Commentary for Yevamot 65:5

והכא מאי איסור בת אחת איכא הכא זר ששימש בשבת כגון דאייתי שתי שערות בשבת דהויא להו זרות ושבת בהדי הדדי

but not of a comprehensive prohibition!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both have been simultaneous. How then could the dispute on melikah be dependent on the principle of a 'comprehensive prohibition'? ');">¹⁷</span> -Rather, the point at issue between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya and Bar Kappara. ');">¹⁸</span> is that of simultaneous prohibitions' and R. Jose's view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 205. n. 8. ');">¹⁹</span> regarding them. R. Hiyya is of the opinion that in the case of simultaneous prohibitions R. Jose deems the transgressor guilty of two offences,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose's statement (supra 32a). that the transgressor is guilty of the offences of (a) brother's wife and (b) wife's sister, is taken to refer to the case where the two brothers appointed an agent to betroth for them the two sisters, who in turn appointed an agent to act on their behalf. At the moment the agents carried out their mission both prohibitions had set in. ');">²⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 65:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.