Parallel
יבמות 32:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
— R. Abbahu replied: R. Jose admits where the latter prohibition is of a wider range. This is satisfactory in the case where the surviving brother had married first and the deceased had married afterwards, since the prohibition. having been extended in the case of the brothers, had also been extended in his own case. What extension of the prohibition is there, however, where the deceased had married first and the surviving brother had married afterwards? And were you to reply: Because thereby he is forbidden to marry all the sisters, [it may be retorted that] such is only a comprehensive prohibition! The fact is, said Raba, he is deemed to have committed two offences, but is liable for one only. Similarly when Rabin came he stated in the name of R. Johanan: The offender is deemed to have committed two offences, but he is only liable for one. What practical difference does this make? — That he must be buried among confirmed sinners. This is a question on which opinions differ. For It was stated: A common man 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. R. Hiyya jumped up and took an oath. 'By the Temple', [he exclaimed]. 'so 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 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 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, 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. was [universally] permitted. Consequently. only one offence, that of service by one who had a blemish, is involved. A common man who ate melikah 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: Nebelah was forbidden to all; and when it was permitted in the Sanctuary 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 by a common man, and that of melikah are here involved. Bar Kappara began to reason: Nebelah was forbidden to all; and when it was permitted in the Sanctuary it was [universally] permitted — Consequently. only the offence due to consumption by a common man is here involved.
—