Yevamot 66

Chapter 66

א ואיסור כולל אתנייה ואליבא דר' שמעון וחזיא לבר קפרא לזר שאכל מליקה ואיידי דדמיא לה ערבה בהדייהו ועיין בה ולא אשכח אלא בבת אחת

1 and [thereby he, in fact.] taught him the law of comprehensive prohibition1 in accordance with the view of R. Simeon. Bar Kappara. however, considered the case of a common man who ate melikah and, as it seemed to be similar to the others, he treated it like the others.2 When, later, he examined it3 and found it to be possible only as a case of simultaneity of prohibitions. he imagined that as this one3 is a case of simultaneity so are also the others cases of simultaneity;4

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

2 and as the others are cases where the transgressor is exempt5 so [he assumed] is this also one in which the transgressor is exempt.5 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.6 [The case of] melikah, however, is here omitted.7 Now, on account of whom was it omitted?8

ג 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

3 If it be suggested. on account of R. Jose9 [it may be retorted]. if10 R. Jose subjects one to two penalties where the prohibition is comprehensive, how much more so11 when it is simultaneous. Consequently It must have been12 on account of R. Simeon13

ד למאן שיירה אילימא לרבי יוסי השתא ר' יוסי באיסור כולל מיחייב שתים באיסור בת אחת מיבעיא אלא לאו לר' שמעון ובאיסור כולל הוא דפטר אבל באיסור בבת אחת מיחייב תיובתא דבר קפרא תיובתא

4 who thus grants exemption only where the prohibition is comprehensive14 but imposes both penalties when the prohibitions are simultaneous — 15 This, then, is a refutation against Bar Kappara!16 This is indeed a refutation. 'If a common man performed some Temple service on the Sabbath'. Of what nature? If slaughtering, slaughtering is permitted by a common man.17 If reception18

ה זר ששימש בשבת במאי אי בשחיטה שחיטה בזר כשרה ואי בקבלה והולכה טלטול בעלמא הוא

5 or carriage.19 this involves only a mere movement.20 If burning,21 surely R. Jose said, 'The prohibition of kindling a fire [on the Sabbath]22 was mentioned separately23

ו אי בהקטרה והא"ר יוסי הבערה ללאו יצאתה

6 in order to [indicate that its transgression is] a prohibition only'!24 — R. Aha b. Jacob replied: The slaughtering of the bullock of the High Priest,25 and in accordance with the view of him who stated that the slaughtering of the bullock of the High priest on the Day of Atonement by a common man is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Yoma 42a. As it is invalid it is also forbidden on the Sabbath under the death penalties of stoning or kareth which are incurred by the performance of certain kinds of manual labour on the Sabbath. ');">26 If so, what reason is there for mentioning a common man? Even a common priest would have been equally forbidden!27 — What was meant was one who is a common man as far as it is concerned.28

ז אמר רב אחא בר יעקב בשחיטת פרו של כהן גדול וכדברי האומר שחיטת פרו של כהן גדול בזר פסולה אי הכי מאי איריא זר אפילו כהן הדיוט נמי שזר אצלו קאמר

7 R. Ashi demurred: Was any mention made of sin-offerings or of negative precepts?29 Surely, only forbidden acts were spoken of!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no actual penalty. either of a sin offering or flagellation, is involved, what matters it whether the two offences are regarded as one or as two? V. next note. ');">30 — The point at issue is whether he is to be buried among confirmed sinners.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 204, n. 1. [Aliter: Since no actual penalty is involved the reference might indeed be to 'burning', the practical point at issue being whether he is to be buried among confirmed sinners.] ');">31 MISHNAH. IF TWO MEN BETROTHED TWO WOMEN, AND AS THESE WERE ENTERING INTO THE BRIDAL CHAMBER, THEY EXCHANGED THE ONE FOR THE OTHER, BEHOLD, THEY32 ARE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AGAINST A MARRIED WOMAN. IF THEY32

ח מתקיף לה רב אשי מידי חטאות קתני או לאוי קתני אלא איסורי בעלמא קא חשיב למאי נפקא מינה לקוברו בין רשעים גמורים:

8 WERE BROTHERS THEY ARE GUILTY ALSO OF AN OFFENCE AGAINST A BROTHER'S WIFE. IF [THE BETROTHED WOMEN] WERE SISTERS, THEY33 ARE GUILTY ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROHIBITION, [AND THOU SHALT NOT TAKE] A WOMAN TO HER SISTER.34 IF THESE35 WERE MENSTRUANTS [THEY33 ARE GUILTY ALSO] ON ACCOUNT OF [THE LAW OF THE] MENSTRUANT.36

ט <big>מתני׳</big> שנים שקידשו שתי נשים ובשעת כניסתן לחופה החליפו את של זה לזה ואת של זה לזה הרי אלו חייבין משום אשת איש ואם היו אחין משום אשת אח ואם היו אחיות משום אשה אל אחותה ואם היו נדות משום נדה

9 THEY35 MUST BE KEPT APART37 FOR THREE MONTHS, SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY ARE PREGNANT.38 IF THEY35 WERE MINORS INCAPABLE OF BEARING CHILDREN, THEY MAY BE RESTORED39

י ומפרישין אותן שלשה חדשים שמא מעוברות הן ואם היו קטנות שאינן ראויות לילד מחזירים אותן מיד ואם היו כהנות נפסלו מן התרומה:

10 AT ONCE. IF THEY35 WERE PRIESTLY WOMEN THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED FROM THE PRIESTHOOD.40 GEMARA. THEY EXCHANGED?41 Are we discussing wicked men!42 Furthermore, [there is the difficulty] of the statement made by43

יא <big>גמ׳</big> החליפו מידי ברשיעי עסקינן ותו הא דתני רבי חייא הרי כאן שש עשרה חטאות אי במזיד מי איכא קרבן אמר רב יהודה תני הוחלפו

11 R. Hiyya, that44 sixteen sin-offerings45 are here [involved]. Is any sacrifice brought46 where the act47 was wilful?48

יב הכי נמי מסתברא דקתני סיפא אם היו קטנות שאינן ראויות לילד מחזירין אותן מיד ואי במזיד מי שריא הא לא קשיא פיתוי קטנה אונס נינהו ואונס בישראל מישרא שרי

12 Rab Judah replied: Read THEY WERE EXCHANGED.49 This50 may also be proved by logical reasoning. For in the latter clause it was stated, IF THEY WERE MINORS INCAPABLE OF BEARING CHILDREN THEY MAY BE RESTORED AT ONCE. Now, if the act47 had been willful, would [this51 have been] permitted! — This is no difficulty. The seduction of a minor is deemed to be an outrage, and an outraged woman is permitted to an Israelite.52

יג אלא דקתני מפרישין אותן שלשה חדשים שמא מעוברות הן הא לאו מעוברות שריין ואי במזיד מי שרי אלא לאו שמע מינה הוחלפו שמע מינה

13 But, then, what of that which is stated, that THEY MUST BE KEPT APART FOR THREE MONTHS, SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY ARE PREGNANT, implying that if they were not pregnant they would be permitted. Now if the act53 had been wilful would she be permitted! Consequently54 the reading must have been55 THEY WERE EXCHANGED.56 This may be taken as proved.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter