Commentary for Yevamot 65:2

ומאי איסור כולל איכא הכא בשלמא זר מעיקרא שרי במלאכה ואסור בעבודה אתיא לה שבת מגו דקא מיתסר במלאכה מיתסר נמי בעבודה

while Bar Kappara is of the opinion that he deems him guilty of one offence only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And R. Jose's statement supra that the transgressor is guilty of two offences is, according to Bar Kappara, applicable only where the surviving brother had married one of the sisters before the deceased had married the other. (V. supra p. 203. nn. 1ff and relevant text). R. Simeon's statement, (supra 32a) that 'he is guilty on account of brother's wife only', which has been interpreted as referring to the case where the deceased had married prior to the surviving brother, is according to Bar Kappara, to be deleted from the Baraitha. ');">⁵</span> But what comprehensive prohibition. is here involved? In the case of a common man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who performed some Temple service on the Sabbath. ');">⁶</span> this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a comprehensive prohibition is involved. ');">⁷</span> may well be understood, since at first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the Sabbath. ');">⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 65:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.