Previous daf

1)

(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).
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).

(c) Rav Yosef says that - even Rebbi Yehudah, who does not learn Semuchim elsewhere in the Torah, concedes Semuchim in Seifer Devarim.

(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 Bam".

(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.

5)

(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.