Yevamot 8

Chapter 8

א ש"מ לאפנויי וגבי ציצית נמי איבעית אימא משום דמוכח ואיבעית אימא משום דמופנה

1 Hence it must be concluded that the text was meant to provide a superfluous text.1 Similarly in the case of zizith,2 if you wish I might reply:3

ב איבעית אימא משום דמוכח דא"כ לכתביה רחמנא גבי פרשת ציצית למאי הלכתא כתביה הכא ואיבעית אימא משום דמופנה מכדי כתב (ויקרא יט, יט) ובגד כלאים שעטנז לא יעלה עליך לא תלבש שעטנז ל"ל ש"מ לאפנויי

2 Because [there4 the deduction] is obvious. And if you prefer I might reply:5 Because [there6

ג הני מצרך צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא לא יעלה עליך הוה אמינא כל דרך העלאה אסר רחמנא ואפילו מוכרי כסות כתב רחמנא לא תלבש שעטנז דומיא דלבישה דאית ביה הנאה

3 the text] is superfluous.7 'If you prefer I might say: Because [there the deduction] is obvious', for otherwise,8 the All Merciful should have written [the precept] in the section of zizith;9

ד ואי כתב רחמנא לא תלבש ה"א דוקא לבישה דנפיש הנייתה אבל העלאה לא כתב רחמנא לא יעלה עליך

4 with what other practical rule in view has he written it here?10 'And if you prefer, I might reply: Because [there the text] is superfluous', for observe: It is written, Neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.11 What need then was there for stating, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff?12

ה א"כ לכתוב רחמנא לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים למה לי

5 Hence it must be concluded that the object was to provide a superfluous text.13 But [surely] both these texts14 are required? For if the All Merciful had only written, Neither shall there come upon thee15

ו מכדי כתב ובגד כלאים שעטנז לא יעלה עליך ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל הואיל ונאמרו בתורה סתם בגדים ופרט לך הכתוב באחד מהן צמר ופשתים אף כל צמר ופשתים צמר ופשתים דכתב רחמנא ל"ל ש"מ לאפנויי

6 it might have been assumed that all kinds of 'putting on' were forbidden by the All Merciful, even that of clothes dealers,16 hence the All Merciful, has written, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff,17 [shewing that the 'putting on' must be] of the same nature as that of wearing for personal comfort. And if the All Merciful had only written, Thou shalt not wear18

ז ואכתי איצטריך סד"א העלאה היא דלא נפיש הנאתה אבל לבישה דנפיש הנייתה כל תרי מיני אסר רחמנא כתב רחמנא צמר ופשתים

7 it might have been assumed that only wear [is forbidden] because the pleasure derived therefrom is great, but not mere 'putting on', hence the All Merciful has written, Neither shall there come upon thee!19 — If so,20 the All Merciful should have written, 'Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff' what need was there for adding, 'Wool and linen'? For21

ח א"כ לשתוק קרא מיניה ותיתי שעטנז שעטנז מהעלאה

8 observe: It is written, Neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together,15 and in connection with this a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: Whereas garments generally22 were mentioned in the Torah, and in one particular case23

ט ותנא דבי ר' ישמעאל טעמא דכתב רחמנא צמר ופשתים הא לאו הכי כלאים בציצית ה"א דאסר רחמנא והכתיב (במדבר טו, לח) ועשו להם ציצית על כנפי בגדיהם

9 Scripture specified wool and linen,23 all must consequently be understood as having been made of wool and linen, what need, then, was there for the All Merciful's specific mention of wool and linen? Consequently it must be concluded that its object was to provide a superfluous text.24 But the text25

י ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כל בגדים צמר ופשתים הם ואמר רחמנא עביד ליה תכלת ותכלת עמרא הוא וממאי דתכלת עמרא הוא מדשש כיתנא תכלת עמרא הוא

10 is still required [for another purpose]! For it might have been assumed [that the limitation26 applies] only to 'putting on', where the benefit is not great, but that in respect of wear, the benefit from which is great, any two kinds were forbidden by the All Merciful, hence has the All Merciful written, 'wool and linen'!27 — If so, Scripture should have omitted it altogether28

יא איצטריך סד"א כדרבא דרבא רמי כתיב הכנף מין כנף וכתיב צמר ופשתים

11 and [the law29 would have been] deduced [by analogy between] 'mingled stuff'30 and 'mingled stuff'31

יב הא כיצד צמר ופשתים פוטרין בין במינן בין שלא במינן שאר מינין במינן פוטרין שלא במינן אין פוטרין

12 [the latter of which occurs in connection with the law] of 'putting on'.32 As to the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael, is the reason [why 'mingled stuff' is permitted in zizith] because the All Merciful has written 'wool and linen', but if He had not done so, would it have been assumed that the All Merciful had forbidden two kinds of stuff in the zizith? But, surely. it is written, And they shall make them fringes in the corners of their garments33 and a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael [taught]: Wherever 'garment' [is written] such as is made of wool or flax [is meant], and yet the All Merciful said that in them 'purple' shall be inserted, and purple, surely, is wool. And whence is it deduced that purple is wool? Since linen34

יג והא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל לית ליה דרבא

13 is flax, purple must be wool.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the garments were either of wool or flax, and linen (flax) was specified in the case of one, all the others must have been wool. Now since it has been shewn that purple is wool, it obviously follows that woollen zizith or fringes are permissible in a garment of flax. What was the need, then, for a specific text to prove the permissibility of mingling wool and flax in zizith? ');">35 — [The text] was necessary; for it might have been assumed [that the interpretation is] according to Raba. For Raba pointed out a contradiction: It is written, the corner,36 [which implies that the fringes must be of the same] kind of [material as that of the] corner,37

יד איצטריך סד"א כי דיוקא דרבא הכנף מין כנף וה"ק רחמנא עביד ליה צמר לצמר ופשתים לפשתים וכי עבידת צמר לצמר צבעיה אבל צמר לפשתים ופשתים לצמר לא כתב רחמנא צמר ופשתים דאפילו צמר לפשתים ופשתים לצמר

14 but then it is also written, wool and linen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXII, 11f: Mingled stuff, wool and linen thou shalt make the twisted cords, which shews that the fringes may be made either of wool or of flax whatever the material of the corner might be. ');">38 How then [are these texts to be reconciled?] Wool and linen discharge [the obligation to provide fringes] both for a garment of the same, as well as of a different kind of material, while other kinds [of material]39 discharge [the obligation for a garment made] of the same kind [of material] but not for one made of a different kind [of material].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So also according to the Tanna of R. Ishmael's school, (as will be explained in the Gemara anon) if Scripture had not specified 'wool and linen' it might have been assumed that in a woollen garment the fringes must be made of wool while in a garment of flax they must be made of flax, hence wool and linen were specified to shew on the basis of semukim that mingled stuffs also are allowed in zizith. ');">40 But the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael,41 surely, does not hold the same view as Raba!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, according to him, since 'garment' denotes only such as is made of wool and linen, garments made of other materials require no fringes (zizith). What need, then, was there for the expression of wool and linen to differentiate these from other materials? ');">42 — [The text]43 is still necessary; for it might have been assumed that Raba's line of argument44 should be followed: 'The corner' [implies that the fringes must be made of the same] kind of [material as the] corner, and that what the All Merciful meant was this: 'Make wool [fringes] for wool [garments] and linen ones for linen; only when you make wool fringes for wool garments you must dye them'; but no wool fringes may be made for linen or linen fringes for wool, hence the All Merciful has written 'wool and linen' [to indicate] that even wool fringes [may be] made for linen garments or linen fringes for woollen garments.45

Previous Chapter Next Chapter