## Yevamot Daf 4a

###### Yevamot 4a:1
[Yevamot 4a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:1)

דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז״, ״גְּדִלִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לָּךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is written: “You shall not wear diverse kinds** of wool and linen together. **You shall make for yourself twisted fringes** on the four corners of your covering with which you cover yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:11–12). These verses teach that despite the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds of wool and linen, it is permitted to prepare ritual fringes of diverse kinds, e.g., sky-blue dyed threads of wool on linen garments. This shows that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition of diverse kinds.


###### Yevamot 4a:2
[Yevamot 4a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:2)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: סְמוּכִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״סְמוּכִים לָעַד לְעוֹלָם עֲשׂוּיִם בֶּאֱמֶת וְיָשָׁר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Elazar said: From where** in the Torah is it derived that one may draw homiletical interpretations from the **juxtaposition** of verses? In other words, from where is it derived that the fact that certain verses are adjacent one to the other is a reason to apply the *halakhot* from one verse to the other? **As it is stated:** “The works of His hands in truth and justice, all His commandments are sure. **Juxtaposed forever and ever, made in truth and uprightness”** (Psalms 111:7–8). This verse indicates that it is appropriate to draw inferences from the juxtaposition of God’s commandments.


###### Yevamot 4a:3
[Yevamot 4a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:3)

וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: מִנַּיִן לִיבָמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לִפְנֵי מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין שֶׁאֵין חוֹסְמִין אוֹתָהּ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תַחְסוֹם שׁוֹר בְּדִישׁוֹ״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ: ״כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** similarly, **Rav Sheshet said** that **Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: From where** is it derived with regard **to a *yevama* who came before** a *yavam* **afflicted with boils that one may not muzzle her,** i.e., she cannot be forced to enter into levirate marriage, and he is compelled to release her by *ḥalitza*? **As it is stated: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the corn”** (Deuteronomy 25:4), **and, juxtaposed to it,** is the verse: **“If brothers dwell together”** (Deuteronomy 25:5), which begins the passage that deals with the *halakhot* of levirate marriage. This teaches that just as it is prohibited to muzzle the ox, so too, one may not muzzle and ignore the complaints of a *yevama* who does not wish to marry a *yavam* afflicted with boils.


###### Yevamot 4a:4
[Yevamot 4a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:4)

וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּלָא דָּרֵישׁ סְמוּכִים בְּעָלְמָא, בְּמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה דָּרֵישׁ. דְּהָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּעָלְמָא לָא דָּרֵישׁ, וּבְמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה דָּרֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yosef said: Even according to the one who does not generally derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed** verses, nevertheless, he does **derive** them **from Deuteronomy, as Rabbi Yehuda does not generally derive homiletic interpretations** from juxtaposed verses, **and** yet **he does derive** them **from Deuteronomy.**


###### Yevamot 4a:5
[Yevamot 4a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:5)

וּבְעָלְמָא מְנָלַן דְּלָא דָּרֵישׁ? דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר, נֶאֱמַר: ״מְכַשֵּׁפָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה״, וְנֶאֱמַר: ״כׇּל שׁוֹכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת״, סְמָכוֹ עִנְיָן לוֹ: מָה שׁוֹכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה בִּסְקִילָה — אַף מְכַשֵּׁפָה בִּסְקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **And from where do we** derive that Rabbi Yehuda **generally does not derive homiletic interpretations** from juxtaposed verses? **As it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the punishment of a sorceress that **ben Azzai says** that **it is stated: “You shall not allow a sorceress to live”** (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, **and it is stated: “Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death”** (Exodus 22:18). The Torah **juxtaposed this matter to that** so as to say: **Just as one who lies with a beast** is executed **by stoning** (see Leviticus 20:16), **so too, a sorceress** is executed **by stoning.**


###### Yevamot 4a:6
[Yevamot 4a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:6)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסְּמָכוֹ עִנְיָן לוֹ, נוֹצִיא זֶה לִסְקִילָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this proof, **Rabbi Yehuda said to** ben Azzai: **And** simply **due to** the fact **that** the Torah **juxtaposed this matter to that** one, **shall we take this** person **out to be stoned?** Should he be sentenced to the most severe of the death penalties on the basis of a juxtaposition of passages?


###### Yevamot 4a:7
[Yevamot 4a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:7)

אֶלָּא: אוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי בִּכְלַל מְכַשְּׁפִים הָיוּ, וְלָמָּה יָצְאוּ? לְהַקִּישׁ לָהֶם וְלוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה אוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי בִּסְקִילָה — אַף מְכַשֵּׁפָה בִּסְקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rabbi Yehuda claims that the source is the following statement: **Mediums and wizards were included among all sorcerers. And why were they singled out** from the rest in the verse: “And a man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:27)? It is to **draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a medium and a wizard** are executed **by stoning, so too, a sorceress** is executed **by stoning.** This shows that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses.


###### Yevamot 4a:8
[Yevamot 4a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:8)

וּבְמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה מְנָלַן דְּדָרֵישׁ? דִּתְנַן: נוֹשֵׂא אָדָם אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו וּמְפוּתַּת אָבִיו, אֲנוּסַת בְּנוֹ וּמְפוּתַּת בְּנוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר בַּאֲנוּסַת אָבִיו וּמְפוּתַּת אָבִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **And from where do we** derive **that** Rabbi Yehuda **does derive** homiletic interpretations **in Deuteronomy? As we learned** in a mishna: **A person may wed** a woman **raped by his father and** one **seduced by his father,** despite the fact that his father’s wife is forbidden to him. Similarly, he may marry a woman **raped by his** son **and** one **seduced by his son.** Although one is prohibited by Torah law from marrying the wife of his father or the wife of his son, these prohibitions do not apply to a woman raped or seduced by them. **And Rabbi Yehuda prohibits** him from marrying **a woman raped by his father and a woman seduced by his father.**


###### Yevamot 4a:9
[Yevamot 4a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:9)

וְאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה כְּנַף אָבִיו״, כָּנָף שֶׁרָאָה אָבִיו — לֹא יְגַלֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Giddel said** that **Rav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s** opinion? **As it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt”** (Deuteronomy 23:1). The latter expression: “And shall not uncover his father’s skirt,” is referring to **a skirt that has been seen by his father,** i.e., any woman who has had relations with his father **may not be uncovered** by his son, meaning that his son may not marry her.


###### Yevamot 4a:10
[Yevamot 4a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:10)

וּמִמַּאי דְּבַאֲנוּסָה כְּתִיב — מֵעִילָּוֵיהּ דִּקְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשּׁוֹכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ: ״לֹא יִקַּח אִישׁ וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where** is it known **that** the verse **is written with regard to a woman raped by his father?** It is **from the previous** verse, which deals with the *halakhot* of rape, **as it is written: “And the man who lay with her must give the maiden’s father fifty shekels of silver”** (Deuteronomy 22:29), **and juxtaposed to it** is the verse: **“A man shall not take his father’s wife** and shall not uncover his father’s skirt.” This shows that Rabbi Yehuda does derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses in Deuteronomy.


###### Yevamot 4a:11
[Yevamot 4a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:11)

וְרַבָּנַן: אִי הֲוָה סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ, כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ. הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָא סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ (דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו״ בֵּנְתַיִם) —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **And** how do **the Rabbis,** who disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, respond to this argument? They say: **If** the two verses were fully **juxtaposed,** it would be interpreted **as you said.** However, **now** that **it is not** properly **juxtaposed, as it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife,” in between** the *halakhot* of rape and the pronouncement with regard to uncovering one’s father’s garment, this serves to break the juxtaposition.


###### Yevamot 4a:12
[Yevamot 4a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:12)

בְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, וְלַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, this particular **verse** concerning the uncovering of one’s father’s garment **is speaking of a woman waiting for her *yavam*,** in this case one’s father. In other words, the *yevama* of a father who is waiting for levirate marriage to the father is already considered “his father’s skirt,” and she is therefore forbidden to the son. Although this woman who is awaiting levirate marriage is in fact his uncle’s wife and explicitly prohibited to him in any case, this passage comes to teach that **he violates two prohibitions.** In other words, were he to engage in relations with her he would be penalized both for relations with his uncle’s wife and relations with “his father’s skirt.”


###### Yevamot 4a:13
[Yevamot 4a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:13)

וּבְמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה מַאי טַעְמָא דְּדָרֵישׁ? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּמוֹכַח, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּמוּפְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **But** as Rabbi Yehuda does not generally derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses, **what is the reason that he derives** these interpretations **in Deuteronomy?** The Gemara responds: **If you wish, say** that it is **because** it **is evident** from the context; **and if you wish, say** instead that it is **because** this verse is extraneous and is therefore **free** for this inference.


###### Yevamot 4a:14
[Yevamot 4a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/4a:14)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמוֹכַח — דְּאִם כֵּן לִכְתְּבֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי עֲרָיוֹת. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמוּפְנֵי — דְּאִם כֵּן לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו״, ״לֹא יְגַלֶּה כְּנַף אָבִיו״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **If you wish, say** it is **because** it **is evident; as, if** it is **so** that the verse did not intend to teach by juxtaposition, **let the Merciful One write** this *halakha* prohibiting marriage to a father’s wife **alongside** the other women **with whom relations are forbidden,** in Leviticus. Since this verse is out of place, it is certainly coming to teach by way of juxtaposition. **And if you wish, say** instead that it is **because** this verse is **free, as, if** it is **so** that the verse is not coming to teach an additional *halakha*, **let the Merciful One write** only: **“A man shall not take his father’s wife.” Why do I** need the phrase: **“And shall not uncover his father’s skirt”?** This phrase is superfluous, and therefore it teaches by juxtaposition.