In explaining the mitzvah of Shabbos as given in the aseres hadibros, Ramban points out that in the version of the aseres hadibros given in this week's parsha, the word 'zachor,' to remember is used- " Remember the day of Shabbos to sanctify it'- is used, while in the version given in Parshas Vaeschanan, the word 'shamor' is used. He explains that 'zachor' refers to positive acts, such as saying kiddush on Shabbos evening, and shamor refers to the need to refrain from certain acts on Shabbos. He goes on to say that doing positive acts is a stronger expression of fealty to God than refraining from certain acts, because positive acts come from love of God, and restraint from certain actions comes from fear of God's punishment, and love of God is a stronger expression of fealty than is fear. Because of this, he continues, there is a halachic principle of 'aseh docheh lo sa'seh,' meaning, that if a mitzvas aseh- a mitzvah to do something-comes into conflict with a mitzvas lo sa'aseh- a mitzvah to refrain from doing something, the aseh prevails and suspends the lo sa'aseh. There are, however , circumstances in which this Principe does not hold true, as the Ramban sets forth in his commentary to parshas Emor.
The latter part of parshas Emor consists largely of a presentation of laws of the various holidays of the year. However, in the middle of this section on the holidays, after the laws of Shavuos and before the laws of Rosh Hashana, we are told : "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not remove completely the corner of your field as you reap and you shall not gather the gleanings of your harvest : for the poor and the proselyte shall you leave them : I am the Lord your God" (Vayikra 23:22). Ramban writes that the reason the Torah mentions the obligation to leave some of the crop for the poor person at this point, after the mitzvah of bringing the Omer offering, is to teach us that the positive mitzvoh of bringing the Omer does not push aside the prohibition of taking certain left-over portions of the crop and not leaving them for the poor man. Usually, we have a principle that when a positive commandment clashes with a prohibition, the positive commandment pushes aside the prohibition, and we proceed to perform the mitzvoh. However, the Torah here teaches us that in this instance we do not follow this principle. Why is this so?
Rabbi Aharon Dovid Goldberg, in his Shiras Dovid, brings an explanation from Rabbi Shalom Shapiro of Telshe Yeshiva in Cleveland, and Rabbi Shimon Shkop, zt"l of RIETS in Washington Heights, Manhattan, but this explanation was actually given earlier by Rabbi Chaim Elazar Waks in his book of responsa, Nefesh Chayah. He writes there that the Ramban is telling us that the principle of a positive commandment pushing aside a prohibition applies only to mitzvos between man and God, but not to mitzvos between man and man. Thus, in this instance, a mitzvah between man and God does not override a mitzvah between man and his fellow man.
We have, in the past ( see Netvort to parshas Emor, 5767), mentioned that according to Rabbi Goldberg, the distinction between the two categories of mitzvos as a pure' gezeiras hakasuv,' or decree of God for which we have no explanation. We then mentioned the Ramban in parshas Yisro, who, as we noted above, says that a positive mitzvah is done out of love, while a negative mitzvah is observed out of fear, and love is more important than fear. We then suggested that all of this is understandable when we are dealing purely with our relationship with God. However, when it comes to our relationship with man, our primary concern should be to see to it that the rights and needs of our fellow man should be respected, before we concern ourselves with the wider implications of these commands for our religious development. For this reason, the Torah tells us to leave over part of the crop for the poor man, and not to reap it in order to bring the offering of the Omer. However, in light of Ramban's further comment in his commentary to parshas Yisro, on the connection between the two categories of mitzvos dealt with in the two tablets, we can add a further explanation. Just as the Ramban says that respecting God entails respecting man, who is God's creation, so too, does loving God entail lvoe of man, as well. Thus, when there is a clash between doing a positive mitzvah such as bringing the Omer, and a negative command, such as leaving part of the crop for the poor man, we are not faced with a conflict between love of God and fear of God, because respecting the needs of our fellow amn necessarily entails love of God, as well. according to the Chovos HaLevavos, in fact, love of our fellow man is a primary means of attaining love of God. Therefore, says rth eRamban, a positive mitzvah between man and God does not override a negative mitzvah between man and his fellow man, since proper relations with our fellow man will generate within us a love for God, Who created all of us.
Archives are available at http://www.yucs.org/heights/torah/bysubject/
In addition, archives from 5764-5768 are now available at yeshivasbrisk.freeservers.com/netvort.html