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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 11, 2022 | ื—ืณ ื‘ืื“ืจ ื‘ืณ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • 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

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Ronit Eini on behalf of her son Yair Ezra on finishing Masechet Megillah.ย 

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored anonymously for the refuah shelaima of Devorah bat Eta Elka Michla.ย 

From where do we derive that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment? The first answer is to learn it from the juxtaposition of tzitztit and shaatnez which comes to teach that the positive commandment of tzitzit overrides the negative commandment of shaatnez. From where do we learn that we can derive laws from the juxtaposition (smuchin) of texts? Rabbi Yehuda only permits this in the book of Devarim. From where is this learned? Some explain that when Rabbi Yehuda derives juxtaposition, it is because it is obvious from the context that the verse is here for this purpose. Others say it is because the verse is unnecessary in its context. These two options are explained both regarding the prohibition for a man to engage in sexual relations with his father’s rape victim and regarding the tzitzit and shaatnez case. The Gemara questions the argument by shaatnez that it was unnecessary to repeat a section that came up in Vayikra as it does seem like it was necessary in order to clarify the laws. In the end, they suggest that the words wool and linen were unnecessary as explained by the school of Rabbi Yishmael that clothing in the Torah always means wool and linen. But if it didn’t say wool and linen, we would have anyway understood that tzitzit are wool and linen as it says, “make tzitzit on the corner of your garments” and it should be techelet, which is wool. From there it is obvious that wool strings are put on a linen garment! This is not a concern as that verse could be explained differently, as Rava explains it.

ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ื’ื“ืœื™ื ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš

As it is written: โ€œYou 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 yourselfโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:11โ€“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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืกืžื•ื›ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืกืžื•ื›ื™ื ืœืขื“ ืœืขื•ืœื ืขืฉื•ื™ื ื‘ืืžืช ื•ื™ืฉืจ

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: โ€œThe works of His hands in truth and justice, all His commandments are sure. Juxtaposed forever and ever, made in truth and uprightnessโ€ (Psalms 111:7โ€“8). This verse indicates that it is appropriate to draw inferences from the juxtaposition of Godโ€™s commandments.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉื ืคืœื” ืœืคื ื™ ืžื•ื›ื” ืฉื—ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืกืžื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื ืชื—ืกื•ื ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ื“ื™ืฉื• ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ื™ืฉื‘ื• ืื—ื™ื ื™ื—ื“ื™ื•

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 แธฅalitza? As it is stated: โ€œYou shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the cornโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:4), and, juxtaposed to it, is the verse: โ€œIf brothers dwell togetherโ€ (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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืœื ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืกืžื•ื›ื™ื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื‘ืžืฉื ื” ืชื•ืจื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื“ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืœื ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื•ื‘ืžืฉื ื” ืชื•ืจื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ

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.

ื•ื‘ืขืœืžื ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืฉืคื” ืœื ืชื—ื™ื” ื•ื ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื•ื›ื‘ ืขื ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืช ื™ื•ืžืช ืกืžื›ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžื” ืฉื•ื›ื‘ ืขื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืืฃ ืžื›ืฉืคื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

ยง 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: โ€œYou shall not allow a sorceress to liveโ€ (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, and it is stated: โ€œWhoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to deathโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืกืžื›ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื• ื ื•ืฆื™ื ื–ื” ืœืกืงื™ืœื”

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?

ืืœื ืื•ื‘ ื•ื™ื“ืขื•ื ื™ ื‘ื›ืœืœ ืžื›ืฉืคื™ื ื”ื™ื• ื•ืœืžื” ื™ืฆืื• ืœื”ืงื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ื•ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืžื” ืื•ื‘ ื•ื™ื“ืขื•ื ื™ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืืฃ ืžื›ืฉืคื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

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: โ€œAnd 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 themโ€ (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.

ื•ื‘ืžืฉื ื” ืชื•ืจื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื ื•ืฉื ืื“ื ืื ื•ืกืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืžืคื•ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืื ื•ืกืช ื‘ื ื• ื•ืžืคื•ืชืช ื‘ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ ื‘ืื ื•ืกืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืžืคื•ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื•

ยง 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 fatherโ€™s 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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ื™ื“ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ืงื— ืื™ืฉ ืืช ืืฉืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืœื ื™ื’ืœื” ื›ื ืฃ ืื‘ื™ื• ื›ื ืฃ ืฉืจืื” ืื‘ื™ื• ืœื ื™ื’ืœื”

And Rav Giddel said that Rav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s opinion? As it is written: โ€œA man shall not take his fatherโ€™s wife, and shall not uncover his fatherโ€™s skirtโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:1). The latter expression: โ€œAnd shall not uncover his fatherโ€™s skirt,โ€ 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.

ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ื‘ืื ื•ืกื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืขื™ืœื•ื™ื” ื“ืงืจื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืชืŸ ื”ืื™ืฉ ื”ืฉื•ื›ื‘ ืขืžื” ืœืื‘ื™ ื”ื ืขืจื” ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื›ืกืฃ ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืœื ื™ืงื— ืื™ืฉ ื•ื’ื•ืณ

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: โ€œAnd the man who lay with her must give the maidenโ€™s father fifty shekels of silverโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:29), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: โ€œA man shall not take his fatherโ€™s wife and shall not uncover his fatherโ€™s skirt.โ€ This shows that Rabbi Yehuda does derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses in Deuteronomy.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ื”ื•ื” ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื›ื“ืงืืžืจืช ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืœื ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” (ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ืงื— ืื™ืฉ ืืช ืืฉืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื ืชื™ื)

ยง 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: โ€œA man shall not take his fatherโ€™s wife,โ€ in between the halakhot of rape and the pronouncement with regard to uncovering oneโ€™s fatherโ€™s garment, this serves to break the juxtaposition.

ื‘ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืœืขื‘ื•ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ

Consequently, this particular verse concerning the uncovering of oneโ€™s fatherโ€™s garment is speaking of a woman waiting for her yavam, in this case oneโ€™s father. In other words, the yevama of a father who is waiting for levirate marriage to the father is already considered โ€œhis fatherโ€™s skirt,โ€ and she is therefore forbidden to the son. Although this woman who is awaiting levirate marriage is in fact his uncleโ€™s 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 uncleโ€™s wife and relations with โ€œhis fatherโ€™s skirt.โ€

ื•ื‘ืžืฉื ื” ืชื•ืจื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ื›ื— ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ืคื ื™

ยง 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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ื›ื— ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื‘ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ืคื ื™ ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ื™ืงื— ืื™ืฉ ืืช ืืฉืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืœื ื™ื’ืœื” ื›ื ืฃ ืื‘ื™ื• ืœืžื” ืœื™

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 fatherโ€™s 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: โ€œA man shall not take his fatherโ€™s wife.โ€ Why do I need the phrase: โ€œAnd shall not uncover his fatherโ€™s skirtโ€? This phrase is superfluous, and therefore it teaches by juxtaposition.

ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื ื•ื™ื™ ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ืฆื™ืฆื™ืช ื ืžื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ื›ื— ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ืคื ื”

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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ื›ื— ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื‘ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืคืจืฉืช ืฆื™ืฆื™ืช ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ืชื‘ื™ื” ื”ื›ื ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ืคื ื” ืžื›ื“ื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื•ื‘ื’ื“ ื›ืœืื™ื ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืœื ื™ืขืœื” ืขืœื™ืš ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื ื•ื™ื™

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: โ€œNeither shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds mingled togetherโ€ (Leviticus 19:19). Why, then, do I need the verse: โ€œYou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen togetherโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:11)? Learn from this that the verse is free for the derivation of a homiletic interpretation from juxtaposed verses.

ื”ื ื™ ืžืฆืจืš ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ื™ืขืœื” ืขืœื™ืš ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื›ืœ ื“ืจืš ื”ืขืœืื” ืืกืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื•ื›ืจื™ ื›ืกื•ืช ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืœื‘ื™ืฉื” ื“ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ื”ื ืื”

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Both of these verses are necessary, as, had the Merciful One written only: โ€œNeither shall there come upon you,โ€ 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: โ€œYou shall not wear diverse kinds,โ€ 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.

ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื“ื•ืงื ืœื‘ื™ืฉื” ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ื”ื ื™ื™ืชื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ืขืœืื” ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ื™ืขืœื” ืขืœื™ืš

And had the Merciful One written only: โ€œYou shall not wear,โ€ 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: โ€œNeither shall there come upon you.โ€

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara challenges: In any case part of the verse is superfluous, as, if so, let the Merciful One write only: โ€œYou shall not wear diverse kinds.โ€ Why do I need the addition of โ€œwool and linenโ€? The definition of diverse kinds in clothing is already known from another source.

ืžื›ื“ื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื•ื‘ื’ื“ ื›ืœืื™ื ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืœื ื™ืขืœื” ืขืœื™ืš ื•ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื ืืžืจื• ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืกืชื ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื•ืคืจื˜ ืœืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื ื•ื™ื™

How so? Since it is written: โ€œNeither shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds mingled togetherโ€ (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: โ€œA woolen garment or a linen garmentโ€ (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: โ€œWool and linenโ€ that the Merciful One wrote with regard to diverse kinds? Learn from this that the superfluous passage is free.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ืขืœืื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืœื ื ืคื™ืฉ ื”ื ืืชื” ืื‘ืœ ืœื‘ื™ืฉื” ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ื”ื ื™ื™ืชื” ื›ืœ ืชืจื™ ืžื™ื ื™ ืืกืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื

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 โ€œwool and linenโ€ with regard to wearing garments of diverse kinds as well.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœืฉืชื•ืง ืงืจื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืชื™ืชื™ ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืžื”ืขืœืื”

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 โ€œdiverse kindsโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:11), and โ€œdiverse kindsโ€ 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.

ื•ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื›ืœืื™ื ื‘ืฆื™ืฆื™ืช ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื“ืืกืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืขืฉื• ืœื”ื ืฆื™ืฆื™ืช ืขืœ ื›ื ืคื™ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื”ื

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 isnโ€™t it written: โ€œThat they make themselves fringes on the corners of their garmentsโ€ (Numbers 15:38)?

ื•ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ืœ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ื”ื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืชื›ืœืช ื•ืชื›ืœืช ืขืžืจื ื”ื•ื ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ืชื›ืœืช ืขืžืจื ื”ื•ื ืžื“ืฉืฉ ื›ื™ืชื ื ืชื›ืœืช ืขืžืจื ื”ื•ื

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.

ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื“ืจื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืจืžื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืฃ ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื ืฃ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื

ยง 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: โ€œThat they make themselves fringes on the corners of their garmentsโ€ (Numbers 15:38). The phrase โ€œthe cornersโ€ 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: โ€œWool and linenโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:11), which indicates that ritual fringes may be prepared from only those materials and no others.

ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ืžื™ื ืŸ ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ืžื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ

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 โ€œwool and linen,โ€ it would have been necessary to prepare ritual fringes from the same material as the garment itself, even when using wool or linen.

ื•ื”ื ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื

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, Ravaโ€™s interpretation with regard to different types of material does not apply to the opinion of the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื•ืงื ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื ืฃ ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื ืฃ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืฆืžืจ ืœืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืœืคืฉืชื™ื ื•ื›ื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืช ืฆืžืจ ืœืฆืžืจ ืฆื‘ืขื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืฆืžืจ ืœืคืฉืชื™ื ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืœืฆืžืจ ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืฆืžืจ ืœืคืฉืชื™ื ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืœืฆืžืจ

The Gemara responds: It is nevertheless necessary to state: โ€œWool and linen,โ€ as it could enter your mind to say, in accordance with the inference of Rava, that the phrase โ€œthe cornersโ€ 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: โ€œWool and linen,โ€ 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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • 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

ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ื’ื“ืœื™ื ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš

As it is written: โ€œYou 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 yourselfโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:11โ€“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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืกืžื•ื›ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืกืžื•ื›ื™ื ืœืขื“ ืœืขื•ืœื ืขืฉื•ื™ื ื‘ืืžืช ื•ื™ืฉืจ

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: โ€œThe works of His hands in truth and justice, all His commandments are sure. Juxtaposed forever and ever, made in truth and uprightnessโ€ (Psalms 111:7โ€“8). This verse indicates that it is appropriate to draw inferences from the juxtaposition of Godโ€™s commandments.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉื ืคืœื” ืœืคื ื™ ืžื•ื›ื” ืฉื—ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืกืžื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื ืชื—ืกื•ื ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ื“ื™ืฉื• ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ื™ืฉื‘ื• ืื—ื™ื ื™ื—ื“ื™ื•

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 แธฅalitza? As it is stated: โ€œYou shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the cornโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:4), and, juxtaposed to it, is the verse: โ€œIf brothers dwell togetherโ€ (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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืœื ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืกืžื•ื›ื™ื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื‘ืžืฉื ื” ืชื•ืจื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื“ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืœื ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื•ื‘ืžืฉื ื” ืชื•ืจื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ

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.

ื•ื‘ืขืœืžื ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืฉืคื” ืœื ืชื—ื™ื” ื•ื ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื•ื›ื‘ ืขื ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืช ื™ื•ืžืช ืกืžื›ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžื” ืฉื•ื›ื‘ ืขื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืืฃ ืžื›ืฉืคื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

ยง 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: โ€œYou shall not allow a sorceress to liveโ€ (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, and it is stated: โ€œWhoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to deathโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืกืžื›ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื• ื ื•ืฆื™ื ื–ื” ืœืกืงื™ืœื”

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?

ืืœื ืื•ื‘ ื•ื™ื“ืขื•ื ื™ ื‘ื›ืœืœ ืžื›ืฉืคื™ื ื”ื™ื• ื•ืœืžื” ื™ืฆืื• ืœื”ืงื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ื•ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืžื” ืื•ื‘ ื•ื™ื“ืขื•ื ื™ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืืฃ ืžื›ืฉืคื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

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: โ€œAnd 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 themโ€ (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.

ื•ื‘ืžืฉื ื” ืชื•ืจื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื ื•ืฉื ืื“ื ืื ื•ืกืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืžืคื•ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืื ื•ืกืช ื‘ื ื• ื•ืžืคื•ืชืช ื‘ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ ื‘ืื ื•ืกืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืžืคื•ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื•

ยง 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 fatherโ€™s 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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ื™ื“ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ืงื— ืื™ืฉ ืืช ืืฉืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืœื ื™ื’ืœื” ื›ื ืฃ ืื‘ื™ื• ื›ื ืฃ ืฉืจืื” ืื‘ื™ื• ืœื ื™ื’ืœื”

And Rav Giddel said that Rav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s opinion? As it is written: โ€œA man shall not take his fatherโ€™s wife, and shall not uncover his fatherโ€™s skirtโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:1). The latter expression: โ€œAnd shall not uncover his fatherโ€™s skirt,โ€ 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.

ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ื‘ืื ื•ืกื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืขื™ืœื•ื™ื” ื“ืงืจื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืชืŸ ื”ืื™ืฉ ื”ืฉื•ื›ื‘ ืขืžื” ืœืื‘ื™ ื”ื ืขืจื” ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื›ืกืฃ ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืœื ื™ืงื— ืื™ืฉ ื•ื’ื•ืณ

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: โ€œAnd the man who lay with her must give the maidenโ€™s father fifty shekels of silverโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:29), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: โ€œA man shall not take his fatherโ€™s wife and shall not uncover his fatherโ€™s skirt.โ€ This shows that Rabbi Yehuda does derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses in Deuteronomy.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ื”ื•ื” ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื›ื“ืงืืžืจืช ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืœื ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” (ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ืงื— ืื™ืฉ ืืช ืืฉืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื ืชื™ื)

ยง 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: โ€œA man shall not take his fatherโ€™s wife,โ€ in between the halakhot of rape and the pronouncement with regard to uncovering oneโ€™s fatherโ€™s garment, this serves to break the juxtaposition.

ื‘ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืœืขื‘ื•ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ

Consequently, this particular verse concerning the uncovering of oneโ€™s fatherโ€™s garment is speaking of a woman waiting for her yavam, in this case oneโ€™s father. In other words, the yevama of a father who is waiting for levirate marriage to the father is already considered โ€œhis fatherโ€™s skirt,โ€ and she is therefore forbidden to the son. Although this woman who is awaiting levirate marriage is in fact his uncleโ€™s 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 uncleโ€™s wife and relations with โ€œhis fatherโ€™s skirt.โ€

ื•ื‘ืžืฉื ื” ืชื•ืจื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ื›ื— ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ืคื ื™

ยง 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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ื›ื— ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื‘ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ืคื ื™ ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ื™ืงื— ืื™ืฉ ืืช ืืฉืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืœื ื™ื’ืœื” ื›ื ืฃ ืื‘ื™ื• ืœืžื” ืœื™

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 fatherโ€™s 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: โ€œA man shall not take his fatherโ€™s wife.โ€ Why do I need the phrase: โ€œAnd shall not uncover his fatherโ€™s skirtโ€? This phrase is superfluous, and therefore it teaches by juxtaposition.

ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื ื•ื™ื™ ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ืฆื™ืฆื™ืช ื ืžื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ื›ื— ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ืคื ื”

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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ื›ื— ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื‘ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืคืจืฉืช ืฆื™ืฆื™ืช ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ืชื‘ื™ื” ื”ื›ื ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื•ืคื ื” ืžื›ื“ื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื•ื‘ื’ื“ ื›ืœืื™ื ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืœื ื™ืขืœื” ืขืœื™ืš ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื ื•ื™ื™

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: โ€œNeither shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds mingled togetherโ€ (Leviticus 19:19). Why, then, do I need the verse: โ€œYou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen togetherโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:11)? Learn from this that the verse is free for the derivation of a homiletic interpretation from juxtaposed verses.

ื”ื ื™ ืžืฆืจืš ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ื™ืขืœื” ืขืœื™ืš ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื›ืœ ื“ืจืš ื”ืขืœืื” ืืกืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื•ื›ืจื™ ื›ืกื•ืช ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืœื‘ื™ืฉื” ื“ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ื”ื ืื”

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Both of these verses are necessary, as, had the Merciful One written only: โ€œNeither shall there come upon you,โ€ 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: โ€œYou shall not wear diverse kinds,โ€ 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.

ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื“ื•ืงื ืœื‘ื™ืฉื” ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ื”ื ื™ื™ืชื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ืขืœืื” ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ื™ืขืœื” ืขืœื™ืš

And had the Merciful One written only: โ€œYou shall not wear,โ€ 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: โ€œNeither shall there come upon you.โ€

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื ืชืœื‘ืฉ ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara challenges: In any case part of the verse is superfluous, as, if so, let the Merciful One write only: โ€œYou shall not wear diverse kinds.โ€ Why do I need the addition of โ€œwool and linenโ€? The definition of diverse kinds in clothing is already known from another source.

ืžื›ื“ื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื•ื‘ื’ื“ ื›ืœืื™ื ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืœื ื™ืขืœื” ืขืœื™ืš ื•ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื ืืžืจื• ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืกืชื ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื•ืคืจื˜ ืœืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื ื•ื™ื™

How so? Since it is written: โ€œNeither shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds mingled togetherโ€ (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: โ€œA woolen garment or a linen garmentโ€ (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: โ€œWool and linenโ€ that the Merciful One wrote with regard to diverse kinds? Learn from this that the superfluous passage is free.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ืขืœืื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืœื ื ืคื™ืฉ ื”ื ืืชื” ืื‘ืœ ืœื‘ื™ืฉื” ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ื”ื ื™ื™ืชื” ื›ืœ ืชืจื™ ืžื™ื ื™ ืืกืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื

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 โ€œwool and linenโ€ with regard to wearing garments of diverse kinds as well.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœืฉืชื•ืง ืงืจื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืชื™ืชื™ ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืฉืขื˜ื ื– ืžื”ืขืœืื”

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 โ€œdiverse kindsโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:11), and โ€œdiverse kindsโ€ 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.

ื•ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื›ืœืื™ื ื‘ืฆื™ืฆื™ืช ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื“ืืกืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืขืฉื• ืœื”ื ืฆื™ืฆื™ืช ืขืœ ื›ื ืคื™ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื”ื

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 isnโ€™t it written: โ€œThat they make themselves fringes on the corners of their garmentsโ€ (Numbers 15:38)?

ื•ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ืœ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ื”ื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืชื›ืœืช ื•ืชื›ืœืช ืขืžืจื ื”ื•ื ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ืชื›ืœืช ืขืžืจื ื”ื•ื ืžื“ืฉืฉ ื›ื™ืชื ื ืชื›ืœืช ืขืžืจื ื”ื•ื

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.

ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื“ืจื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืจืžื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืฃ ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื ืฃ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื

ยง 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: โ€œThat they make themselves fringes on the corners of their garmentsโ€ (Numbers 15:38). The phrase โ€œthe cornersโ€ 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: โ€œWool and linenโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:11), which indicates that ritual fringes may be prepared from only those materials and no others.

ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ืžื™ื ืŸ ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ืžื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ

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 โ€œwool and linen,โ€ it would have been necessary to prepare ritual fringes from the same material as the garment itself, even when using wool or linen.

ื•ื”ื ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื

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, Ravaโ€™s interpretation with regard to different types of material does not apply to the opinion of the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื•ืงื ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื ืฃ ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื ืฃ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืฆืžืจ ืœืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืœืคืฉืชื™ื ื•ื›ื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืช ืฆืžืจ ืœืฆืžืจ ืฆื‘ืขื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืฆืžืจ ืœืคืฉืชื™ื ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืœืฆืžืจ ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฆืžืจ ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืฆืžืจ ืœืคืฉืชื™ื ื•ืคืฉืชื™ื ืœืฆืžืจ

The Gemara responds: It is nevertheless necessary to state: โ€œWool and linen,โ€ as it could enter your mind to say, in accordance with the inference of Rava, that the phrase โ€œthe cornersโ€ 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: โ€œWool and linen,โ€ 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