Yevamot 4a — the Talmud in English

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

As it is written [

Deuteronomy 22]

“You shall not wear shaatnez.”

And adjacent to the prohibition of shaatnez, the mitzva of tzitzit is written,

“You shall make twisted threads for yourself.”

And from the juxtaposition of the positive commandment to the prohibition, we expound that Scripture came to teach that the positive commandment of tzitzit overrides the prohibition. For it is necessary to tie wool threads dyed tekhelet as tzitzit to a linen garment, and through this the garment becomes kilayim.

And Rabbi Elazar said:

This that we expound the meaning of juxtaposed verses

from the Torah—

from where

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

As it is stated: [

Psalms 111]

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

And the Gemara brings another exposition of “juxtaposed.”

And Rav Sheshet said that Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah: From where is it derived concerning a yevama who fell before a leper, that she is not silenced,

that she is not prevented from presenting her claim against her levirate marriage, but her claim is accepted, and the levir is compelled to perform halitza for 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.”

And from the juxtaposition of the verses we learn that there are times when we are forbidden to silence the claims against the fulfillment of the mitzva of levirate marriage; rather, we must hear them and compel the levir not to fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage, but specifically to perform halitza.

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

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

in the first four books of the Torah, nevertheless

in Mishne Torah,

he does

expound

juxtaposition.

For Rabbi Yehuda does not generally expound

juxtaposition,

but

if

in Mishne Torah

we find that he

expounds

them.

Therefore, even according to Rabbi Yehuda it is possible to learn concerning kilayim in tzitzit that a positive commandment overrides a prohibition, because the juxtaposition of tzitzit to kilayim was stated in the book of Deuteronomy, which is Mishne Torah.

And now the Gemara explains:

And generally, from where do we know that

Rabbi Yehuda does not expound juxtaposition?

For it was taught: 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.

Scripture juxtaposed the law of the sorcerer to the law of one who lies with an animal, in order to liken it to him, so that the same matter 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 explained in the Torah as

stoning,

which is the most severe death,

so too a sorceress [

and a sorcerer] is subject

to stoning.

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

this

one,

the sorcerer,

to stoning,

so that he will be judged by the most severe death!?

But is the juxtaposition proof!?

Rather,

said Rabbi Yehuda, from here you learn that the law of a sorcerer is stoning:

A necromancer and a wizard were included among sorcerers [

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

were.

And why were they singled out

from the category of sorcerers, to be written separately?

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

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

to compare to them

all the sorcerers,

and to say to you: Just as a necromancer and a wizard are subject to stoning—

so too a sorceress is subject to stoning.

And now the Gemara explains:

And in Mishne Torah—

from where does he expound

Rabbi Yehuda juxtaposition?

For we learned: A man may marry his father’s rape victim and his father’s seduced woman.

Since the prohibition concerning his father’s wife was stated only with regard to one whom his father married.

And likewise a man may marry

his son’s rape victim and his son’s seduced woman,

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

Rabbi Yehuda prohibits

marrying

his father’s rape victim and his father’s seduced woman,

because of a prohibition, [

but she is not a forbidden relation for which there is karet]. And Rav Giddel said that Rav said: What is the reason,

what is the source

of Rabbi Yehuda?

Because he expounds juxtaposition 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

“And he shall not uncover his father’s skirt.”

And Rabbi Yehuda expounded the juxtaposition as follows:

That which the Torah prohibited taking “his father’s wife” does not mean that it is forbidden to have relations with “a woman married to his father.”

Rather, the intention of Scripture is to say that every

skirt [

that is, a forbidden relation covered by the skirt of the garment]

that his father saw,

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

he shall not uncover

the son!

And from what is “he shall not uncover his father’s skirt”

“in”

a

woman

violated,

without marriage,

written?

From what is above in the verse.

From the verse above, at the end of the preceding chapter.

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

Deuteronomy 22]

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

And adjacent to it is “A man shall not take.”

And so on.

But the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and do not prohibit marrying his father’s rape victim, also hold that one should expound “juxtaposition.” Rather, they hold that here there is no juxtaposition.

And this is what they argue against Rabbi Yehuda:

If “he shall not uncover his father’s skirt” were adjacent to the raped girl, then it would indeed be

as you say,

as you say,

that his father’s rape victim 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,” and it interrupts between the raped girl and his father’s rape victim—this is not juxtaposition!

Therefore, the words of the verse “he shall not uncover his father’s skirt”—

the widow awaiting levirate marriage

who falls before his father for levirate marriage—

the verse speaks.

And to violate it,

the prohibition of a widow awaiting levirate marriage,

with two prohibitions.

The first is the ordinary prohibition of a widow awaiting levirate marriage, who is prohibited to anyone outside because she is bound to the levir.

And the second is the special prohibition of his father’s widow awaiting levirate marriage, which is a prohibition of relationship, since his father’s widow awaiting levirate marriage is considered his father’s relative.

And now the Gemara explains Rabbi Yehuda’s method:

And in Mishne Torah—

what is the reason that he expounds

Rabbi Yehuda juxtaposition, whereas in the other books he does not expound it?

If you wish, say: because it is evident

that one should expound juxtaposition in Mishne Torah.

And if you wish, say: because

these verses in Mishne Torah are

available,

they are superfluous, so that they are available for the exposition of juxtaposition.

And 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” came to expound juxtaposition with “he shall not uncover his father’s skirt,” but rather it came only to add another prohibition to the prohibition of his father’s wife, as the Rabbis say, why was it written here?

Let the Merciful One write it

for the addition of the prohibition of his father’s wife

beside

the section of

forbidden relationships,

where all the forbidden relationships are detailed, including the prohibition of a father’s wife!

And 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, this difficulty will confront you:

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

alone.

That it repeated and wrote

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

why do I need it!?

For it is superfluous!