Yevamot

— Because  it is written, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff …  Thou shalt make thee twisted cords,  and R. Eleazar said,  'Whence is the rule of proximity [of texts] derived from the Torah?  As it is said, They are established  for ever and ever, they are done in truth and uprightness.'  Furthermore, R. Shesheth stated  in the name of R. Eleazar who stated it in the name of R. Eleazar b. Azariah: Whence is it proved that a sister-in-law, who falls to the lot of a levir who is afflicted with boils, is not muzzled?  From the Biblical text, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn,  and in close proximity to it is written If brethren dwell together.  Furthermore R. Joseph said: Even he who does not base interpretations on the proximity [of Biblical texts] anywhere else does base them [on the texts] in Deuteronomy,  for R. Judah who does not elsewhere base any interpretations [on textual proximity], bases such interpretations on the Deuteronomic text.  And whence is it proved that elsewhere he  does not advance such interpretation?  — From what has been taught: Ben 'Azzai said, It was stated, Thou shall not suffer a sorceress to live,  and it is also stated, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death;  one subject was placed near the other to indicate that as the man who lies with a beast is to suffer the death penalty of stoning so also is a sorceress to suffer the death penalty of stoning. Said R. Judah to him: Shall we, because one subject was placed in close proximity to the other, lead out a person  to be stoned? In truth  [the penalty of the sorceress is derived from the following]: The necromancer and the charmer were included among the sorcerers; why then were they mentioned separately?  In order that the others may be compared to them, and to tell you that as the necromancer and the charmer are subject to the death penalty of stoning,  so is a sorceress also subject to the penalty of stoning. And whence is it proved that in Deuteronomy he  does advance such interpretation?  — From what we learned: A man may marry a woman who has been outraged or seduced by his father or his son. R. Judah prohibits in the case of a woman outraged or seduced by one's father.  And in connection with this, R. Giddal said in the name of Rab: What is R. Judah's reason? Because it is written, A man shall not take his father's wife, and shall not uncover his father's skirt,  the 'skirt' which his father saw he shall not uncover. And whence is it inferred that this is written with reference to an outraged woman? — From the preceding section of the text where it is written, Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver  near which it is stated, A man shall not take etc.  And the Rabbis?  — If one text had occurred in close proximity to the other the exposition would have been justified;  now, however, that it does not occur in close proximity  [it must be concluded that] the context speaks of a woman who is awaiting the decision of the levir  and that, [in marrying such a woman, a son]  transgresses two negative precepts. And what is the reason why [R. Judah] derives laws [from the proximity of texts] in Deuteronomy? — If you wish I might say: Because [there the deduction]  is obvious; and if you prefer I might say: Because [there the text] is superfluous.  'If you prefer I might say: Because [there the deduction] is obvious', for, otherwise,  the All Merciful should have written the prohibition in the section of forbidden relatives. 'And if you prefer I might say: Because [there the text] is superfluous', for otherwise  the All Merciful should have written, A man shall not take his father's wife.  what need was there for adding,  And shall not uncover his father's skirt?