Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth

Folio 33a

What is the point at issue between them?¹  -R. Jose's view²  with regard to a comprehensive prohibition.³  R. Hiyya is of the opinion that in the case of a comprehensive prohibition R. Jose deems the transgressor guilty of two offences,⁴  while Bar Kappara is of the opinion that he deems him guilty of one offence only.⁵  But what comprehensive prohibition. is here involved? In the case of a common man⁶  this⁷  may well be understood, since at first⁸  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,⁹  so he was also forbidden to perform the Temple service.¹⁰  [Similarly with a priest] who had a blemish,¹¹  since he was at first¹²  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 meat¹³  so he was also forbidden to perform the Temple service.¹⁴  Mehkah. however, is only an illustration¹⁵  of prohibitions that set in simultaneously¹⁶  but not of a comprehensive prohibition!¹⁷  -Rather, the point at issue between them¹⁸  is that of simultaneous prohibitions' and R. Jose's view¹⁹  regarding them. R. Hiyya is of the opinion that in the case of simultaneous prohibitions R. Jose deems the transgressor guilty of two offences,²⁰  while Bar Kappara is of the opinion that he deems him guilty of one offence only.²¹  But how are here simultaneous prohibitions possible?²²  — In the case of a common man who performed the Temple service on the Sabbath, when, for instance, he grew two hairs²³  on the Sabbath, so that the prohibitions of Temple service by a common man and of work on the Sabbath have simultaneously arisen.²⁴  [In the case of a priest] who had a blemish, also, when, for instance, he grew two hairs,²³  while he was unclean, so that [his disability as] a man with a blemish and his uncleanness²⁵  have simultaneously arisen.²⁶  Or else, if a man cut his finger with an unclean knife.²⁷

Now according to [the statement of] R. Hiyya it is quite possible to explain²⁸  that he²⁹  was taught³⁰  in accordance with the view of R. Jose, and that Bar Kappara was taught in accordance with the view of R. Simeon.³¹  According to [the statement of] Bar Kappara, however,³²  did R. Hiyya swear falsely?³³  -Rather, the question at issue between them³⁴  is that of simultaneous prohibitions, and the view of R. Simeon³⁵  on the subject.

One can well understand why R. Hiyya took an oath. He did it in order to weaken the force³⁶  of R. Simeon s view.³⁷  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 explain³⁸  that when Rabbi taught him he was enunciating the opinion of R. Simeon,³⁹  and that when he taught R. Hiyya he was enunciating the opinion of R. Jose.⁴⁰  According to [the statement] of R. Hiyya. however,⁴¹  did Bar Kappara⁴²  tell a lie?⁴³  R. Hiyya can answer you:⁴⁴  When Rabbi taught him, he taught him two instances⁴⁵  only where the transgressor is exempt,⁴⁶

1. R. Hiyya and Bar Kappara.
2. Who maintains supra that in certain circumstances a prohibition may be imposed upon a prohibition which is already in force.
3. [H] Cf. supra p. 203. n. 8.
4. Nebelah and melikah. V. supra. no. 3 and 4.
5. 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.
6. Who performed some Temple service on the Sabbath.
7. That a comprehensive prohibition is involved.
8. Before the Sabbath.
9. Owing to Sabbath.
10. 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.
11. Cf. supra, n. 2.
12. Prior to his defilement.
13. Owing to his uncleanness.
14. The prohibition comprehending the Temple service as well as the consumption of sacrificial meat. Cf. supra. n' 5'
15. Lit., 'it is found'.
16. [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.
17. Since both have been simultaneous. How then could the dispute on melikah be dependent on the principle of a 'comprehensive prohibition'?
18. R. Hiyya and Bar Kappara.
19. V. supra p. 205. n. 8.
20. 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.
21. Cf. supra p. 205, n. 11.
22. As has been shewn, the instances mentioned, with the exception of melikah, are 'comprehensive prohibitions!'
23. The marks of puberty.
24. 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.
25. l.e., his liability to penalties for performing Temple service under such conditions.
26. Cf. note 4, mutatis mutandis.
27. Which act caused both the blemish and the uncleanness to set In at the very same Instant.
28. To reconcile the contradictory statements made by R. Hiyya and Bar Kappara both in the name of Rabbi.
29. R. Hiyya.
30. By Rabbi. Lit., 'when he taught him (it was)'.
31. And that Bar Kappara may have misunderstood Rabbi to give him the opinion of R. Jose.
32. Who asserts that Rabbi recognizes one offence only according to R. Jose.
33. 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.
34. R. Hiyya and Bar Kappara.
35. 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.
36. 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'.
37. Which is known to favour the lighter penalty.
38. I.e., to reconcile the contradictory statements. v. supra, p. 207. n. 8.
39. Favouring the lighter penalty.
40. Who imposes the heavier penalty; but R. Hiyya mistook him to be reporting R. Simeon and thus the discrepancy arose.
41. Who submitted that the heavier penalty was imposed even by R. Simeon, much more so by R. Jose.
42. Who submitted that Rabbi taught him that the lighter penalty only was to be imposed.
43. He could not have spoken the truth if R. Hiyya's report was at all correct. v. note 6.
44. Bar Kappara did not tell a lie.
45. 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.
46. From one of the penalties.

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  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  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  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  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  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.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

R. Ashi demurred: Was any mention made of sin-offerings or of negative precepts?²⁹  Surely, only forbidden acts were spoken of!³⁰  — The point at issue is 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  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

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

1. Though when the prohibitions in these cases should happen to be simultaneous, the double penalty would undoubtedly be imposed.
2. Lit., 'mixed it up with them'; as those are cases where the transgressor is exempt from one of the penalties, so' he thought. was that of melikah.
3. Melikah.
4. I.e., the same law is applicable to them whether the case is that of a comprehensive prohibition' or, like melikah, one of 'simultaneous prohibitions'.
5. From one of the penalties.
6. Tosef. Yeb. V.
7. Implying that there is no difference of opinion regarding the case where a common man ate of melikah.
8. I.e., who agrees with whom in this case that it should be excluded from the dispute.
9. I.e., that R. Jose agrees in the case of melikah with R. Simeon.
10. Lit., 'now'.
11. Lit., 'is it required (to be stated)'?
12. Lit., 'but (is it) not'.
13. 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.
14. As in the two cases mentioned.
15. As in melikah, v. supra.
16. Who maintained supra that even in simultaneous prohibitions R. Simeon exempts from one of the penalties.
17. Hence no prohibition of 'service by a common man' is here involved.
18. Of the sacrificial blood in a basin for sprinkling purposes.
19. Bringing the blood near the altar.
20. [H] 'moving an object from place to place'; and such movement on the Sabbath is no punishable offence.
21. Of the sacrifices.
22. In Ex. XXXV, 3.
23. Lit., 'went out'.
24. Shab. 702, Sanh. 35b, 62a, supra 6b. A 'prohibition', i.e., a negative commandment that does not involve any of the death penalties of stoning or of kareth.
25. On the Day of Atonement (v. Lev. XVI, 3ff) which happened to fall on a Sabbath.
26. 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.
27. Lit., 'also', since the opinion that disqualifies the common man for this service disqualifies also the common priest.
28. Lit., 'who is a stranger to it, i.e., the particular service, including here even a common priest.
29. Which entail flagellation.
30. 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.
31. 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.]
32. The men if they had intercourse with the women.
33. The men if they had intercourse with the women.
34. Lev. XVIII, 18.
35. The women.
36. Lev. XVIII, 19.
37. Away from their husbands.
38. Children from such a union are bastards and precaution must be taken that they are not allowed to pass as legitimate children.
39. To their husbands.
40. So Rashal. Cur. edd. 'terumah'.
41. [H] Hif., 3rd plural.
42. Who had deliberately exchanged their wives.
43. Lit., 'that which he taught'.
44. Lit., 'behold'.
45. Four offerings, (one for each transgression enumerated) by each of the four persons mentioned.
46. Lit., 'is there?'
47. In this case the exchange.
48. V. supra notes 9 and 10. For wilful transgression other penalties are prescribed!
49. [H] (B.H. [H]), Hof., i.e., accidentally.
50. That the exchange was not a wilful act.
51. The immediate restoration of the minors to their husbands.
52. Her husband. V. Keth. 51b.
53. In this case the exchange.
54. Lit., 'but not'.
55. Lit., 'infer from this'.
56. V. supra p. 211, n. 17.