Support: This is why it says "learn Achos Ishah from Eshes Ach", and we do not say [just] "learn from Eshes Ach", like it says in all the cases below "learn from Milah", "learn from Kivud Av";

[There], it does not mention [that we seek to learn] Achos Ishah, because we come to learn to all places.

Explanation (Ri): We cannot learn from Eshes Ach that in general, an Aseh is Docheh a Lav with Kares, for it is different. This is the Mitzvah (to override Kares);

It is impossible to fulfill Yibum in any other way. If not [that it overrides Kares], the Mitzvah of Yibum would be Batel!

Distinction: However, we can learn in general from Sha'atnez in Tzitzis. [Even] if [we would say that Ein Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh, and] we cannot fulfill the Mitzvah of Techeiles with [a garment of] linen, we could fulfill it with [a garment of] wool. Even so, [the Aseh] is Docheh.

Similarly, "v'Gilach Es Kol Se'aro" of a Metzora could be fulfilled through hair that is permitted to cut (even if it would not override shaving the beard and sideburns).

Explanation #1: This is called "Kol Se'aro."

This is like "Kol Melachah Lo Sa'asu" of Shabbos, which applies only to Melachos that are not Docheh Shabbos (but not to Bris Milah, Shechitah of the Tamid and Musafim...)

Explanation #2: It is truly all his hair. The case is, the hair of his sideburns and beard fell out.

Similarly, all [the sources we bring for Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh] can be fulfilled in other cases [without Dichuy. Since they are not "Mitzvaso b'Kach", we may learn from them.]

Suggestion: Perhaps we should oppositely, that in the place of Gedilim (Tzitzis), "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez" applies, like we say below, that in the place of "Ki Yeshvu" (Yibum), "Lo Sachsom" (do not muzzle, i.e. suppress her claim why not to do Yibum)!

Rejection: If so, the Torah should not write a verse to teach about this, and automatically we would know that the Aseh of Tzitzis is not Docheh the Lav of Sha'atnez!

Suggestion: Below, regarding Yevamah, we should expound like here [that the Aseh of Yibum overrides the Lav of muzzling]!

Rejection: Without the [Semichus of] the verses, we would say that we muzzle her (suppress her claim), and he would not need to do Chalitzah b'Al Korcho (against his will).

Question (Ri of Orlins): Women should be obligated in Tzitzis! We should say that whoever is commanded the Lav of Sha'atnez, has the Aseh of Tzitzis!

Suggestion: We do not, for this is not a Hekesh. It is merely Semichus of two verses.

Rejection: Even so, we expound like this in Erchin (3b) and Menachos (43a);

We say that all are obligated in the Mitzvah of Tzitzis - Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim. We conclude that we needed to teach about Kohanim;

One might have thought that since Kil'ayim is permitted to Kohanim (in Bigdei Kehunah), they are exempt also from Tzitzis. [The Mishnah] teaches that this is not so;

Kil'ayim is permitted to Kohanim only at the time of Avodah. At other times, it is not permitted.

Inference: If it were totally permitted to them, they would be exempt from Tzitzis, for we would expound that whoever is exempt from Lo Silbash Sha'atnez is exempt from Tzitzis.

All the more so, we should expound to be stringent and obligate women in Tzitzis!

Answer: Women are exempt from Tzitzis, because Rav Acha bar Yakov (Kidushin 35a) learns that women are exempt from Mitzvas Aseh sheha'Zeman Gerama;

This is because the entire Torah is Hukash (equated) to Tefilin. (It is Zeman Gerama, and women are exempt.) A Hekesh is stronger than Semuchim.

According to the opinion that Tefilin is not Zeman Gerama, perhaps women are obligated in Tzitzis, due to Semuchim.

Even without this, Rabanan of R. Yishmael (Menachos 43a) hold that women are obligated in Tzitzis, for they hold that Tzitzis is obligatory [also] at night, so it is not Zeman Gerama.

Question: In Menachos, we infer that Rav Yehudah holds that Tzitzis is not Zeman Gerama, since he put Tzitzis on his wife's garment.

How may we infer this? Perhaps even though he holds that it is Zeman Gerama, women are obligated due to Semuchim!

Answer: (We could have rejected the inference in this way.) The Gemara there gave a better answer [to the contradiction regarding his opinion].

Question: According to the opinion that exempts women from Tzitzis, he should exempt them from Sha'atnez!

You must say that women are commanded about Sha'atnez, for in Beitzah (14b) we say "what is Sha'atnez useful for?!"

Answer: Perhaps there is a Ribuy (inclusion) regarding Sha'atnez [to obligate them]. (R. Elazar Landau asks that a Hekesh (Kidushin 35a) obligates women in all Lavim, and a Hekesh is stronger than Semichus! Rashash suggests that the Hekesh does not apply to Sha'atnez, since it is permitted in Bigdei Kehunah. I think that Tosfos disagrees, for he initially suggested learning from Sha'atnez to Tzitzis to obligate women. He did not question the source to obligate women in Sha'atnez! Also, if so, what is the source to obligate women for eating Nevelah? Kohanim may eat it, i.e. Chatas ha'Of!)

Question: Perhaps here he does not expound Semuchim due to the Gezeirah Shavah that R. Yosi ha'Glili expounds in Sanhedrin (67a), which overrides Semuchim!

He expounds "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah" to teach Misah through the sword.

Strengthening of question: R. Akiva learns Skilah there from "Im Behemah Im Ish Lo Yichyeh." (He did not learn from Semuchim, like Ben Azai did.) Does he not hold like Rabanan, who expound Semuchim everywhere?!

Rather, we must say that he needs [his verse], because [R. Yosi ha'Glili's] Gezeirah Shavah overrides Semuchim.

Answer: Here we infer from R. Yehudah's words "just because they are Semuchim...?!" This connotes that generally, he does not expound Semuchim.

Question: R. Yehudah expounds Semuchim in Kidushin (53a)!

Citation (53b - Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps Kohanim may not trade Kodshei Kodoshim, but they may trade Kodshim Kalim.

Citation (cont.) Rejection: "A man like his brother" is Samuch to "... if for a Todah (thanksgiving offering)"...

Citation (cont.): A Stam Sifra (Toras Kohanim, i.e. a Beraisa that expounds verses in Vayikra) is like R. Yehudah.

Answer #1: There, [he does not expound Semuchim. Rather,] it is Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon (the latter Parshah begins with a Vov. This equates it to the previous Parshah) - "v'Zos Toras Zevach ha'Shelamim."

Answer #2: There, it is Muchach (clear that we should expound Semuchim), since it (Todah) was not written in Parshas Vayikra (with all the other Korbanos. R. Yehudah agrees in such a case.)

Answer #3: [R. Yehudah agrees that we expound such Semuchim,] since it is Mufneh, i.e. the words "Ish k'Achiv" are extra. It should have written only "l'Chol Bnei Aharon Tihyeh."

Implied question: We say that R. Yehudah expounds [Semuchim only] in Sefer Devarim!

Answer: Really, he expounds everywhere [that it is Muchach or Mufneh]. However, in Devarim he knows that all of them are Muchach or Mufneh. [The Gemara] saw no need to bring more than one of them [to illustrate this].

Explanation: Rabanan do not expound this because "Lo Yikach [Ish Es Eshes Aviv]" interrupts between Parshas Ones and "Lo Yegaleh".

Implied question: We need to write it here for the Hekesh to "Lo Yavo Mamzer." From this, both R. Akiva and Rabanan (below, 49a) expound what produces a Mamzer!

Answer: Also there it is [not really a Hekesh, for they are in different verses. They are] Semuchim, and we expound them because it is Muchach or Mufneh.

Question: R. Yehudah should expound [Semuchim] also regarding a witch, for it is Muchach, since "Kol Shochev Im Behemah" was not written in the Parshah of Arayos!

Answer #1: Bestiality does not pertain to Arayos, for Zenus does not apply animals.

Answer #2: It is not considered Muchach, since the Melamed (what teaches) is written in its place.

Distinction: However, regarding Mufneh, it makes no difference which is Mufneh (the Lamed (what is learned) or Melamed).

Inference: Since it says "Lo Yegaleh" without a Vov (the verse actually says v'Lo Yegaleh), this implies that we ask why the entire [end of the] verse is needed.

Question: Perhaps we need the verse to teach about his father's Shomeres Yavam, like Rabanan expound below!

Alternate text: Some have the text "v'Lo Yegaleh Kenaf[;] Aviv Lamah Li"? They explain that we ask why we need "Aviv", for clearly it discusses his father;

However, we could say that he expounds "Lo Yigaleh" to teach about Shomeres Yavam, like Rabanan.

Defense of first text (Rivan): The text "Lo Yegaleh" without a Vov is fine. We ask why this entire [part of] the verse is needed;

The Gemara understands that he (R. Yehudah) does not establish it to discuss his father's Shomeres Yavam, since even without this, she is forbidden due to Yevamah l'Shuk (the Isur for her to marry a stranger before doing Chalitzah) and Dodaso (his uncle's wife).

[He holds that] we do not establish a verse to teach an additional Lav when we can expound [to teach a new Isur].

Below (97a), we say that according to Rabanan, it is needed to teach about Shomeres Yavam only to be a third Lav.

Implied question: We could say that the verse of "Gedilim" is extra, for we already have Parshas Tzitzis. Why did the Torah write Gedilim?

Answer: We need the entire verse. Below (5b), we expound "Gedilim" to teach four [strings];

We expound also "Al Arba Kanfos", and not on three or five corners. "Kesuscha" (yours), and not others' garments. "Asher Techaseh Bah" excludes a blind person's garment, and a garment that does not cover most [of his body].

Question: Why don't we say that even one material is forbidden, as long as it is Shu'a (smoothed), Tavuy (spun) v'Nuz (twined or woven)?

Answer: "Sha'atnez" also connotes a mixture.

Question: In Shabbos (27b), Rav Papa says that "also everything is wool and linen", which R. Yishmael said, includes Sha'atnez;

The Gemara said that this is totally wrong, for wool and linen are explicitly written regarding Sha'atnez.

What is difficult? We need "also everything" to make "Tzemer u'Pishtim" Mufneh, like we say here [to teach that Techeiles overrides Sha'atnez]!

Answer: In the conclusion, Rabanan learn from that it is Mufneh from "Sha'atnez." Also R. Yishmael learns from this, so he does not need "also everything" to make Tzemer u'Pishtim extra regarding Sha'atnez.

Question: Even without Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, we can derive [this]!

"Begadim" connotes all garments. The Torah said to put Techeiles on them. This shows that we put Techeiles also on linen garments!

Suggestion: One might have thought that the Torah did not say to put Techeiles on all of them.

Rejection: If so, also now (with Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael's teaching), we could say that the Torah said to put Techeiles only on wool garments, but not on linen!

Answer: If not for Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, one might have thought that the Torah said to put Techeiles on other materials, but not for linen!

However, Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael holds that all garments are wool and linen. [The Torah] connotes that [the Mitzvah of Techeiles] applies to both of them.

Implied question: Perhaps "Beged" connotes wool or linen [so we need not say that Techeiles applies to both of them]!

Answer: Here it says "Bigdeihem", which connotes two (both of them).

Question: How does this connote that Sha'atnez is permitted in Tzitzis? Perhaps one makes Techeiles [strings] in a way that is not Shu'a Tavuy v'Nuz!

Answer: Tzitzis strings must be Shu'a Tavuy v'Nuz. We expound in Sifri "Pesil Techeiles" Tavuy v'Shazur, and we require also Shu'a.

There we learn Lavan (white strings) from Techeiles. Their Stam Begadim [in the days of the Gemara] were Shu'a, Tavuy and also Nuzin, i.e. twined

This is like R. Tam explained below (5b) "Nuz is Shezuri", i.e. twined at the end of the Talis, where the Tzitzis are placed, like it says in Eruvin (96b) 'perhaps he twisted threads to attach them on the edge of a garment'!

Question: Still, we could say that the Torah said to put Techeiles without tying it. This is not Kil'ayim, for one stitch is not considered connected!

In Menachos (39a), we derive that the top (first) knot is mid'Oraisa, since the Torah permitted Sha'atnez in Tzitzis!

Answer (Ri Klonimus): We must say that the Torah said to affix Techeiles in a way that is Sha'atnez. If it were specifically without Kil'ayim, the Torah should not have said "together";

Since the Torah said to affix Techeiles [even on a linen garment], we would know that [one can attach it without Kil'ayim, i.e. we must say that] one stitch is not connected!

Rather, surely the Torah said to affix Techeiles in a way that is Sha'atnez. We cannot derive from here whether or not one stitch is not considered connected. Therefore, we need "together."

Implied question: There was no need to say this. Whether it is linen or wool, we can infer that Sha'atnez in Tzitzis is permitted!

The Torah said that on Bigdeihem, which are wool and linen, we must put Techeiles, which is wool or linen;

This is because Bigdei Kehunah are only of wool and linen, since it says Bigdeihem;

Answer: The Gemara says the truth (that Techeiles must be wool).

Implied question: Perhaps also Techeiles is linen, just it is dyed Techeiles, and Argamon and Tola'as Shani (crimson) are wool!

Answer: It is reasonable that all of these colors are one material, since the Torah distinguished between them only regarding the color.

Implied question: This is not precise. Rava discusses after the Torah wrote Tzemer u'Pishtim, and here we discuss had the Torah not written Tzemer u'Pishtim!

Answer: The Gemara means that this is like Rava's inference. The verse says "v'Asu Lahem Tzitzis Al Kanfei Bigdeihem" - for their garments, which are Tzemer u'Pishtim, make Tzitzis;

However, Techeiles is written after this. It does not refer to Bigdeihem, rather, to the corner - the species of the corner.

Observation: The Makshan, who asked "Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael does not hold like Rava", thought that [the Tartzan] means that he holds just like Rava. He could have asked "Rava discusses after the Torah wrote Tzemer u'Pishtim [and Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael discusses had the Torah not written Tzemer u'Pishtim]"!

Implied question: Why don't we say that "ha'Kanaf" includes other garments, like we find in Shabbos (27a), that we include other garments from "Oh Beged"?

Answer: "Ha'Kanaf" is not an inclusion.

Inference: This implies that Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael holds unlike Rava.

Question: In Shabbos (27a), the Gemara says that Rava retracted, and holds that "Af Kol" (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael's rule, that 'Beged' always refers to wool and linen) includes [Tum'as] Sheratzim, and he can hold like Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael! (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael does not discuss Tzitzis.)

Answer: We must say that our Sugya holds like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak there, that "Af Kol" includes Tzitzis. If so, [Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael] holds unlike Rava.

Assertion: Even two Lavan strings of wool are permitted in [a garment of] linen.

Source: It says in Menachos, even though it is possible with its species, like it says there (39b), since wool [Techeiles] exempts [a linen garment], also [wool] Lavan exempts;

Also Lavan of linen should exempt wool [garments], through a Migo (since)!