ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 4
YEVAMOS 3 & 4 - dedicated by Dr. Eli Turkel (of Raanana) and family; may
they be blessed with much Nachas from their children and grandchildren.
(a) Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk in Tehilim "S'muchim la'Ad le'Olam
Asuyim be'Emes ve'Yashar" - the principle of 'S'muchim' (comparing two
Pesukim that are juxtaposed in the same way as we compare two phrases in one
Pasuk in the form of a Hekesh).
(b) We learn from the S'muchim in Ki Seitzei ...
1. ... "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez ... Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach" - that Kil'ayim (the
mixture of wool and linen) is permitted in Tzitzis (i.e. T'cheiles [woolen
threads] on a linen garment).
(c) Rav Yosef says that - even Rebbi Yehudah, who does not learn Semuchim
elsewhere in the Torah, concedes Semuchim in Seifer Devarim.
2. ... "Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho ... Ki Yeishvu Achim Yachdav" (the
introductory Pasuk to Yibum) - that if a Yevamah falls before a leper, we do
not stop her right to protest. Practically, this means that we force the
Yavam to perform Chalitzah, and not Yibum (Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah).
(a) Ben Azai learns from the S'muchim in Mishpatim "Mechasheifah Lo Sechayeh
... Kol Shocheiv im Beheimah Mos Yumas" - that in the same way as the latter
is Chayav S'kilah, so too, is the former.
(b) We learn that the punishment by Shocheiv im Beheimah is S'kilah from Ov
ve'Yid'oni - because in both cases, the Torah used the Lashon "Demeihem
(c) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with ben Azai - on the grounds that just because
the Torah places Mechasheifah next to Shocheiv im Beheimah, this does not
justify giving her S'kilah.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah learns S'kilah by Mechasheifah - from Ov ve'Yid'oni, which
are a branch of Mechasheifah. Consequently, when the Torah singled them out
to give them a Din of S'kilah, the Din extends to all branches of
Mechasheifah, and not just to Ov ve'Yid'oni.
(a) Everyone agrees that a person is permitted to marry the woman whom his
*son* raped or seduced - because "Kalaso" implies specifically the woman
whom his son *married*.
(b) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, a person is permitted to
marry the woman whom his *father* raped or seduced. Rebbi Yehudah however,
learns from the S'muchim of "ve'Nasan ha'Ish ha'Shochev Imah la'Avi
ha'Na'arah Chamishim Kasef ... (Lo Yikach Ish es Eishes Aviv) ve'Lo Yegaleh
K'naf Aviv" - that just as the former Pasuk speaks about a case of rape, so
too, does the latter case forbid (on the son) the woman his father raped.
(c) Although the Tana Kama Darshens Semuchim throughout the Torah - he
disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah on the grounds that, had the Torah meant to
compare them, then it would not have interrupted between the two with "Lo
Yikach Ish es Eishes Aviv".
(d) According to the Tana Kama "ve'Lo Yegaleh K'naf Aviv" - refers to the
Shomeres Yavam of his father. Even though she is Asur already because of
Eishes Achi Aviv - the Torah comes here to add a second La'av.
(a) In any case, we see that even Rebbi Yehudah agrees with Semuchim in
Seifer Devarim. One reason for saying this in the previous Derashah is
because it is evident - because otherwise (had the Torah merely wanted to
add La'avin like the Rabbanan say), why did the Torah write it here, and not
in the Parshah of Arayos?
(b) The other reason is because it is Mufneh (because, having written "Lo
Yikach Ish es Eishes Aviv", "Lo Yegaleh K'naf Aviv" is superfluous).
(c) The S'muchim of Tzitzis is evident, too - because otherwise, why does
the Torah write "Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach" *here* (in Ki Seitzei) and not in
Parshas Tzitzis in Sh'lach-Lecha?
(d) We retract from the contention that it is also Mufneh (because, having
written in Kedoshim "u'Veged Kil'ayim Sha'atnez Lo Ya'aleh Alecha", why does
the Torah need to repeat "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez" in Ki Seitzei?) on the
grounds that both Pesukim are needed. The Torah needs to write ...
1. ... "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez", because, had it only written " ... Lo
Ya'aleh Alecha" - we would have thought that Sha'atnez is forbidden in any
way that he puts on Sha'atnez, even as a salesman to demonstrate what he is
selling (even though he is gaining no direct benefit from it). Therefore the
Torah needed to teach us that he is only Chayav if he puts it on in order to
benefit from its warmth, which is the reason that one usually wears clothes
(though it is unclear why one requires specifically the Hana'ah of warmth,
and not of being covered for reasons of modesty - see note at end of 2.).
2. ... " ... Lo Ya'aleh Alecha", because, had the Torah just written " ...
Lo Silbash Sha'atnez" - we would have thought that one is only Chayav for
wearing the garment, where the benefit is considerable, whereas just putting
it on top of oneself, where the benefit is minimal, is permitted. Therefore
the Torah forbade even Ha'ala'ah. Note: This distinction only makes if the
benefit in question is that of warmth, but not if we include being covered -
see question at end of 1.
(a) It is not "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez" that is Mufneh, we conclude, but
"*Tzemer u'Fishtim* Yachdav", according to Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who
learns that only a woolen or linen garment is called 'Beged' - from
"be'Veged Tzemer O be'Veged Pishtim" by Nega'im (in Tazri'a).
(b) We do not need *Tzemer u'Fishtim* to teach us that Kil'ayim comprises
wool and linen only, even by a garment that one *wears* (and do not include
all materials there) - because we would have learned that from a
'Gezeirah-Shavah' (or a Giluy Milsa - a revelation) "Sha'atnez" "Sha'atnez"
from Ha'ala'ah. That is why, according to Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, the
Pasuk is Mufneh to teach us 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'.
(a) Sheish and Techeiles were used in the weaving of the Bigdei Kehunah.
Since Sheish is linen (because the Torah writes in Pikudei "Michnesei Bad
Sheish Moshzar", and "Bad" we know is linen, because "Bad" has a connotation
of single, and linen grows in single stalks), Techeiles must be wool.
(b) The other colors (that were neither Sheish nor Techeiles) were no
different than Techeiles - and were made of wool.
(c) If not for "Tzemer u'Fishtim" being redundant, Tana de'Bei Rebbi
Yishmael would not have learned S'muchim, and Kil'ayim would have been
forbidden by Tzitzis. Considering that the Torah has written "Bigdeihem" and
"Techeiles" this is very strange - since Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael has
already taught that all Begadim are either wool or linen, and Techeiles
implies wool as we just explained. Consequently, it seems obvious that
Kil'ayim is permitted in the case of linen garments.
(a) We initially answer that we need "Tzemer u'Fishtim" to preclude from
Rava's Derashah of "ha'Kanaf". To answer the apparent contradiction between
"ha'Kanaf" 'Min Kanaf' on the one hand, and "Tzemer u'Fishtim" on the
other - Rava explains that Tzitzis of wool and linen exempt all garments,
whereas Tzitzis made of other materials exempt only garments that are made
of the same material as themselves.
(b) But Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael disagrees with Rava. According to him,
materials other than wool and linen are Patur from Tzitzis.
(c) In spite of the fact that the Torah is referring exclusively to wool and
linen garments according to him - if not for "Tzemer u'Fishtim", he would
have Darshened "ha'Kanaf" to mean that a woolen garment requires woolen
Tzitzis, and a linen garment, linen Tzitzis. If that were so, the Din of
T'cheiles would be confined to a woolen garment.
(d) Therefore the Torah writes "Tzemer u'Fishtim" to teach us that linen
(white) Tzitzis are even permitted together with a woolen garment, and
woolen Tzitzis with a linen garment.