Commentary for Yevamot 66:2

וסבר מדהא בבת אחת הא נמי בבת אחת ומדהנך לפטור הנך נמי לפטור

and as the others are cases where the transgressor is exempt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From one of the penalties. ');">⁵</span> so [he assumed] is this also one in which the transgressor is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From one of the penalties. ');">⁵</span> An objection was raised: If a common man performed some Temple service on the Sabbath, or if a priest having a blemish performed Temple service while he was levitically unclean, the offences of service by a common man and the desecration of the Sabbath or those of service by a man with a blemish and levitical uncleanness are here respectively involved. These are the words of R. Jose. R. Simeon who said: Only the offence of service by a common man or that of service by a man with a blemish respectively is here involved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Yeb. V. ');">⁶</span> [The case of] melikah, however, is here omitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that there is no difference of opinion regarding the case where a common man ate of melikah. ');">⁷</span> Now, on account of whom was it omitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., who agrees with whom in this case that it should be excluded from the dispute. ');">⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 66:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.