Strengthening of question: We say in Bava Metzi'a (32) that if not for a verse, it (Kivud Av v'Em) would be Docheh a Lav and an Aseh for this reason.

Answer: There was a Hava Amina that [Kivud Av v'Em] can be Docheh an Aseh and Lo Sa'aseh that is light, but not a Lav with Kares.

Therefore, we cannot infer that normally (an Aseh) is Docheh an Aseh v'Lo Sa'aseh, the way we inferred about a Lav with Kares. (We needed a verse to teach that Kivud Av v'Em is no stronger than other Mitzvos Aseh for this.)

Only regarding a Lav with Kares, which without a verse we would say that it (Kivud Av v'Em) is not Docheh, we can infer [from the need for the verse] that normally (another Mitzvas Aseh) it is Docheh.

Question: Since now we want to say that normally it (an Aseh) is Docheh a Lav with Kares, all the more so it is Docheh a regular Lav with an Aseh!

Suggestion: Perhaps this is true!

Rejection: If so, the Gemara should have asked "we hold that Ein Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh. We should learn from here that it is Docheh!", like it asked above (5a)!

Answer: Now that we learn that in general, [an Aseh] is Docheh a Lav with Kares, we must say that it (a Lav with Kares) is weaker than a Lav and an Aseh (regarding Dichuy);

It is impossible [for an Aseh] is to be Docheh a Lav and an Aseh, for why is this Aseh better than the other Aseh (with the Lav, to say that the former is Docheh)?!

Implied question: Why did the Gemara (Bava Metzi'a 32a) want to learn that the Aseh of Kivud [Av v'Em] is Docheh a Lav and an Aseh? (Tosfos just showed that it is illogical to say so!)

Answer: This is because the Aseh of [parents'] honor is stronger [than other Mitzvos Aseh], since their honor is equated to Kevod Hash-m.

Question: If normally it (an Aseh) is Docheh (a Lav), why do we need a verse for Sha'atnez in Tzitzis?

Answer #1: We need a verse for Rava's law [that wool and linen exempt even other species];

Also according to Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, we need a verse, so we will not expound "ha'Kanaf" - the same species as the corner, to obligate wool [Tzitzis] for [a garment of] wool, and linen for linen.

Answer #2: One might have thought that the Aseh of Tzitzis is not Docheh the Lav of Sha'atnez, since [the Aseh] does not apply to women, according to the opinion that women are exempt from Tzitzis.

Implied question: Above, we wanted to learn from the Aseh of Metzora that Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh. It connotes that we wanted to learn from there even Sha'atnez in Tzitzis! (This is unlike Answer #2.)

Answer: We must say that the Gemara did not yet think to distinguish between whether or not it is Shavah b'Chol until it asked this [afterwards].

Implied question: In Nazir (58a), we learn totally from Rosho!

Answer: The Sugya there holds that women are obligated in Tzitzis.

Question: Why do we need Rosho, since [an Aseh] is Docheh even a Lav with Kares?

Answer: We need it to teach that Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh is considered Hakafah.

Implied question: Why do we need verses for Pesach, Milah and Tamid? In general, [an Aseh] is Docheh [even a Lav with Kares]!

Answer: Regarding Shabbos, one might have thought to learn from Kivud Av v'Em, which is not Docheh. One might have thought that [an Aseh] is not Docheh Shabbos, even though in general it is Docheh [a Lav with Kares].

Inference: If it discusses Shechitah and cooking, we understand [why it is not Docheh].

Question: What would be the Tana's source to establish the verse to discuss Shechitah and cooking, to teach that in general it is Docheh?

We should establish it to discuss the Lav of Mechamer (making an animal work), and learn from here that in general it is not Docheh even a Lav alone!

Answer: The Tana infers that since the verse does not discuss other matters, in which there is only a Lav, and there would be no chance of error, [surely the Torah discusses Melachah, for which is there is an Aseh, and a Lav with Kares and Skilah].

Question: How can we learn from here that it is not Docheh? Here there is an Aseh and a Lav, for it says "uva'Yom ha'Shevi'i Tishbos Lema'an Yanu'ach Shorcha va'Chamorecha".

However, for a mere Lav, we should learn from Sha'atnez in Tzitzis that an Aseh is Docheh!

Answer (Ri): Since the Aseh of Kivud [Av v'Em] is so preferable [over other Mitzvos Aseh], for their (parents') honor is equated to Kevod Hash-m, it is as if there is no Aseh of Shabbos at all, and there is only a Lav.

Similarly, the Aseh of [building] the Mikdash and [burning] a Bas Kohen are preferable to the Aseh of Shabbos, due to fear [of the Mikdash] and to be a Kaparah for the Bas Kohen.

Question: What is the source that the Aseh of Kivud [Av v'Em] is not Docheh even a mere Lav?

[We learned that it does not override] Shabbos, Tum'as [Kohanim] and [ignoring] an Aveidah, but each of these is a Lav and an Aseh!

Answer: Since the Torah revealed that the reason that their honor is equated to Kevod Hash-m is not strong enough to override [a Lav and an Aseh], it is not Docheh even a mere Lav.

We cannot learn from Sha'atnez, for Kivud Av v'Em is only Hechsher Mitzvah.

Question: This implies that if it discusses Shechitah and cooking, we understand [why it is not Docheh].

Just the contrary, this is even more difficult! How can we learn about becoming Tamei and not returning an Aveidah, for which there is no Kares, from Shabbos, for which there is Kares and Skilah?

Even though there (Shabbos), Kivud is not Docheh, here (becoming Tamei and not returning an Aveidah), even though there is a Lav and an Aseh, it should be Docheh, for parents' honor is equated [to Kevod Hash-m]!

Answer: Since the Torah revealed that [Kivud Av v'Em] is weaker than a regular Aseh, which normally is Docheh a Lav with Kares, and this (Kivud) is not Docheh, this shows that equation of their honor to Kevod Hash-m does not help.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Really, [he told his son] "slaughter for me', or 'cook for me", and normally it (an Aseh) is Docheh [a Lav with Kares];

Even so, we do not learn from here that Yibum is Docheh the Lav of Achos Ishah, for we can ask "it is Hechsher Mitzvah", for one cannot fulfill the Aseh without overriding the Lav;

However, regarding Yibum, one can fulfill the Mitzvah without overriding the Lav, for he can do Chalitzah.

Question #1 (Ri): This is not considered possible [to fulfill the Mitzvah without overriding the Lav], for if one may not do Yibum due to Kares, there is no need for Chalitzah, for whoever may not do Yibum, does not do Chalitzah.

Below (20a), we learn this from a verse.

Question #2: We say in that Sugya (21a) that regarding Yibum [with Chayavei Lavin], we do not consider it possible to fulfill both (i.e. the Aseh, without transgressing the Lav) through Chalitzah, for Chalitzah in place of Yibum is not considered the Mitzvah.

Question #3: Below, according to the truth that there is a verse for Sha'atnez [to permit it in Tzitzis], why do we need a verse? Hechsher Mitzvah is Docheh even a Lav with Kares! (One cannot fulfill Techeiles for a linen garment without transgressing Sha'atnez.)

Question #4: We conclude that an Aseh is not Docheh a Lav with Kares in any place. This implies even if it is Hechsher Mitzvah!

Citation: Below, we ask "Hechsher Mitzvah? We should know this from there!"

Explanation #1A (Rashi): We should know from Kivud Av v'Em that it is not Docheh. Rather, the verse about the Mikdash comes to teach that in general it is Docheh (an Aseh is Docheh a Lav with Kares), even without Hechsher Mitzvah.

Objection: This is not a proper deduction. Perhaps we need the verse for itself! Since we learn from Kivud Av v'Em that normally it is Docheh, the Torah needed to write regarding the Mikdash that it is not Docheh.

Answer: However, we can say that even though normally it is Docheh, regarding the Mikdash one might have thought that it is not Docheh, just like Kivud;

Regarding all matters of Shabbos, one might have thought that it is not Docheh. Therefore we need [verses] for Milah, Pesach and Tamid to teach that they are Docheh. Also Moreinu ha'Ri says so.

Explanation #2 (Ri and R. Chananel): We establish the verse to discuss the Lav of Mechamer;

We cannot learn from here in general that [an Aseh] is not Docheh a mere Lav, for Kivud is Hechsher Mitzvah;

When one is Mechamer, becomes Tamei or refrains from returning an Aveidah in order to bring chicks for his father, at the time he transgresses the Lav he does not [fulfill Kivud, i.e.] feed his father or dress him;

However, in general, when he does the Mitzvah itself [at the time he transgressed the Lav], we learn from Sha'atnez in Tzitzis that it is Docheh.

Assertion (Ri): Regarding Kivud Av v'Em, even if he engages in the Mitzvah itself, it is not Docheh, for we uniformly rule that one should not heed a parent;

Because most matters of honor are usually through Hechsher Mitzvah, the Torah says that it is never Docheh.

Explanation #2A: Based on this, below the Gemara asks properly "Hechsher Mitzvah? We should know this from there!", i.e. that it is not Docheh;

Since we do not need it to teach about Hechsher Mitzvah, we use it to teach about the Mitzvah itself.

Explanation: Regarding his father we did not need to say so, for obviously he does not bow to him to be his deity;

However, this is needed regarding the Mikdash, for it is Devar shebi'Kedushah.

Explanation #2: Fear applies to his father, lest he anger him. It is difficult to find this regarding the Mikdash, like the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Implied question: In Shabbos (20a), we expound "you may not burn in all dwellings, but you may burn in the bonfire of Beis ha'Mokad (a chamber in the Mikdash. Why do we answer differently here?)

Answer: [That Drashah] is because the Torah should have written Moshvos, but rather wrote Moshvoseichem;

Since the Torah did not write 'Lo Seva'aru Lachem', rather, it wrote Moshvos, this connotes that it comes to teach like we say here.

Implied question: In Kidushin (37b), we ask why the Torah wrote Moshvos regarding Shabbos, and answer that since Shabbos is written amidst the Mo'ados, one might have thought that Beis Din must be Mekadesh it, like the Mo'ados!

Answer: There, we do not expound "Lo Seva'aru Esh b'Chol Moshvoseichem", rather, another verse in Parshas Emor "Shabbos Hi la'Shem b'Chol Moshvoseichem";

That verse is written amidst matters of the Mo'ed.

Explanation: This is because we do not distinguish a great severity from a small severity.

Question #1 (R. Yehudah Kohen): How do we try to establish R. Yishmael like R. Yosi, who says that burning was taught separately to make it [only] a Lav?

In Shabbos (12b), we say that [once] R. Yishmael read [using light of a lamp on Shabbos, forgot that it was Shabbos] and tilted the lamp [to make it burn better], and said "when the Mikdash will be built, I will bring a fat Chatas";

[Since one brings a Korban for it], this shows that [he holds that] there is Kares for burning!

Question #2: Even if the Beraisa is R. Yosi, if not for "Lo Seva'aru", one might have thought that Misas Beis Din is Docheh Shabbos because we do not distinguish a great severity... even though killing is an Av Melachah!

If so, even after the Torah wrote "Lo Seva'aru", we need also Aleha regarding Achos Ishah, for which there is no Skilah, lest we say "we do not distinguish a great severity..."

Answer: [We could have asked this.] Even without this, the Gemara asked a better question.

Explanation #1: Below, it is clear that now we do not suggest that since we need Lo Seva'aru to forbid, this implies that normally, it is Docheh;

We explain that if not for Lo Seva'aru, one might have thought that it is Docheh, just like Sha'atnez in Tzitzis, for we do not distinguish a great severity from a small severity;

We need Lo Seva'aru for the law itself.

Question: Since we need it for the law itself, just the contrary, we should learn from here that it is not Docheh, for we do not say "we do not distinguish a great severity..."!

Answer #1: We can learn from it only a Lav with Misah, like Shabbos, which has Skilah;

However, a Lav with only Kares, we say there "we do not distinguish a great severity from a small severity";

One might have thought that it is Docheh a Lav with Kares, like Achos Ishah, but not a Lav with Misah, like a daughter-in-law or mother-in-law. For this, we do not equate [all of the Arayos] to each other.

Explanation #2: Also now, we hold that since we need [Lo Seva'aru, this implies that normally it is Docheh,] like above, and we are not concerned for "or perhaps..."

Opinion #1: This entire Sugya is unlike R. Shimon, for R. Shimon needs Lo Seva'aru to teach that one who burns destructively is liable;

He learns from the fact that Torah forbids burning a Bas Kohen, in Shabbos (106a).

Rather, this Sugya is like R. Yehudah, who considers Tikun Gavra ("fixing" a person) to be constructive, e.g. Bris Milah or tearing [clothing] due to a Mes.

Also R. Yosi and R. Noson hold unlike R. Shimon. According to him (R. Shimon), we cannot expound "Lo Seva'aru" to teach that it is a Lav, or to divide (obligate for each Melachah by itself), since we need it [to obligate] for burning destructively;

R. Shimon learns to divide from the same place that Shmuel does (Shabbos 70a. Mechalaleha Mos Yumas" obligates many deaths for one desecration. We do not need it to teach about Mezid, so we use it to teach about Shogeg.)

Opinion #2 (Ri): (The Sugya is even like R. Shimon. He learns two matters from the verse.) If the verse came only to teach about burning destructively, it should have taught in a case when there is no Mitzvah to burn.

Question: How can we expound to teach about a Lav or to divide, since we need Lo Seva'aru to teach that Misas Beis Din is not Docheh Shabbos?

Answer: We expound from the fact that it says Hav'arah. If it came to teach only about Misas Beis Din, it should have said 'Lo Sa'asu Melachah b'Chol Moshvoseichem.'

Question: Granted, burning to cook (melt) lead is not Docheh Shabbos, for it is Hechsher Mitzvah;

Execution itself, when the lead was melted from before Shabbos, or execution through choking or the sword should be Docheh Shabbos for this reason, that we do not distinguish a great severity from a small severity!

Remark: [This is not difficult for Rav Simi,] who says that we learn from a Kal va'Chomer, we must say that Lo Seva'aru teaches only about execution itself, for the Kal va'Chomer pertains to the execution;

Regarding execution it says "me'Im Mizbechi Tikachenu", and Lo Seva'aru comes to uproot the Kal va'Chomer. (However, we must answer for the Sugya before Rav Simi's answer!)

Answer #1: Since the Torah revealed that we do not say "we do not distinguish a great severity from a small severity" regarding Hechsher Mitzvah, likewise for the Mitzvah itself we do not say so.

Answer #2: We learn Hechsher Mitzvah from above. Since we do not need it (Lo Seva'aru) to teach about [melting] lead, we use it to teach about execution itself.

Answer #3: Everywhere, we equate Machshirei Mitzvah that cannot be done before Shabbos like the Mitzvah itself;

A Mishnah in Shabbos (130a) says that if one did not bring [before Shabbos what is needed for Bris Milah, one may not bring it on Shabbos];

In a Mishnah in Pesachim (69b), R. Akiva gives a general rule [that needs of Korban Pesach are Docheh Shabbos only if they cannot be done the day before].

Here we discuss when it was impossible to make (melt) the lead before Shabbos, since we need to a version to forbid it.

Explanation #1: The Tana says "or perhaps" because Shabbos is an Aseh and a Lo Sa'aseh (therefore, even Misas Beis Din is forbidden).

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is because Lavim of Shabbos are different, because they are severe.