Yevamot 4: Juxtapositions

Amud (a) uses interesting case studies to teach us the principle of juxtapositioning.  The halacha of diverse kinds, using the example of tzitzit, is the main example - the subject of much of today's daf regarding juxtapositioning.

Deuteronomy, we learn in a note, is thought to be Moses' interpretation of verses.  The other four books of the Torah are thought to be G-d's word, in order, or perhaps given to us scroll by scroll, or perhaps another collection of holy thoughts and directives.  Thus the book of Deuteronomy is particularly open to homiletic interpretation via juxtapositioning.

How do we know that seemingly unrelated phrases are meant to inform us about nuance in halacha?  The rabbis use the example of Deuteronomy 25:4, "one shall not muzzle an ox while it treads on the corn" is followed by "if brothers dwell together" (ibid, 25:5).  Some rabbis argue that we can use this juxtapositioning to suggest the homiletic interpretation that a woman offered to her husband's brother in yibum shall not be muzzled; she has the right to speak her mind as she would in other marriage negotiations.  

The example of punishments facing sorceresses, mediums and wizards (those who ask the dead to tell us the future) is said to be stoning because of a juxtapositioning of verses as well.  The Gemara expresses concern about using juxtapositioning to determine the death penalty.

To understand Rabbi Yehuda's view on homiletic interpretation in the book of Deuteronomy, we look at rape and seduction.  "A man shall not take his father's wife, nor shall he uncover his father's skirt" (Deuteronomy 23:1) is preceded by "And the man who lay with her must give the father fifty shekels of silver" (Deuteronomy 22:29).  What is this 'skirt'?  It seems like the skirt would refer to the father's clothing.  However, the rabbis use this juxtapositioning to interpret homiletically: any skirt uncovered by one's father is prohibited in yibum.  So why is raped or seduced woman still permitted to the son in yibum?  Because, explain the rabbis, there is a break in the juxtapositioning.  "A man must not take his father's wife" interposes, suggesting that because these women are not the father's wife, they are permitted.

In order to prove this interpretation, the Gemara suggests that the yevama in this case is waiting for her yibum, who is the father - and thus she is 'his skirt', as awful as that sounds to today's ear.  The rabbis try to pinpoint Rabbi Yeduda's guidelines regarding homiletic interpretation based on juxtaposition: the verses must be out of place and thus recognizable as placed for that purpose, and they must be superfluous/extraneous and thus 'free' for use.  In this case, the verse "... And not uncover his father's skirt" following "A man shall not take his father's wife" is both out of place and superfluous.  It can be used for homiletic interpretation.

Amud (b) ground us in conversation regarding the tzitzit.  We are told that we cannot wear diverse kinds, that we must wear ritual fringes on the corners of our garments, that we cannot combine wool and linen, that we cannot put such a garment upon ourselves, that ritual fringes must be dyed sky-blue... and yet we know from other sources that wool is the only fabric dyed sky-blue.  How can we understand when and how to wear ritual fringes? Must we always wear only one fabric?  What about placing that garment on our shoulders?  What if only the corners are wool - can the rest of the garment be linen or silk?

The rabbis agree that wool fringes can be worn on a linen garment and vice versa, even though this is thought to be prohibited.  Using the juxapositioning of verses, the rabbis are able to homiletically interpret verses to mean something that might not be obvious at first glance.

What power.  To know Torah well enough to interpret in this way is to influence generations to come according to one's own perspectives.