Commentary for Yevamot 66:3

מיתיבי זר ששימש בשבת ובעל מום ששימש בטומאה יש כאן משום זרות ומשום שבת ומשום בעל מום ומשום טומאה דברי רבי יוסי ר"ש אומר אין כאן אלא משום זרות ובעל מום בלבד ואילו מליקה שיירה

If it be suggested. on account of R. Jose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that R. Jose agrees in the case of melikah with R. Simeon. ');">⁹</span> [it may be retorted]. if<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'now'. ');">¹⁰</span> R. Jose subjects one to two penalties where the prohibition is comprehensive, how much more so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is it required (to be stated)'? ');">¹¹</span> when it is simultaneous. Consequently It must have been<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but (is it) not'. ');">¹²</span> on account of R. Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, despite his opinion that in the two cases mentioned only one penalty is involved, agrees with R. Jose that in melikah two penalties are involved. ');">¹³</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 66:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.