Yevamot 5b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rather, forever: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the first verse,

from the juxtaposition of the prohibition of kilayim to the mitzva of tzitzit, we learn that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment.

And it is free, even according to the Rabbis! Although according to their words they need “wool and linen” to teach that there is kilayim only in a garment of wool and linen,

for

if so,

if you say that this verse did not come to be made available for expounding juxtaposed passages,

let the verse say: “You shall make tzitzit for yourself”,

as the wording that Scripture used in the section of tzitzit.

The change of wording—

“twisted threads”

instead of “tzitzit”— -

why do I need it?

Conclude from it that it is free,

to expound the juxtaposition of tzitzit to kilayim, and to learn from here that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment.

And we reject this: behold,

this

wording of “twisted threads” that Scripture used did not come to be made available for expounding juxtaposed passages.

Rather,

for the measure

of tzitzit

it came,

it came to teach!

For thus the Sages expounded the wording “twisted threads”:

“a twisted thread,”

which is several threads wound together, is made of at least

two

threads, for it contains at least two threads wound together.

“Twisted threads,”

in the plural, as Scripture said, “You shall make twisted threads for yourself”—they are made of two twisted threads, with two threads in each twisted thread. And together they are

four

threads.

The Torah said: Insert the four threads into the hole in the corner of the garment, double them from the two sides of the hole, and then there will be before you eight threads.

Make

from the eight threads

a twisted thread,

by having one of the threads wind around the seven threads.

But do not make a twisted thread from the entire length of the threads.

Rather, make a twisted thread from only one-third of the length of the threads,

and

in the remaining length [of the two-thirds of the thread],

twist it

into a twisted thread—

from it!

Leave the remaining two-thirds of the length of the threads as threads, in the form of separate “cords,” which emerge from the twisted thread and hang beneath it.

And since the Torah used the wording “twisted threads” for the purpose of this teaching, it did not come to be made available for the juxtaposition, and one cannot learn from it that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment.

And the Gemara brings another teaching to expound the juxtaposition from this verse:

For

if so,

if you say that this verse did not come to be made available to expound juxtaposed passages,

let the verse say: “You shall not wear wool and linen”—

“together,”

which Scripture added,

why do I need it?

Conclude from it that it is free

for the juxtaposition, to teach that the mitzva of tzitzit overrides the prohibition of kilayim.

And we challenge this:

But it is still needed for sewing two stitches—

a connection!

“Together” is still needed, and it is not superfluous. For we have to learn from “together” the measure for the connection between a wool garment and a linen garment, which is forbidden because of kilayim.

And we learned from “together” that thus the Torah said: if one inserts the needle with the thread into the garment twice, and thereby joins a wool garment and a linen garment so that they are firmly connected “together,” this is the measure of a connection of kilayim that is forbidden.

And

if one sews

one stitch

alone, inserting the needle once into the wool garment and the linen garment—

it is not

considered

a connection

with regard to kilayim, for this is not a proper connection, but a temporary one, and it is not forbidden by Torah law.

And since “together” is not superfluous, it does not serve to be made available for the juxtaposition!

Therefore, the Gemara brings another explanation of how to expound this verse for the juxtaposition:

If so,

that this verse did not come to be made available for the juxtaposition,

let the Merciful One write: “You shall not wear wool and linen together.”

“Mixed,”

which the Merciful One added—

why do I need it?

Conclude from it that it is free

for expounding the juxtaposition.

But this teaching, too, is to be rejected:

But it is still needed,

it is still necessary to say “mixed,” to teach that one is not liable for kilayim on a thread made of wool and linen,

until it is

the kilayim thread, properly and thoroughly prepared from a mixture of wool and linen together, through all the stages of making the thread.

A. That it be

combed

together.

That the smoothing of the wool sheared from the sheep and the smoothing of the flax cut from the ground be done when they are mixed together—that they be combed and smoothed together with a comb.

B. That the thread be

spun

from a mixture of wool and linen, together.

C.

And

that the kilayim thread be

woven,

woven into a garment.

For one is liable for kilayim only in a woven garment [and not in a garment made of felt, such as wool and linen pressed together].

And if so, “mixed” is not free for expounding the juxtaposition, and from where do we know that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment!?

But the Gemara does not accept the rejection:

Rather,

forever this verse came both to be made available and to teach “concerning something combed, spun, and woven.”

And

all of it—

both being made available for the juxtaposition and “combed, spun, and woven”—

is derived from “mixed”!

For the word “mixed” is superfluous, in order to be made available for expounding the juxtaposition.

But if it had come only to be made available, it would not have been necessary to use the wording “mixed,” but rather: “You shall not wear kilayim, wool and linen together.”

And by using the wording “mixed,” Scripture also comes to teach an additional matter: that the kilayim thread must be “combed, spun” from wool and linen mixed together, and “woven,” in a fabric.

And now, after the Gemara has answered the second question that was asked above [at the end of page 3a], from where do we know that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment, the Gemara proceeds to clarify the answer to the first question: Why is there a need for the teaching of “upon it,” when a positive commandment does not override a negative commandment that entails karet!?

For indeed

we have found

the source for this now,

that a positive commandment comes and overrides merely a negative commandment.

But that a positive commandment should override

a negative commandment that entails karet—

where have we found

where have we found

that it overrides,

to the extent that it was

necessary

for a special teaching from the word

“upon it,”

to prohibit it,

to prohibit the forbidden relation, so that the mitzva of yibbum should not override the prohibition of the forbidden relation, even though it entails karet!?

And if you would say, let us derive it from

the mitzva of

circumcision,

which overrides the negative commandment of performing labor on Shabbat, despite the fact that it entails karet.

It can be refuted:

What is noteworthy about circumcision,

that its mitzva is a stringent mitzva,

for thirteen covenants were made concerning it!

For the covenant is mentioned thirteen times in the mitzva of circumcision.

And therefore only it, by virtue of its stringency, overrides the prohibition of labor on Shabbat, despite the fact that it entails karet!

And if you would say, let us learn

from

the mitzva of the

Paschal offering,

whose slaughter overrides Shabbat.

It can be refuted:

What is noteworthy about

the

Paschal offering,

that it is stringent,

for

there is a punishment of

karet

for one who refrains from fulfilling the mitzva of offering the Paschal offering.

Can you say this concerning the mitzva of yibbum, for there is no punishment of karet for one who nullifies it?

And if you would say, let us learn

from

the

daily offering,

whose sacrificial service overrides Shabbat.

It can be refuted:

What is noteworthy about the daily offering,

that it is an important mitzva,

for

it is an offering that is

regular,

every day.

Can you say this concerning the mitzva of yibbum, which is not regular?

And we answer: Indeed,

from one

of the things that override Shabbat,

it cannot be derived,

it is impossible to learn concerning the mitzva of yibbum that it should override a prohibition that entails karet.

But

let it come,

let us bring and learn the overriding of the prohibition of the forbidden relation that entails karet by the mitzva of yibbum—

from two,

from two things that override Shabbat.

And we inquire into it:

What are they,

which two things

should it come from,

should you learn from them?

If

from circumcision and the Paschal offering,

it can be rejected,

for

in both of them, when they are neglected, there is

karet!

If

from the Paschal offering and the daily offering,

it can be rejected,

for

in both of them there is

a need of the Most High,

for the altar!

If

from circumcision and the daily offering,

it can be rejected,

for they have

for the mitzva of circumcision and the daily offering also

precedence to the utterance,

at Mount Sinai.

And this is a special importance, and therefore one cannot learn from these mitzvot to mitzvot that did not exist before the utterance.

And

this refutation applies only

according to the one who says: the burnt offering that Israel offered in the wilderness

even before the revelation at Mount Sinai

was the daily burnt offering! [

But according to the one who says that the burnt offering that Israel offered in the wilderness was the appearance-offering, this is not a refutation].

And the Gemara adds that even from all three together it is impossible to learn concerning the mitzva of yibbum:

And from all of them,

from circumcision, the Paschal offering, and the daily offering together,

also

it is impossible to learn,

for they have

all three of them also

precedence to the utterance.

And now, since we have no source at all that the positive commandment of yibbum overrides the negative commandment of a forbidden relation that entails karet, the first question concerning the words of the beraita on page 3b returns and stands:

For what purpose is there a need for the special teaching of “upon it,” to teach that the sister of one’s wife does not undergo yibbum!?

For we ought to know this even without this teaching, since we have not found anywhere in the entire Torah that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment that entails karet!

And the Gemara answers a new answer:

Rather,

therefore

it was necessary “upon it” to exclude yibbum with a forbidden relation:

слово «на неё», чтобы исключить левират с запретной женщиной:

For

it might enter your mind to say, let it come,

I might have thought to say that we should come and learn concerning the mitzva of yibbum that it overrides the prohibition of the forbidden relation—

from

the mitzva of

honoring father and mother.

For it was taught: Could it be that honoring father and mother overrides Shabbat?

The verse says: [Leviticus 19]

«Именно отца своего и мать свою вы должны бояться, и

“Every person: his mother and his father shall you fear, and

[и всё же]

you shall observe My Shabbatot,

for I am the Lord!”— “

I am the Lord”—and therefore

all of you,

a person, his father, and his mother—

are obligated in My honor,

and My honor is not overridden for the honor of father and mother.

Is it not so,

that what is being discussed here is a case in which

his father says to him:

Slaughter for me

on Shabbat, or

cook for me

on Shabbat?

And the verse comes to teach that the mitzva of honoring a father does not override Shabbat.

And the Gemara infers:

And the reason is that the Merciful One wrote, “You shall observe My Shabbatot,”

“I am the Lord,”

if not for this—

it would override

the mitzva of honoring father and mother the prohibition of labor on Shabbat, despite the fact that it carries the prohibition of stoning!

And the same law applies: the mitzva of yibbum should override a prohibition of a forbidden relation that entails karet.

And therefore “upon it” was necessary to exclude this, just as the verse “I am the Lord” was necessary to exclude honoring father and mother from overriding labor on Shabbat.

And the Gemara rejects this:

No,

do not infer from here that were it not for the verse “I am the Lord,” the mitzva of honoring father and mother would override labor on Shabbat, despite the fact that it entails karet.