Yevamot 4b (ד:) — the Talmud in English

Infer from this that it is available for exposition.

That is, it is available for the derivation of semukhim: to juxtapose “A man may not take his father’s wife” with “He shall not uncover his father’s skirt,” and to teach us that his father’s raped wife is also forbidden to him.

And with regard to ritual fringes as well,

Rabbi Judah holds that in Deuteronomy one expounds semukhim, and from here he learns that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition against shaatnez, for the same two reasons:

If you wish, say that it is because it is evident,

and if you wish, say that it is because it is available for exposition.

The Gemara explains the basis of the proof and the basis of its being available:

If you wish, say that it is because it is evident:

For if so,

if the verse did not come to teach something from the juxtaposition,

the Merciful One should have written

“You shall make twisted threads for yourself”

in the section concerning ritual fringes.

For what halakhic purpose did He write it here?

It must therefore be in order to teach, from the juxtaposition of ritual fringes and shaatnez, that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition against shaatnez.

And if you wish, say that it is because it is available for exposition:

Since

it was already

written: “A garment of diverse kinds, of shaatnez, shall not come upon you.”

And if so, this verse that it again wrote here,

“You shall not wear shaatnez,”

why do I need it?

Infer from this that it is available for exposition.

And from the superfluity in the verse, one should expound the juxtaposition of ritual fringes and shaatnez, by which the verse comes to teach that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.

The Gemara rejects this: The verse “You shall not wear shaatnez” is not available for exposition!

For

these

two verses concerning shaatnez

are both necessary,

and neither is superfluous for the purpose of expounding semukhim.

For had the Merciful One written

only, “A garment of shaatnez

shall not come upon you,” we would have said

that

every manner of placing upon oneself

a garment of shaatnez

the Merciful One prohibited.

And even clothing merchants,

who sell garments containing shaatnez and place them on their shoulders merely as a demonstration, or carry them on their bodies in order to transport them from place to place, but do not intend to benefit from the garment’s warmth, would be forbidden to place them upon their bodies.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote: “You shall not wear shaatnez.”

By using the expression “wear,” the Torah teaches that not every placing of a garment containing shaatnez upon the body is prohibited, but only placing it

in a manner similar to “wearing”

a garment,

which has

in wearing it

benefit

from warmth, and not merely placing a garment upon the body for purposes of demonstration or transport.

And

similarly, on the other hand:

if the Merciful One had written

only

“You shall not wear

shaatnez,”

we would have said that specifically “wearing

is prohibited, since

its benefit is substantial,

and therefore it is prohibited.

But placing it

for a short time, for purposes of demonstration, or carrying the garment in order to transport it, which does not involve substantial benefit,

would not be

prohibited, and it would then even be permitted to intend to benefit from the garment.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote: “It shall not come upon you,”

teaching that even slight benefit from placing it upon oneself is prohibited when one intends to derive that benefit.

And since both verses are necessary, there is again no verse available from which to expound semukhim. If so, how did we say that Rabbi Judah expounds semukhim with regard to shaatnez and ritual fringes because the verse concerning shaatnez is available to teach this juxtaposition?!

And we answer: There are still words in the verse concerning shaatnez that are superfluous; by virtue of their superfluity, one can expound semukhim.

For

if so,

if the verse “You shall not wear shaatnez” is necessary to permit clothing merchants to place shaatnez upon themselves,

the Merciful One should have written only “You shall not wear shaatnez,”

and that would have been sufficient for us to know from here that it is permitted for clothing merchants to place it upon themselves.

“Wool and linen”

which the verse added—

why do I need it?

For it is obvious that shaatnez consists only of a mixture of wool and linen:

Since,

as

He wrote

the Merciful One,

“A garment of diverse kinds, of shaatnez, shall not come upon you.”

And since the verse uses the term “garment,” it is obvious that it refers to shaatnez made from a mixture of wool and linen.

For

and

this is the teaching

in the school of

Rabbi Yishmael:

Since garments are mentioned in the Torah

in several places

without specification,

without the verse specifying what they are made of,

and the verse specified in one of them

with regard to the laws of leprosy, that it is

“wool and linen,”

then

all

the places where the verse says merely “garment” refer to a garment made of

wool and linen.

And since the first verse, concerning placing it upon oneself, already revealed, by saying “A garment of diverse kinds, of shaatnez, shall not come upon you,” that the shaatnez mentioned in the Torah is a garment made of wool and linen—

if so,

“wool and linen,” which the Merciful One wrote

in the second verse, “You shall not wear shaatnez, wool and linen together”—

why do I need it?

Infer from this

that the extra words “wool and linen”

are available for exposition,

to expound semukhim.

But the Gemara still raises an objection:

And still,

nevertheless

it is necessary

to mention “wool and linen” as well, and these two words are not available for the exposition of semukhim.

For

it might enter your mind to say that placing

a garment containing a mixture of diverse kinds upon one’s shoulders alone

is

the case in which only a garment of shaatnez made of wool and linen is prohibited. Since

its benefit is not substantial,

as placing a garment upon one’s shoulders does not provide substantial benefit, the Torah prohibited in this case not every type of diverse mixture, but only wool and linen.

But wearing

a garment,

whose benefit is substantial,

as the benefit of wearing is considerable, we would have said that

every

mixture of

two kinds the Merciful One prohibited,

and not only wool and linen.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote

“You shall not wear shaatnez

of wool and linen.”

This teaches you that even when wearing it, the Torah prohibited only a garment of wool and linen, and not a mixture of two other kinds.

And since “wool and linen” is necessary for this clarification, it is not superfluous for the exposition of semukhim. The difficulty therefore returns to its place: We have nothing superfluous in the verse “You shall not wear shaatnez from which to expound semukhim!

And we answer:

If so,

if we say that “wool and linen” appears in the verse “You shall not wear shaatnez” in order to teach that even when wearing it only wool and linen, and not other kinds, are prohibited,

let the verse be silent concerning it,

concerning “wool and linen” in the verse “You shall not wear shaatnez,”

and let it be derived

and learned that when wearing it only wool and linen are prohibited by means of the

“shaatnez, shaatnez”

gzera shava from placing it upon oneself, in which only wool and linen are prohibited [based on the principle that wherever the term “garment” is stated, it refers only to wool and linen].

The Gemara now discusses the basis on which we relied—the teaching in the school of Rabbi Yishmael that everywhere “garment” means wool and linen—in order to say that “wool and linen,” mentioned with regard to shaatnez adjacent to the mitzva of ritual fringes, is superfluous, so that semukhim may be expounded from it and shaatnez permitted with ritual fringes.

And we inquire:

And

according to

the teaching in the school of Rabbi Yishmael,

on which we relied to say that “wool and linen” is superfluous,

the reason is that the Merciful One wrote

the extra words

“wool and linen,”

and therefore we expound semukhim to permit shaatnez with ritual fringes.

Had it not been so, we would have said that the Merciful One prohibited shaatnez with ritual fringes.

This implies that without this superfluity, the positive mitzva would not override the prohibition in the case of ritual fringes.

And

this is difficult:

Is it not written

in Numbers 15,

“And they shall make for themselves ritual fringes on the corners of their garments”?

And

already

the teaching in the school of Rabbi Yishmael

stated above the principle that

all garments

are made of wool and linen.

If so, “the corners of their garments” mentioned here also includes linen garments.

And the Merciful One said: Make it for him,

make for the linen garment ritual fringes containing a thread dyed with

tekhelet.

And

the thread of

tekhelet

must necessarily be made of

wool

—[wool]—

it is

made of wool!

The Gemara explains why the thread of tekhelet must be made of wool:

And from where do we know that tekhelet is “wool”?

We can learn this from the garments of the priests, which are made only of wool and linen, and not of other kinds.

And we find that one of the garments [the trousers] was commanded by the Torah to be made of linen, which is white.

The Torah thereby revealed that the other colors in the priestly garments [such as tekhelet and purple] are made of wool.

As it is stated: “Linen trousers—fine-twined linen.”

And it is known that “linen” means “flax,” so called because flax grows in individual stalks, without branching stems.

And

from “fine linen”

which

is flax,

[flax], it necessarily follows that

“tekhelet”

mentioned with regard to the priestly garments

is wool,

wool,

it is!

And since we have proof from the priestly garments that tekhelet is wool, and with regard to ritual fringes the Torah said “on the corners of their garments,” we know from there that it is permitted to place woolen threads on a linen garment.

If so, there is no need for the teaching of semukhim and no need for the superfluity of “wool and linen” in order to expound semukhim!

And we answer: Nevertheless,

it is necessary

to derive the matter through semukhim.

For

it might enter your mind to say,

that is,

as

it was

said

by

Rava!

Rava raised

a difficulty, claiming that there is an apparent contradiction in the words of the verse:

On the one hand,

it is written,

“And place on the ritual fringe

of the corner

a thread of tekhelet.”

And “the ritual fringe of the corner” means that the threads of the ritual fringe must be made from the same

kind

as that from which the

corner

of the garment is made!

Accordingly, if the corner of the garment is made of silk, the thread of the ritual fringe must be made of silk.

And

on the other hand,

it is written,

“You shall not wear wool and linen together; you shall make twisted threads for yourself,” which implies that the twisted threads of the ritual fringe should be made of

wool and linen,

and not of silk or another kind!

How then

is this apparent contradiction between the two verses to be resolved?

Rather, Rava said: This is how the meaning of the verse is to be expounded:

Threads of ritual fringes made of

wool and linen

render

the garment [that is, fulfill the mitzva through them]

both with their own kind,

on a woolen garment and on a linen garment,

and with a kind other than their own,

on a silk garment and the like.

Other kinds,

threads of ritual fringes made of silk and the like, render the garment only

on

garments that are

of their own kind—

they render

the garment.

But not of their own kind,

on a woolen or linen garment,

they do not

render

it.

According to Rava’s words, we would say that woolen threads must be made for a woolen garment and linen threads for a linen garment, because we would expound “the corner” as “the kind of the corner”: The thread of the ritual fringe must specifically be of the same kind as the corner.

Accordingly, the Torah did not permit shaatnez with ritual fringes.

Therefore the superfluity of “wool and linen” is necessary in order to expound semukhim and permit shaatnez with ritual fringes.

The Gemara raises an objection: In deriving semukhim, we relied on the teaching in the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

And

the teaching in the school of Rabbi Yishmael

does not hold

the exposition

of Rava,

who expounded “the corner” as “the kind of the corner”! For according to Rava, every garment of every kind is obligated in ritual fringes made from its own kind, whereas according to the teaching in the school of Rabbi Yishmael, only a woolen or linen garment is obligated in ritual fringes!

And since the teaching in the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not agree with Rava, how can we answer according to Rava when we are relying on the teaching in the school of Rabbi Yishmael? And we answer: Nevertheless,

it is necessary

to mention “wool and linen,” even if we do not hold, like Rava, that every garment is obligated in ritual fringes.

For

it might enter your mind to say

that even according to the teaching in the school of Rabbi Yishmael, one should expound the matter with regard to a woolen or linen garment,

because

just as

Rava’s inference is that “the corner”

means the kind of the corner,

so too, one might expound this partially, in a manner consistent with the teaching in the school of Rabbi Yishmael, since the verse speaks only of woolen and linen garments, and not of garments made from other kinds.

And this is what the Merciful One said:

Make for it

a thread of ritual fringe,

wool for a

garment of

wool, and

a thread of ritual fringe

linen for a

garment of

linen.

In this manner, “the corner” means “the kind of the corner”! But this applies only to wool and linen, and not to another kind.

And when you make

a thread of

wool for a

garment of

wool,

dye it

with tekhelet.

But

a thread of

wool for a

garment of

linen, and

a thread of

linen for a

garment of

wool—

do not

make.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “wool and linen,”

as a superfluity, in order to expound semukhim and teach us:

even

a thread of

wool for a

garment of

linen,

and

a thread of

linen for a

garment of

wool

may be made.