## Yevamot Daf 5b

###### Yevamot 5b:1
[Yevamot 5b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5b:1)

מִקְּרָא קַמָּא. אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא: ״צִיצִית תַּעֲשֶׂה לָּךְ״, ״גְּדִילִים״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
they learn this **from the first verse,** which permits a mixture of diverse kinds of wool and linen in ritual fringes. As for the previous claim that in the opinion of the Rabbis the phrase “wool and linen” is not superfluous and therefore there is no cause to derive from the juxtaposed verses, the answer is as follows: **If so,** that no homiletical interpretation can be derived from this source, **let the verse say** only: **You shall make fringes for yourself. Why do I** need the expression **“twisted fringes”** (Deuteronomy 22:12)? **Conclude from** this **that** this phrase **is free,** i.e., a homiletical interpretation can be derived by the juxtaposition of verses due to this superfluous phrase.


###### Yevamot 5b:2
[Yevamot 5b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5b:2)

הַאי לְשִׁיעוּרָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא: גְּדִיל — ״שְׁנַיִם״, ״גְּדִילִים״ — אַרְבָּעָה: עֲשֵׂה גְּדִיל וּפוֹתְלֵהוּ מִתּוֹכוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **This** term, “twisted fringes,” **comes to** teach **the measure** of ritual fringes, i.e., the requisite number of strings for the fringes, as it is taught: **Twisted fringe,** in the singular, indicates that it is entwined, which requires at least **two** strings. Consequently, when the verse says **“twisted fringes”** in the plural, it is referring to **four** strings. This means that one must **prepare a twisted fringe and double it over from the middle,** so that there are eight strings. Consequently, the term “twisted fringes” is not superfluous at all.


###### Yevamot 5b:3
[Yevamot 5b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5b:3)

אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז״, ״צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **If so,** that this phrase is not extraneous at all, and therefore it cannot be used as a homiletical interpretation by the juxtaposition of verses, **let the verse say** merely: **You shall not wear diverse kinds [*sha’atnez*]. Why do I** need the verse to add the phrase **“wool and linen together”? Conclude from** this **that** this phrase **is free,** and a homiletical interpretation can be derived from the juxtaposition of verses.


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

וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: לְתוֹכֵף שְׁתֵּי תְכִיפוֹת — חִיבּוּר, וּתְכִיפָה אַחַת — אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר! אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו״, ״שַׁעַטְנֵז״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: **And still,** it is **necessary** for the verse to state “wool and linen together” **to** teach another *halakha* concerning diverse kinds: When **one** combines a woolen garment with a linen garment, if he **stitches two stitches** with a needle, this is considered **attachment, but a single stitch is not attachment.** This *halakha* is derived from the term “together,” which indicates that they are attached as one. The Gemara answers: **If so, let the Merciful One write: You shall not wear wool and linen together. Why do I** need the verse to add the phrase **“diverse kinds”? Conclude from** this **that** this phrase **is free.**


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

וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא שׁוּעַ טָווּי, וְנוּז! אֶלָּא: כּוּלַּהּ מִ״שַּׁעַטְנֵז״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And still,** it is **necessary** for the verse to state “diverse kinds [*sha’atnez*],” as this is interpreted as an acronym that teaches that the *halakha* of diverse kinds applies only **when it is smooth combed [*shoa*], spun [*tavui*]** as a thread, **and attached [*noz*],** but without these characteristics the connection is not considered diverse kinds. **Rather,** the Gemara explains that **the entire** interpretation **is derived from** the term **“diverse kinds.”** Since the Torah uses the highly distinctive word “*sha’atnez*,” in addition to functioning as the above acronym it serves as the source of the verbal analogy with the term in the verse: “Neither shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds [*sha’atnez*] mingled together” (Leviticus 19:19), from which it may be inferred that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.


###### Yevamot 5b:6
[Yevamot 5b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5b:6)

אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּאָתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְדָחֵי לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה גְּרֵידָא, לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת — הֵיכָא אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּדָחֵי דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״עָלֶיהָ״ לְמֵיסְרַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the issue of a mitzva overriding a prohibition: **We have found that a positive mitzva overrides a regular prohibition.** However, **where do we find that** a positive mitzva **overrides a prohibition that includes *karet*, as** the phrase **“with her” is necessary to prohibit her?** It was mentioned previously that the superfluous phrase “with her” teaches that the mitzva of levirate marriage does not override the prohibition against taking a wife’s sister. However, why is this necessary? Why would it have been assumed that a positive mitzva is so powerful that it overrides even a prohibition that is punishable by *karet*?


###### Yevamot 5b:7
[Yevamot 5b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5b:7)

וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִמִּילָּה: מָה לְמִילָה, שֶׁכֵּן נִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you** suggest an answer and **say: Let us derive** this claim **from** the mitzva of **circumcision,** as there is a positive mitzva to perform circumcision on the eighth day of the boy’s life even on Shabbat, and this mitzva overrides the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat, which is punishable by *karet*, one could respond: **What** about the fact **that circumcision** is an extremely important and severe positive mitzva, **as thirteen covenants were established over it?** The term “covenant” is mentioned thirteen times in the chapter of circumcision (Genesis, chapter 17).


###### Yevamot 5b:8
[Yevamot 5b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5b:8)

מִפֶּסַח: מָה לְפֶסַח שֶׁכֵּן כָּרֵת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: And if you say it is derived **from the** slaughter of **the Paschal lamb,** which overrides Shabbat and is therefore a positive mitzva that overrides a prohibition punishable by *karet*, this too can be rejected: **What** about the fact **that the Paschal lamb** is different, as it is a positive mitzva that is so severe that its neglect entails ***karet*** for those who do not bring it, unlike all other positive mitzvot?


###### Yevamot 5b:9
[Yevamot 5b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5b:9)

מִתָּמִיד: מָה לְתָמִיד שֶׁכֵּן תָּדִיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers yet another suggestion: Perhaps it is derived **from the daily offering,** which was slaughtered every day, even on Shabbat. This is a positive mitzva that overrides the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat, which is punishable by *karet*. The Gemara rejects this claim as well: **What** about the fact **that the daily offering** is special in **that it is frequent?** Since the mitzva of the daily offering is performed every day, it is perhaps especially important, whereas a positive mitzva that applies only at certain times might not be powerful enough to override a severe prohibition.


###### Yevamot 5b:10
[Yevamot 5b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5b:10)

מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתְיָא, תֵּיתֵי מִתַּרְתֵּי: מֵהֵי תֵּיתֵי? מִמִּילָה וּפֶסַח — שֶׁכֵּן כָּרֵת! מִפֶּסַח וְתָמִיד — שֶׁכֵּן צוֹרֶךְ גָּבוֹהַּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara says: Clearly, the principle **cannot be derived from** any single **one** of these cases. However, **let it be derived from two** of these cases combined together, by analyzing their common features. The Gemara asks: **From which** two cases can **it be derived?** If one would say that it can be derived **from circumcision and the Paschal lamb,** the factor common to both is their particular severity, **as** their neglect entails ***karet*.** If one would seek to derive this **from the Paschal lamb and the daily offering,** these have a different common factor, **as** both are **a requirement of** the altar in **the Temple,** not for personal benefit.


###### Yevamot 5b:11
[Yevamot 5b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5b:11)

מִמִּילָה וְתָמִיד — שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנוֹ לִפְנֵי הַדִּבּוּר, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר — עוֹלַת תָּמִיד הֲוָה. וּמִכּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָן לִפְנֵי הַדִּבּוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, if one would suggest deriving the principle **from circumcision and the daily offering,** this too must be rejected, as both of these mitzvot **were** known by the Jewish people **before the word** of God was revealed at Mount Sinai. **And** this is **according to** the opinion of **the one who said** that **the burnt-offering brought by the Jewish people in the desert was the daily offering. And** moreover, **from all of these** together, i.e., circumcision, the Paschal lamb, and the daily offering, it is **also** not possible to derive a conclusion, **as** all three of **these were** known **before the word** of God was revealed. If so, no principle can be derived from these three mitzvot.


###### Yevamot 5b:12
[Yevamot 5b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5b:12)

אֶלָּא, אִיצְטְרִיךְ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא תֵּיתֵי מִכִּבּוּד אָב וָאֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rather,** the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: The inference from “with her” **is necessary,** as were it not for this inference it might be assumed that the mitzva of levirate marriage overrides the prohibition against marrying one’s wife’s sister despite the fact that this prohibition incurs *karet*, since it could **enter your mind to say** that this *halakha* **is derived from** the mitzva of **honoring one’s father and mother.**


###### Yevamot 5b:13
[Yevamot 5b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5b:13)

דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהֵא כִּבּוּד אָב וָאֵם דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ וְאֶת שַׁבְּתוֹתַי תִּשְׁמוֹרוּ״, כּוּלְּכֶם חַיָּיבִין בִּכְבוֹדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought **that honoring one’s father and mother overrides Shabbat;** therefore, **the verse states: “You shall fear every man his mother and his father and you shall keep My *Shabbatot*,** I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:3). The *baraita* explains the derivation from the verse: **All of you,** both parent and child, **are obligated in My honor,** and therefore honoring one’s parents does not override the honor of God, Who commanded the Jewish people to observe Shabbat.


###### Yevamot 5b:14
[Yevamot 5b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/5b:14)

מַאי לָאו דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁחוֹט לִי, בַּשֵּׁל לִי, וְטַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֶת שַׁבְּתוֹתַי תִּשְׁמוֹרוּ״, הָא לָאו הָכִי — דָּחֵי? לָא —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this *baraita*: **What, is it not** referring to a situation **where** his father **said to him: Slaughter for me, cook for me,** or any other labor prohibited on Shabbat on pain of *karet*? **And the reason** that **the Merciful One** specifically **writes: “Keep My *Shabbatot*,”** is to warn against violating the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat, a transgression which incurs *karet*, for the purpose of honoring one’s parents. It may therefore be inferred that **if that was not so,** the positive mitzva would **override** Shabbat. It is therefore possible to deduce from here that in general, positive mitzvot override even prohibitions that entail *karet*. The Gemara rejects this proof: **No,**