Yevamot 64

אמר ר' אבהו מודה ר' יוסי באיסור מוסיף

— R. Abbahu replied: R. Jose admits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one prohibition may be imposed upon another. ');">¹</span> where the latter prohibition is of a wider range.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] lit., 'a prohibition which adds', i.e., one which causes an object (or a person) to be forbidden to others to whom it was not previously forbidden. Hence he admits the imposition of the prohibition of 'brother's wife' upon that of 'wife's sister', even where the latter prohibition was already in force, because the former, unlike the latter, is applicable not only to him alone but to the other brothers also. In the case, however, of a married woman who became his mother-in-law where the first prohibition was of a wider range (the woman being forbidden to all men except her husband) and the later one (forbidden to him only) of a restricted range, the second prohibition cannot be imposed upon the first. The reason why in the case of a mother-in-law who became a — married woman the sentence is to be that for an offence against a mother-in-law is not because the latter (which is of a wider range) cannot be imposed upon the former, but because wherever two penalties are to be inflicted the severer one (burning) supersedes the lighter one (strangulation). ');">²</span> This is satisfactory in the case where the surviving brother had married<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of the sisters. ');">³</span>

תינח היכא דנשא חי ואח"כ נשא מת מגו דאתוסף איסור לגבי אחים אתוסף איסור לגבי דידיה

first and the deceased had married<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The other sister. ');">⁴</span> afterwards, since the prohibition. having been extended in the case of the brothers, had also been extended in his own case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 202, n. 9. ');">⁵</span> What extension of the prohibition is there, however, where the deceased had married<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of the sisters. ');">³</span>

אלא היכא דנשא מת ואח"כ נשא חי מאי איסור מוסיף איכא

first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bringing Into force the prohibition of brother's wife which is applicable to all brothers. ');">⁶</span> and the surviving brother had married<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The other sister. ');">⁴</span> afterwards?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Adding the prohibition of wife's sister which, being applicable to himself only, is of a more restricted range, and cannot consequently be imposed on that of brother's wife, which preceded it. ');">⁷</span>

וכ"ת מגו דאיתסר בכולהו אחוותא האי איסור כולל הוא

And were you to reply: Because thereby<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By marrying the other sister. ');">⁸</span> he is forbidden to marry all the sisters,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While before this marriage the widow only was forbidden. ');">⁹</span> [it may be retorted that] such is only a comprehensive prohibition!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] lit., 'a prohibition which includes'. The additional prohibition includes the widow in the same manner only as it does the other sisters but, unlike an issur mosif (the prohibition of the wider range, v. supra p. 202, n. 9), it does not place any additional restriction as far as the widow herself is concerned upon any other men. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אמר רבא מעלה אני עליו כאילו עשה שתים ואינו חייב אלא אחת וכן כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן מעלה אני עליו כאילו עשה ב' ואינו חייב אלא אחת מאי נפקא מינה לקברו בין רשעים גמורים

The fact is, said Raba, he is deemed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I bring upon him'. ');">¹¹</span> to have committed two offences,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in this sense only is R. Jose's statement, that he is guilty of two offences (supra 32a), to be understood. ');">¹²</span> but is liable for one only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because R. Jose. in fact, does not admit the imposition of one prohibition upon another. ');">¹³</span>

ובפלוגתא דאיתמר זר ששימש בשבת רבי חייא אומר חייב שתים בר קפרא אומר אין חייב אלא אחת קפץ רבי חייא ונשבע העבודה כך שמעתי מרבי שתים קפץ בר קפרא ונשבע העבודה כך שמעתי מרבי אחת

Similarly when Rabin came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">¹⁴</span> he stated in the name of R. Johanan: The offender is deemed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I bring upon him'. ');">¹¹</span> to have committed two offences, but he is only liable for one. What practical difference does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fact that he is theoretically guilty of two offences. ');">¹⁵</span>

התחיל רבי חייא לדון שבת לכל נאסרה כשהותרה במקדש אצל כהנים הותרה לכהנים הותרה ולא לזרים יש כאן משום זרות ויש כאן משום שבת התחיל בר קפרא לדון שבת לכל נאסרה כשהותרה במקדש הותרה אין כאן אלא זרות

make? — That he must be buried among confirmed sinners.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Beth din had at its disposal two burial places, and offenders who were executed or died were buried in the one or the other according to the degree of their respective offences. (V. Sanh. 46a). The reference here will consequently be to an intentional transgression. ');">¹⁶</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether one act involving two transgressions is deemed to be one offence or two offences. ');">¹⁷</span> is a question on which opinions differ. For It was stated: A common man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] lit., 'a stranger', I.e., a non-priest. ');">¹⁸</span>

בעל מום ששימש בטומאה רבי חייא אומר חייב שתים בר קפרא אומר אין חייב אלא אחת קפץ ר' חייא ונשבע העבודה כך שמעתי מרבי שתים קפץ בר קפרא ונשבע העבודה כך שמעתי מרבי אחת

who performed some Temple service on the Sabbath, is. R. Hiyya said, liable for two offences.' Bar Kappara said: He is only liable for one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained infra. ');">¹⁹</span> R. Hiyya jumped up and took an oath. 'By the Temple',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the (Temple) service'. ');">²⁰</span> [he exclaimed]. 'so have I heard from Rabbi:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah the Prince, compiler of the Mishnah. ');">²¹</span>

התחיל ר"ח לדון טומאה לכל נאסרה כשהותרה במקדש אצל כהנים תמימים הותרה לכהנים תמימים הותרה ולא לבעלי מומין יש כאן משום בעלי מומין ויש כאן משום טומאה התחיל בר קפרא לדון טומאה לכל נאסרה כשהותרה במקדש הותרה אין כאן אלא משום בעל מום

two'! Bar Kappara jumped up and took an oath, 'By the Temple. thus have I heard from Rabbi:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah the Prince, compiler of the Mishnah. ');">²¹</span> one'! R. Hiyya began to argue the point thus: Work on the Sabbath was forbidden to all [Israelites,] and when it was permitted in the [Sanctuary], it was permitted to the priests, hence it was permitted to the priests only, but not to common men. Here, therefore, is involved the offence of Temple service by a common man, and that of the desecration of the Sabbath. Bar Kappara began to argue his point thus: Work on the Sabbath was forbidden to all [Israelites]. but when it was permitted in the Sanctuary, it was permitted [to all], hence only the offence of Temple service by a common man is here involved. A priest having a blemish who performed [some Temple] services<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as that connected with the rites of a congregational offering which may be performed in certain circumstances by priests (v. Yoma 6b). even when they are unclean, provided they are physically fit. ');">²²</span>

זר שאכל מליקה ר' חייא אומר חייב שתים בר קפרא אומר אין חייב אלא אחת קפץ רבי חייא ונשבע העבודה כך שמעתי מרבי שתים קפץ בר קפרא ונשבע העבודה כך שמעתי מרבי אחת

while unclean is. R. Hiyya said, guilty of two offences. Bar Kappara said: He is guilty of one offence only. R. Hiyya jumped up and took an oath, 'By the Temple. thus have I heard from Rabbi: two'! Bar Kappara jumped up and took an oath, 'By the Temple, thus have I heard from Rabbi: one'! R. Hiyya began to reason: [Temple service during one's] uncleanness was forbidden to all; and when it was permitted in the Sanctuary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note. ');">²³</span> it was permitted to priests who had no blemish — Hence it must have been permitted only to priests who had no blemish, but not to those who had. Consequently. both the offence of service being done by one with a blemish and that of service during one's uncleanness are here involved. Bar Kappara began to reason thus: [Temple service during] uncleanness was forbidden to all. When it was permitted at the Sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 204, n' 7. ');">²⁴</span> was [universally] permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even to a priest afflicted with a blemish. ');">²⁵</span>

התחיל רבי חייא לדון נבלה לכל נאסרה כשהותרה במקדש אצל כהנים הותרה לכהנים הותרה ולא לזרים יש כאן משום זרות ויש כאן משום מליקה התחיל בר קפרא לדון נבלה לכל נאסרה כשהותרה במקדש הותרה אין כאן אלא משום זרות

Consequently. only one offence, that of service by one who had a blemish, is involved. A common man who ate melikah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H] 'to pinch'), applied to the meat, of a fowl whose head was 'pinched off', in accordance with Lev. I, 15. ');">²⁶</span> is. R. Hiyya said, guilty of two offences. Bar Kappara said: He is guilty only of one. R. Hiyya jumped up and took an oath, 'By the Temple. so I heard from Rabbi: two'! Bar Kappara jumped up and took an oath, 'By the Temple. so I heard from Rabbi: one'! R. Hiyya began to reason thus: <i>Nebelah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'a corpse'. 'carrion', applied also to animals that have not been ritually slaughtered and the consumption of which is forbidden. ');">²⁷</span> was forbidden to all; and when it was permitted in the Sanctuary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Melikah being permitted to the priests. ');">²⁸</span> it was permitted in the case of the priests. Hence it must be permitted to priests only and not to common men. Consequently. both the offence of consumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of sacrificial meat. ');">²⁹</span> by a common man, and that of melikah are here involved. Bar Kappara began to reason: <i>Nebelah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'a corpse'. 'carrion', applied also to animals that have not been ritually slaughtered and the consumption of which is forbidden. ');">²⁷</span> was forbidden to all; and when it was permitted in the Sanctuary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Melikah being permitted to the priests. ');">²⁸</span> it was [universally] permitted — Consequently. only the offence due to consumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of sacrificial meat. ');">²⁹</span> by a common man is here involved.