Commentary for Yevamot 65:1
במאי קמיפלגי באיסור כולל ואליבא דר' יוסי רבי חייא סבר רבי יוסי באיסור כולל מיחייב תרתי בר קפרא סבר לא מיחייב אלא חדא
What is the point at issue between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya and Bar Kappara. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> -R. Jose's view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains supra that in certain circumstances a prohibition may be imposed upon a prohibition which is already in force. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> with regard to a comprehensive prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Cf. supra p. 203. n. 8. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> R. Hiyya is of the opinion that in the case of a comprehensive prohibition R. Jose deems the transgressor guilty of two offences,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nebelah and melikah. V. supra. no. 3 and 4. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Yevamot 65:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.