Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 8, 2014 | 讬状讚 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 4

讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 讙讚诇讬诐 转注砖讛 诇讱

As it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds of wool and linen together. You shall make for yourself twisted fringes on the four corners of your covering with which you cover yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11鈥12). These verses teach that despite the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds of wool and linen, it is permitted to prepare ritual fringes of diverse kinds, e.g., sky-blue dyed threads of wool on linen garments. This shows that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition of diverse kinds.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住诪讜讻讬诐 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 住诪讜讻讬诐 诇注讚 诇注讜诇诐 注砖讜讬诐 讘讗诪转 讜讬砖专

And Rabbi Elazar said: From where in the Torah is it derived that one may draw homiletical interpretations from the juxtaposition of verses? In other words, from where is it derived that the fact that certain verses are adjacent one to the other is a reason to apply the halakhot from one verse to the other? As it is stated: 鈥淭he works of His hands in truth and justice, all His commandments are sure. Juxtaposed forever and ever, made in truth and uprightness鈥 (Psalms 111:7鈥8). This verse indicates that it is appropriate to draw inferences from the juxtaposition of God鈥檚 commandments.

讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讘诪讛 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讜住诪讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讞住讜诐 砖讜专 讘讚讬砖讜 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讻讬 讬砖讘讜 讗讞讬诐 讬讞讚讬讜

And similarly, Rav Sheshet said that Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: From where is it derived with regard to a yevama who came before a yavam afflicted with boils that one may not muzzle her, i.e., she cannot be forced to enter into levirate marriage, and he is compelled to release her by 岣litza? As it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the corn鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:4), and, juxtaposed to it, is the verse: 鈥淚f brothers dwell together鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), which begins the passage that deals with the halakhot of levirate marriage. This teaches that just as it is prohibited to muzzle the ox, so too, one may not muzzle and ignore the complaints of a yevama who does not wish to marry a yavam afflicted with boils.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 住诪讜讻讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讚专讬砖 讚讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讚专讬砖

And Rav Yosef said: Even according to the one who does not generally derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses, nevertheless, he does derive them from Deuteronomy, as Rabbi Yehuda does not generally derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses, and yet he does derive them from Deuteronomy.

讜讘注诇诪讗 诪谞诇谉 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 诪讻砖驻讛 诇讗 转讞讬讛 讜谞讗诪专 讻诇 砖讜讻讘 注诐 讘讛诪讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 住诪讻讜 注谞讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 砖讜讻讘 注诐 讘讛诪讛 讘住拽讬诇讛 讗祝 诪讻砖驻讛 讘住拽讬诇讛

搂 The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that Rabbi Yehuda generally does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the punishment of a sorceress that ben Azzai says that it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not allow a sorceress to live鈥 (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, and it is stated: 鈥淲hoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death鈥 (Exodus 22:18). The Torah juxtaposed this matter to that so as to say: Just as one who lies with a beast is executed by stoning (see Leviticus 20:16), so too, a sorceress is executed by stoning.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖住诪讻讜 注谞讬谉 诇讜 谞讜爪讬讗 讝讛 诇住拽讬诇讛

With regard to this proof, Rabbi Yehuda said to ben Azzai: And simply due to the fact that the Torah juxtaposed this matter to that one, shall we take this person out to be stoned? Should he be sentenced to the most severe of the death penalties on the basis of a juxtaposition of passages?

讗诇讗 讗讜讘 讜讬讚注讜谞讬 讘讻诇诇 诪讻砖驻讬诐 讛讬讜 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗讜 诇讛拽讬砖 诇讛诐 讜诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讗讜讘 讜讬讚注讜谞讬 讘住拽讬诇讛 讗祝 诪讻砖驻讛 讘住拽讬诇讛

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda claims that the source is the following statement: Mediums and wizards were included among all sorcerers. And why were they singled out from the rest in the verse: 鈥淎nd a man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them鈥 (Leviticus 20:27)? It is to draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a medium and a wizard are executed by stoning, so too, a sorceress is executed by stoning. This shows that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses.

讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讚专讬砖 讚转谞谉 谞讜砖讗 讗讚诐 讗谞讜住转 讗讘讬讜 讜诪驻讜转转 讗讘讬讜 讗谞讜住转 讘谞讜 讜诪驻讜转转 讘谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讘讗谞讜住转 讗讘讬讜 讜诪驻讜转转 讗讘讬讜

And from where do we derive that Rabbi Yehuda does derive homiletic interpretations in Deuteronomy? As we learned in a mishna: A person may wed a woman raped by his father and one seduced by his father, despite the fact that his father鈥檚 wife is forbidden to him. Similarly, he may marry a woman raped by his son and one seduced by his son. Although one is prohibited by Torah law from marrying the wife of his father or the wife of his son, these prohibitions do not apply to a woman raped or seduced by them. And Rabbi Yehuda prohibits him from marrying a woman raped by his father and a woman seduced by his father.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 讬讙诇讛 讻谞祝 讗讘讬讜 讻谞祝 砖专讗讛 讗讘讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诇讛

And Rav Giddel said that Rav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion? As it is written: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife, and shall not uncover his father鈥檚 skirt鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:1). The latter expression: 鈥淎nd shall not uncover his father鈥檚 skirt,鈥 is referring to a skirt that has been seen by his father, i.e., any woman who has had relations with his father may not be uncovered by his son, meaning that his son may not marry her.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讘讗谞讜住讛 讻转讬讘 诪注讬诇讜讬讛 讚拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 讛讗讬砖 讛砖讜讻讘 注诪讛 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讻住祝 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讜讙讜壮

And from where is it known that the verse is written with regard to a woman raped by his father? It is from the previous verse, which deals with the halakhot of rape, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the man who lay with her must give the maiden鈥檚 father fifty shekels of silver鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife and shall not uncover his father鈥檚 skirt.鈥 This shows that Rabbi Yehuda does derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses in Deuteronomy.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讛讜讛 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 (讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讘谞转讬诐)

搂 The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, respond to this argument? They say: If the two verses were fully juxtaposed, it would be interpreted as you said. However, now that it is not properly juxtaposed, as it is written: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife,鈥 in between the halakhot of rape and the pronouncement with regard to uncovering one鈥檚 father鈥檚 garment, this serves to break the juxtaposition.

讘砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉

Consequently, this particular verse concerning the uncovering of one鈥檚 father鈥檚 garment is speaking of a woman waiting for her yavam, in this case one鈥檚 father. In other words, the yevama of a father who is waiting for levirate marriage to the father is already considered 鈥渉is father鈥檚 skirt,鈥 and she is therefore forbidden to the son. Although this woman who is awaiting levirate marriage is in fact his uncle鈥檚 wife and explicitly prohibited to him in any case, this passage comes to teach that he violates two prohibitions. In other words, were he to engage in relations with her he would be penalized both for relations with his uncle鈥檚 wife and relations with 鈥渉is father鈥檚 skirt.鈥

讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讚专讬砖 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜讻讞 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜驻谞讬

搂 The Gemara asks: But as Rabbi Yehuda does not generally derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses, what is the reason that he derives these interpretations in Deuteronomy? The Gemara responds: If you wish, say that it is because it is evident from the context; and if you wish, say instead that it is because this verse is extraneous and is therefore free for this inference.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜讻讞 讚讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 注专讬讜转 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜驻谞讬 讚讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诇讛 讻谞祝 讗讘讬讜 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say it is because it is evident; as, if it is so that the verse did not intend to teach by juxtaposition, let the Merciful One write this halakha prohibiting marriage to a father鈥檚 wife alongside the other women with whom relations are forbidden, in Leviticus. Since this verse is out of place, it is certainly coming to teach by way of juxtaposition. And if you wish, say instead that it is because this verse is free, as, if it is so that the verse is not coming to teach an additional halakha, let the Merciful One write only: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife.鈥 Why do I need the phrase: 鈥淎nd shall not uncover his father鈥檚 skirt鈥? This phrase is superfluous, and therefore it teaches by juxtaposition.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 讜讙讘讬 爪讬爪讬转 谞诪讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜讻讞 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜驻谞讛

Learn from this that this phrase is free to teach an additional halakha. And with regard to ritual fringes as well, there is a particular reason to derive a homiletic interpretation from the juxtaposition of verses. If you wish, say that it is because it is evident from the context, and if you wish, say instead that it is because this verse is free for this inference.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜讻讞 讚讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 驻专砖转 爪讬爪讬转 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻转讘讬讛 讛讻讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜驻谞讛 诪讻讚讬 讻转讘 讜讘讙讚 讻诇讗讬诐 砖注讟谞讝 诇讗 讬注诇讛 注诇讬讱 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say it is because it is evident; as, if it is so that no inference should be drawn from the adjacent verses, let the Merciful One write this verse by the portion of ritual fringes (Numbers, chapter 15). With regard to what halakha did the Torah write it here? Clearly, the Torah is teaching a halakha from the adjacent verses. And if you wish, say it is because this verse is free, since the Torah has already written: 鈥淣either shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds mingled together鈥 (Leviticus 19:19). Why, then, do I need the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11)? Learn from this that the verse is free for the derivation of a homiletic interpretation from juxtaposed verses.

讛谞讬 诪爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬注诇讛 注诇讬讱 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讚专讱 讛注诇讗讛 讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜讻专讬 讻住讜转 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诇讘讬砖讛 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讛谞讗讛

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Both of these verses are necessary, as, had the Merciful One written only: 鈥淣either shall there come upon you,鈥 I would say that the Merciful One prohibits every manner by which a garment of diverse kinds comes upon you, and this applies even to sellers of coverings, who do not wear the garments but merely rest them on their shoulders. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds,鈥 to teach that the prohibition applies only in cases similar to wearing, which provides benefit and does not simply involve placing the covering upon oneself.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讜拽讗 诇讘讬砖讛 讚谞驻讬砖 讛谞讬讬转讛 讗讘诇 讛注诇讗讛 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬注诇讛 注诇讬讱

And had the Merciful One written only: 鈥淵ou shall not wear,鈥 I would say that this means specifically wearing, which provides significant benefit, both warmth and adornment, but merely placing a garment of diverse kinds upon oneself is not prohibited, even if one is warmed by the clothing. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淣either shall there come upon you.鈥

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara challenges: In any case part of the verse is superfluous, as, if so, let the Merciful One write only: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds.鈥 Why do I need the addition of 鈥渨ool and linen鈥? The definition of diverse kinds in clothing is already known from another source.

诪讻讚讬 讻转讘 讜讘讙讚 讻诇讗讬诐 砖注讟谞讝 诇讗 讬注诇讛 注诇讬讱 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专讜 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讘讙讚讬诐 讜驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

How so? Since it is written: 鈥淣either shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds mingled together鈥 (Leviticus 19:19), and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the word garments is stated in the Torah unmodified, without stating from what materials those garments were made, and the verse specified in one of its references to garments, in the context of the halakhot of ritual impurity of leprosy: 鈥淎 woolen garment or a linen garment鈥 (Leviticus 13:47), the following conclusion can be drawn: Just as when the Torah mentions a garment in the case of leprosy it is referring to one made of wool or linen, so too, all garments mentioned in the Torah are those made from wool or linen. Other fabrics are not classified as those used for garments. If so, why do I need the phrase: 鈥淲ool and linen鈥 that the Merciful One wrote with regard to diverse kinds? Learn from this that the superfluous passage is free.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛注诇讗讛 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讛谞讗转讛 讗讘诇 诇讘讬砖讛 讚谞驻讬砖 讛谞讬讬转讛 讻诇 转专讬 诪讬谞讬 讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the verse is still necessary, as it could enter your mind to say that it is referring only to placing a garment on oneself, which does not provide great benefit; however, with regard to the actual wearing of a garment, which entails great benefit, the Merciful One prohibits wearing any two types together. Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渨ool and linen鈥 with regard to wearing garments of diverse kinds as well.

讗诐 讻谉 诇砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转讬转讬 砖注讟谞讝 砖注讟谞讝 诪讛注诇讗讛

The Gemara responds: If so, let the verse be silent and refrain from mentioning wool and linen at all, and the halakha that only wearing wool and linen together is prohibited can be derived by means of a verbal analogy between the terms 鈥渄iverse kinds鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11), and 鈥渄iverse kinds鈥 from placing a covering of diverse kinds upon oneself (Leviticus 19:19). The repetition of wool and linen must be coming to teach that one should derive a homiletic interpretation from these juxtaposed verses.

讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讻诇讗讬诐 讘爪讬爪讬转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜注砖讜 诇讛诐 爪讬爪讬转 注诇 讻谞驻讬 讘讙讚讬讛诐

The Gemara asks: And according to that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that the mention of wool and linen is superfluous and teaches that they are not prohibited in the case of ritual fringes, the reason is that the Merciful One specifically writes wool and linen. From here it may be inferred that if that were not so, I would say that the Merciful One prohibits a mixture of diverse kinds in ritual fringes. Can it be considered that this is the case? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hat they make themselves fringes on the corners of their garments鈥 (Numbers 15:38)?

讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 讘讙讚讬诐 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讛诐 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 转讻诇转 讜转讻诇转 注诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜诪诪讗讬 讚转讻诇转 注诪专讗 讛讜讗 诪讚砖砖 讻讬转谞讗 转讻诇转 注诪专讗 讛讜讗

And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: All garments mentioned in the Torah are of wool or linen, and the Merciful One says, with regard to ritual fringes: Prepare it with a sky-blue dye, and a sky-blue dyed thread is prepared from wool. The Torah explicitly commands that at least one woolen thread of sky-blue dye must be tied even to a linen cloth, which proves that diverse kinds are permitted in the context of ritual fringes. The Gemara establishes the previous claim: And from where is it derived that the sky-blue thread is made of wool? From the fact that the Torah specifies that one of the strands of the priestly garments was made of shesh, which means linen, this indicates that the other threads, including the sky-blue thread, are from wool.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚专讘讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讻转讬讘 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐

搂 Returning to the question, the Gemara explains that the mention of wool and linen is necessary, as it could enter your mind to state an argument in accordance with the opinion of Rava. As Rava raised a contradiction from the following verse: It is written: 鈥淭hat they make themselves fringes on the corners of their garments鈥 (Numbers 15:38). The phrase 鈥渢he corners鈥 indicates that it must be from the same type of thread as the corner, i.e., the threads of the fringes must consist of the same kind of material as the corner of the garment. And yet it is written: 鈥淲ool and linen鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11), which indicates that ritual fringes may be prepared from only those materials and no others.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉

How so? How can this contradiction be resolved? Fringes made of wool and linen fulfill the obligation of ritual fringes whether the clothing is of the same type of material, i.e., wool or linen, or whether it is not of the same type of fabric. Conversely, with regard to all other kinds of material, if the ritual fringes are of the same kind, e.g., silk fringes on silk clothing, they fulfill the obligation, but if the cloth is not of the same type, they do not fulfill the obligation of ritual fringes. Consequently, were it not for the phrase 鈥渨ool and linen,鈥 it would have been necessary to prepare ritual fringes from the same material as the garment itself, even when using wool or linen.

讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗

The Gemara asks: But the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not maintain in accordance with this opinion of Rava, since that tanna holds that there is no obligation to place ritual fringes on clothing that is not made of wool or linen. The reason is that when the Torah speaks of garments it is referring exclusively to clothes made of wool or linen. Consequently, Rava鈥檚 interpretation with regard to different types of material does not apply to the opinion of the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 讚讬讜拽讗 讚专讘讗 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 爪诪专 诇爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诇驻砖转讬诐 讜讻讬 注讘讬讚转 爪诪专 诇爪诪专 爪讘注讬讛 讗讘诇 爪诪专 诇驻砖转讬诐 讜驻砖转讬诐 诇爪诪专 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讚讗驻讬诇讜 爪诪专 诇驻砖转讬诐 讜驻砖转讬诐 诇爪诪专

The Gemara responds: It is nevertheless necessary to state: 鈥淲ool and linen,鈥 as it could enter your mind to say, in accordance with the inference of Rava, that the phrase 鈥渢he corners鈥 indicates that it must be from the same type of thread as the corner, but in a different manner: This is what the Merciful One is saying: Prepare for it wool fringes for a wool garment and linen fringes for a linen garment, and when you prepare wool fringes for wool clothing, dye it sky-blue. However, if you prepare wool fringes for linen garments or linen for wool clothing, you need not include a sky-blue thread. Therefore, the Merciful One states: 鈥淲ool and linen,鈥 which teaches that one fulfills the obligation of fringes even with wool fringes for a linen garment or linen fringes for a woolen one.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 1 (2-16): Visual Tools for Yevamot

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For Chapter...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 2-8 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will begin learning Masechet Yevamot. We will learn about the mitzvah of Yibum, Levirate Marriage, and who...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Can a Positive Commandment Override a Negative One? – Gefet 29

Does a Positive Commandment Override a Negative Commandment for Which the Punishment is Karet? Why is One Allowed to Marry...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 4: The Witch Must Die

How do we interpretation biblical verses that are juxtaposed, or simply in proximity to each other? Do we extrapolate details...

Yevamot 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 4

讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 讙讚诇讬诐 转注砖讛 诇讱

As it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds of wool and linen together. You shall make for yourself twisted fringes on the four corners of your covering with which you cover yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11鈥12). These verses teach that despite the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds of wool and linen, it is permitted to prepare ritual fringes of diverse kinds, e.g., sky-blue dyed threads of wool on linen garments. This shows that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition of diverse kinds.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住诪讜讻讬诐 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 住诪讜讻讬诐 诇注讚 诇注讜诇诐 注砖讜讬诐 讘讗诪转 讜讬砖专

And Rabbi Elazar said: From where in the Torah is it derived that one may draw homiletical interpretations from the juxtaposition of verses? In other words, from where is it derived that the fact that certain verses are adjacent one to the other is a reason to apply the halakhot from one verse to the other? As it is stated: 鈥淭he works of His hands in truth and justice, all His commandments are sure. Juxtaposed forever and ever, made in truth and uprightness鈥 (Psalms 111:7鈥8). This verse indicates that it is appropriate to draw inferences from the juxtaposition of God鈥檚 commandments.

讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讘诪讛 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讜住诪讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讞住讜诐 砖讜专 讘讚讬砖讜 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讻讬 讬砖讘讜 讗讞讬诐 讬讞讚讬讜

And similarly, Rav Sheshet said that Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: From where is it derived with regard to a yevama who came before a yavam afflicted with boils that one may not muzzle her, i.e., she cannot be forced to enter into levirate marriage, and he is compelled to release her by 岣litza? As it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the corn鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:4), and, juxtaposed to it, is the verse: 鈥淚f brothers dwell together鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), which begins the passage that deals with the halakhot of levirate marriage. This teaches that just as it is prohibited to muzzle the ox, so too, one may not muzzle and ignore the complaints of a yevama who does not wish to marry a yavam afflicted with boils.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 住诪讜讻讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讚专讬砖 讚讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讚专讬砖

And Rav Yosef said: Even according to the one who does not generally derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses, nevertheless, he does derive them from Deuteronomy, as Rabbi Yehuda does not generally derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses, and yet he does derive them from Deuteronomy.

讜讘注诇诪讗 诪谞诇谉 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 诪讻砖驻讛 诇讗 转讞讬讛 讜谞讗诪专 讻诇 砖讜讻讘 注诐 讘讛诪讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 住诪讻讜 注谞讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 砖讜讻讘 注诐 讘讛诪讛 讘住拽讬诇讛 讗祝 诪讻砖驻讛 讘住拽讬诇讛

搂 The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that Rabbi Yehuda generally does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the punishment of a sorceress that ben Azzai says that it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not allow a sorceress to live鈥 (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, and it is stated: 鈥淲hoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death鈥 (Exodus 22:18). The Torah juxtaposed this matter to that so as to say: Just as one who lies with a beast is executed by stoning (see Leviticus 20:16), so too, a sorceress is executed by stoning.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖住诪讻讜 注谞讬谉 诇讜 谞讜爪讬讗 讝讛 诇住拽讬诇讛

With regard to this proof, Rabbi Yehuda said to ben Azzai: And simply due to the fact that the Torah juxtaposed this matter to that one, shall we take this person out to be stoned? Should he be sentenced to the most severe of the death penalties on the basis of a juxtaposition of passages?

讗诇讗 讗讜讘 讜讬讚注讜谞讬 讘讻诇诇 诪讻砖驻讬诐 讛讬讜 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗讜 诇讛拽讬砖 诇讛诐 讜诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讗讜讘 讜讬讚注讜谞讬 讘住拽讬诇讛 讗祝 诪讻砖驻讛 讘住拽讬诇讛

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda claims that the source is the following statement: Mediums and wizards were included among all sorcerers. And why were they singled out from the rest in the verse: 鈥淎nd a man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them鈥 (Leviticus 20:27)? It is to draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a medium and a wizard are executed by stoning, so too, a sorceress is executed by stoning. This shows that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses.

讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讚专讬砖 讚转谞谉 谞讜砖讗 讗讚诐 讗谞讜住转 讗讘讬讜 讜诪驻讜转转 讗讘讬讜 讗谞讜住转 讘谞讜 讜诪驻讜转转 讘谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讘讗谞讜住转 讗讘讬讜 讜诪驻讜转转 讗讘讬讜

And from where do we derive that Rabbi Yehuda does derive homiletic interpretations in Deuteronomy? As we learned in a mishna: A person may wed a woman raped by his father and one seduced by his father, despite the fact that his father鈥檚 wife is forbidden to him. Similarly, he may marry a woman raped by his son and one seduced by his son. Although one is prohibited by Torah law from marrying the wife of his father or the wife of his son, these prohibitions do not apply to a woman raped or seduced by them. And Rabbi Yehuda prohibits him from marrying a woman raped by his father and a woman seduced by his father.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 讬讙诇讛 讻谞祝 讗讘讬讜 讻谞祝 砖专讗讛 讗讘讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诇讛

And Rav Giddel said that Rav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion? As it is written: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife, and shall not uncover his father鈥檚 skirt鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:1). The latter expression: 鈥淎nd shall not uncover his father鈥檚 skirt,鈥 is referring to a skirt that has been seen by his father, i.e., any woman who has had relations with his father may not be uncovered by his son, meaning that his son may not marry her.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讘讗谞讜住讛 讻转讬讘 诪注讬诇讜讬讛 讚拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 讛讗讬砖 讛砖讜讻讘 注诪讛 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讻住祝 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讜讙讜壮

And from where is it known that the verse is written with regard to a woman raped by his father? It is from the previous verse, which deals with the halakhot of rape, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the man who lay with her must give the maiden鈥檚 father fifty shekels of silver鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife and shall not uncover his father鈥檚 skirt.鈥 This shows that Rabbi Yehuda does derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses in Deuteronomy.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讛讜讛 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 (讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讘谞转讬诐)

搂 The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, respond to this argument? They say: If the two verses were fully juxtaposed, it would be interpreted as you said. However, now that it is not properly juxtaposed, as it is written: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife,鈥 in between the halakhot of rape and the pronouncement with regard to uncovering one鈥檚 father鈥檚 garment, this serves to break the juxtaposition.

讘砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉

Consequently, this particular verse concerning the uncovering of one鈥檚 father鈥檚 garment is speaking of a woman waiting for her yavam, in this case one鈥檚 father. In other words, the yevama of a father who is waiting for levirate marriage to the father is already considered 鈥渉is father鈥檚 skirt,鈥 and she is therefore forbidden to the son. Although this woman who is awaiting levirate marriage is in fact his uncle鈥檚 wife and explicitly prohibited to him in any case, this passage comes to teach that he violates two prohibitions. In other words, were he to engage in relations with her he would be penalized both for relations with his uncle鈥檚 wife and relations with 鈥渉is father鈥檚 skirt.鈥

讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讚专讬砖 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜讻讞 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜驻谞讬

搂 The Gemara asks: But as Rabbi Yehuda does not generally derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses, what is the reason that he derives these interpretations in Deuteronomy? The Gemara responds: If you wish, say that it is because it is evident from the context; and if you wish, say instead that it is because this verse is extraneous and is therefore free for this inference.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜讻讞 讚讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 注专讬讜转 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜驻谞讬 讚讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诇讛 讻谞祝 讗讘讬讜 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say it is because it is evident; as, if it is so that the verse did not intend to teach by juxtaposition, let the Merciful One write this halakha prohibiting marriage to a father鈥檚 wife alongside the other women with whom relations are forbidden, in Leviticus. Since this verse is out of place, it is certainly coming to teach by way of juxtaposition. And if you wish, say instead that it is because this verse is free, as, if it is so that the verse is not coming to teach an additional halakha, let the Merciful One write only: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife.鈥 Why do I need the phrase: 鈥淎nd shall not uncover his father鈥檚 skirt鈥? This phrase is superfluous, and therefore it teaches by juxtaposition.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 讜讙讘讬 爪讬爪讬转 谞诪讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜讻讞 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜驻谞讛

Learn from this that this phrase is free to teach an additional halakha. And with regard to ritual fringes as well, there is a particular reason to derive a homiletic interpretation from the juxtaposition of verses. If you wish, say that it is because it is evident from the context, and if you wish, say instead that it is because this verse is free for this inference.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜讻讞 讚讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 驻专砖转 爪讬爪讬转 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻转讘讬讛 讛讻讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜驻谞讛 诪讻讚讬 讻转讘 讜讘讙讚 讻诇讗讬诐 砖注讟谞讝 诇讗 讬注诇讛 注诇讬讱 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say it is because it is evident; as, if it is so that no inference should be drawn from the adjacent verses, let the Merciful One write this verse by the portion of ritual fringes (Numbers, chapter 15). With regard to what halakha did the Torah write it here? Clearly, the Torah is teaching a halakha from the adjacent verses. And if you wish, say it is because this verse is free, since the Torah has already written: 鈥淣either shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds mingled together鈥 (Leviticus 19:19). Why, then, do I need the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11)? Learn from this that the verse is free for the derivation of a homiletic interpretation from juxtaposed verses.

讛谞讬 诪爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬注诇讛 注诇讬讱 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讚专讱 讛注诇讗讛 讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜讻专讬 讻住讜转 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诇讘讬砖讛 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讛谞讗讛

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Both of these verses are necessary, as, had the Merciful One written only: 鈥淣either shall there come upon you,鈥 I would say that the Merciful One prohibits every manner by which a garment of diverse kinds comes upon you, and this applies even to sellers of coverings, who do not wear the garments but merely rest them on their shoulders. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds,鈥 to teach that the prohibition applies only in cases similar to wearing, which provides benefit and does not simply involve placing the covering upon oneself.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讜拽讗 诇讘讬砖讛 讚谞驻讬砖 讛谞讬讬转讛 讗讘诇 讛注诇讗讛 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬注诇讛 注诇讬讱

And had the Merciful One written only: 鈥淵ou shall not wear,鈥 I would say that this means specifically wearing, which provides significant benefit, both warmth and adornment, but merely placing a garment of diverse kinds upon oneself is not prohibited, even if one is warmed by the clothing. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淣either shall there come upon you.鈥

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara challenges: In any case part of the verse is superfluous, as, if so, let the Merciful One write only: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds.鈥 Why do I need the addition of 鈥渨ool and linen鈥? The definition of diverse kinds in clothing is already known from another source.

诪讻讚讬 讻转讘 讜讘讙讚 讻诇讗讬诐 砖注讟谞讝 诇讗 讬注诇讛 注诇讬讱 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专讜 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讘讙讚讬诐 讜驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

How so? Since it is written: 鈥淣either shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds mingled together鈥 (Leviticus 19:19), and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the word garments is stated in the Torah unmodified, without stating from what materials those garments were made, and the verse specified in one of its references to garments, in the context of the halakhot of ritual impurity of leprosy: 鈥淎 woolen garment or a linen garment鈥 (Leviticus 13:47), the following conclusion can be drawn: Just as when the Torah mentions a garment in the case of leprosy it is referring to one made of wool or linen, so too, all garments mentioned in the Torah are those made from wool or linen. Other fabrics are not classified as those used for garments. If so, why do I need the phrase: 鈥淲ool and linen鈥 that the Merciful One wrote with regard to diverse kinds? Learn from this that the superfluous passage is free.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛注诇讗讛 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讛谞讗转讛 讗讘诇 诇讘讬砖讛 讚谞驻讬砖 讛谞讬讬转讛 讻诇 转专讬 诪讬谞讬 讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the verse is still necessary, as it could enter your mind to say that it is referring only to placing a garment on oneself, which does not provide great benefit; however, with regard to the actual wearing of a garment, which entails great benefit, the Merciful One prohibits wearing any two types together. Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渨ool and linen鈥 with regard to wearing garments of diverse kinds as well.

讗诐 讻谉 诇砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转讬转讬 砖注讟谞讝 砖注讟谞讝 诪讛注诇讗讛

The Gemara responds: If so, let the verse be silent and refrain from mentioning wool and linen at all, and the halakha that only wearing wool and linen together is prohibited can be derived by means of a verbal analogy between the terms 鈥渄iverse kinds鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11), and 鈥渄iverse kinds鈥 from placing a covering of diverse kinds upon oneself (Leviticus 19:19). The repetition of wool and linen must be coming to teach that one should derive a homiletic interpretation from these juxtaposed verses.

讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讻诇讗讬诐 讘爪讬爪讬转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜注砖讜 诇讛诐 爪讬爪讬转 注诇 讻谞驻讬 讘讙讚讬讛诐

The Gemara asks: And according to that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that the mention of wool and linen is superfluous and teaches that they are not prohibited in the case of ritual fringes, the reason is that the Merciful One specifically writes wool and linen. From here it may be inferred that if that were not so, I would say that the Merciful One prohibits a mixture of diverse kinds in ritual fringes. Can it be considered that this is the case? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hat they make themselves fringes on the corners of their garments鈥 (Numbers 15:38)?

讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 讘讙讚讬诐 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讛诐 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 转讻诇转 讜转讻诇转 注诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜诪诪讗讬 讚转讻诇转 注诪专讗 讛讜讗 诪讚砖砖 讻讬转谞讗 转讻诇转 注诪专讗 讛讜讗

And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: All garments mentioned in the Torah are of wool or linen, and the Merciful One says, with regard to ritual fringes: Prepare it with a sky-blue dye, and a sky-blue dyed thread is prepared from wool. The Torah explicitly commands that at least one woolen thread of sky-blue dye must be tied even to a linen cloth, which proves that diverse kinds are permitted in the context of ritual fringes. The Gemara establishes the previous claim: And from where is it derived that the sky-blue thread is made of wool? From the fact that the Torah specifies that one of the strands of the priestly garments was made of shesh, which means linen, this indicates that the other threads, including the sky-blue thread, are from wool.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚专讘讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讻转讬讘 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐

搂 Returning to the question, the Gemara explains that the mention of wool and linen is necessary, as it could enter your mind to state an argument in accordance with the opinion of Rava. As Rava raised a contradiction from the following verse: It is written: 鈥淭hat they make themselves fringes on the corners of their garments鈥 (Numbers 15:38). The phrase 鈥渢he corners鈥 indicates that it must be from the same type of thread as the corner, i.e., the threads of the fringes must consist of the same kind of material as the corner of the garment. And yet it is written: 鈥淲ool and linen鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11), which indicates that ritual fringes may be prepared from only those materials and no others.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉

How so? How can this contradiction be resolved? Fringes made of wool and linen fulfill the obligation of ritual fringes whether the clothing is of the same type of material, i.e., wool or linen, or whether it is not of the same type of fabric. Conversely, with regard to all other kinds of material, if the ritual fringes are of the same kind, e.g., silk fringes on silk clothing, they fulfill the obligation, but if the cloth is not of the same type, they do not fulfill the obligation of ritual fringes. Consequently, were it not for the phrase 鈥渨ool and linen,鈥 it would have been necessary to prepare ritual fringes from the same material as the garment itself, even when using wool or linen.

讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗

The Gemara asks: But the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not maintain in accordance with this opinion of Rava, since that tanna holds that there is no obligation to place ritual fringes on clothing that is not made of wool or linen. The reason is that when the Torah speaks of garments it is referring exclusively to clothes made of wool or linen. Consequently, Rava鈥檚 interpretation with regard to different types of material does not apply to the opinion of the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 讚讬讜拽讗 讚专讘讗 讛讻谞祝 诪讬谉 讻谞祝 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 爪诪专 诇爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 诇驻砖转讬诐 讜讻讬 注讘讬讚转 爪诪专 诇爪诪专 爪讘注讬讛 讗讘诇 爪诪专 诇驻砖转讬诐 讜驻砖转讬诐 诇爪诪专 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 爪诪专 讜驻砖转讬诐 讚讗驻讬诇讜 爪诪专 诇驻砖转讬诐 讜驻砖转讬诐 诇爪诪专

The Gemara responds: It is nevertheless necessary to state: 鈥淲ool and linen,鈥 as it could enter your mind to say, in accordance with the inference of Rava, that the phrase 鈥渢he corners鈥 indicates that it must be from the same type of thread as the corner, but in a different manner: This is what the Merciful One is saying: Prepare for it wool fringes for a wool garment and linen fringes for a linen garment, and when you prepare wool fringes for wool clothing, dye it sky-blue. However, if you prepare wool fringes for linen garments or linen for wool clothing, you need not include a sky-blue thread. Therefore, the Merciful One states: 鈥淲ool and linen,鈥 which teaches that one fulfills the obligation of fringes even with wool fringes for a linen garment or linen fringes for a woolen one.

Scroll To Top