Yevamot 10

מקרא קמא אם כן לימא קרא ציצית תעשה לך גדילים למה לי ש"מ לאפנויי

from the first cited text:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Mingled stuff' in the case of zizith. (V. Deut. XXII, 11, 12 and supra p. 15, n. 3). ');">¹</span> Since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if so', i.e., if according to the Rabbis the expression, 'wool and linen', is required for its own context and that text, therefore, is not available for deduction. ');">²</span> Scripture could have used the expression, Thou shalt make thee fringes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression used in Num. XV, 38 in the section dealing with the precept of the fringes. ');">³</span> what need was there for that of 'twisted cords'? Consequently it must have been intended for the purpose of allowing that text to be used for the deduction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a positive precept supersedes a prohibition. Cf. supra, p. 10, n. 13. ');">⁴</span>

האי לשיעורא הוא דאתא גדיל שנים גדילים ארבעה עשה גדיל ופותלהו מתוכו

But this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression of 'twisted cords', [H], Deut. XXII, 12. ');">⁵</span> is required for the determination of the number [of threads, thus]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the fringes. ');">⁶</span> 'Twisted cord' implies two threads,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The twisted cord cannot be made of less than two threads. ');">⁷</span> [and so] 'twisted cords'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plural, i.e., twice two. ');">⁸</span>

א"כ לימא קרא לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים יחדו ל"ל ש"מ לאפנויי

implies four threads, therefore,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To harmonize this text (Deut. XXII, 12) which implies twisted cords, with that of Num. XV, 38, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue, which implies only twisted threads. ');">⁹</span> one twisted cord is to be made [of the four] and from the middle of it separate threads<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The four threads are inserted into the corner of the garment and, having been folded to form a fringe of eight threads, they are joined (by winding one of the threads round the others) into one twisted cord which extends over a section of length and is then separated again into eight separate threads. ');">¹⁰</span> are to hang down!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 39b. Now, since the expression, 'twisted cords', is required for the determination of the number of the threads, how could the Rabbis deduce from it the law of 'mingled stuff' in the fringes? ');">¹¹</span> — If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the law of 'mingled stuff' in the fringes was not to be deduced from the text cited. ');">¹²</span>

ואכתי מיבעי ליה לתוכף שתי תכיפות חיבור ותכיפה אחת אינו חיבור א"כ לכתוב רחמנא לא תלבש צמר ופשתים יחדו שעטנז ל"ל ש"מ לאפנויי

Scripture should have stated, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff wool and linen:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 11. ');">¹³</span> what need was there to add 'together'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 11. ');">¹³</span> Consequently it must have been intended for the purpose of allowing a free text for the deduction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 18, n. 10. ');">¹⁴</span> But this text too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Together, in Deut. XXII, II. ');">¹⁵</span>

ואכתי מיבעי ליה עד שיהא שוע טווי ונוז אלא כולה משעטנז נפקא

is required for the deduction that two stitches<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Combining a material made of wool with one made of flax. ');">¹⁶</span> form a combination<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of 'mingled stuff' which is forbidden. ');">¹⁷</span> and that one stitch does not! — If so, the All Merciful should have written, Thou shalt not wear wool and linen together; what need was there for inserting 'mingled stuff'? Hence it must be concluded that the purpose was to allow a free text for deduction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 18, n. 10. ');">¹⁸</span> But is not this text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mingled stuff, Deut. XXII, 11. ');">¹⁹</span>

אשכחן דאתי עשה ודחי לא תעשה גרידא לא תעשה שיש בו כרת היכא אשכחן דדחי דאיצטריך עליה למיסרה

still required [for the deduction that 'mingled stuff'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of wool and flax. ');">²⁰</span> is not forbidden] unless it was hackled, spun and twisted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An etymological explanation of, or a play upon, the words 'mingled stuff' [H], in Deut. XXII, 11. [H] is assumed to be an abbreviation of [H]. ');">²¹</span> — But [the fact is that] all this is deduced from the expression of 'mingled stuff'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The use of the peculiar expression, [H], and not the usual [H], implies both (a) the deduction mentioned, (v. previous note) and (b) the deduction that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition (v. supra p. 10, n. 13). ');">²²</span> So far it has been shewn that a positive precept supersedes a mere prohibition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. 3b end and p. 10, n. 7. ');">²³</span>

וכי תימא נילף ממילה מה למילה שכן נכרתו עליה שלש עשרה בריתות

where, however, do we find that it supersedes also a prohibition involving <i>kareth</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁴</span> and that in consequence [the explicit expression] ''aleha'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 18. ');">²⁵</span> should be required to forbid it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage by the levir of the widow of his deceased childless brother, when she happens to be a forbidden relative. V. p. 8, n. 9. ');">²⁶</span> And if it be replied that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage by the levir of the widow of his deceased childless brother, when she happens to be a forbidden relative. V. p. 8, n. 9. ');">²⁶</span>

מפסח מה לפסח שכן כרת

might be deduced from circumcision,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which must be performed on the eighth day of the child's birth even though that day happens to be a Sabbath when manual work is forbidden under the penalty of kareth. ');">²⁷</span> [it may be retorted]: Circumcision stands in a different category,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what in respect of circumcision'. ');">²⁸</span> for concerning it thirteen covenants<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'covenant' (in various grammatical forms) occurs thirteen times in Gen. XVII, the section dealing with the precept of circumcision, v. Ned. 31b. ');">²⁹</span> were made!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it may also supersede the Sabbath. It supplies, however, no proof that a positive precept which is not so stringent (such as the marriage with the levir) also supersedes a prohibition involving kareth. ');">³⁰</span>

מתמיד מה לתמיד שכן תדיר

From the paschal lamb?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The slaughtering of which (a positive precept) supersedes the Sabbath though slaughtering is manual work which is forbidden on the Sabbath under the penalty of kareth. ');">³¹</span> — The paschal lamb also stands in a different category<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what in respect of the paschal lamb'. ');">³²</span> since it too involves <i>kareth</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it may also supersede the Sabbath. It supplies, however, no proof that a positive precept which is not so stringent (such as the marriage with the levir) also supersedes a prohibition involving kareth. ');">³⁰</span> From the daily offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The slaughtering of which (a positive precept) supersedes the Sabbath though slaughtering is manual work which is forbidden on the Sabbath under the penalty of kareth. ');">³¹</span>

מחדא לא אתיא תיתי מתרתי מהי תיתי ממילה ופסח שכן כרת מפסח ותמיד שכן צורך גבוה

— The daily offering also stands in a different category<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what in respect of the daily offering'. ');">³³</span> since it is also a regular [offering]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it may also supersede the Sabbath. It supplies, however, no proof that a positive precept which is not so stringent (such as the marriage with the levir) also supersedes a prohibition involving kareth. ');">³⁰</span> [Now though] it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 19, n. 16. ');">³⁴</span> cannot be derived from one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Circumcision, the paschal lamb, or the daily offering alone. ');">³⁵</span>

ממילה ותמיד שכן ישנו לפני הדבור ואליבא דמ"ד עולה שהקריבו ישראל במדבר עולת תמיד הוה ומכולהו נמי שכן ישנן לפני הדבור

it might be derived from two. From which shall it be derived? [If the reply is]: Let it be derived from circumcision and the paschal lamb, [it may be retorted]: These also involve <i>kareth</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 1. ');">³⁶</span> From the paschal lamb and the daily offering? — Both are also intended for the Most High.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are offered on the altar. Cf. supra n. 1. ');">³⁷</span> From circumcision and the daily offering? — Both were also in force before the giving of the law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On Mount Sinai. Lit., 'speech' i.e., of the Deity. 'revelation', and as such are deemed of greater stringency. ');">³⁸</span> this being according to the view of him who holds that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the daily burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXIV, 5 and Hag. 6a. Circumcision was ordained in the time of Abraham. V. Gen. XVII. ');">³⁹</span>

אלא איצטריך סד"א תיתי מכבוד אב ואם

Nor [can the derivation be made] from all of them, since they were all in force before the giving of the law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra nn. 9 and 10. The law of the paschal lamb also was given in Egypt prior to the date of the Revelation. V. Ex. XII. ');">⁴⁰</span> But [this is the reason for] the need of a special text:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beside her (Lev. XVIII, 18), to indicate that levirate marriage is forbidden when the widow of the deceased brother is the surviving brother's forbidden relative. ');">⁴¹</span> It might have been assumed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had not that text (in Lev. XVIII, 18; v. previous note) been written. ');">⁴²</span> that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a positive precept supersedes a prohibition involving kareth and that consequently a levir may marry his deceased childless brother's widow even if she happens to be a forbidden relative of his. ');">⁴³</span>

דתניא יכול יהא כבוד אב ואם דוחה שבת ת"ל (ויקרא יט, ג) איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמורו כולכם חייבין בכבודי

should be derived from the precept of honouring one's father and mother; for it was taught: Since one might have assumed that the honouring of one's father and mother should supersede the Sabbath, it was explicitly stated, Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father, and ye shall keep My Sabbaths,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 3. ');">⁴⁴</span> it is the duty of all of you<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Parents and children. ');">⁴⁵</span> to honour Me. Now is not the case in point one where the parent said to him, 'Slaughter for me',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to desecrate the Sabbath by an action the penalty for which is kareth. ');">⁴⁶</span> or 'Cook for me';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to desecrate the Sabbath by an action the penalty for which is kareth. ');">⁴⁶</span>

מאי לאו דאמר ליה שחוט לי בשל לי וטעמא דכתב רחמנא את שבתותי תשמורו הא לאו הכי דחי לא

and the reason [why the parent must not be obeyed is] because the All Merciful has written, 'Ye shall keep my Sabbaths',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 3. ');">⁴⁴</span> but had that not been so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had no such text been available. ');">⁴⁷</span> it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A parent's order, (the positive precept of honouring one's parents.) ');">⁴⁸</span> would have superseded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of work on the Sabbath, though it is one involving kareth. Similarly in the case of the levirate marriage. Cf. supra p. 20, n. 14. ');">⁴⁹</span> — No;