Yevamot 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara first explains the source for the principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition:

As it is written [

Deuteronomy 22 ]

“You shall not wear shatnez”.

And adjacent to the prohibition against shatnez, the mitzva of tzitzit is written,

“You shall make for yourself twisted threads.”

From the juxtaposition of the positive commandment and the prohibition, we derive that the verse comes to teach that the positive mitzva of tzitzit overrides the prohibition. For one must tie wool threads dyed tekhelet as tzitzit to a linen garment, thereby making the garment kilayim.

And Rabbi Elazar said:

That we derive the meaning of juxtaposed verses

from the Torah—

from where

do we have a source that we derive laws from the juxtaposition of verses?

As it is stated: [

Psalms 111 ]

“They are juxtaposed forever and ever; they are made in truth and uprightness.”

The Gemara cites another exposition based on juxtaposition.

And Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: From where

do we know that a yevama who has fallen before a levir afflicted with boils is not silenced—that she is not prevented from presenting her claim against entering into levirate marriage, but her claim is accepted, and the yavam is compelled to perform halitza with her!?

As it is stated: [

Deuteronomy 25 ]

“You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing.”

And adjacent to it is: “When brothers dwell together.”

From the juxtaposition of the verses, we learn that there are times when we are prohibited from silencing claims against the fulfillment of the mitzva of levirate marriage. Rather, we must hear them and compel the yavam not to fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage, but specifically to perform halitza.

And just as we find that an exposition is derived from juxtaposed verses with regard to levirate marriage, so too we can learn, from the juxtaposition of the verses concerning kilayim in tzitzit, that the positive mitzva of tzitzit overrides the prohibition.

And Rav Yosef said: Even according to the one who does not generally expound juxtaposed verses,

in the first four books of the Torah, nevertheless

in Mishne Torah

he does

expound

juxtapositions.

For Rabbi Yehuda generally does not expound

juxtapositions,

but

if

in Mishne Torah

we find that he

expounds

them.

Therefore, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, one can learn with regard to kilayim in tzitzit that a positive commandment overrides a prohibition, since the juxtaposition of tzitzit and kilayim appears in the book of Deuteronomy, which is Mishne Torah.

The Gemara now explains:

And generally, from where do we know that

Rabbi Yehuda does not expound juxtaposed verses?

As it was taught in a beraita: Ben Azzai says: It is stated [

Exodus 22 ]

“You shall not allow a sorceress to live,” and it is stated

adjacent to it,

“Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.”

They juxtaposed its matter to it.

The verse juxtaposed the law of a sorcerer to the law of one who lies with an animal, in order to compare them, so that the same law that applies to one who lies with an animal would also apply to a sorcerer:

Just as one who lies with an animal,

whose law is explicitly stated in the Torah as

stoning,

the most severe form of execution—

so too a sorceress [

and a sorcerer—her law is

stoning.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Is it because they juxtaposed its matter to it that we should take

the

sorcerer

and

execute him by stoning,

so that he is judged by the most severe form of execution!?

But the juxtaposition is not proof!

Rather,

Rabbi Yehuda said, from here you learn that a sorcerer is liable to stoning:

A necromancer and a wizard were included among sorcerers [

in the verse “You shall not allow a sorceress to live”]

.

And why were they singled out

from the category of sorcerers, to be written separately?

Since anything that was included in a general category and was then singled out to be written separately was not singled out to teach only about itself, but to teach about the entire general category.

Therefore, the necromancer and the wizard were singled out in order

to compare all sorcerers to them

and

tell you: Just as a necromancer and a wizard are liable to stoning—

so too a sorceress is liable to stoning.

The Gemara now explains:

And in Mishne Torah—

from where do we know that

Rabbi Yehuda expounds juxtaposed verses?

As we learned in the Mishna: A man may marry his father’s raped woman or his father’s seduced woman.

For the prohibition concerning his father’s wife was stated only with regard to a woman whom his father married.

And similarly, a man may marry

his son’s raped woman or his son’s seduced woman,

since his daughter-in-law is prohibited to him only if his son married her.

Rabbi Yehuda prohibits

marrying

his father’s raped woman or his father’s seduced woman

because of a prohibition [but she is not an erva punishable by karet].

And Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: What is the reason,

what is the source,

of Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling?

Because he expounds juxtaposed verses in Mishne Torah.

As it is written: [

Deuteronomy 23 ]

“A man shall not take his father’s wife.”

And adjacent to it, it is written:

“He shall not uncover his father’s wing.”

Rabbi Yehuda expounds the juxtaposition as follows:

The Torah’s prohibition against taking “his father’s wife” does not mean that it is prohibited to have relations with “a woman married to his father.”

Rather, the meaning of the verse is that anyone

whose wing [

that is, an erva, covered by the wing of the garment]

his father saw,

meaning that his father had relations with this woman, even if he did not marry her—

the son shall not uncover

her.

And from where is “

he shall not uncover his father’s wing”

written with regard to

a

raped

woman,

without marriage?

From what is written above

in the preceding verse, at the end of the previous chapter.

As it is written concerning the rape of a virgin girl [

Deuteronomy 22 ]

“The man who lay with her shall give the girl’s father fifty silver coins.”

And adjacent to it is: “A man shall not take

,” and it continues.

But the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and do not prohibit marrying his father’s raped woman, also hold that one should expound juxtaposed verses. Rather, they maintain that there is no juxtaposition here.

And this is what they argue against Rabbi Yehuda:

If “he shall not uncover his father’s wing” had been adjacent to

“the raped girl,” then it would indeed be

as you say,

that his father’s raped woman is also prohibited.

But

now,

at present,

that it is not adjacent

literally, since the first half of the verse says “A man shall not take his father’s wife,” intervening between the raped girl and his father’s raped woman—this is not a juxtaposition!

Therefore, the words of the verse, “He shall not uncover his father’s wing,”

speak of a woman awaiting levirate marriage

who falls before his father for levirate marriage.

The verse

speaks of violating it

, the prohibition concerning a woman awaiting levirate marriage,

with two prohibitions.

The first is the ordinary prohibition concerning a woman awaiting levirate marriage: she is prohibited to everyone outside the levirate bond because she is bound to the yavam.

The second is the special prohibition concerning his father’s woman awaiting levirate marriage, which is a prohibition of kinship, since his father’s woman awaiting levirate marriage is considered his father’s relative.

The Gemara now explains Rabbi Yehuda’s method:

And in Mishne Torah—

what is the reason that

Rabbi Yehuda expounds juxtaposed verses there, whereas he does not expound them in the other books of the Torah?

If you wish, say: Because it is evident

that one should expound juxtaposed verses in Mishne Torah.

And if you wish, say: Because

these verses in Mishne Torah are

available,

as they are superfluous, leaving them free for an exposition based on juxtaposition.

The Gemara explains the first possibility:

If you wish, say: Because it is evident:

For if

you do not say

so,

that the verse “A man shall not take his father’s wife” was written in order to derive a juxtaposition with “He shall not uncover his father’s wing,” but rather it came only to add another prohibition concerning his father’s wife, as the Rabbis maintain, why was it written here?

The Merciful One should have written

the additional prohibition concerning his father’s wife

in

the section dealing with

forbidden sexual relations,

where all the forbidden relations are detailed, including the prohibition against a father’s wife!

The Gemara explains the second possibility:

And if you wish, say: Because it is available.

For if

you do not say

so,

that the verse is superfluous and available for exposition, you will have the following difficulty:

Let the Merciful One write only, “A man shall not take his father’s wife”

alone.

The fact that it then repeated and wrote

“He shall not uncover his father’s wing”—

why do I need it!?

It is superfluous!