Daf Yomi - Yevamos 4 - Highlights

The Gemora required a source to teach us that one cannot perform yibum on his wife’s sister.

The Gemora infers from here that otherwise, one would have been permitted to perform yibum on his wife’s sister.

The Gemora asks: Why would this have been allowed?

The Gemora answers: This would have been based on the principle that a positive commandment can override a prohibition. The positive commandment of yibum would have overridden the prohibition against living with ones wife’s sister.

The Gemora objects to this explanation: A positive commandment can override a prohibition that carries with it a standard punishment, whereas a positive commandment cannot override a prohibition that is punishable by kares.

Furthermore, the Gemora inquires as to where the source is that a positive commandment can override even an ordinary prohibition.

It is written [Devarim 22: 11 - 12]: You shall not wear shatnez (wool and linen together). You shall make for yourself tzitzis (twined fringes). The fact that the Torah juxtaposes these two verses, teach us that one can make tzitzis even in a case of shatnez. This indicates that a positive commandment can override a prohibition.

Rabbi Elozar cites a Scriptural source demonstrating that we can expound Scriptural verses through juxtaposition. (3b – 4a)

Rav Yosef says: Even if generally, one does not expound Scriptural verses in the Torah through juxtapositions, in Sefer Devarim, he would. He proves this from Rabbi Yehudah, who maintains that we do not expound juxtapositions, but in Devarim, he does.

The Gemora proceeds to prove that Rabbi Yehudah does not expound juxtapositions anywhere in the Torah except in the Book of Devarim. (4a)

The Gemora asks: Why are the verses in Devarim different than the rest of the Torah?

The Gemora answers: Either it is because it is obvious that the two verses were juxtaposed for the sake of expounding them or alternatively, it is because one of the verses is extra and thus available for exposition. (4a – 4b)

The Gemora proceeds to explain why we would be justified to expound the juxtaposition regarding tzitzis and shatnez even according to Rabbi Yehudah.

It is obvious that these two verses were juxtaposed for the sake of expounding them, for otherwise, the passage regarding tzitzis should have been written in Parashas Shelach, which is the primary source for the obligation to wear a four-cornered garment of tzitzis.

Alternatively, it is because the verse here is certainly extra and thus available for exposition. It is written [Vayikra 19:19]: and a garment that is a mixture of shatnez shall not come upon you. It is not necessary to write the verse in Devarim: You shall not wear shatnez. It is apparently extra to teach us that the positive commandment of tzitzis overrides the prohibition against wearing shatnez.

The Gemora asks: These two verses are both necessary. If the Torah would have only written the passuk in Vayikra: and a garment that is a mixture of shatnez shall not come upon you, we would have thought that placing shatnez upon oneself in any manner would be forbidden, and even garment sellers would be prohibited from wearing shatnez (they merely drape themselves with the garments in order to exhibit them without a specific intent for the warmth which these garments offer). This is why the Torah wrote in Devarim: You shall not wear shatnez, teaching us that it is forbidden to wear shatnez only by a wearing that offers physical pleasure (and since a garment seller does not wear the garment for that intent, it will be permitted for him).

If the Torah would have only written the passuk in Devarim: You shall not wear shatnez, we might have thought that there is a prohibition to wear shatnez, which provides a good deal of physical pleasure, but one would be permitted to place a garment on himself without wearing it. This is why the Torah wrote in Vayikra: and a garment that is a mixture of shatnez shall not come upon you, teaching us that even that is forbidden.

It emerges that both verses are necessary and not extra to expound the juxtaposition to tzitzis.

The Gemora answers: While it’s true that both verses are necessary, there are still superfluous words in the verse. The verse stated: You shall not wear shatnez wool and linen together. It is unnecessary to say that shatnez consists of wool and linen. The verse in Vayikra stated: and a garment that is a mixture of shatnez shall not come upon you, and it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael that whenever the Torah refers to a garment and the Torah does not specify what type of garment we are discussing, it is referring to a garment of wool and linen. Why does the Torah find it necessary to write that shatnez is wool and linen? It is extra to indicate that we can expound the juxtaposition of tzitzis to shatnez to teach us that the positive commandment of tzitzis overrides the prohibition against wearing shatnez. (4b)

The Gemora asks: Why is it necessary to expound the juxtaposition that tzitzis overrides the prohibition against wearing shatnez according to the school of Rabbi Yishmael; they have a much better source than that? It is written regarding the obligation of tzitzis [Bamidbar 15:38]: and they shall make themselves tzitzis on the corners of their garments. The school of Rabbi Yishmael maintains that whenever the Torah says garment, it is referring to wool and linen, and we know that the Torah requires one thread of techeiles wool (blue dye from the blood of the chilazon). It emerges that the Torah is obligating us to place a woolen thread on a linen garment, which would constitute shatnez.

The Gemora answers: We might have thought that one should use a thread of techeiles wool only on a garment of wool, and one should use linen strings when he is wearing a linen garment; the juxtaposition teaches us that one can place woolen strings on a linen garment and linen strings on a woolen garment. (4b)