Yevamot 65

במאי קמיפלגי באיסור כולל ואליבא דר' יוסי רבי חייא סבר רבי יוסי באיסור כולל מיחייב תרתי בר קפרא סבר לא מיחייב אלא חדא

What is the point at issue between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya and Bar Kappara. ');">¹</span> -R. Jose's view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains supra that in certain circumstances a prohibition may be imposed upon a prohibition which is already in force. ');">²</span> with regard to a comprehensive prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Cf. supra p. 203. n. 8. ');">³</span> R. Hiyya is of the opinion that in the case of a comprehensive prohibition R. Jose deems the transgressor guilty of two offences,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nebelah and melikah. V. supra. no. 3 and 4. ');">⁴</span>

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>

בעל מום מעיקרא שרי באכילה ואסור בעבודה איטמי ליה מגו דקא מיתסר באכילה מיתסר נמי בעבודה אלא מליקה בבת אחת היא דמשכחת לה באיסור כולל לא משכחת לה

he was permitted to do ordinary work though forbidden to perform the Temple service, and when Sabbath came in, as he was now forbidden to do any other work,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to Sabbath. ');">⁹</span> so he was also forbidden to perform the Temple service.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition being 'comprehensive' in that it included both ordinary work and Temple service. It is not a 'prohibition of a wider range' since the prohibition of Temple service itself was in no way extended. ');">¹⁰</span> [Similarly with a priest] who had a blemish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra, n. 2. ');">¹¹</span> since he was at first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prior to his defilement. ');">¹²</span>

אלא קמיפלגי באיסור בבת אחת ואליבא דר' יוסי רבי חייא סבר רבי יוסי באיסור בת אחת מיחייב תרתי ובר קפרא סבר לא מיחייב אלא חדא

permitted to eat [of sacrificial meat] though forbidden to perform the Temple service, now that he became defiled, as he was forbidden to eat of sacrificial meat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to his uncleanness. ');">¹³</span> so he was also forbidden to perform the Temple service.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition comprehending the Temple service as well as the consumption of sacrificial meat. Cf. supra. n' 5' ');">¹⁴</span> Mehkah. however, is only an illustration<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is found'. ');">¹⁵</span> of prohibitions that set in simultaneously<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'at once', 'at the same moment'. Before the head of the fowl was pinched off there was only the prohibition of nebelah (v. Glos.) which included also priests. The two prohibitions of nebelah and melikah as far as common men are concerned had set in simultaneously at the moment of the pinching off of the fowl's head. ');">¹⁶</span>

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>

בעל מום נמי כגון דאייתי שתי שערות ואיטמי ליה דהויא ליה בעל מום וטומאה בהדי הדדי א"נ שחתך אצבעו בסכין טמאה

while Bar Kappara is of the opinion that he deems him guilty of one offence only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 205, n. 11. ');">²¹</span> But how are here simultaneous prohibitions possible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As has been shewn, the instances mentioned, with the exception of melikah, are 'comprehensive prohibitions!' ');">²²</span> — In the case of a common man who performed the Temple service on the Sabbath, when, for instance, he grew two hairs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marks of puberty. ');">²³</span> on the Sabbath, so that the prohibitions of Temple service by a common man and of work on the Sabbath have simultaneously arisen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this particular case, since prior to the manifestation of the marks of puberty he was considered a minor, and not subject to legal penalties. ');">²⁴</span>

בשלמא לרבי חייא כי אתנייה לדידיה אליבא דר' יוסי כי אתנייה לבר קפרא אליבא דר"ש אלא לבר קפרא ר' חייא שקורי קא משקר

[In the case of a priest] who had a blemish, also, when, for instance, he grew two hairs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marks of puberty. ');">²³</span> while he was unclean, so that [his disability as] a man with a blemish and his uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., his liability to penalties for performing Temple service under such conditions. ');">²⁵</span> have simultaneously arisen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. note 4, mutatis mutandis. ');">²⁶</span> Or else, if a man cut his finger with an unclean knife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which act caused both the blemish and the uncleanness to set In at the very same Instant. ');">²⁷</span>

אלא קמיפלגי באיסור בת אחת ואליבא דר"ש בשלמא לר' חייא קא מישתבע לאפוקי לר' שמעון מחזקיה אלא לבר קפרא למה ליה לאשתבועי קשיא

Now according to [the statement of] R. Hiyya it is quite possible to explain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To reconcile the contradictory statements made by R. Hiyya and Bar Kappara both in the name of Rabbi. ');">²⁸</span> that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya. ');">²⁹</span> was taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By Rabbi. Lit., 'when he taught him (it was)'. ');">³⁰</span> in accordance with the view of R. Jose, and that Bar Kappara was taught in accordance with the view of R. Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that Bar Kappara may have misunderstood Rabbi to give him the opinion of R. Jose. ');">³¹</span>

בשלמא לבר קפרא כי אתנייה רבי לדידיה אליבא דר' שמעון כי אתנייה לרבי חייא אליבא דרבי יוסי אלא לרבי חייא בר קפרא שקורי קא משקר

According to [the statement of] Bar Kappara, however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who asserts that Rabbi recognizes one offence only according to R. Jose. ');">³²</span> did R. Hiyya swear falsely?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If R. Jose allows the lighter punishment, how much more so R. Simeon. If R. Hiyya. then, made the statement that Rabbi taught him that a double offence had been committed he could not have spoken the truth since according to Bar Kappara no authority ever held such a view. ');">³³</span> -Rather, the question at issue between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya and Bar Kappara. ');">³⁴</span> is that of simultaneous prohibitions, and the view of R. Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya maintains that R. Simeon subjected the transgression to one offence only in the case of a 'comprehensive prohibition'; but that in a 'simultaneous prohibition' he admits, like R. Jose, a double offence. Bar Kappara, on the other hand, maintains that R. Simeon disagrees with R. Jose even in regard to simultaneous prohibitions, always admitting one offence only. ');">³⁵</span>

אמר לך ר' חייא כי אתנייה רבי לדידיה תרתי לפטור אתנייה

on the subject. One can well understand why R. Hiyya took an oath. He did it in order to weaken the force<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By his oath he affirmed that R. Simeon is in favour of the lighter course only in the case of a 'comprehensive prohibition' but not in that of 'simultaneous prohibitions'. ');">³⁶</span> of R. Simeon s view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is known to favour the lighter penalty. ');">³⁷</span> What need, however, was there for Bar Kappara to take an oath? — This is a difficulty. Now according to [the statement of] Bar Kappara. it is possible to explain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to reconcile the contradictory statements. v. supra, p. 207. n. 8. ');">³⁸</span> that when Rabbi taught him he was enunciating the opinion of R. Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Favouring the lighter penalty. ');">³⁹</span> and that when he taught R. Hiyya he was enunciating the opinion of R. Jose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who imposes the heavier penalty; but R. Hiyya mistook him to be reporting R. Simeon and thus the discrepancy arose. ');">⁴⁰</span> According to [the statement] of R. Hiyya. however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who submitted that the heavier penalty was imposed even by R. Simeon, much more so by R. Jose. ');">⁴¹</span> did Bar Kappara<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who submitted that Rabbi taught him that the lighter penalty only was to be imposed. ');">⁴²</span> tell a lie?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He could not have spoken the truth if R. Hiyya's report was at all correct. v. note 6. ');">⁴³</span> R. Hiyya can answer you:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bar Kappara did not tell a lie. ');">⁴⁴</span> When Rabbi taught him, he taught him two instances<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first two-that of a non-priest who performed the Temple service on the Sabbath and that of a priest who had a blemish and performed the Temple service while he was unclean. ');">⁴⁵</span> only where the transgressor is exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From one of the penalties. ');">⁴⁶</span>