Yevamot 67

Chapter 67

א ומאן האי תנא דאית ליה איסור כולל ואיסור מוסיף ואיסור בת אחת

1 And who is this Tanna1 that admits the force2 of a 'comprehensive prohibition', a 'prohibition of a wider range' and 'simultaneous prohibitions'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wherever they can all be applied to the same person. If, e.g., A the brother of B betrothed C the sister of D, C is forbidden to B as 'his brother's wife' and as 'a married woman', both prohibitions having come into force simultaneously. If B subsequently betrothed D, her sister C becomes forbidden to him, by the comprehensive prohibition of 'his wife's sister', (comprehending all the sisters of D inclusive of C). When C becomes a menstruant she is forbidden to B as a menstruant also, this last being a prohibition of a wider range extending as it does the prohibition of the woman to A also. ');">3

ב אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ר"מ היא דתניא יש אוכל אכילה אחת וחייב עליה ארבע חטאות ואשם אחד

2 -Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: It is R. Meir; for we learnt:4 A man may sometimes consume one piece of food5 and incur thereby the penalty of four sin-offerings and one guilt.offering. [If. e.g., a man levitically] unclean ate suet6

ג טמא שאכל חלב והוא נותר מן מוקדשין ביוה"כ

3 that remained over from holy sacrifices,7 on the Day of Atonement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The four sin-offerings are due for the eating of (a) holy food while the man is levitically unclean, (b) forbidden fat, (c) nothar and (d) food on the Day of Atonement; while the guilt-offering (asham me'iloth) is incurred for the benefit the consumer (even though he were a priest) had from holy things which were to be burnt on the altar. ');">8 R. Meir said: If this happened on9

ד ר' מאיר אומר אם היתה שבת והוציאו בפיו חייב אמרו לו אינו מן השם

4 the Sabbath and [the consumer] carried out [the suet] in his mouth, liability is incurred [for this act10 also].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it is shewn that R. Meir recognizes the validity of the three kinds of prohibition: When the animal was consecrated, the prohibition of having any benefit from any part of it has been added to that of eating its suet (wider range). and when a piece of the suet became nothar (since it is thereby forbidden to be offered up on the altar, which is an added restriction) the prohibition of nothar has also been imposed in respect of its consumption by the priests (again wider range). When the priest becomes unclean and is consequently forbidden to consume any holy meat he is also forbidden to consume the nothar (comprehensive), and with the advent of the Day of Atonement the prohibition of the consumption of food generally on that day falls also on the nothar (again comprehensive). Finally, at the moment Sabbath sets in two more prohibitions are imposed (simultaneous) that of carrying on the Sabbath and that of eating on the Day of Atonement (Rashi) or those of carrying on the Sabbath and on the Day of Atonement (Tosaf., s.v. [H]). ');">11 They said to him: This10

ה ור"מ אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבי יהושע האמר טעה בדבר מצוה פטור אלא אליבא דרבי אליעזר

5 is an offence of a different character.12 Whose view, however, IS R. Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, as has been shown, is represented by the Tanna of our Mishnah who admits the imposition of one prohibition upon another even where the performance of a commandment (e.g.. marriage) was intended. ');">13 following? If he follows R. Joshua.14

ו איבעית אימא לעולם אליבא דרבי יהושע כי קאמר רבי יהושע טעה בדבר מצוה פטור הנ"מ גבי תינוקות דזמנו בהול אבל האי כיון דאין זמנו בהול לא

6 surely the latter had said that he who made a mistake in respect of a commandment15 is exonerated!16 — Rather he follows the view of R. Eliezer.17

ז והרי תרומה דאין זמנו בהול וקפטר דתנן היה אוכל בתרומה ונודע שהוא בן גרושה או בן חלוצה רבי אליעזר מחייב קרן וחומש ורבי יהושע פוטר

7 If you prefer I might say: He may. in fact, follow the view of R. Joshua, for R. Joshua's statement, that he who made a mistake in respect of a commandment is exonerated, may only be applicable to the case of the children,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of whom had to be circumcised on the Sabbath and by mistake another child was circumcised who was born a day later. Only circumcision which takes place on the eighth day of birth is permitted on the Sabbath. Any other is forbidden like all manual labour. ');">18 where one is pressed for time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One is anxious to perform the commandment at its proper time, and one's anxiety that the day shall not pass without its performance may easily result in an error. ');">19 but not in such a case as this,20

ח הא איתמר עלה אמר רב ביבי בר אביי הכא בתרומה בערב הפסח עסקינן דזמנה בהול

8 where time is not pressing.21 What about terumah,22 where one is not pressed for time, and he23

ט ואי בעית אימא באיסור בת אחת ואליבא דר' שמעון

9 nevertheless exonerates! For we learnt: In the case of a priest who was In the habit of eating terumah and it then transpired that he was the son of a divorced woman or of a haluzah,22 R. Eliezer imposes payment of the principal and of a fifth,24 and R. Joshua exonerates!25

י בשלמא כולהו משכחת להו דשוינהו שליח ושוו אינהו שליח ופגע שליח בשליח אלא נדות היכי משכחת לה

10 — Surely, in relation to this it was stated that R. Bibi b. Abaye said: We are here speaking of terumah26 on the Eve of Passover when time is pressing.27 If you prefer I might say: [Our Mishnah speaks] of simultaneous prohibitions, and may represent even the View of R. Simeon.28

יא אמר רב עמרם אמר רב בשופעות מתוך י"ג לאחר שלשה עשר לאחיובי אינהו מתוך שנים עשר לאחר שנים עשר לחיובי אינהי:

11 All these,29 it may well be conceded, may occur [simultaneously] where [the brothers] appointed an agent30 and [the sisters also] appointed an agent31

יב מפרישים אותן: והא אין אשה מתעברת בביאה ראשונה אמר ר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה שבעלו ושנו ואלא הא דתנא ר' חייא הרי כאן ט"ז חטאות תלתין ותרתין הויין

12 and one agent met the other;32 but how could such [simultaneity] occur with menstruation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would naturally occur either before, and thus prevent the other three prohibitions from coming into force; or after, and thus be prevented itself from coming Into force. ');">33 - R. Amram in the name of Rab replied: When the women's menstrual discharge continued from [the men's] thirteenth, until after their thirteenth [birthday], when these become subject to legal punishments; and from their own twelfth, until after their twelfth [birthday], when they themselves become subject to punishments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A male becomes legally liable to punishments on the termination of his thirteenth, and a female on that of her twelfth year of age. If the respective agents of the two parties who were of the same age to a day. met sometime prior to the conclusion of the last day of the year (twelfth of the females and thirteenth of the males), and arranged for the betrothals to take effect on the following day when both parties become 'of age' (as otherwise the betrothals would not be valid) the betrothals and the prohibitions simultaneously come into force. ');">34

יג וליטעמיך לר' אליעזר דמחייב על כל כח וכח טובא הויין אלא דבכח ראשון קחשיב ה"נ דביאה ראשונה קחשיב

13 THEY MUST BE KEPT APART. Surely, no woman conceives from the first contact!35 R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abuha: Where contact was repeated. Why, then, did R. Hiyya state, 'Behold sixteen offerings are here involved',36 when, in fact,37

יד א"ל רבא לרב נחמן

14 there should be thirty-two?38 And according to your line of reasoning, following the opinion of R. Eliezer who deems they are guilty for every sexual effort, are there not more?39 But [your own answer would be] that he only takes into consideration the first effort. Well, here also, only the first contact is taken into consideration. Said Raba to R. Nahman:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter