #2: Needs of Avodah are different [so we could not learn from them].

Question: Rather than learning from Kil'ayim in Tzitzis that [Aseh] Docheh [Lo Sa'aseh], we should learn from burning Kodshim that it is not Docheh!

We expound (Pesachim 83b) that Sereifas Kodshim is not Docheh Yom Tov from "veha'Nosar Mimenu Ad Boker" - the Torah gives a second morning (Nisan 16) to burn (Nosar of Korban Pesach, for we may not burn it on Yom Tov).

Answer: There is different, for the Mitzvah is not lost through this (waiting). One can burn it after Yom Tov;

Even so, if not for [the Drashah] "Boker Sheni", we would not distinguish, and we would say that it is Docheh.

Question: Below (6b), regarding burning a Bas Kohen, we say "perhaps it is [even] on Shabbos. We would learn from Sha'atnez in Tzitzis that it is Docheh, if not for "Lo Seva'aru";

[It would override] even a Lav with Kares, for we do not distinguish a great severity from a small severity.

There, since we can wait until the next day, we should learn from it burning Kodshim! (Why do we need "Ad Boker"?)

Answer: Also there (Sereifas Bas Kohen), we cannot wait, for she must be judged immediately and burned, to avoid Inuy (delay of) ha'Din, and lest the matters [of the case] be forgotten.

Question: Why do we need a verse to learn from Sha'atnez in Tzitzis? We should learn from burning Kodshim!

Since we needed a verse to teach that it is not Docheh, because one can wait, this implies that in general, it is Docheh!

Answer (Ri): There, we need a verse so we will not say that it is Docheh, for even Ochel Nefesh is permitted;

According to the opinion that Nedarim and Nedavos are not offered on Yom Tov, we do not need a verse here. (We can learn from burning Kodshim. The verse is not needed lest we learn from Ochel Nefesh, for Nedarim and Nedavos would refute this);

It is needed only according to the opinion that we offer [Nedarim and Nedavos on Yom Tov].

Question: We should learn from other Korbanos that are Docheh Shabbos, like we expound in Pesachim (77a) from "b'Mo'ado", even the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem, like we expound there!

Answer (Ri): There, we consider all of these Tadir, since they apply every year. We can ask against Milah and other Korbanos, that they are Tadir;

The Gemara was not concerned to be so meticulous. Similarly, we do not conclude [that we can learn] anything according to the opinion that the Olah they offered in the Midbar was Olas Re'iyah.

Explanation: We expound "Ani Hash-m" at the end of the verse.

Question: What is the source that this ("Ani Hash-m", all of you must honor Me) applies to [Shemiras] Shabbos more than to Kivud Av v'Em? We can ask similarly below regarding [building] the Mikdash.

Answer #1: There is more honor of Hash-m through Shemiras Shabbos than through other Mitzvos, for Shabbos testifies that Hash-m created the world;

We say in Eruvin (69b) and Chulin (5a) that one who is Mechalel Shabbos is like one who denies Ma'aseh Bereishis.

Answer #2: "Ani Hash-m" connotes that it refers to fear written regarding Kivud Av v'Em and the Mikdash. I.e. fear of Me is above your fear;

Citation (Midrash) Suggestion: "V'Hiskadashtem vi'Hyisem Kedoshim" - perhaps you should be Kodesh like Me!

Rejection: "Ki Kadosh Ani" - My Kedushah is above your Kedushah.

Question: Why do we need a verse to teach that Kivud Av v'Em is not Docheh Shabbos? Even without a verse it is not Docheh, for he and his father are commanded about Shabbos!

This is like it says in Kidushin (31a). If one's father said `give to me to drink', and his mother said `give to me to drink', abandon your mother and honor your father, for you and your mother are obligated to honor your father.

Similarly, if your father said `give to me to drink', and there a Mitzvah to do, abandon your father's honor and do the Mitzvah, for you and your father are obligated to do the Mitzvah.

Answer: There, we learn from here!

Explanation: We learn from here that in general, it (an Aseh) is Docheh (a Lav with Kares). Here we do not need to write that it is not Docheh. From where would we learn that it is Docheh?!

We cannot learn from Pesach, Milah and Tamid, for [they are actual Mitzvos, but] Kivud Av v'Em is only Hechsher Mitzvah;

Also, just the contrary, we should learn from [building the] Mikdash and burning a Bas Kohen that it is not Docheh!

Question: "One might have thought that Kivud Av v'Em is Docheh Shabbos" connotes that if not for the verse, one might have thought that it is Docheh!

Answer: This is not precise. Rather, even if you will say that it is Docheh, it says "Ani Hash-m" [to teach that it is not], like I explained above regarding "I would understand..."

Question: How is it clear from here that normally it is Docheh, and we need "Aleha" to forbid?

Now, we do not need the verse for itself, only to teach that normally, it is Docheh.

We should say that Aleha comes to permit. Now, we need the verse here for it itself (that Kivud Av v'Em is not Docheh Shabbos), and we do not learn from the Aseh of Yibum!

Answer #1: Even if we would say that Aleha comes to permit, we do not need the verse here, for we cannot learn from the Aseh of Yibum, for Kivud Av v'Em is Hechsher Mitzvah.

Answer #2: Also, just the contrary, we should learn from the Mikdash and burning a Bas Kohen, that it is not Docheh!

Answer #3: We cannot learn from Yibum, because the punishment for Shabbos is Skilah.

Implied question: Some Arayos have similar punishments. There is Sereifah for a mother-in-law, and Skilah for a daughter-in-law!

Answer: If we would say that Aleha comes to permit, it is only for Achos Ishah and similar Arayos, which do not have Skilah or Sereifah;

They are not equated [to Achos Ishah] for Heter, rather, for Isur. Also Rava holds like this, according to the Ri (8a DH Rava).

Question: Still, we need it (Es Shabsosai Tishmoru) for itself!

One might have thought that since [parents'] honor is equated to Kevod Hash-m, it should be Docheh [Shabbos].